The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

[reggie]

As a beginner in apologetics, reading posts like this can be a little daunting. Tom seems so educated and lucid in his arguments that I am willing to bet he has pulled more that one Christian away from faith. I have not read all of the ECFs and must admit that much of the theology is over my head! but I want to know and understand so I keep going. The great thing about this forum is the number of resources I get, giving me new things to read and contemplate upon. What I find interesting is the almost passionless way Tom goes about laying out his case. I think that is telling and wonder if he has ever been on fire for the Word. All of the so called restored doctrines of Joseph Smith are so against the Christian understanding of the Bible and the writings of the early church it astounds me that they would then try to use the Bible to prove their case. Tertullian appears to be a favorite of Tom’s because he was once a great teacher of the faith and then went into apostasy. I think that this tends to prove the Catholic arguement for the Pope and the need for one to guide us. Many of the early fathers were fleshing out the beliefs of the church, some went off course. Their theology was tested by the church and found lacking. No one has claimed that the early fathers were infallible…

 

[reggie]

Con’t
I don’t think that it has been proven yet that what JS claimed as restored doctrine was practiced by the early church. I haven’t seen one word to back up those claims. Infant baptism has been used as an example of Catholic apostasy, and once again, the twisting occurs when someone challenged the use of the word household and its meaning at the time the Bible was written. Someone asked for an example of when Jesus ever baptized an infant. Did Jesus ever baptize anyone? I don’t think that when Jesus spoke of letting the children come to Him he was speaking of a purity of sinlessness, but a purity of faith. I have no problem with the developement of the papacy and doctrine. What we have to understand is that most of the Apostles and early disciples believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, they didn’t understand their letters to be inspired, they just wanted to spread the news of Jesus and save as many as could be saved. The Church teaches that in the Bible there is explicit revelation and implicit revelation and the revealing of such is the domain and gift of the Church. Not all theology is infallible, some of it is definitely not and should be discarded, that is why we as Catholics depend on the church. It may be sad that many don’t know and understand all of church history and doctrine but then maybe that is not their contribution to the church, Maybe theirs is to have the faith of little children and to shine as an example to the rest of us. I can’t speak for those who leave the church to follow another religion, I don’t understand why God would allow them to be led away. It is for this reason that we are warned that even some from our own midst would teach error and we are not to follow those who do. Tom, I am sure you think that you have all the answers, but I don’t hear faith, I hear calculation, logic and most definitely condesension towards us Catholics especially when you say “were I Catholic I would believe that…” as if we are so deluded that we can’t see your truth. I think just the opposite is true and I would rather be an uneducated Catholic, just accepting in faith, than the most educated of malcontents

 

[rod_of_iron]

Andrew Larkoski:

rodofiron:

Would ECF know anything about an apostasy? I mean, they were temporaly much closer to the actual event than we are. So if a loss of authority occurred, I think some would say something.

I’ll answer this one for you. In a word, no.

Andrew,

Why would I care what the Early Church Father’s would say? If, by the ECF, you are speaking of early Catholics, they would most definitely be biased toward the Catholic church. I doubt that you would accept any documents written by members of my church about my church. Why then would I accept anything that these Catholic ECF’s had to say about the Catholic church?

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Which ECF’s are you referring to?

 

[boppysbud]

Mr Nosser, once again I am going to ask a question that you have so far failed to respond to honestly instead providing you list or five “restored” doctrines which were new and not “restored”.

Restore is defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as:

1, to give back:return
2, to put or bring back into existence or use
3, to bring back to or put back into a former or original state.

The examples of doctrine you have provided for mormon “restoration”, are all relatively new doctrines of Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century, and not obviously not giving back, returning, bringing back into existence or use, or bringing back to or putting anything back into a former state, they can’t be as they are all quite new.

1:Authoritative baptism (I assume you mean by the Melchisidec priesthood) is a non-issue for Catholic Christians since once again there was no such thing as a so-called Melchisidec priesthood until Smith invented it from whole cloth in the 19th century.

2: Men may become “gods”. Likewise made up by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Catholic/Orthodox theosis is the idea that humans may come to share in the energies of God, but never in God’s essence, despite your many claims to the contrary, C/O Christian theosis is completely different from mormon “divinisation” and I’m sure that you know that Christians believe in only ONE God.

3: Creation from eternal matter, again a 19th century invention by Joe Smith. There is no such thing as eternal matter. New not “restored”.

4: Subordination in the Holy Trinity, again a new 19th century invention by Smith. New not “restored”.

5: Anthromorphic “god”. Likewise a new invention by Smith dating back all the way back to the 19th century. New not “restored”.

AS we can see ALL of these ideas are brand new to the 19th century, and none were “restored” according to Webster’s definition.

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

You sound quite vain in your assumptions of your learning and ability. Are we to actually believe that you have a better understanding of what these ECF’s envisioned then anyone else alive or dead? When you own arguments aren’t consistent from thread to thread?

My most recent words have been suggesting that it is you who claim my points are irrelevant and stand next to some solid “consistent tradition,” but you have not shown this “consistent tradition.”

I do not claim that I have a better view of the ECF than anyone alive or dead. What I claim is that thus far I have not seen on this thread a view demonstrated that contradicts what I have said. I will also say that Cardinal Newman initiated what became his apologetic for the Catholic Church with an assumption I have dealt with on this thread. Nobody has responded to my position on this. After this assumption I have followed much of Cardinal Newman’s ideas and the way he reads the ECF. He sees development. I see development. It is you who seem to have not acknowledged development. So while I may not be the foremost authority on the ECF, it seems that I stand next to one of the best. You currently seem to suggest that the Catholic view must be true because Catholics have held it for so long.

continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

You are arguing a strawman of your own creation. You set up a series of points in, I believe, you first post in this thread. Then you attempt to show that your points are valid – which in theory would prove you case

Yes, first is a summary, then attempts to show there is good reason to see my summaries as valid. It was my intention to present one point at time and then have these points addressed by those who choose to question them. This proved to be very difficult, but I think I have generally succeed in doing this.

To the statement that Clement spoke authoritatively and the questioning of my having read his letter, I responded to this by saying that a number of scholars do not think Clement spoke authoritatively.

darcee:

In your first point you claim that Clement "had no concept of the primacy of

Rome". This claim has been refuted. It seems obvious to any fair minded person that when Clement speaks in his "Letter to the Corinthians" that he does so believing himself to be both the arbitrator of a dispute and the final word of that dispute and he is so bold as to say “they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger” if they ignore him.

There have been a few comments towards the refutation of my claim that he had no concept of his primacy. There was one that happened prior to me presenting my case. I responded briefly with the intention that we would address this in more detail latter. I see that I missed a little that you have here APROXIAMATELY quoted. I will be happy to address it now and am glad you brought this up.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

"Letter to the Corinthians"

that he does so believing himself to be both the arbitrator of a dispute and the final word of that dispute and he is so bold as to say “they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger” if they ignore him.
First, you wrote (outside of quotes admittedly) incorrectly “if they ignore him.” The Catholic sources who translate this are unwilling to say this. The text surely says “US” as a collective group that may or may not be associated solely with the Roman Church, but surely is not associated with merely the Bishop of Rome.
Second, this is how it is translated by the site I typically use. This site is the one that with respect to Ignatius’ opening words agreed with numerous other sites on the internet, but like in this case disagreed with the Catholic apologetic translation.

Chapter LVIII
Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and ye shall be without repentance. For, as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live,-both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance hath observed the ordinances and appointments given by God-the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen
TOm:
Lastly, this additional section of Clements letter was found with the text of 2nd Clement. Previous to this discovery 1st Clement did not include this paragraph. 2nd Clement has been generally assumed to not be written by Clement, casting shadows upon this version of 1st Clement. BTW, this version of 1st Clement also supports a creation from pre-existing matter paradigm. If you will demand that I view it as valid then I will be happy to support creation from pre-exiting matter with it, but previously non-LDS apologists have been desirous to declare the extra verses of Clement invalid.

Aside from the above the only thing mentioned about Clement was that he spoke authoritatively. I responded saying I disagree, and specifically used these words, “simple and restrained” they come from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I forgot to make a bigger deal about them when I posted on Clement.
…

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Yet somehow you can not see that he is aware that he has a concept of his own authority… this can only be a indication of your willful and insurmountable basis. You read his polite and conciliatory tone as being unaware of his position, yet ignore that his words carry the power without needing to resort to heavy handedness… his lightest touch commands, which is more a proof of power then any screaming diatribe. Read what Andrew has posted again for more on this topic.

I am biased as are you. It is I who have referred to a Catholic authority who agreed that the papacy developed. It is you who merely call me bias which I admit.

I read a number of things in his words that you have not addressed, including the fact that he mentions the acts of Moses as one who takes responsibility for his people, but seems unaware that he himself, Clement, would be the person who would take such responsibility. Including the fact that he lays out what authority in the church is, but does not mention himself as in anyway above the Corinthians or the non-Rome based church.

Concerning Andrew’s words, I have not seen were he mentioned Clement of Rome. If you can direct me to that I would be happy to respond.

I will try to get to some other things you said later. Much of your recent posts were the type of things that I was expecting to be responding to. I am unable to respond to broad statements that attribute my ideas to vague “biased” readings. Show me where I err. It is also ok if you do not show me where I err. My stated purpose has been to show that LDS are not some anti-intellectual group and that we do have the ability to have a good understanding of history. We do not just walk around either ignorant of the facts or focused on vague feeling.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

reggie:

As a beginner in apologetics, reading posts like this can be a little daunting. Tom seems so educated and lucid in his arguments that I am willing to bet he has pulled more that one Christian away from faith. What I find interesting is the almost passionless way Tom goes about laying out his case. I think that is telling and wonder if he has ever been on fire for the Word

Reggie,

My stated purpose has never been to shake Catholics. My stated purpose is to explain that one can be a thinking and informed person and still be a LDS. Your questioning of my “fire for the gospel” is quite interesting and in truth the exact opposite of what is usually questioned.

There are a some responses to much of what I have posted.

I said at one point in time that I felt that those who demand the CoJCoLDS is not from God cannot explain all the “evidences” I put forth.

I have yet to try to do this, but I would struggle mightily to explain Cardinal Newman’s seven characteristics of a true development. Cardinal Newman’s apologetic states in my mind that nobody knew that these seven characteristics were universal but God. Every heresy ultimately fell and every true development ultimately shined through. According to Newman these seven characteristics are a witness to the divine guidance of the Catholic Church.

I know Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine has been part of moving a number of Protestants to the Catholic Church (it in many ways documents his move in that he was a member of the Church of England, but what he discovered while writing this book resulted in his becoming Catholic. In this respect he evidenced his ability to overcome bias in ways that I have never done.)

Perhaps someone will post Cardinal Newman’s seven evidences and why these witness the divine guidance of the Catholic Church. I can prolly do this after I get done responding to Darcee and providing Bobby with a few more restoration evidences. I will continue to be dispassionate as best I can.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

Mr Nosser, once again I am going to ask a question that you have so far failed to respond to honestly instead providing you list or five “restored” doctrines which were new and not “restored”.

Restore is defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as:

1, to give back:return
2, to put or bring back into existence or use
3, to bring back to or put back into a former or original state.

The examples of doctrine you have provided for mormon “restoration”, are all relatively new doctrines of Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century, and not obviously not giving back, returning, bringing back into existence or use, or bringing back to or putting anything back into a former state, they can’t be as they are all quite new.

1:Authoritative baptism (I assume you mean by the Melchisidec priesthood) is a non-issue for Catholic Christians since once again there was no such thing as a so-called Melchisidec priesthood until Smith invented it from whole cloth in the 19th century.

2: Men may become “gods”. Likewise made up by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Catholic/Orthodox theosis is the idea that humans may come to share in the energies of God, but never in God’s essence, despite your many claims to the contrary, C/O Christian theosis is completely different from mormon “divinisation” and I’m sure that you know that Christians believe in only ONE God.

3: Creation from eternal matter, again a 19th century invention by Joe Smith. There is no such thing as eternal matter. New not “restored”.

4: Subordination in the Holy Trinity, again a new 19th century invention by Smith. New not “restored”.

5: Anthromorphic “god”. Likewise a new invention by Smith dating back all the way back to the 19th century. New not “restored”.

AS we can see ALL of these ideas are brand new to the 19th century, and none were “restored” according to Webster’s definition.

Post 165-168 on this thread deal with 5-1 and 5-2. If you like please read them and then respond (168 will link you to a separate thread. If this is not palatable for you and you would like, I can copy some of the more relevant points to this thread).

I will continue on to 5-3 through 5-5 as I get time. I am sorry I cannot post everything as fast as you might like.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Your appeal to Tertulian is interesting. His Montanistic views on revelation do conflict quiet soundly with the primacy of

Rome, but when seen in that light do not touch the issue in a substantive way. His belief in “New Revelation” from those chosen by Montanus and perhaps others “touched” by the Holy Spirit would necessitate a view that ANY claim of spiritual primacy would be a usurpation. (It is easy to suppose that his arguments would have been identical against the Mormon First Presidency with regaurds claims to authority in his words You would do better to quote someone else who didn’t feel that “New Revelation” was being received in some proto-Pentecostal-like movement that found certain sins unpardonable.

I pointed out that it was likely that Tertullian wrote what I quoted while he was still in communion with those who never followed the Montanist. I do not think there is any “new revelation” aspects associated with what Tertuallian said anyway. He was merely commenting on something that he viewed as a usurpation.

Also, while I think we could see some exhortation to follow the teachings of the apostles in the earliest bishops, I do not think the more radical denial of new revelation came until later. There is evidence that folks such as Cyprian utilized revelation to guide his limited flock. This would be public revelation for a congregation. This would be in accord with what I expect to see from the apostasy in that it would only be the world church authority that was not passed from the apostles.

And lastly, Tertullian was very clear about his focusing on the passing down of authority from the apostles to the bishops in a valid line. He viewed the elevation of the Bishop of Rome as a usurpation. He was intelligent, well respected, and in a place to call a spade a spade.

When I use the history of the Catholic Church as presented by the Catholic Church you cannot expect me to find those not ultimately condemned who disagreed with what emerged as the Catholic Church. People like Tertullian and Origen were such powerful intellects that their value is still recognized by the Catholic Church. People like Athanasius, Pelegian, and Homogenes do not have much surviving writings. Most of what we know about them is what their critics said as they criticized them. It is tough to find non-Catholic ideas in a history that has been purged by the Catholic Church. I recognize this is an argument from absence and as such I do not place too much weight on this, but the history of the church does document the destroying of documents that disagree.

…

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

rodofiron:

I have never read any ECF (Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Irenaeus, Augustine, to name a few) who were in full communion with the Church that wrote anything saying that authority was not handed from St. Peter to St. Linus. Granted, this is obviously biased. However, the beliefs established by the original Church led by St. Peter are still alive and well today in the Catholic faith. Can you produce any pre-apostasy documents that support Mormon teachings such as receiving bread and water to remember Christ?

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Your third point “Peter unequal to Pope” in addition to being somewhat irrelevant, as it does not show apostasy, you have failed to prove it and you display a Janis view as to wither the LDS first presidency functions as apostles (bringing forth new doctrine that is equal weight to scripture) or do they function as Popes (if they “advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” )

I did not mean to leave you with a “Janis view.” I believe that Peter had supernatural revelation concerning the extension of the gospel to the gentiles. It became binding doctrine of the Church when it was reviewed and ratified at the Council of Jerusalem and included in Acts. I believe that Peter undoubtedly had personal opinions on some things, but we have no record of these things. Some of the personal opinions may be true, may have been a produce of supernatural revelation, but they did not become binding doctrine.

So I embrace a full and complete Peter = LDS First President. I see the Bible saying that we should have Apostles, … until the church comes to a unity of faith.

darcee:

Your forth point was almost addressed by ROI, but has soundly been shown that the quotes he pulled out of the scriptures do not say what he (or by extension you claim) that “The early Christians who where truly close to the Apostles knew the church was to become less than what the Apostles established.” If you have some sound proof of this please show it.

I will post my ideas on this. After I finish with #5.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

5-3 Creation from eternal matter.

The first question is what does the Bible say concerning “Creation ex Nihilo.” It is my view, the view of J.P. Holding (Protestant), and the view of Gerard May(Protestant Scholar), “corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation,” even though it does not appear explicitly in its pages.

I will quote a Catholic scholar.

Stanley L. Jaki, *Genesis 1 Through the Ages *(Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter.

…

 

[TOmNossor]

Some other scholars, A Protestant Scholar:

James A. Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 51, Pt. 2 (October 2000), 441, n. 1.:

[the verb bara] “has a deliberate and considered significance when it occurs in P [the Priestly document], but this falls short of creatio ex nihilo. It is best understood in the context of the alternative verbs ‘separate’ and ‘make’."

How about the Anchor Bible’s translation of Genesis.
E.A. Speiser (a very respected Protestant scholar)in the Anchor Bible translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:
When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas…- God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

E.A. Speiser also said:

To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter

Strong’s concordance- bara:

to create, shape, form

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) …

 

[TOmNossor]

What did St. Justin Martyr say about this?

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59:

Chapter LIX.-Plato’s Obligation to Moses.

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so.” So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

TOm:

We see that this SAINT, who was familiar with Christian thought in the 2nd century found creation from eternal matter in Genesis.

Now, let me go beyond this. Before 170AD, there is no solid evidence that any Christian believed in creation ex nihilo. Before the Gnostic philosopher Basilides introduced this idea, it was not part of Christian or Jewish though. In order to defend the transcendence of God, creation ex nihilo was developed and rapidly embraced.

If you choose to address this, I will be happy to explain why the various statements you might find pre-100AD do not teach creation ex nihilo. One should remember that the Platonist who believed in eternal matter (like Justin acknowledges above) spoke of the creation of the world from the “non-being” and the “non-existence.” Some of these Greek formulations found there way into Irenaeus, Theophilus, and Tiatian’s defense (which comes after Justin Martyr and Basilides) of ex nihilo creation, but there is no evidence that they meant creation ex nihilo before 100AD, and there is evidence that they meant creation from eternal matter before 100AD.

…

 

[TOmNossor]

In addition to St. Justin Martyr, we also have Creation from pre-existent matter witnessed in the extended version of Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians. We also have one or two folks with the name Hermogenes who embraced creation from eternal matter either contemporary with St. Paul or slightly before Tertullian or both (the witness is very confusing as to who this person or these persons called Hermogenes were).

Gerard May in his book Creation ex Nihilo conducts a very detailed analysis of the writings regularly pointed to to show that Creation ex Nihilo was believed before 100AD. I will be glad to share some of his ideas if you would like to explore that. There is also an analysis of much of the by Blake Ostler here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/TNMC/TNMC04.html

Anyway, my conclusion is that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo was a developed doctrine. If the Catholic Church has the authority to define what the Bible teaches this is fine, but if not then it could be a heretical idea. And regardless of what your personal opinion concerning its validity is, it does still remain that Joseph Smith restored something believed in the early church. How did he know to postulate eternal matter?

Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

Tom I already read posts 165-168, and now 193-296.

In those posts you you have followed the typical mormon pattern of repeating falsehoods over and over, I suppose in hope if you repeat them often enough true or false someone might actually beleive them. I do not, and will not believe them and will not even even if you repeat them ad infinitum.

You also failed once again to deal with Websters definition of “restore” and the plain and simple fact that since these doctrines are new as of the 19th century, never heard of prior to that time, and are believed only by members of the mormon cult.

We can continue your little mormon games, or at least you can. I personally am interested in how new doctrines can possibly be “restoring” anything. And how your highly selective quotes from ECFs establish the mormon “deification”, as being identical to the Christian doctrine of Theosis, when it is nothing of the sort.

Need I remind again you that the rules for these boards are made by Mr. Keating and not yourself?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Andrew Larkoski:

rodofiron:

I have never read any ECF (Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Irenaeus, Augustine, to name a few) who were in full communion with the Church that wrote anything saying that authority was not handed from St. Peter to St. Linus. Granted, this is obviously biased. However, the beliefs established by the original Church led by St. Peter are still alive and well today in the Catholic faith. Can you produce any pre-apostasy documents that support Mormon teachings such as receiving bread and water to remember Christ?

Andrew,

My church does not use water for the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (the equivalent of the the Eucharist in the Catholic church). We use bread and grape juice. You may question the use of grape juice, but with the threat of alcoholism that is in the USA and throughout the world, why would a church want to supply to these alcoholic tendencies? Both grape juice and wine are made from the fruit of the vine. I do not see how fermenting the fruit makes it any more appropiate for use in remembering the spilt blood of Jesus at Calvary.

The Mormons may very well use water to remember the spilt blood of Jesus, but I do not know for sure. I have never attended an LDS church service. If they do, I believe that they are way off base.

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

Tom I already read posts 165-168, and now 193-296.

In those posts you you have followed the typical mormon pattern of repeating falsehoods over and over, I suppose in hope if you repeat them often enough true or false someone might actually beleive them. I do not, and will not believe them and will not even even if you repeat them ad infinitum.

You also failed once again to deal with Websters definition of “restore” and the plain and simple fact that since these doctrines are new as of the 19th century, never heard of prior to that time, and are believed only by members of the mormon cult.

We can continue your little mormon games, or at least you can. I personally am interested in how new doctrines can possibly be “restoring” anything. And how your highly selective quotes from ECFs establish the mormon “deification”, as being identical to the Christian doctrine of Theosis, when it is nothing of the sort.

Need I remind again you that the rules for these boards are made by Mr. Keating and not yourself?

I do not like green eggs and ham!

Well, seriously, I do not see how you could be suggesting that I have not shown that there were those who believed in authoritative baptism, men may become gods, and creation from eternal matter. That the Catholic view of Theosis is not identical to the LDS view I have never denied, but the similarities are there. Five years before leaving the Catholic Church Father Vajda in his masters thesis showed these similarities.

If you would like to show why you do not think that I have shown what I think I have shown that would be fine, but in addition to “green eggs and ham,” another quote comes to mind, “pay not attention to the man behind the curtain.”

You may deal with what I say, or you may dismiss it as if I have not said anything. This has nothing to do with me making the rules on this forum it has everything to do with communication.

Charity, TOm