Mormons and Patristics

[_Gazelam]

Here are the noted sources for the article I posted:

Nibleys own paper from 1949 Improvement Era article that can be read here: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=67

Clement of Alexandria, Homilia 14, in PG 11:345.

Clementine Recognitions I, 52, in PG 1:1236

The PG is short for J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus . . .Series Graeca (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857 - 1866), 161 volumes.


You show disdain for baptism for the dead as an example of ritual magic, do you feel the same way toward regular baptism?

[_Catholic Guy]

What kind of sample have you met? A hundred? A few hundred? I seriously doubt if a questionaire/test on early church was given to 10,000 LDS it would yield 50%+ passing results.

I'd like to see such a questionnaire happen.

Me too. Are you still asserting the position in your paper that a majority of LDS are well grounded in ancient church knowledge or make a study of early church knowledge?

I believe that they take an interest in the subject, and like to hear about parallels.

How about the parallels that St Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about in his definitive work "Against the Heresies"? Here is a good one from book 1 chapter 13 where he is describing the "deceitful arts and nefarious practices of Marcus":

Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God— a thing which frequently occurs—have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.

Some of his disciples, too, addicting themselves to the same practices, have deceived many silly women, and defiled them. They proclaim themselves as being "perfect," so that no one can be compared to them with respect to the immensity of their knowledge, nor even were you to mention Paul or Peter, or any other of the apostles. They assert that they themselves know more than all others, and that they alone have imbibed the greatness of the knowledge of that power which is unspeakable. They also maintain that they have attained to a height above all power, and that therefore they are free in every respect to act as they please, having no one to fear in anything. For they affirm, that because of the "Redemption" it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge. But even if he should happen to lay hold upon them, then they might simply repeat these words, while standing in his presence along with the "Redemption:" "O you, who sits beside God, and the mystical, eternal Sige, you through whom the angels (mightiness), who continually behold the face of the Father, having you as their guide and introducer, do derive their forms from above, which she in the greatness of her daring inspiring with mind on account of the goodness of the Propator, produced us as their images, having her mind then intent upon the things above, as in a dream,— behold, the judge is at hand, and the crier orders me to make my defence. But do you, as being acquainted with the affairs of both, present the cause of both of us to the judge, inasmuch as it is in reality but one cause." Now, as soon as the Mother hears these words, she puts the Homeric helmet of Pluto upon them, so that they may invisibly escape the judge. And then she immediately catches them up, conducts them into the bridal chamber, and hands them over to their consorts.


There are so many more parallels in his and others writings against the heretics and pagans that we can explore. LDS proofs from the ECF’s as I have demonstrated over and over on the other board is that they are taken out of context to strengthen a position that did not exist in the Early Church. Jordan Vajda’s paper is a perfect example of this problem.

Try reading the original authors works without the opinions of the apologist, then read all sides of the arguments in apologia land. I did, as one of the challenges to prove that the LDS Church was the “Restored Gospel” and that the Protestant position was not.

Pax Christi,

Catholic Guy

[_Runtu]

Pre-mortal existence

The doctrine of the preexistence of souls is found in a smattering of early Christian writings. Most of these examples are from Gnostic writings (such as the Gospel of Judas), which are an offspring of Platonic metaphysics and allegorically interpreted Christian scriptures. The doctrine can be identified in other deuterocanonical works, but very vaguely represented. A third source of this doctrine is the work of Origen and Clement.
Origen and Clement (both of Alexandria) were the only Patristics that latched firmly onto the principle of preexistence, but it seems to be in reaction to the Gnostic movements in the area. Clement and Origen chose Greek philosophy as their weapon against the Gnostics. Because Alexandrian Christianity was thought to have been reared within the context of Hellenized Judaism, 4 this approach was not unreasonable to either of them.

The most comprehensive Patristic manifestation of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence comes to us from Origen, possibly by way of Clement.5 The doctrine was taught in Egypt and later throughout the church, but it was soon considered heretical, and Origen’s doctrines were officially anathemized at the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.6
In order to make clear the distinction between the doctrine of preexistence of Plato and Origen, we will examine them individually. In his Phaedo, Plato, through Socrates, argues for the preexistence of the soul via four arguments, only the fourth of which being accepted by Socrates’ peers as valid. Undercutting all three of Plato’s arguments is the idea that the soul exists as a “form” (the abstract essences of the qualities with which we define and perceive our world). He builds his first three arguments upon this concept, and as his arguments fall, this principle remains standing to provide Plato with a final and successful argument. All material things pass away, but forms are eternal and unchanging. The soul is like a form because, by it, life is generated. Because forms bring life to all materiality, the soul must be classified among the forms.7 Plato’s preexistence is therefore derived from his doctrine of forms.

Given the limited discussion of the nature of "intelligence" in LDS doctrine, the idea of a Platonic form makes as much sense as anything. My quibble is that Platonic forms, as I understand them, are not one-to-one representations of individual beings and things, but rather the representation of an ideal. I find that a little difficult to reconcile. Perhaps some additional quotes from Plato on how this applies to the individual might help.

Origen’s doctrine in describing our journey from pre-mortal “mind” (the purest state of our souls) to incarnation is, without a doubt, a derivative of Platonism. In commenting on the pre-mortal existence of souls, Origen slightly amends the Platonic version to accommodate the Judeo-Christian concept of the Fall. Adam and Eve are an allegorical representations8 of a spiritual event that separates humans from the divine. This event took place when God endowed our minds (i.e., “souls”) with free will that righteousness might be their own, and rebellion ensued. From Origen’s On First Principles: “slothfulness, and a dislike of labour in preserving what is good, and an aversion to and a neglect of better things, furnished the beginning of a departure from the goodness.”9 The mind is degraded to a soul, which subsequently degrades to taking on a fleshly body. These are all just episodes in a drawn-out quest to return to communion with God. Despite the fact that Origen was one of the sole transgressors later named in the crime of Hellenizing Christianity, many early Christians were held under the thumb of Platonic interpretations of the scriptures. The entire idea of allegorical interpretation stems from classical philosophy; Origen’s spirituality was only a slight tangent from the pervading thoughts of his day. His transgression lay mainly in his failing to delineate between a Christian view of preexistence and the Greek philosophical view of the same that was intimately tied to reincarnation, and for this he was condemned.10

Good summary. I haven't read Origen (I'm woefully under-read in the patristics), but the idea of the fall as bringing a degraded physical representation of the form makes sense within the Hellenized Christian train of thought.[/quote]

Unfortunately, space does not allow an investigation into the possibility that esoteric Jewish mysticism influenced the early Patristics. Suffice it to say, Origen did not get his doctrine of preexistence from any divine teachings or revelations now unknown to us. The issue appears to have been an open question that was ultimately answered with an appeal to classical philosophy. Following the rejection of Origen’s teachings the authorities distanced themselves as far as possible from the heresy of pre-mortal existence. By Nicene times humankind was demoted to an utterly created being.

I'm not sure this paragraph adds much to the topic. The important point is to summarize that the idea comes from Platonic thought, which you've already said.

Eternal Nature of Matter

Connected to the Platonic concept of preexistence is that of the eternal nature of matter. For Plato, God could not create matter, because he and matter (the anake) are the two co-eternal elements in the universe. According to the Timaeus, matter has always existed in chaos. Without a form, the four components of matter (earth, air, fire and water) are in perpetually chaotic motion. God set them in order by giving them shape. They are then set in a rotation. God sets the world soul in rotation as well, and the universe is underway.11

"World soul": something seems missing here.

The Judeo-Christian concept of the eternal nature of matter cannot be segregated from an argument for or against creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing. Prior to the Hellenization of Jewry there is no direct discussion of this concept, but we begin to be introduced to the idea in various extra-biblical Jewish writings around the time of Christ. Jewish leaders were relatively split on the matter, but, as Gerhard May points out, “a firm, unambiguously formulated doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not worked out in ancient Jewry.”12

This is a little weak, in my opinion. You tell us that there's no direct discussion, but then you add that Jewish leaders were split, which seems contradictory. The May quote seems to support the first statement, not the second. Perhaps an example of the split leaders would help.

The New Testament offers few clues in either direction concerning the nature of creation outside of some squirrelly exegesis, but the Patristics offer some interesting ideas. Some of the earliest Fathers, the Apologists, make a case against creatio ex nihilo. Justin Martyr claims he bases his arguments on Genesis, and says Plato must have done the same.13 Disparagingly, Martyr’s arguments can be shown to be so dependent upon Platonism as to render his opinion moot. Most of the Patristics who espoused this doctrine did so in Platonic contexts.14

"Squirrelly" and "disparagingly" seem out of place here.

One of the few Fathers who was definitely not influenced by Greek philosophy was the first century Clement of Rome, who, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, shares in the Apologist conclusion of creatio ex materia.15 First Clement predates the onset of the Greek influence in Christian theology. His ideas, while not ultimately canon, are definitely an accurate representation of the doctrines widely accepted by the membership of the church immediately following the Apostolic Age.16 The doctrine of eternal matter in First Clement operated within Christianity independent of classical philosophy.

Not being familiar with Clement, I have to take your word for it that it was "definitely" (an unnecessary word) widely accepted or that he wasn't influenced by Greek philosophy. Again the assertions need a little more support.

The fact remains, however, that the doctrine was not originally born of Platonic influences, as is often asserted.

I don't think you've shown this very strongly. You haven't grounded the doctrine in pre-Christian Judaism nor sufficiently divorced it from Greek philosophy.

Deification

The early Christian doctrine of theosis was often more of an aside than a focal point. The main concern of the Patristics was how the chasm that existed between God and humanity was overcome, rather than the nature of our existence after that chasm is bridged. In their expositions, however, casual mention is made of the idea of the deification of humans. This “deification” is termed such despite being more of a pseudo-deification by association. Just like you may have mouthed off to kids you were normally scared of if your big brother was around—while wielding no powers of intimidation yourself—our godhood is only passive participation in the glory of His godhood. We are told by Justin Martyr through to Athanasius that God became human that humans may become like God, but this soteriology takes special care to avoid breaching the highest priority of early Christianity: strict monotheism. Above all they avoid intimating that anyone could ever become truly divine. Their entire theosis is manipulated from this first criterion. We will here examine only the outcome of that process.

Not a bad analogy, but the diction is a radical departure from the rest of the paper ("mouthed off" "scared of your brother").

Their deification finds its dawn in the divine Logos, who descended to humanity so that the connection between the divine and the material could be forged. In and only in this connection we inherit the classification of deity, albeit honorary. Jordan Vajda, in his thesis, makes it clear that humankind enjoys deification wholly inferior to the nature of Christ and the Father’s deity.17 He quotes Vladimr Lossky:

I'd make it clear that Vajda et al. are commenting on the Fathers; otherwise, it seems like you're taking a detour from the Fathers to modern interpretation.

The early Christian doctrine of deification marks a departure from most of the philosophical speculation of the day, but is ultimately dependant upon several philosophical definitions. These definitions illustrate the separation from true doctrine and explain why early Christian deification is so far removed from the eternal progression taught by the prophet Joseph Smith.

The main departure from truth is the vehement maintenance of strict monotheism. Without this restriction, the thought of humanity elevated to godhood does no one any harm. There is no need to twist or flat out ignore the scriptures that make it clear our purpose here is to become exactly like God and Jesus Christ; there is no need to demean the human soul and make it composite and created.

I might tone down the discussion of "truth" and the departure therefrom. Rather, I'd talk about the departure from LDS doctrine. Just seems a little less scholarly to be talking about the Fathers in terms of their truth or falseness. And words such as "twist" and "demean" don't help. I don't know, this section seems a little detached from the earlier discussion. Perhaps a better, less jarring transition would help. Otherwise, it sounds like you've stopped analyzing and begun refuting.

Considerations need to be made to find the source for the monotheistic dogma, and the scriptures don’t seem to be the best prospect. Throughout the Bible we are told of the existence of various beings clad in the title of “god.” Some try to dilute the nomenclature by asserting that the Hebrew can also mean “judges” or “heavenly beings”, but Christ provides, in John 10:34, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, and of the Greek there can be no mistake. That the scriptures preach a plurality of gods, at least nominally, is undeniable.

I think this defense of plural gods is wholly unnecessary to your discussion of why the Fathers adhered to monotheism. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but that's how it comes across. One sentence about how the scriptures are ambiguous, with one or two examples, would suffice.

These “gods” may find distinction in the hierarchy of their power, but pantheism is also a violation of monotheism. That classification doesn’t help, so where does this restriction come from?

In much of Greek thought, “God” is the title given to the superlative ideal. Plato’s god is understood to be “the Good”.24 Anaximander calls it “the Boundless”,25 and out of it everything flows. Pythagoras says it is “the One,” 26 and it is the cause of everything else. To Aristotle it is the “Prime Mover.”27 Of any superlative there can only, by definition, be one. Xenophanes makes this clear: “If God is the mightiest, He must be One; for were He two or more, He would not have dominion over the others, but, not having dominion over the others, He could not be God. Thus were there several, they would be relatively more powerful or weaker, and thus they would not be gods, for God’s nature is to have nothing mightier than He.”28 The fact that many Patristics quote Xenophanes verbatim in their descriptions of God29 (i.e., incorporeal, without parts, all seeing, etc.) is a clear indication that his words held influence over the development of doctrine. That Christianity adopted a more Greek vernacular in an effort to better relate to the civilized world is clear and blameless, but the assimilation seems to have gone much further than mere words. The strict monotheism of the classical Greeks became the criterion within which Christian theology would be forced to function, and the theosis described above is one of the products of this restriction.

While the polished up deification of Athanasius is clearly a product of Hellenism, we cannot ignore the fact that a segment of Judaism handed off to Christianity a version of theosis very similar to the LDS perception. The following is reported by Dr. Barry Bickmore in his FARMS review of Inside Mormonism:

The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. . . . The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come.30

The Bichmore quote needs some context. What exactly is he reporting? Is he quoting from an ancient text?

While Dr. Bickmore feels that “Latter-day Saints can make a strong argument for the proposition that the original Judeo-Christian concept of deification was very similar to ours”, he does offer the warning that one need be careful when choosing proof texts.31 The early Church’s theosis may have stemmed from true doctrine, but its Greek adaptation was almost immediate. It may have come from doctrinal expositions not contained in the New Testament, and our understanding may be a full restoration of what was once commonly known, but from its earliest surviving extra-biblical Christian intimations it was among those doctrines fallen prey to the wresting of the scriptures.

This paragraph needs some pruning. The last sentence in particular needs some work.

Joseph Smith’s Soteriology

As the teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith became more public and more bold, his doctrines deviated severely from the accepted norms. He taught many ideas utterly foreign to the day’s religionists, but the test of time has shown his grasp of Ancient Near Eastern consciousness to be impossibly accurate. Yale’s Harold Bloom can’t explain it: “I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly.”32

I'd avoid the hyperbole. "Impossibly accurate" seems a little overstated to me.

The three doctrines we have thus far investigated were individually important to the theologians of the early Church, but in LDS soteriology they, combined, provide us with the greatest blessing of the Gospel and the very work and glory of our Father in Heaven. They are each critical to our eternal progression. We will examine their uniqueness and import one by one.

The beginning of our investigation focuses on the preexistent human spirit. This was, for Joseph Smith, an utterly fundamental truth, and inseparably linked to our salvation. When referencing the doctrine in his King Follett Discourse, he mentions that the principle is “calculated to exalt man.”33 To insist that humans are suddenly created being (as the early Fathers did and most theologians still do) is to demean them and distance them from God, according to the prophet. The Prophet’s teachings on the subject are opposite of those of the Patristics in almost every way. In order to contrast the magnificence of God against our nothingness, the Patristics highlighted and extended the gulf between us; Joseph Smith drew us closer to God without bringing Him down. This brings our relationship with God into the forefront of our theology. Rather than disintegrate the relationship, we fortify it. This relationship, according to the Prophet, allows us to advance in knowledge, 34 putting the only barriers that separate us from God within the capacity of the Atonement to overcome.
Joseph Smith’s doctrine of the pre-mortal existence is not Platonic. Plato saw the soul move from being to being, progressing or retrograding according to their capacity to transcend the corruption of the flesh. While some may find an ascetic correlation in our fasting and our Word of Wisdom, our discipline in the matter is designed to edify both body and spirit, rather than leave one behind in the interest of the other. Joseph Smith taught that a fullness of joy is found only in an inseparable connection of body and spirit.35

This paragraph seems to undercut the assertion about Joseph's accuracy. Was his teaching consistent or opposite?

The next principle to be inspected is found alongside nearly every mention of spirit in Joseph Smith’s writings: the eternal nature of matter. While we don’t have a comprehensive treatise on early Christianity’s independent perception of this teaching, we do have several references from the philosophers, and to these we can compare the teachings of the Prophet. Some find the idea of eternal matter purely Platonic in nature, but, again, Joseph Smith taught a perspective completely opposite the Greek. That Joseph Smith taught creation came from chaotic matter is true, but he adds a qualification that decouples the two ideas: glory dwells in matter.36 Ultimately, the trump card in Joseph’s deck is the supernal truth that all spirit is matter.37 While others pondered the dualities of God and man, Joseph boldly announced that the spirit is simply a far more pure manifestation of our very own bodily constitution. He was influenced by neither the Patristics nor the philosophers.

Fair enough

With our spirits now thrust into the realms of eternity and our bodies elevated to receptacles of glory, we may proceed to the culmination of gospel truth: eternal progression. Joseph Smith’s ideas about deification represent the inevitable conclusion of the doctrines already presented. The Patristics, on the other hand, were inhibited by their sterilized and diluted doctrine. Elder Oaks has said that the prevalent doctrines of early Christianity “could not lead their adherents to the destiny God desired for them.”38 Whereas Irenaeus and Athanasius had to deprive their doctrine of deification to fit into the rigid requirements their speculation had produced, Joseph Smith was free to express the truths as he received them, without worrying about retrofitting them to his earlier conclusions, and he did so without concern for the impression it would make.

Again, the disparaging of the Fathers is unnecessary and distracting (sterilized and diluted). And "deprive" seems the wrong word.

The scriptures painted a crystal clear picture for Joseph Smith. The end of all creation is to elevate man to the station of godhood, in every way shape and form. We are not arbitrarily created whenever a birth takes place, suddenly responsible for our actions without ever choosing to be. We are part of a great plan that has many names: the plan of happiness; the plan of salvation; the plan of redemption; the plan of mercy; the plan of our Father in Heaven.39 We are willing participants in a plan that so filled us with hope that we shouted with joy.40

Again, the tone of the article is inconsistent. Are you discussing the Fathers or arguing with them?

Conclusion

While on the surface some may see specific early Christian doctrines as supportive of the ancient origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, others see it as a testimony of the human origin of the church. An objective look at the causative factors of these doctrines clears up the errors in both conclusions.

As has been shown, the doctrines of the Patristics share only nominal similarities with the doctrines of the Prophet Joseph Smith. While we should not hold up the Gnostic idea of the pre-mortal existence as an example of a proto-Mormon doctrine, we should recognize that some of these ideas did come from somewhere; early Christianity initially believed in creatio ex materia because the scriptures taught it. We cannot say for sure whether or not other ideas, like baptism for the dead, were the empty husks of pure teachings or not. It has been proposed that the Apostles kept hidden several principles from the body of the flock, but these ideas also come from apocryphal literature.41 The Lord has cautioned us to be wary in studying these scriptures.42 Most of our scholars have done the same. Salvation, in the end, is not about discovering the hidden mysteries of God in the obscure texts of the ancient world. We are not Gnostics.

I like the conclusion, but the last three sentences seem a little forced.




NOTES




1. Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?” TJ 19.2 (1998): 179–205. The authors state that one reason is the desire to validate the doctrine of the Great Apostasy. See also Chris Welborn, “Mormons and Patristic Studies: How Mormons Use the Church Fathers to Defend Mormonism,” CRJ 28.3 (2005) n.p. [cited 20 November 2006].Online: http://www .equip.org/free/JAM515.htm. The author states that vindication is the one and only motivation for Patristic studies among Mormons: “Mormons have studied patristic writers increasingly since the middle of the twentieth century so as to use them to justify their church’s claim to be the true church.”
2. Stephen E. Robinson, “Lying for God: the Uses of the Apocrypha,” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs, Religious Studies Monograph Series 13 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1986), 135. Quoted in Frank F. Judd, Jr., “Judas in the New Testament, the Restoration, and the
Gospel of Judas,” BYU Studies 45.2 (2006): 43. Professor Judd, writing about the Gospel of Judas, comments that such texts caution us to “search for plain and precious truths in the standard works and the works of living prophets, rather than in these kinds of non-canonical books.”
3. Francis J. Beckwith, “Mormon Theism, the Traditional Christian Concept of God, and Greek Philosophy: A Critical Analysis,” JET 44.4 (2001): 693. The author states: “Thus, one could say that Joseph Smith, Jr. restored, not the true Christian concept of God, but long forgotten aspects of several schools of Greek philosophical thought.”
4. Robert P. Casey, “Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Platonism,” HTR 18.1 (Jan., 1925): 45. See also Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 33.
5. Alexander Alexakis, “Was There Life Beyond the Life Beyond? Byzantine Ideas on Reincarnation and Final Restoration,” DOP 55 (2001): 162–63.
6. Alexakis, “Byzantine Ideas on Reincarnation,” 163–64.
7. Plato, Phaedo, 1.363–365 (Fowler, LCL).
8. Origen, On First Principles 4.1.16 (ANF 4:365).
9. Origen, On First Principles 2.9.2 (ANF 4:290).
10. Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen (New York: Routledge, 1998), 21.
11. Plato, Timaeus 59–65 (Bury, LCL).
12. Gerhard May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation Out of Nothing” in Early
Christian Thought (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: Clark, 1994), 23.
13. Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin 59 (ANF 1:182).
14. Maren R. Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of
Christian Exegesis,” HTR 99 (2006):50.
15. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 60:1.
16. Andrew Gregory, “I Clement: An Introduction,” The Expository Times 117.6 (2006):
223-24.
17. Jordan Vajda, Partakers of the Divine Nature: A Comparative Analysis of the Patristic and
Mormon Doctrines of Divinization, in Occasional Papers No. 3 (Provo,UT: FARMS, 2002), 15.
18. Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press, 1974), 65.
19. Vajda, Partakers of the Divine Nature, 12.
20. Iranaeus, Against Heresies 5 (ANF 1:526).
21. Iranaeus, Against Heresies 4.38.3 (ANF 1:521).
22. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: New Edition (New York: Penguin, 1993), 232.
23. Vajda, Partakers of the Divine Nature, 10.
24. Plato, Republic 1.284–85 (Shorey, LCL).
25. David John Furley, The Greek Cosmologists (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987), 19.
26. Arthur Fairbanks, ed. and trans., The First Philosophers of Greece (London: K. Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1898), 145.
27. Aristotle, Metaphysics 2.161–163 (Tredennick, LCL).
28. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy (England: K.
Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1896), 244.
29. The Westminster Confession of Faith in ed. John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches: A
Reader in Christian Doctrine From the Bible to the Present (Louisville, KY, John Knox Press, 1982), 197.
30. Midrash Alpha Beta diR. Akiba, BhM 3:32, quoted in Raphael Patai, The Messiah
Texts (Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 1979), 251, in Barry R. Bickmore, review of Isaiah Bennett, Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe, FARMS Review 13.2 (2001): 245.
31. Bickmore, review of Bennett, 45.
32. Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 101.
33. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith; American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2002), 365.
34. Smith, Teachings, 367.
35. Doctrine and Covenants 93:33–34.
36. Smith, Teachings, 364.
37. Smith, Teachings, 311.
38. Conference Report, Apr. 1995, 112–14.
39. Alma 42:5–16.
40. Job 38:7.
41. Clement of Rome, Clementine Recognitions 1.52 (PG 1:1236).
42. Doctrine and Covenants 91.[/quote]

[_maklelan]

Given the limited discussion of the nature of "intelligence" in LDS doctrine, the idea of a Platonic form makes as much sense as anything. My quibble is that Platonic forms, as I understand them, are not one-to-one representations of individual beings and things, but rather the representation of an ideal. I find that a little difficult to reconcile. Perhaps some additional quotes from Plato on how this applies to the individual might help.

I originally went much deeper into this, but I had to chop the paper in half because of length requirements. The footnotes provide the relevant texts. unfortunately I couldn't work the actual texts into the paper. Plato goes on for pages about ho the soul is a form because it gives life to an individual. Now, it doesn't fit with "beauty," and "triangularity," but it is a derivative of his doctrine of forms.

Good summary. I haven't read Origen (I'm woefully under-read in the patristics), but the idea of the fall as bringing a degraded physical representation of the form makes sense within the Hellenized Christian train of thought.

Thank you. I think it makes perfect sense, but many still insist that it was Christ's teaching from the very beginning.

I'm not sure this paragraph adds much to the topic. The important point is to summarize that the idea comes from Platonic thought, which you've already said.

It is a little clumsy, but, again, it's there because I had to chop the substance right out of the paper.

Eternal Nature of Matter

"World soul": something seems missing here.

Yeah, I was thinking about explaining the "world soul" concept, but room was tight. I've thought about changing it to a more general designation for the world.

This is a little weak, in my opinion. You tell us that there's no direct discussion, but then you add that Jewish leaders were split, which seems contradictory. The May quote seems to support the first statement, not the second. Perhaps an example of the split leaders would help.

The Jewish leaders that discuss it are from after the Hellenization of the Jews.

"Squirrelly" and "disparagingly" seem out of place here.

Yeah, I've since edited them out.

Not being familiar with Clement, I have to take your word for it that it was "definitely" (an unnecessary word) widely accepted or that he wasn't influenced by Greek philosophy. Again the assertions need a little more support.

Yeah, space was tight, but I could put something in the footnotes. . .

I don't think you've shown this very strongly. You haven't grounded the doctrine in pre-Christian Judaism nor sufficiently divorced it from Greek philosophy.

I wish I had the room, but a footnote on it would probably help out a lot here.

Not a bad analogy, but the diction is a radical departure from the rest of the paper ("mouthed off" "scared of your brother").

I've since changed that as well.

I'd make it clear that Vajda et al. are commenting on the Fathers; otherwise, it seems like you're taking a detour from the Fathers to modern interpretation.

Good point.

I might tone down the discussion of "truth" and the departure therefrom. Rather, I'd talk about the departure from LDS doctrine. Just seems a little less scholarly to be talking about the Fathers in terms of their truth or falseness. And words such as "twist" and "demean" don't help. I don't know, this section seems a little detached from the earlier discussion. Perhaps a better, less jarring transition would help. Otherwise, it sounds like you've stopped analyzing and begun refuting.

I am planning to dilute that aspect of the paper for publication, but for the Religious Education Student Symposium I don't think it's out of place.

I think this defense of plural gods is wholly unnecessary to your discussion of why the Fathers adhered to monotheism. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but that's how it comes across. One sentence about how the scriptures are ambiguous, with one or two examples, would suffice.

Interesting thought.

The Bichmore quote needs some context. What exactly is he reporting? Is he quoting from an ancient text?

Yeah, it's from the Mishna. I anticipated that would be clear enough in the footnotes, but perhaps a little more explanation in the text is necessary.

This paragraph needs some pruning. The last sentence in particular needs some work.

I'll work on it.

I'd avoid the hyperbole. "Impossibly accurate" seems a little overstated to me.

Noted.

This paragraph seems to undercut the assertion about Joseph's accuracy. Was his teaching consistent or opposite?

That is a dynamic that I forgot to point out. the consistency is supposed to be with pre-hellenic religious paradigms that weren't available to scholars during Joseph Smith's day, with the inconsistencies marking his departure from the Hellenizing influence that was known to scholars in his day.

Fair enough

Again, the disparaging of the Fathers is unnecessary and distracting (sterilized and diluted). And "deprive" seems the wrong word.

I guess deprive does imply that they originally had it in there. I could make that better.

Again, the tone of the article is inconsistent. Are you discussing the Fathers or arguing with them?

I'm hoping to show their reliance on the philosophy of man, as well as Joseph Smith's lack thereof.

I like the conclusion, but the last three sentences seem a little forced.

I've since changed it. I never was happy with those last few sentences.

I appreciate your help. You brought up some points I was blind to. That has definitely helped a lot.

[_maklelan]

Well, it turns out they judged my paper on the first draft, before I made all the revisions, so it was exactly as above. Apparently it was still worth $150 and it's getting published at the end of the semester. At least then I'll get to revise and expand it. I'll definitely take into account the points brought up here, especially runtu's. Thanks again.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Well, it turns out they judged my paper on the first draft, before I made all the revisions, so it was exactly as above. Apparently it was still worth $150 and it's getting published at the end of the semester. At least then I'll get to revise and expand it. I'll definitely take into account the points brought up here, especially runtu's. Thanks again.

Congrats. Use some of the $150 for a steak dinner for the family!

And bring the final draft here when you get done. I'd like to see the evolution of the paper.

[_maklelan]

Well, it turns out they judged my paper on the first draft, before I made all the revisions, so it was exactly as above. Apparently it was still worth $150 and it's getting published at the end of the semester. At least then I'll get to revise and expand it. I'll definitely take into account the points brought up here, especially runtu's. Thanks again.

Congrats. Use some of the $150 for a steak dinner for the family!

And bring the final draft here when you get done. I'd like to see the evolution of the paper.

Sure thing on the revised copy, but the money's going to pay for books for the paper I'm writing for the conference I organized for the fall.

[_Roger Morrison]

Here are the noted sources for the article I posted:

Nibleys own paper from 1949 Improvement Era article that can be read here: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=67

Clement of Alexandria, Homilia 14, in PG 11:345.

Clementine Recognitions I, 52, in PG 1:1236

The PG is short for J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus . . .Series Graeca (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857 - 1866), 161 volumes.


You show disdain for baptism for the dead as an example of ritual magic, do you feel the same way toward regular baptism?

Gaz, thanks for the above. However they do little but present the thoughts of their time of an individual in his time with his understanding... That Nibley thinks them relevant in our time is HIS opinion; which i, at the moment, don't share.

I wouldn't use "disdain" as it suggests contempt and nasty stuff... "I" simply see the practice as unnecessary as "I" understand Jesus and HIS teachings. Let others teach as they will...

I view water baptism as a ritualistic symbol, an initiation rite to indicate membership. For that reason of group identity, i say, "fine". To see it having mystical/metaphysical powers...i don't. But again IF one feels good about it, so be it... To subscribe magical powers to it however, i suggest that MIGHT be illusury...

Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

*bumping for Catholic Guy*

[_Aquinas]

Among the motivations that might explain this habit, 1 a common one seems to be the desire to discover hidden pockets of the “plain and precious truths” otherwise garnished from the scriptures by the corrupting doctors of theology.

"Corrupting"? Gee, Mak... tell us how you really feel! It would do your paper more good if you just said "doctors of theology" and left out your own personal feelings.

Exactly, while statements like this may be useful in a debate to rouse your opponent, no argument is made for the doctors being "corrupting" so it gives the impression you have an agenda and are not being objective, which is not good for a paper about a researched topic.

Pre-mortal existence
[snip]

So from this section, I get the idea that you think Joseph restored what is essentially a Greek-based teaching of a pre-mortal existence? A teaching decried by and deleted from Christianity because it was considered heretical, a teaching derived from Plato and the Alexandrians... and you say Joseph restored it? Why? It wasn't part of the ancient church. So essentially you're saying Joseph either restored a non-scriptorial and non-doctrinal heresy... or he restored a teaching neither the early Christians or the Jews taught?

LOL, good point Harmony, it sounds awefully suspicious when you criticize early Christianity on the basis that they incorporated Greek thought into their doctrine, while you explicitly point out two doctrines found in Mormonism that, while not influenced by Greek thinking (I doubt Joseph Smith ever read Plato), are shared with the very same pagans you accuse the early church of getting in bed with.

Eternal Nature of Matter
[snip]

I think this one is best left to the physicists and the chemists. Joseph didn't have a clue what he was talking about (and it shows) and neither did the early church fathers (and that shows too).

That is ridiculous Harmony, you've obviously bought onto the modern fallacy that because something is new, it must have more truth. Even scientists base their findings on theories (like the theory of evolution), much of the conclusions they draw are from faith in these theories, so they are not that much different than theologians. I would suggest forming an argument based on YOUR knowledge of physics and chemistry before insulting centuries worth of great thinkers (the fathers), whom I doubt you've ever read. How insulting.