The Apostle John, The Three Nephites and the "Great Apostasy"

[kellie]

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, except John who did not die, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

Could you please tell me what exact changes to the organization were made at this time, to be considered apostate?

 

[kellie]

If John was still alive today, wouldn’t he have got on TV and stamped his feet and told the world that he was definitely at the Last Supper, and NOT Mary Magdalene, and then proceed to sue Dan Brown for creating such a scandal?

 

[Nan_S]

Catholics will answer this differently. It assumes that the Catholic stance about the Papacy is correct. Orthodox don’t believe Linus was given to head the entire church, so your understanding of church history is very influenced by Protestant objections.

HI, Montalban,

I was actually wondering about this. Does the history of the Orthodox record apostolic decent through John in one of the Eastern churches? If so, who succeeded him and when?

And do the Orthodox have any additional details about John’s death, other than it was about 100 AD of natural causes, in Ephesus?

Nan

 

[zerinus]

It’s a pretty big jump to go from “we shall not all sleep” to concluding that Paul was speaking to or of the Apostles, (he wasn’t) and that “we” means one - John.

He was talking of those who would not die (sleep). Evidently Paul knew there were some who would not taste of death. All (including Paul) would be changed (i.e. resurrected); but not all would die. He was not just referring to John. There were others besides John who had received this promise.

Jesus Himself says that the ones who will be taken up without dying are the ordinary people living ordinary lives at the time of the Second Coming.
Mt 24:40-42 Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. (See also Luke 17:34-35)

That scripture is totally irrelevant to what Paul was talking about. The two are as unrelated as anything could be.

Your statement would be accurate if Paul was writing an Old Testament book, using “mystery” according to its Old Testament definition. The Old Testament used the word mysterion as an equivalent for the Hebrew word sôd, “secret.”

Paul, however, is writing in the New Testament, after Christ has been revealed. In the New Testament the word “mystery” is applied to the revelation of the Gospel, to the Incarnation and life of the Saviour, and to His manifestation through the preaching of the Apostles.

In its strict New Testament sense a mystery is a revealed supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence of man and man’s human reasoning capability. In conformity with the usage of the inspired writers of the New Testament, theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason.

That is a big mystery to me! That is not the NT that I am acquainted with. First of all, the word mystery (in the KJV at least) occurs only in the NT. That word does not occur in the OT at all. Secondly, it means just that—a secret. Here are a few examples:

Matthew 13:

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Luke 8:

9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Romans 11:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Revelation 17:

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

According to the introduction to D&C section 7, this is a “Revelation given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Crowdery at Harmony, PA, April 1829…The revelation is a translated version of a record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself.”

I don’t suppose anyone knows how Joseph Smith got this parchment, nor what happened to it, since the History of the Church, Vol 1, Verses 66-67 which covers April 1829, makes no mention of it.

That was a revelation from the Lord. Joseph Smith didn’t translate form any parchment records. He had made an inquiry to the Lord concerning something that he wanted to understand more fully, and the Lord responded by giving him a revelation which in part was a translated extract from a missing record of John.

This revelation to Joseph Smith is an interesting combination of the Gospel according to John and the Book of Revelation, with a few details added.

That is your opinion.

This is not an example of a bible verse which has been abridged by the Early Church Fathers. The Gospel provides more interpretive information than D&C 7, not less.

D&C 7 tells us something that is not found anywhere in the NT. You may not believe that it is a revelation from God; but you cannot deny that it tells us something that does not exist in the NT.

zerinus

 

[chasjohn]

Could you please tell me what exact changes to the organization were made at this time, to be considered apostate?

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6; 4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9; 14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12). Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects. He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced [cf. Moro. 8]; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled by bishops; thus the medieval church showed little similarity to the organization or practices of the New Testament church).

LDS teachings on the early Christian apostasy have received additional support in the twentieth century as some scholars have argued that the primitive Church began as a centralized Judaic organization, was faced with the challenge of a Hellenized/Oriental, ascetic Gnostic Christianity, and became like its enemy in order to compete. The very idea of a centralized Christianity has given way to a picture of diverse and fragmented early Christianity, where it is hard to determine what is orthodox and what is heretical, what is Gnostic and what is “mainstream.” For instance, Peter Brown and William Phipps argue that Augustine’s influential doctrine of original sin, with its concomitant ritual, infant baptism, was derived from his Gnostic background and was, in reality, heretical, while Pelagius’ opposition to these ideas was orthodox. But Augustine’s doctrines prevailed, and continue to influence Western theology and culture. Another early Christian doctrine that did not survive in Western Christianity was deification, though it remained central to Eastern Christianity.

A complex religious and cultural milieu both nurtured and transformed early Christianity. Many factors must be taken into consideration in analyzing this transformation of Christianity. For example, some have put the blame exclusively on Greek philosophy and the influence of philosophy on Gnosticism for the rise of the great apostasy. But asceticism (i.e., hatred of the body, of sexuality, of the physical world) played a major role in the apostasy of the early church, and extreme asceticism is characteristically Oriental. Moreover, much of Greek philosophy has been found to be consistent with the gospel; Elder Orson F. Whitney referred to Plato and Socrates as “servants of the Lord,” although in a “lesser sense” than the prophets (CR [April 1921]:33).

The concept of a historical apostasy from early Christianity can present a barrier between Latter-day Saints and others concerned with interfaith relationships. But Latter-day Saints do not view these events judgmentally; much of spiritual value happened during the Middle Ages and in other Christian churches. Brigham Young emphasized that good men before the restoration had “the spirit of revelation” and stated that John Wesley was as good a man “as ever walked on this earth” (JD 7:5; 6:170; 11:126). President Young held that all churches and religions have “more or less truth” (JD 7:283), and he admonished the Saints to seek and accept truths wherever they might be found. In conference talks, General Authorities, including President Spencer W. Kimball and President Thomas S. Monson, have quoted or praised such luminaries as Billy Graham and Mother Teresa.

 

[Nan_S]

He was talking of those who would not die (sleep). Evidently Paul knew there were some who would not taste of death. All (including Paul) would be changed (i.e. resurrected); but not all would die. He was not just referring to John. There were others besides John who had received this promise.
That scripture is totally irrelevant to what Paul was talking about. The two are as unrelated as anything could be.

I would suggest that you think Matthew 24:40-42 and Luke 17:34-35 irrelevant because you are looking to prove some people were granted near-immortal life in earthly flesh, and I’m introducing you to a completely new (to you) interpretation of 1 Cor 15:51. It’s simply this: ordinary people will still be alive at the Second Coming and proceed to their reward straightaway without dying first.

There’s nothing in 1 Cor 15:51 that suggests or even hints at the idea that anyone will be granted thousands of years of near-immortal life in earthly flesh.

That is a big mystery to me! That is not the NT that I am acquainted with. First of all, the word mystery (in the KJV at least) occurs only in the NT. That word does not occur in the OT at all. Secondly, it means just that—a secret

. Here are a few examples:Mt 13:11; Lk 8:10; Rom 11:25; Rev 17:7
American Heritage Dictionary definition of Mystery:

1. One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding; an enigma: How he got in is a mystery. [Old Testament usage - something incomprehensible]
2. The skills, lore, or practices that are peculiar to a particular activity or group and are regarded as the special province of initiates. [Old Testament usage - secrets known only to the “inner circle.” According to other Mormons I’ve known, some Mormon teachings such as God the Father having a Father and Grandfather of his own fall in this category.]
3. A religious truth that is incomprehensible to reason and knowable only through divine revelation. [New Testament usage - something we can know and understand, but couldn’t figure out on our own]

There is nothing you have quoted here above which goes against the definition of “mystery” as “revealed truth.” In fact, every NT quote you have provided supports that usage.

“Mysterion” is a Greek word. You find it all throughout the Septuagint. Your KJV renders the OT word as “hidden” or “secret.”

Note the difference in the OT verses below. “Mystery” is used to mean something hidden or incomprehensible, instead of the NT usage as something revealed by God.

Deut 30:11-13 "For this command which I enjoin on you today is ***not ***too mysterious and remote for you. It is not up in the sky, that you should say, ‘Who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’ Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’

Jdg 13:17-19 Manoah said to him, “What is your name, that we may honor you when your words come true?” The angel of the LORD answered him, "Why do you ask my name, which is mysterious?" Then Manoah took the kid with a cereal offering and offered it on the rock to the LORD, whose works are mysteries.

Dan 4:9 [Nebuchadnezzar speaking to Daniel] "O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is difficult for you, here is the dream which I saw; tell me its interpretation.

Wis 14:22-24 They live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace. For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure,

(continued)

 

[Nan_S]

(continued)

That was a revelation from the Lord. Joseph Smith didn’t translate form any parchment records. He had made an inquiry to the Lord concerning something that he wanted to understand more fully, and the Lord responded by giving him a revelation which in part was a translated extract from a missing record of John.

I’m quoting the your Doctrine and Covenants here, Copyright 1981, by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I didn’t make this up; your own book says this revelation came from a parchment.

D&C 7 tells us something that is not found anywhere in the NT. You may not believe that it is a revelation from God; but you cannot deny that it tells us something that does not exist in the NT.

zerinus
That’s true. John’s Gospel has a clarifying statement from John saying, while it was rumored he would not die, Jesus’ words really didn’t mean that at all.

D&C 7 conveniently drops that clarifying Gospel verse and says something completely different: John will be granted near-immortal life in earthly flesh.

And some people say there is nothing in the Mormon Standard Works that contradicts the Bible. You and I have just demonstrated the opposite.

Thank you.
Nan

 

[Nan_S]

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6; 4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9; 14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12). Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects. He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced [cf. Moro. 8]; communion was changed);

I suppose if you dismiss every theologicial conclusion of the earliest days of Christianity, and then mix together every heresy of the first several centuries with legitimate theology, you can claim that an apostacy happened. Obviously, we disagree with you.

– The opposition of body and spirit is the very essence of gnosticism. The Catholic Church condemned this as heresy. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise?

– Jesus and Paul both preached the virtues of celibate life over sexual life, for those capable of maintaining this discipline. How is this false asceticism?

– Where in the Bible does it say that the only kind of valid baptism is full-body immersion?

– How was communion changed?

and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled by bishops; thus the medieval church showed little similarity to the organization or practices of the New Testament church).

Interesting conclusion. No real evidence.

LDS teachings on the early Christian apostasy have received additional support in the twentieth century as some scholars have argued that the primitive Church began as a centralized Judaic organization, was faced with the challenge of a Hellenized/Oriental, ascetic Gnostic Christianity, and became like its enemy in order to compete. The very idea of a centralized Christianity has given way to a picture of diverse and fragmented early Christianity, where it is hard to determine what is orthodox and what is heretical, what is Gnostic and what is “mainstream.”

These scholars you reference are all LDS, I presume? Since they believe everything past about 70 AD is apostate, it’s no wonder they have trouble distinguishing orthodoxy, heresy, Gnosticism, and “mainstream” Christianity.

Catholics have a term for LDS theology: latter-day Arianism. Arianism denies that Jesus is of the same substance as God and holds instead that he was only the highest of created beings. This is viewed as heretical by most Christian churches.

Another early Christian doctrine that did not survive in Western Christianity was deification, though it remained central to Eastern Christianity.

Deification - that man can become a god - and that it remained in Eastern Christianity? The Orthodox Christians who come through here would definitely disagree on you with this one.

Deification is one of the worst aspects of New Age spirituality. Of course we deny it. God is God and we are His created creatures. Thus it was in the beginning, and thus it will remain.

The concept of a historical apostasy from early Christianity can present a barrier between Latter-day Saints and others concerned with interfaith relationships.

I’ll agree with this one. The only thing that trinitarian Christianity has in common with Mormonism is a conservative secular perspective. The theologies are completely at odds.

But Latter-day Saints do not view these events judgmentally; much of spiritual value happened during the Middle Ages and in other Christian churches.

I thank you for this.

I do have a great deal of respect for the conservative values of Mormons, the emphasis on education and thrift, on clean living, on strong families, and much more. Deep spiritual values do strongly tie into these good fruits.

And if Mitt Romney gets the Presidential nomination I will not hesitate to vote for him.

Nan

 

[majick275]

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6; 4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9; 14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12). Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects. He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced [cf. Moro. 8]; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled by bishops; thus the medieval church showed little similarity to the organization or practices of the New Testament church).

One could use this same criteria for declaring the SLC LDS apostate and making a case for one of the splinter groups to be a needed restoration. Trinitarianism exists in the BoM. look at he testimony of the three witnesses. read Alma 11:44 and especially Mosiah 15:1-5. asceticism? like D&C 89? changing rites? like the LDS temple ceremony? how many times has it changed? look at the masonic similarities there, it sure seems complex. communion changed? you mean like moving from D&C 20 bread and wine to todays bread and water? organization altered? like moving from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery being first and second elder to a first presidency and quorum of apostles to just a quorum of apostles and back to a first presidency plus apostles. do you remember seventies being in every ward? not anymore, that organization was changed too. martyrdom leaving a void? like when Joseph was killed and there was a succession crisis and there was no president of the church for years…the apostles dissolved the first presidency and excommunicated the counselors. The Smith family themselves split apart over who should be in charge. please show me in the BoM or the Bible where the organization of the church looked like that of the mormon church today. where are the patriarchs giving blessings? temple presidents? sealers? mission presidents? stakes and wards? counselors and elders quorum presidents? practices? same challenge. where were the eternal marriages in the BoM or the Bible? the use of water in the sacrament? temple endowments?

It just looks like a big glass house to me.

 

[zerinus]

I would suggest that you think Matthew 24:40-42 and Luke 17:34-35 irrelevant because you are looking to prove some people were granted near-immortal life in earthly flesh, and I’m introducing you to a completely new (to you) interpretation of 1 Cor 15:51. It’s simply this: ordinary people will still be alive at the Second Coming and proceed to their reward straightaway without dying first.

No, that is not the reason. I genuinely do not see the connection between them that you are trying to establish. The context and the wording of 1 Cor 15:51 precludes that.

There’s nothing in 1 Cor 15:51 that suggests or even hints at the idea that anyone will be granted thousands of years of near-immortal life in earthly flesh.

That is correct; but that is because he is revealing a mystery which he does not want all to readily comprehend. He just gives us a hint, without giving too many details. As the proverb goes, “A word to the wise is sufficient”.

American Heritage Dictionary definition of Mystery: . . .

There is nothing you have quoted here above which goes against the definition of “mystery” as “revealed truth.” In fact, every NT quote you have provided supports that usage.

Then you understand English differently from the way I do. Something is a “mystery” as long as you don’t know it. Once you have understood it, then it ceases to be a mystery. The parables that Jesus discussed with His disciples were a mystery to them as long as they didn’t understand it. Once He had explained it to them, it was no longer a mystery to them; but it still remained a mystery to the outsiders who understood not what He meant by them. The reason why the atonement and mission of Jesus Christ is referred to in the NT often as a “mystery” is because it is a mystery to those outside the church who do not comprehend it. As Paul says elsewhere, to the Greeks it was “foolishness,” and to the Jews a “stumblingblock”:

1 Corinthians 1:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

But to the Christians who understood the meaning and appreciated the significance of it, it was no longer a “mystery”. “Mystery” always means “hidden” or “secret”. That is the literal meaning of it. But it can also refer to a secret whose meaning has now been disclosed, therefore it is no longer a mystery to those who know it, but still is to those who don’t. These verses make that clear:

Romans 16:

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Here is another example:

1 Corinthians 2:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

More examples could be given, but these are sufficient. Mystery always means “hidden” or “secret”; but it can also mean a secret that has now been revealed; or one that has been revealed to a select few, but not to those outside that group.

Note the difference in the OT verses below. “Mystery” is used to mean something hidden or incomprehensible, instead of the NT usage as something revealed by God. . . .

Nonsense. Mystery in the OT is the same as mystery in the NT. It always means hidden or secret.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

I’m quoting the your Doctrine and Covenants here, Copyright 1981, by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I didn’t make this up; your own book says this revelation came from a parchment.

This is what the section heading to D&C 7 actually says (emphasis mine):

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim as to whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried in the flesh or had died. The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself.

Now I don’t know where you learned your English from, but the way I am reading it is that this section was revelation given to Joseph Smith which consisted of a (revealed) translation of something that John had himself written on parchment and hidden. It does not say that Joseph Smith pulled out the parchment and translated it. God being omnipotent and omniscient, knew what was written on that parchment, and chose to respond to Joseph’s inquiry by giving him a revelation which consisted of translation of a portion of that parchment record.

That’s true. John’s Gospel has a clarifying statement from John saying, while it was rumored he would not die, Jesus’ words really didn’t mean that at all.

D&C 7 conveniently drops that clarifying Gospel verse and says something completely different: John will be granted near-immortal life in earthly flesh.

And some people say there is nothing in the Mormon Standard Works that contradicts the Bible. You and I have just demonstrated the opposite.

Okay, let’s have a look at what the passage you are referring to actually says:

John 21:

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Again, it is a case of understanding plain English. Perhaps English is not your first language, and you have difficulty understanding it correctly. If so, perhaps you ought to go and learn. But to my way of reading, this does NOT say that John will NOT stay alive until Jesus returns. The closest that we can come to that is that IF Jesus intended to keep him alive until then, He did not want everyone to know about it. He wanted to keep it a shhhh “secret”! Guessed it? A “mystery,” which was not disclosed to everyone, but to a select few, like Paul.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Catholics have a term for LDS theology: latter-day Arianism. Arianism denies that Jesus is of the same substance as God and holds instead that he was only the highest of created beings. This is viewed as heretical by most Christian churches.

And LDS also have a name for Catholic theology: Apostate Christianity!

Deification - that man can become a god - and that it remained in Eastern Christianity? The Orthodox Christians who come through here would definitely disagree on you with this one.

Deification is one of the worst aspects of New Age spirituality. Of course we deny it. God is God and we are His created creatures. Thus it was in the beginning, and thus it will remain.

I don’t know what contemporary Orthodox Christians teaches about deification—or the New Age for that matter—and I don’t frankly care. The Early Church Father, however, most certainly did teach the doctrine of the deification of man—like it or not!

And if Mitt Romney gets the Presidential nomination I will not hesitate to vote for him.

I think that Mitt Romney would make a good President. I don’t think Hillary Clinton would make such a bad candidate either.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

And LDS also have a name for Catholic theology: Apostate Christianity!
zerinus

Is that true of all the versions of LDS? I mean, there are several branches of LDS, are there not? Do they all have the same teaching with regard to the so-called Great Apostasy? Or, are there variations, such as the variations with respect to polygamy? If Mormons vary on polygamy, do they also vary on the so-called Great Apostasy?

Also, how do Mormons compare with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the other door knocker cult on this issue of the so-called Great Apostasy?

 

[VWcrazy]

And LDS also have a name for Catholic theology: Apostate Christianity!

And I have a name for LDS theology: absolute garbage.

 

[Nan_S]

No, that is not the reason. I genuinely do not see the connection between them that you are trying to establish. The context and the wording of 1 Cor 15:51 precludes that.

I accept your explanation and second look. I believe the difference between perspectives stems from an overall radical divergence in our theologies.

Then you understand English differently from the way I do. Something is a “mystery” as long as you don’t know it. Once you have understood it, then it ceases to be a mystery. The parables that Jesus discussed with His disciples were a mystery to them as long as they didn’t understand it. Once He had explained it to them, it was no longer a mystery to them;

but it still remained a mystery to the outsiders who understood not what He meant by them. The reason why the atonement and mission of Jesus Christ is referred to in the NT often as a “mystery” is because it is a mystery to those outside the church who do not comprehend it.

But to the Christians who understood the meaning and appreciated the significance of it, it was no longer a “mystery”. “Mystery” always means “hidden” or “secret”. That is the literal meaning of it. But it can also refer to a secret whose meaning has now been disclosed, therefore it is no longer a mystery to those who know it, but still is to those who don’t.

As I have already pointed out, hidden/secret is only one of several definitions of Mystery. I know your explanation that words only have one definition makes sense to you. But when you get into college and take English 101/102, it probably would be to your benefit if you dropped that line of reasoning.

The Early Church Father, however, most certainly did teach the doctrine of the deification of man—like it or not!

References, please? I spent some serious time searching the ECF’s writings for this and the only thing I could find was the condemnation of particular heresies, especially Pantheism, Polytheism, Arianism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism.

I found absolutely nothing in the ECF’s writings that supports the deification of man.

I think that Mitt Romney would make a good President. I don’t think Hillary Clinton would make such a bad candidate either.
zerinus

Mitt Romney? (based on what I know of him so far)

Hillary Clinton? (based on everything that came to light during Bill’s presidency) :bigyikes: Unless you’re suggesting that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would ensure Romney’s election. Now THAT I can agree with.

Nan

 

[truthsilence]

The Early Church Father, however, most certainly did teach the doctrine of the deification of man—like it or not!

I think the teaching you are speaking of here is much different from what you are taught as a LDS. The teaching does not mean that humans will become Gods and Godesses, to procreate throughout eternity on worlds of their own. The real teaching is that we will be “deified” in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within us, and we are transformed into the image of God and ultimately will be “partakers of the Divine Nature” in Christ.

Please read Isaiah 43:10!

We will never be Gods. Sorry. You might want to stop listening to the Devils lies.

 

[truthsilence]

catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2081

What makes us ‘divine’ is the fact that the Word of God has come to us and acts directly upon us, or more concretely the fact that in Jesus Christ the Son of God has become man and thus brought us into kinship with himself. In other words, our ‘deification’ in Christ is the obverse of his ‘inhomination’. This is a deification, however, which more than recreates our lost humanity, for it lifts us up in Christ to enjoy a new fullness of human life in a blessed communion with divine life.

I think this article from the blog “Pontifications” is well worth posting here.

 

[zerinus]

References, please? I spent some serious time searching the ECF’s writings for this and the only thing I could find was the condemnation of particular heresies, especially Pantheism, Polytheism, Arianism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism.

I found absolutely nothing in the ECF’s writings that supports the deification of man.

I didn’t give any refs because I thought that as a good student of the ECFs and Patristic studies you already knew. Here are some refs for you to consider:

. . . 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 above quotes are from Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers Oxford University Press. Also the folowing:

Do we cast blame on him because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the sons of the Most High.” … For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. (Irenaeus, Against Heretics, 4.38.)

But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods." (Augustine, On the psalms, 50.2.)

There are also books written on the subject. I haven’t read many of them, but judging by the titles and reviews, they seem very interesting indeed. Here are some:

The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas & the Orthodox Tradition
Published by St Vladimirs Seminary Pr (August 2001)

This one appears to be particularly interesting:

The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers
You will find more about it here: affcrit.com/acpress/

This one is mentioned in an article on the Internet. Here is the quote:

One of the finest studies on the subject of deification as Christian salvation, is found in the scholarly book Christian Mysticism, by W. R. Inge. He gave eight lectures before the University of Oxford and these were published by Methuen & Co., London, 1899. He has a major section called “The Doctrine of Deification” in which this subject is dealt with at length. In my view, every theologian and preacher in the world ought to read that section—and start to believe and preach it to the world! It represents nothing less than the central truth of the Gospel of Christ and without understanding it, a person will remain completely ignorant of what salvation in Christ is all about.

The whole article is most interesting, and I highly recommend you to read it. You can find it here: askelm.com/doctrine/d040202.htm

Hillary Clinton? (based on everything that came to light during Bill’s presidency) :bigyikes:

That was her husband’s fault, not herself. I admire her for the way she stood by him notwithstanding those difficulties. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t a bad President. He had character flaws like everyone else does, but the way he did his job cannot be faulted. He was a very skillful politician and a superb orator, and his term of office I would say was a very successful one—ignoring his character flaws.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

The whole article is most interesting, and I highly recommend you to read it. You can find it here: askelm.com/doctrine/d040202.htm

I always find it interesting to backtrack Zerinus’ links to articles. I can’t comment on the specific article, because I haven’t read it, yet. But I think it is interesting to note this one paragraph from the bio at Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (ASK) of David Sielaff, the director:

Emphasis added is mine.

““Raised Lutheran, he became a member of the Worldwide Church of God from approximately 1969 to 1973. He has had no denominational associations since that time. He discovered the work of Ernest Martin in 1974. Dr. Martin’s theological and historical work has been seminal to Mr. Sielaff’s understanding of the Bible and the world, which was later supplemented by his seminary experience. It was since that time he learned the truths of God regarding the Universal Reconciliation of all to God and the deification of man through the redemptive work of Christ Jesus.””

Anybody here remember the Worldwide Church of God? They had a giveaway magazine called The Plain Truth that had a resemblence, both in content and appearance, to Jehovah’s Witnesses publications. They were based in Pasadena, CA. and operated a college, called Ambassador College, which campus I once visited about 20 years ago. When I became aware of them, there was a power struggle going on as the founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, passed away. Garner Ted Armstrong was a face frequently seen on Sunday TV, and as I recall, Garner Ted was involved in this power struggle. AFAIK the WWCG no longer exists. Here is a paragraph from WikiPedia on Herbert Armstrong:

““As head of the US-based church which he founded (essentially in 1933), Armstrong was a controversial figure. The Church’s doctrines and theological teachings, called by some Armstrongism, were the result of his interpretation of the New Testament (particularly in regards to prophecy and the mission of the modern church) as well as the Old Testament (observance of the Sabbath, health laws, etc.) which were markedly diverse from those of other mainstream Protestant or evangelical churches.””

Anyways, I just think it is interesting that Zerinus so consistently links to information from non-mainstream, even cultic sources.

 

[Allweather]

The whole article is most interesting, and I highly recommend you to read it. You can find it here: askelm.com/doctrine/d040202.htmzerinus

Here is a short snip from this article, which I am currently reading:

““Mankind has a long way to go before we become exactly like God and Christ Jesus are at the moment. Yet in the Bible, that divine glory is promised to be given to mankind through the works that Christ Jesus did for us. That is what salvation really is for us. It is to become exactly like God the Father and our Elder Brother Jesus Christ.””

This article was written by Ernest L. Martin in 1992. Martin, the founder of Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (ASK) died in 2002, and was succeeded at the helm of Associates for Scriptural Knowledge by the aforementioned David Sielaff, who is primarily trained as a typesetter, and who “edited” this article in 2004. Martin, according to the bio at the ASK site, was trained by the U.S. Air Force in meteorology in the early 50s, presumably as an enlisted man, since the bio makes no reference to his being commissioned, though he did study meteorology at College of the Sequioias in CA, and was sent by the Air Force to the University of New Mexico for the same course of study. Here is what the bio of Martin at the ASK site says about his religious credentials:

““He was an ordained Christian minister in the A.S.K. ekklesia (translated as “church” in the King James Version). Dr. Martin was first ordained in London, England in January 2, 1959 by the Worldwide Church of God; then FBR in January 1974; and finally ASK in January 1985.””

So, it appears that ASK functions as something of a “church,” ordaining people as “ministers.” It also appears that ASK shares some of the heretical notions about God and eternal progression with the cult of Mormonism.

That’s a formidable source, Zerinus.