…and it says that there were animals such as Elephants, Lions, Horses, Kurelons, and Kumons (whatever these last two might be in this world!). They also built temples, yes, Jewish people, who left the Middle-east, by definition, Jewish people supposedly building temples outside Jerusalem. Any Jewish person knows it better that it’s an impossible thing to have a temple build in American Continent.
I appreciate the prompt reply. Take care and God bless…
Yah. Which is actually a recurring theme in these 1800s groups.
One could make a case that the “Bible Students” of Charles Taze Russell were not modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses at all, but an offshoot of Joseph Rutherfords faction in the 1930s.
These groups all came out of the Millerite movement in the United States. It was a time of expected end times very apocalyptic. Mormons haven’t spoken of the end times as much as JW and SDA but they are apocalyptic, just the name “latter day saint” is implying the latter days.
Reading Augustine will not providing context for Augustine. Augustine did not claim to be revolutionizing the concept of “Original Sin” or “the Fall," but he was.
Patristic scholars acknowledge however that Augustine did CHANGE the concept of original sin. Furthermore, they point specifically to a poor Latin translation of the Bible that Augustine relied HEAVILY on to make his theological novum. It is unlikely the Latin West would be so far away from the East (who understood the Greek Augustine did not), if Augustine had understood the Greek text of the Bible. Again, I say this because I have read many patristic scholars who make this very clear.
Let me add a little in order to remove one source of confusion and underscore the modern struggle with this Augustinian innovation.
“Original Sin” and “The Fall of Adam” and “Ancestral Sin” may all be used as terms to describe what happened in the Garden of Eden and how it impacts us today. The INNOVATION of Augustine is that all sinned “in Adam” and thus the stain of original sin is present in all of mankind. This is rejected by Eastern Orthodox churches and by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I do not believe that Adam didn’t fall, I do not believe that Adam’s fall didn’t/doesn’t have consequences for mankind. I am saying that Augustine introduced a new understanding of the fall and it is IMO an incorrect understanding.
Let me briefly restate that contra what was said by a Catholic poster earlier in this thread the idea of “fortunate fall” is not absent in the ECF.
Augustine’s incorrect (IMO) understanding is the genesis of much wrangling within the Catholicism of the last century. Aquinas (before last century) with some others brought the idea that unbaptized infants WHO CANNOT receive the “Baptism of Desire” would be in hell, but would be spared the torment of hell; they would be in limbo. This has always been “theological speculation.” What has not been “theological speculation” was that without Baptism (either water baptism, baptism of desire, or baptism of blood), babies (and adults) who die CANNOT go to heaven. This has been the universal teaching of the Catholic Church from Augustine to today. Pelagius (who was declared a heretic) and his followers were the ONLY theologians who rejected this truth until the 20th century. But during the 20th century a counter revolution has occurred. The Vatican’s document on the “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” is the most recent salvo in this revolution within Catholic thought. There is no rational application of theological reflection that can justify this “Hope” IMO (and in the opinion of a handful of Catholic theologians, who to be fair were skeptical post Vatican II).
I’ve been to Missouri. It’s pretty, but I don’t think it’s the garden of Eden’s location.
That’s why I’m so skeptical of these restorationist groups.
As well as other parts.
Sorry, I don’t know how to do screen shots.
That’s because it’s the same two Mormon apologists time and again regurgitating their quote mines and proof texts of the Early Church Fathers. It doesn’t matter how often Catholics provide context for these, they just scurry away waiting for the next Mormon related thread to appear. Lather, rinse, repeat. They’re one trick ponies: shoehorn Mormonism into the writings of the early church while ignoring or handwaving away the rest of those Church Fathers’ corpuses that don’t appear to agree with Mormonism. None of them can demonstrate that even a single early Christian professed a unified, coherent set of Mormon doctrines. They cannot show that Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Anselm, Augustine, et. al were proto-Mormons. They latch onto a single quote, squint really hard, and see Mormonism where none exists. Point out to them that the other 99% of their quoted Church Father’s work comes nowhere close to supporting Mormonism and that’s evidence of the Great Apostasy! Of Course! It’s intellectually dishonest, and frustrating to boot seeing as they aren’t new to this game. At this point I can’t help but conclude that Gazelam and TOm have come to this site in bad faith not for earnest discussion. I don’t understand why anyone engages them anymore.
Because it’s tempting to engage in apologetics when “someone’s wrong on the internet.” Thing is, the OP is left out when off topic posts are allowed to stand. This thread asks for Catholic answers, not refutation of Catholic doctrine.
There are a few really good answers here to the OP. I would like to see a one post summary of the simplest points and glossary/definitions that would equip a newbie to recognize the differences in theology.
I would change the claims I make if I thought the context that you suggest is provided addressed the claims that I make.
Gazelam and I have quoted patristic scholars and theologians. Eastern Orthodox scholars, sometimes Catholic scholars, and usually non-LDS scholars. This is the context that is not provided by those who just assert that the ECF were Catholic.
This is the beginning of this thread:
Concerning “the divine council,” this is clearly taught in the Bible. Non-LDS Biblical scholars have written extensively on it. How it aligns with the way the prophet Isaiah sees God is a question not adjudicated within the pages of the Bible (but addressed by LDS thought).
I think it is quite clear that whatever the Bible means, it clearly does not mean that the term “gods” is forbidden or only describes entities in opposition to God the Father and Jesus Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, while not dealing with how to align the divine council with Isaiah, uses the term “gods” to refer to our future state and such was common in the early church.
It was IMPLIED that the CCC did no such thing and I was asked for a citation. This citation showed exactly what I said, “the term ‘gods’ used to refer to our future state.” This was not acknowledged and another claim I consider false was made. A link to a Catholic apologetic source that I have read and considered was offered. I recommended the Catholic work Deification and Grace by Daniel Keating who does not agree with the Catholic apologetic source. I further claim that Keating does not make a strong case for his limited deification, that DEVELOPED after the 4th century.
This all seems particularly germane to the OP and I do not think it is the LDS who not providing context.
I do not agree with you, but I assure you if I did, I would change the claims I make. You seem to imply that I am refuted and the sulk away only to come back and be “intellectually dishonest.” If I agreed I would change.
The Church of Jesus Christ plainly teaches that some divine truths will not be revealed until this last gospel dispensation. It would be a mistake to assume every last Latter-day Saint (non-Orthodox Christian) doctrine must be found in an ancient text somewhere in order to support the Latter-day Saint claim of general apostasy. D&C 128:18 states:
…which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.
For a more thorough explanation see: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/07/notes-on-d-12818-being-controlling.html
Of course, Catholics cannot demonstrate that even a single early Christian professed a unified, coherent set of Catholic doctrines either.
John Henry Newman said it best. (Just a polite warning this and the two that follow are regurgitated quotes.)
If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes. and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian … Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity … Origen is. at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. (Newman, Essay, 43)
Regarding Ignatius, Fortman says:
Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius , the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 40
Regarding Justin Martyr, Fortman says:
On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as Supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place ; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place. But he has no real doctrine of the Trinity , for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead . (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 47
This is “providing context” and should lead to Catholics not saying, “The ECF were Catholic.” Baldly asserting “the ECF are Catholic” should invoke no change in the position espoused by LDS.
Some of the Early Church Fathers
St. Clement I (ca. 99)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110)
St. Aristides the Athenian (ca. 133)
St. Polycarp (ca. 155)
Papias of Hierapolis (163)
St. Justin Martyr (ca. 165)
Titian the Syrian (ca. 165)
St. Hegesippus (ca. 180)
St. Melito of Sardes (ca. 190)
Athenagoras (ca. 200?)
Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 200?)
St. Irenaeus (ca. 202)
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 215)
Tertullian (ca. 220)
St. Hippolytus of Rome (235/6)
St. Cyprian (258)
Anthony the Great
St. Methodius of Olympus (ca. 300)
Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 339)
Aphraates (ca. 350)
St. Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 367)
St. Eusebius of Vercelli (371)
St. Ephrem the Syrian (373)
St. Athanasius (373)
St. Basil the Great (379)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (387)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 390)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 394)
Diodore of Tarsus (ca. 394)
St. Ambrose of Milan (397)
Didymus the Blind (ca. 397)
Pope Damasus I (384)
Evagrius Ponticus (399)
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (402)
St. John Chrysostom (407)
St. Chromatius of Aquileia (407)
Synesius of Cyrene (ca. 414)
St. Maximus of Turin (ca. 416)
St. Jerome (419-20)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (428)
St. Augustine (430)
St. Paulinus of Nola (431)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (444)
St. Peter Chrysologus (450)
Isaac of Antioch
St. Prosper of Aquitaine (ca. 455)
Pope St. Leo the Great (461)
Theodoret of Cyr (ca. 466)
Boethius (ca. 480)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (604)
St. Isidore of Seville (636)
St. Maximus the Confessor (662)
Isaac of Nineveh (700)
St. John Damascene (ca. 750)
Hello, and Grace and Peace to you all,
My friend and I are doing research on the Great Apostasy, and I was wondering if any LDS want to bring up evidence for traces of LDS doctrine in the early church for my friend and I to investigate. I won’t argue against any of your evidence. I just would like to know. If you will, I would like you to state the specific teaching, and then cite the evidence so I can look it up. Again, I am not going to argue with you, although I am pretty sure that the other Catholics on here will. Also if anyone has evidence of Seventh-Day Adventistism, Jehovah’s Witnessism, or Protestantism in that time period (as they all claim a sort of Apostasy in that time period as well), then I would be glad to look at it.
Thank you and God bless!
Doctrines Embraced by the CoJCoLDS and Previously Believed by the Early Church ... Using the ECF and Patristic Scolars
I agree that at least most of those are some of the ECF. I usually include Lacantius and I have spent very little time with folks after the 5th century, but I have no strong opinion on if they should be excluded from the list of ECF.
I will make a clear and bold statement.
Most (close to all probably) Patristic scholars would say that no ECF before Augustine every believed in original sin in the way Augustine did.
I will assert that nobody on your list who embraced Augustine’s view on original sin evidences anything that would suggest they would accept the 2007 Vatican document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Baptism,” and Augustine’s writings suggest that he would be horrified by it.
Thus no one on your list holds the modern Catholic views embraced by the Vatican in 2007.
This and many other doctrines partially or largely or completely rejected by these folks (completely in the case of “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” or the possibility that the divorced and remarried could partake of communion), make the statement “the ECF are Catholic” inaccurate and unhelpful.
Of course, the ECF are not LDS or Mormon’s in their theology either as Gazelem and I have continually maintained.
This is off topic for this thread I think.
You can start a new thread and I should be able to offer a number of things OR you can PM me.
A source of unified declarations of Christian belief were the Ecumenical Councils
The First Ecumenical Council was held at Nicæa
The Second Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople
The Third Ecumenical Council was held at Ephesus
The Fourth Ecumenical Council was held at Chalcedon
The Fifth Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople
The Six Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople
The Seventh Ecumenical Council was held at Nicæa (787)
While the subject has been brought up before:
I believe it has been answered
Unique Mormon beliefs were “revealed” by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century, so there is no chance they will be found in the early Church.
I can disagree with absolutely nothing in your post.
Supposedly unique LDS doctrines have been found in the ECF and at a rate that I believe is beyond coincidence indicating the same divine source for both.
LDS believe that some truths not previously revealed will be revealed in “the last dispensation” so it seems likely that some absolutely unique LDS (rather than “supposedly unique”) doctrines will exist.
I strongly suspect Gazelam and I are 100% in agreement here. And our efforts on this thread if read carefully should make this clear.