LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[dzheremi]

Just a question about St. Athanasius the Apostolic.

1) What supernatural thing did he do to warrent Sainthood?

I'm not sure I understand the question. We do not have any rule that I know of whereby a person must perform some miracle in order to be considered a saint. As I understand it, generally people are locally venerated first, and on the strength of the community's interaction with the deceased (while they were alive, or afterwards, or both), their lives are reviewed by the Holy Synod, which has the power to 'officially' declare them a saint for the Church -- meaning that their names may be added to the synaxarion (the book of saints lives and other important histories related to the Church; in the Coptic tradition, this is read aloud before the congregation as part of every liturgy), churches may be named after them, hymns may be composed in their honor to keep their memory alive, and so on. I know that some churches have conventional paths for this, whereby after X number of years or with the confirmation of X number of miracles, they may be declared a saint, but this is not the case in the Coptic Orthodox Church. I had heard that it was traditional that 50 years pass before the person's death before they are declared a saint, but with the recent canonization of HH St. Pope Kyrillos VI (d. 1971), I see that this is not in fact the case. It is even quicker with some of the modern martyrs, such as the neo-martyrs of Libya, the 20 Copts (and one Ghanaian or Chadian, depending on which news reports you believe) who were beheaded by ISIS in Libya only a few years ago. They were added to the Synaxarion by HH Pope Tawadros II, and there are already icons being made of them, even by people from outside of the Church (I saw once recently by a Serbian Orthodox iconographer). If they have performed any supernatural feats, we don't know about them, but they were canonized quite simply for their steadfast belief in Christ the Lord and their public witness to Him, even as they were being killed. They died with the name of Christ on their lips and clearly in their hearts, as we all should, and the whole world could see it in the propaganda video that ISIS produced. (The brother of two of the martyrs in fact thanked ISIS for not cutting the audio of their execution, because that way everyone could witness their great faith and hear them call upon the Lord Jesus by name as they received the crown of martyrdom.)

2) Is he an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Indeed he is, as are all our bishops. The honorific 'the apostolic' (Arabic: al-rasouli) is used for our father HH St. Athanasius in the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular because of his great strides and struggles undertaken for the faith, to rescue the world from the heresy of Arianism (even suffering exile several times for it), and his composition of the Creed at Nicaea which is still the standard statement of Orthodoxy for the vast majority of the world's Christians, and so on. He also sent Ethiopia her first bishops after the conversion of the Axumite king Ezana c. 330 AD, and did many other things which helped establish and strengthen the Christian faith around the world. Hence we call him 'the apostolic' as a way of saying that his contributions are as great as those of the apostles themselves who likewise spread the faith in their own day by establishing churches around the known world during the first century.

The same concept exists among the Chalcedonians, who call certain people recognized by them (including some recognized by us, too, like Mary Magdalene and St. Thekla) "equal to the apostles" in recognition of their service to the faith.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Indeed he is, as are all our bishops.

Did he, like rest of apostles, receive tutelage directly from Christ Himself?

 

[dzheremi]

Did he, like rest of apostles, receive tutelage directly from Christ Himself?

The definition of apostle is not as narrow as you're making it here. Christian leaders throughout the ages have been called apostles for doing as the apostles did in bringing the faith to particular places and peoples, hence for instance Cyril and Methodius are called in the Byzantine tradition "the apostles to the Slavs" for their work among the Slavic people of what is now Bulgaria in the ninth century. Or, for that matter, St. Mark is the apostle to the Egyptians.

While it is true that generally speaking when we talk about the apostles we are talking about the twelve, it is just as appropriate to use that designation when speaking of the seventy or others as context dictates.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Christian leaders throughout the ages have been called apostles for doing as the apostles did in bringing the faith to particular places and peoples

Could you provide a Biblical example of where it states that an Apostle was not tutored under Christ directly?

 

[dzheremi]

I don't like your disingenuous little "find it in the Bible" game, but since it is there, St. Paul's introduction to the Corinthians in his first epistle to the Church at Corinth ought to do it:

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,"

St. Paul famously converted to the faith after receiving a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, rather than being 'tutored under Him directly'. Granted, you can make the case that this is meeting the Lord, but the point is that he did not receive any message from the Lord at that time beyond "Go into the city and you will be told what to do" -- that's less tutoring than ordering, and once he got there it was Ananias -- who was not one of the 12, but one of the 70 -- who received him and baptized him, at which time he spent some days in Damascus with the disciples there, who instructed him.

 

[Jane_Doe]

St. Paul famously converted to the faith after receiving a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, rather than being 'tutored under Him directly'. Granted, you can make the case that this is meeting the Lord, but the point is that he did not receive any message from the Lord at that time beyond "Go into the city and you will be told what to do" -- that's less tutoring than ordering, and once he got there it was Ananias -- who was not one of the 12, but one of the 70 -- who received him and baptized him, at which time he spent some days in Damascus with the disciples there, who instructed him.

Actually Paul proudly proclaims his tutelage under Christ:
" 12 For I neither received it [the Gospel] of man, neither was I taught it,but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:12.

 

[NYCGuy]

Could you provide a Biblical example of where it states that an Apostle was not tutored under Christ directly?

Are you implying that LDS apostles are tutored under Christ directly? If so, where is the evidence of that?

 

[NYCGuy]

I don't like your disingenuous little "find it in the Bible" game,

It is very curious how they turn sola scriptura when convenient.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It is very curious how they turn sola scriptura when convenient.

Actually LDS are really big on scripture and getting revelation straight from God (both personally and collectively). Mainstream Christianity's reliance on citing sources admittedly not from God are one of it's major turn-offs for me.

 

[NYCGuy]

Actually Paul proudly proclaims his tutelage under Christ:
" 12 For I neither received it [the Gospel] of man, neither was I taught it,but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:12.

I don't think dzheremi disputes that, as he clearly stated that Paul received a "vision of Christ".

So, what exactly do you mean by being "tutored under Christ directly"?

 

[Jane_Doe]

I don't think dzheremi disputes that, as he clearly stated that Paul received a "vision of Christ".

So, what exactly do you mean by being "tutored under Christ directly"?

See Gal 1:12.

 

[NYCGuy]

See Gal 1:12.

You already quoted that earlier, to which I responded that dzrehemi doesn't dispute that, because he specifically stated that Paul received a vision of Christ. I am asking you what you mean (i.e. what is your interpretation that leads you to say what you said), as you seem to be talking passed each other.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You already quoted that earlier, to which I responded that dzrehemi doesn't dispute that, because he specifically stated that Paul received a vision of Christ. I am asking you what you mean (i.e. what is your interpretation that leads you to say what you said), as you seem to be talking passed each other.

It's pretty self-explanatory...

 

[NYCGuy]

It's pretty self-explanatory...

Ok have a good night.

 

[dzheremi]

Don't sigh too heavily, NYCGuy. I knew in advance that it would go this way.

Trouble is that anyone in any situation can claim to receive a revelation from Christ about anything. The scriptures also tell us to test all things and hold fast to what is good, and of course St. Paul himself was likewise not simply accepted because he said he had a vision, so that's that -- rather, his coming into the city was foretold to Ananias and still when he was there he was baptized by Ananias and took to learning from the apostles. The vision by itself is not enough. He was told by Christ "Go here, and you will be told what to do." That last bit really sticks, for some people.

This is a pretty big difference from the Mormon mode of transmission of their apostle's 'vision', as that vision is set against every other church on account of their 'apostasy' or whatever (according to the visionary himself, of course), so there is no sense by which the person is received (or not) into a preexisting community, which therefore has the authority to judge what they say as either in accordance with what has already been received or not. Hence Joseph Smith is much more in line with Marcion than Athanasius (or Cyril, or Irenaeus, or anybody, really): Come up with your own theology, use and abuse the scriptures accordingly, and if anyone resists, that's evidence of their having been taken in by corrupt, worldly churches that have changed doctrine from whatever the new group's prophet/apostle/revelator thinks it should be. Yawn. Heard that in 140 AD. Didn't work then; doesn't work now.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Trouble is that anyone in any situation can claim to receive a revelation from Christ about anything.

So....? Does that mean you automatically discard all scripture and revelation as not being of God? No!

The scriptures also tell us to test all things and hold fast to what is good, and of course St. Paul himself was likewise not simply accepted because he said he had a vision, so that's that -- rather, his coming into the city was foretold to Ananias and still when he was there he was baptized by Ananias and took to learning from the apostles. The vision by itself is not enough. He was told by Christ "Go here, and you will be told what to do." That last bit really sticks, for some people.

You are totally ignoring the verse I posted. Ananias is a man. Paul did not receive from a man (including Ananias) but revelation from Jesus Christ.

Come up with your own theology, use and abuse the scriptures accordingly, and if anyone resists, that's evidence of their having been taken in by corrupt, worldly churches that have changed doctrine from whatever the new group's prophet/apostle/revelator thinks it should be.

Do you realize this accusation you are lobbing at LDS could apply directly to you as well?

 

[dzheremi]

So....? Does that mean you automatically discard all scripture and revelation as not being of God? No!

No, and I never suggested something so silly.

You are totally ignoring the verse I posted. Ananias is a man. Paul did not receive from a man (including Ananias) but revelation from Jesus Christ.

No I'm not. In fact, I was just typing up a reply about that when the alert popped up for this post I'm replying to now.

Looked at in context there is no contradiction between the temporal sequence of events that I referenced earlier from the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians.

Here is the entire section from which the verse you mentioned is taken (verses 11-17):

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.


But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

+++

So St. Peter writes about the gospel that he received not being received from another man, but from Christ. This makes sense, given how he was converted by a direct vision of Christ and the accompanying message from Him (to go into Damascus). It's not like we can say "and St. so-and-so preached to Saul, and converted him", the same way that we can say that St. Mark preached to Anianos in Alexandria and converted him, or St. Frumentius preached to King Ezana of Axum and converted him. Rather St. Paul received it from Christ precisely because it was through the direct intervention of Christ that he came to believe. Christ came to him first before anyone else could. Such things have happened, and still do, but this is where all the stuff I wrote earlier about how the vision in itself was not enough comes into play: he was received instead into a preexisting community, and eventually came to see the apostles in Jerusalem as well (Acts 9:26-28), after some time spent in Arabia. And we know that the apostles received him there after a period of some trepidation, as he was first viewed with suspicion until it was found that his message was that which they had been preaching as well.

So again, there's no contradiction. There is only one if what he is preaching is not accepted by the apostles before him, but that's not how things went.

Do you realize this accusation you are lobbing at LDS could apply directly to you as well?

Not only do I realize it, that's the entire point. People can come to me with all kinds of accusations against my Church (as your fellow Mormon poster Peter has), and I can and do answer them by direct reference to and/or quotation from what we actually pray and do. These are in our liturgies, the core anaphoras of which date back to the 3rd century or so and hence have proven extremely resilient in the face of criticism. There's nothing that a Mormon or any other person could say that would therefore make their accusation have weight that it does not have, because I am not answering of myself, but by reference to those who came before me, because my religion did not come from a vision to a teenage boy in 1820, but from the experience of all of the saints since the beginning down to today.

So of course anyone else could make that accusation, or worse. The point is in how it is answered. I am aware already that reference to the fathers and other saints is not good enough for Mormons in particular, but since the LDS are themselves the ones who are out of step with even the basics of historical Christianity, that doesn't phase me. Consistent witness remains consistent witness even if one or a thousand latter-day sects come along 1,820 or more years later to claim that everyone else has been wrong this whole time, but by this new revelation they are uniquely right.

Basically, when you claim something, we have 2,000 years of witness to measure it by, and when we claim something, we also have 2,000 years of witness to measure it by. So, far from claiming exceptions for ourselves or this "my Church is rubber, yours is glue!" kind of sub-apologetics, everything is measured according to the same standard. So it is not so hard to evaluate whatever claims might come up with reference to that same standard, such that a person can say of some novel LDS doctrine "No, we don't follow that; instead we follow this, as has been established" (and then it is shown how it is established; this is why I'm always quoting St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Gregory Nazianzus, etc. in my replies; they said it already, so I don't need to reinvent the wheel, thank God).

So go ahead and hurl any accusation you'd like. The Church has heard it all.

 

[fatboys]

No, and I never suggested something so silly.



No I'm not. In fact, I was just typing up a reply about that when the alert popped up for this post I'm replying to now.

Looked at in context there is no contradiction between the temporal sequence of events that I referenced earlier from the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians.

Here is the entire section from which the verse you mentioned is taken (verses 11-17):

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.


But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

+++

So St. Peter writes about the gospel that he received not being received from another man, but from Christ. This makes sense, given how he was converted by a direct vision of Christ and the accompanying message from Him (to go into Damascus). It's not like we can say "and St. so-and-so preached to Saul, and converted him", the same way that we can say that St. Mark preached to Anianos in Alexandria and converted him, or St. Frumentius preached to King Ezana of Axum and converted him. Rather St. Paul received it from Christ precisely because it was through the direct intervention of Christ that he came to believe. Christ came to him first before anyone else could. Such things have happened, and still do, but this is where all the stuff I wrote earlier about how the vision in itself was not enough comes into play: he was received instead into a preexisting community, and eventually came to see the apostles in Jerusalem as well (Acts 9:26-28), after some time spent in Arabia. And we know that the apostles received him there after a period of some trepidation, as he was first viewed with suspicion until it was found that his message was that which they had been preaching as well.

So again, there's no contradiction. There is only one if what he is preaching is not accepted by the apostles before him, but that's not how things went.



Not only do I realize it, that's the entire point. People can come to me with all kinds of accusations against my Church (as your fellow Mormon poster Peter has), and I can and do answer them by direct reference to and/or quotation from what we actually pray and do. These are in our liturgies, the core anaphoras of which date back to the 3rd century or so and hence have proven extremely resilient in the face of criticism. There's nothing that a Mormon or any other person could say that would therefore make their accusation have weight that it does not have, because I am not answering of myself, but by reference to those who came before me, because my religion did not come from a vision to a teenage boy in 1820, but from the experience of all of the saints since the beginning down to today.

So of course anyone else could make that accusation, or worse. The point is in how it is answered. I am aware already that reference to the fathers and other saints is not good enough for Mormons in particular, but since the LDS are themselves the ones who are out of step with even the basics of historical Christianity, that doesn't phase me. Consistent witness remains consistent witness even if one or a thousand latter-day sects come along 1,820 or more years later to claim that everyone else has been wrong this whole time, but by this new revelation they are uniquely right.

Basically, when you claim something, we have 2,000 years of witness to measure it by, and when we claim something, we also have 2,000 years of witness to measure it by. So, far from claiming exceptions for ourselves or this "my Church is rubber, yours is glue!" kind of sub-apologetics, everything is measured according to the same standard. So it is not so hard to evaluate whatever claims might come up with reference to that same standard, such that a person can say of some novel LDS doctrine "No, we don't follow that; instead we follow this, as has been established" (and then it is shown how it is established; this is why I'm always quoting St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Gregory Nazianzus, etc. in my replies; they said it already, so I don't need to reinvent the wheel, thank God).

So go ahead and hurl any accusation you'd like. The Church has heard it all.

Here is the problem as I see it. I can understand why you can claim you have history but as I look at the written history there are places where traditions have taken over real doctrines. Even though mainstream Christianity lacks there was no apostasy yet the reason for churches breaking off from one another is not agreeing with doctrines. If there was no apostasy then there would only one church or at least not as many.

 

[dzheremi]

Here is the problem as I see it. I can understand why you can claim you have history but as I look at the written history there are places where traditions have taken over real doctrines. Even though mainstream Christianity lacks there was no apostasy yet the reason for churches breaking off from one another is not agreeing with doctrines. If there was no apostasy then there would only one church or at least not as many.

This goes back to something I wrote a while ago: If this is truly the case, then why did Joseph Smith start yet another church? It seems like the opposite of what he should have done if the mere existence of other churches is evidence of the so-called 'apostasy'. According to that logic, he made things worse rather than better.

And I do not really 'claim' that we have history. The history is there whether or not I or anyone embraces it. That's how history works: It's a chronicle of what actually happened, and then you, the modern person who is born into a world of schisms, decides on which side of them you can be. Hence I disagree with the Chalcedonians' versions of Church history (and they disagree with each other, hence the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are also separate communions), so I'm not one of them. But they do still have their own histories, and I don't write them off because they are 'based on men', as LDS posters have claimed about Christianity.

Quite frankly, since we are all people who live in the world as it is, and not in any of these alternate history scenarios whereby what happened is something other than what it is, this kind of criticism really amounts to "I don't like the way things actually are", which is not so much an affirmation of anything, or a statement of any kind beyond expressing dissatisfaction that things didn't go your way/others don't agree with you.

And we can all say that, so it's not really a point in favor of anyone in particular. Roman Catholics would like it if we would all submit to their Pope. Eastern Orthodox would like it if we would all follow their Greco-____ (Slavic, Arab, Romanian, whatever), Imperial way of being Christian. The people of my own communion would like it if the Western (Greco-Roman) churches hadn't accepted the Tome of Leo and the definition of Christology given therein at Chalcedon, or at the very least would stop bothering us with it. Mormons would like us all to accept the revelation of Joseph Smith and his prophethood and the writings that come from that, or at the very least accept them as fellow Christians since they 'believe in Jesus', too. The Nestorians would like everyone to stop calling them Nestorians, but also to stop picking on Nestorius and their other 'Greek doctors'.

Well I'm sorry, everyone, but none of these things are going to happen. But neither do any of these positions mean that just because someone somewhere holds a different position then you do, therefore _____ (there was an 'apostasy'; no one can be right; all claims have equal weight; etc).

So I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the existence of other groups is evidence of anything in itself, and especially how Joseph Smith's creating yet another one would have done anything to solve that situation. Seems like LDS who argue this way are really shooting themselves in the foot, as the only reasonable answer I can think of to this is that they claim that their guy got it right, so it's different than when a million guys before and after him did the same exact thing.

That may play in Nauvoo or Salt Lake City, but it doesn't pass muster anywhere else.

 

[fatboys]

This goes back to something I wrote a while ago: If this is truly the case, then why did Joseph Smith start yet another church? It seems like the opposite of what he should have done if the mere existence of other churches is evidence of the so-called 'apostasy'. According to that logic, he made things worse rather than better.

And I do not really 'claim' that we have history. The history is there whether or not I or anyone embraces it. That's how history works: It's a chronicle of what actually happened, and then you, the modern person who is born into a world of schisms, decides on which side of them you can be. Hence I disagree with the Chalcedonians' versions of Church history (and they disagree with each other, hence the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are also separate communions), so I'm not one of them. But they do still have their own histories, and I don't write them off because they are 'based on men', as LDS posters have claimed about Christianity.

Quite frankly, since we are all people who live in the world as it is, and not in any of these alternate history scenarios whereby what happened is something other than what it is, this kind of criticism really amounts to "I don't like the way things actually are", which is not so much an affirmation of anything, or a statement of any kind beyond expressing dissatisfaction that things didn't go your way/others don't agree with you.

And we can all say that, so it's not really a point in favor of anyone in particular. Roman Catholics would like it if we would all submit to their Pope. Eastern Orthodox would like it if we would all follow their Greco-____ (Slavic, Arab, Romanian, whatever), Imperial way of being Christian. The people of my own communion would like it if the Western (Greco-Roman) churches hadn't accepted the Tome of Leo and the definition of Christology given therein at Chalcedon, or at the very least would stop bothering us with it. Mormons would like us all to accept the revelation of Joseph Smith and his prophethood and the writings that come from that, or at the very least accept them as fellow Christians since they 'believe in Jesus', too. The Nestorians would like everyone to stop calling them Nestorians, but also to stop picking on Nestorius and their other 'Greek doctors'.

Well I'm sorry, everyone, but none of these things are going to happen. But neither do any of these positions mean that just because someone somewhere holds a different position then you do, therefore _____ (there was an 'apostasy'; no one can be right; all claims have equal weight; etc).

So I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the existence of other groups is evidence of anything in itself, and especially how Joseph Smith's creating yet another one would have done anything to solve that situation. Seems like LDS who argue this way are really shooting themselves in the foot, as the only reasonable answer I can think of to this is that they claim that their guy got it right, so it's different than when a million guys before and after him did the same exact thing.

That may play in Nauvoo or Salt Lake City, but it doesn't pass muster anywhere else.

Because even you speak of Christ and believe in Christ many important and sacred things were misplaced or taken out of the gospel on purpose to fit an agenda. Can't you see that like at the time of Christ when there were no prophets that the Jews were in apostasy. Christ restored truths and also brought a higher law for them to live. They hadn't had prophets for over three hundred years. Christ drive them out of the temple for a reason. They had lost truths and corrupted how sacrifice was to be accomplished. Can't you see that Christianity didn't have prophets after the last apostle was killed. Almost two thousand years. We claim restoration. We don't claim that we just didn't agree with a interpretation of the bible. And we have more scriptures. Fruits of prophets once again.