Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Mormonism is not a Christian religion

Mormons live exemplary lives but their religion has nothing to do with Christianity

By on Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Mormon Mitt Romney, almost certain to be the GOP candidate in November Photo: Alex Brandon/AP/Press Association Images

Mormon Mitt Romney, almost certain to be the GOP candidate in November Photo: Alex Brandon/AP/Press Association Images

Now that his main rival Rick Santorum has pulled out, it now seems safe to say that Mitt Romney has the Republican nomination in the bag. This means that come November we shall have an election where a Mormon is pitched against an incumbent President, who many Americans believe to be, contrary to all evidence, a Muslim. Great choice, eh?

Barak Obama is not and has never been a Muslim, yet this crazy belief persists; however, the American public seems able to let Mitt’s Mormonism pass. There is a reason for this. While Islam is seen as the religion of the other, Mormonism is in fact a home-grown religion, rooted in the American continent, and rooted in American experience. Say what you like about Joseph Smith Junior, the prophet of Mormonism, but his was a typical American story.

But what this obscures is the fact that, despite their protestations to the contrary, Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It is not even a Christian heresy. It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level. It has been allowed to pass itself off as another manifestation of American Protestantism – some Catholics have been remarkably lax on this front – but it is nothing of the sort, denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of revelation in Christ. Oddly enough, Mormonism is further from Christianity than Islam itself. There are indeed interesting parallels between the two. 

Mormonism is based on an audacious forgery, the Book of Mormon. Quite a few American Baptists have undertaken missions to the Mormons to convert them to Christianity and to bring them to see that the Bible itself needs no further books added to it.  I myself have read the Book of Mormon and found it tedious in the extreme. However, I fully recognise that Mormons themselves live exemplary lives. I have no quarrel with the practice of the Mormonism; I have a huge problem with its underlying claims, which are demonstrably false.

There is no room to demonstrate their falsity here; suffice it to say that the claim that Jesus came to America after his resurrection has no historical or archaeological basis; neither does any of the pseudo-history of the Book of Mormon; and no archaeological evidence for it has been found, despite decades of looking for it. 

So we are faced with the prospect of an American president who believes in things that no rational person should possibly believe in: a faith that denies reason. Odd how Rick Santorum, the neoAristotelian, was never treated with the same deference.

  • Cody Quirk

    Ron Paul is better then Santorum. Rick’s problem was that he only reached out to just the social conservative crowd and was a bit too dogmatic in his rhetoric. Notice how in many of the northern states, Romney took the Catholic vote over him?

  • Cody Quirk

    Stan Barker just did. You have a TON of corrections to do!

  • Cody Quirk

    You call that a rebuttal? You suck!

  • Cody Quirk

    DavidMHart, does every single Catholic live up to every part of his/her faith or even believe in it? Same thing with evangelicals? Does every single person of both those groups live by what they believe, or even believe in it? Especially when either group is matched up against the LDS faith. 

  • Cody Quirk

    -You mean that thing that was agreed upon hundreds of years after the death of Christ by a council of a bunch of men who considered themselves real religious scholars and bishops (in their own minds). Sorry, but the idea that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all the same being doesn’t match up to what Jesus and His apostles themselves preached in the NT. Mormons are a bit more ‘old-school’ in our belief about the trinity and the nature of God then the Catholics and Protestants are. 

  • Cody Quirk

    Just like Joseph Smith getting killed would put an end to silly Mormonism once and for all.

  • Cody Quirk

    I don’t think Jabba-the-Hut here can give an intelligent response to it.

  • JabbaPapa

    I find it intersting that catholics are claiming that mormons are not christian

    The claim is not that “mormons” or individual mormons are not christian — the claim is that mormonism is not a christian *religion*.

  • JabbaPapa

    Only a very a priori reading of Psalm 81/82 could interpret it as supporting that quite clearly heretical doctrine.

    The hebrew word elohim is certainly problematic — but proper interpretation of that word requires that it must be understand as having a far broader scope of meaning than the word “god(s)” — and its meaning is even broader in scope by the way than either Latin “deus” or Greek “theos”. Nevertheless, both the Greek and Latin words can more accurately translate “elohim” than the English word “god”.

    The general translation, once more, is “divine being/entity” — usually in the Bible meaning “The Divine One” ie God ; but not always.

    Here we are in an area that Catholicism actually defines as being a Mystery — our souls are divine in nature, but precisely because of that divinity, the nature of our own Incarnation is something that’s beyond the capabilities of theological examination to precisely determine.

    Roughly, it is viewed as heretical to claim only one possible interpretation of this question as being truthful, and all other interpretations as being false ones — though the theological history of this question is lengthy, variegated, and very very detailed.

    Nevertheless, there are some logical limits to the meanings that can be supported by these particular contents of Scripture, so that there is nothing in that psalm that could, except in an *extremely* forced reading of it, support the contents of Mormon doctrines claiming that we are all of us members of some kind of race of divine supermen, and that only adherence to Mormon doctrines might qualify us to become like this in the afterlife.

  • JabbaPapa

    I wonder how long it will take the moderators to deal with your comments ?

  • JabbaPapa

    A list of personal opinions based on mormon indoctrination does not constitute a list of “facts”.

  • DCP the Lesser

    What a collective load of falsehoods! The English text of the translation came directly from the following URL.

    There is no difference between Deus and deus in Latin. Both are the same noun. Deus and deus both mean “deity,” or “god.” Capitalization is a relatively modern contrivance as an aid to distinguishing between divine names and otherwise.

    “The Divinity” in Greek is tes theiotetos and tes theotetos is Greek for “The Deity.” “Deity” or “god” is in Latin deus. “Divine” in Latin is divinus and divus. “Divinity” in Latin is divinitas.

    Where did you learn Latin? I hope you did not get that as part of your education. Seriously, if this is so and if I were you, I would go back and sue the school where you learned it and get your money back.

    Now, that said, I visited the original Latin text of the catechism at the following URL.

    As I read it I found that the English translation indeed fairly approximates the meaning of the Latin. I did, however, find one translation error in the quote from Athanasius. It turns out that the English translator softened the impact of the wording of Athanasius in the original Latin of the catechism.

    You see, the Latin dii is the Nominative Plural form of the Noun deus, meaning literally “gods” and deos is the Accusative Plural form of the same Noun, also meaning literally “gods.” So, Athanasius, as quoted in the Latin Catechism did not use “God” in the singular but rather reads “ut nos dii efficeremur,” which literally means “so that we may be made gods.”

    The quote from Thomas Aquinas also contains the plural deos, meaning literally “gods,” in the Latin Catechism.
    I understand that words have had to be redefined over time, particularly since Nicaea and Chalcedon.

    Nonetheless, the wording of the quotes in Latin does indeed say “made gods” in both places in the Latin text.

    What I do not understand is why it is that the compilers of the catechism did not use any of the much older quotes containing this same teaching, quotes which have a much stronger meaning, such as those of Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, or Hippolytus.

  • DCP the Lesser

    “In fact, he describes these words as being “excessive”.

    No, he doesn’t. He writes that they “might sound
    excessive” not that they are excessive. The Curé d’Ars is quoted approvingly by the Pope himself, and he later enjoins on all priests in the same letter the same way of thinking as the Curé did.

    Re-read the letter very carefully.

  • DCP the Lesser

    The Pope continues just a couple lines later with the following: “Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail.”

    It is indeed the doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith. It is just that many of its lay members have been unaware of it and have difficulty dealing with when confronted with it. They either have to redefine its wording or denounce it as the teaching or saying of one man in a book. Yet, now you know that it is not just one man.

  • Corn N Potatoes

    There are some theological differences however the author is a bigot. He is not academically or morally correct in statements. His subjectivity is as severe as his distaste of Americans.

  • DCP the Lesser

    The problem with the above you have written is that Psalm 81 (82) was one of the starting points for the early Fathers’ teachings regarding deification of man. And, yes, the early Church Fathers who wrote on the subject of salvation indeed did teach that there were many gods and lords in heaven and that believers who overcome would “be made gods.”

    For example, the writings of Clement of Alexandria (see especially his “Miscellanies”) are splattered all over with mentionings of all the lords and gods who sit on thrones in heaven, in the third of three abodes where the saved will dwell, watching those who are in the contest to “receive the title of gods and be enthroned together with the other gods who have first been placed there by the Savior.”

    He was widely respected in his day and was a catechetical teacher.

  • DCP the Lesser

    Ron Paul would never be more than a lame-duck president. He has to work with Congress and he too often stands alone in Congress as it is now. What makes you think he will be able to get Congress to do anything with him? You will have to replace the entire Congress with like-minded people to even give Ron Paul a chance at doing something useful with himself. With the current situation and political climate, a vote for Ron Paul effiectively is a vote for four more years of Obama.

  • DCP the Lesser

    Not all Christians define the Trinity the same way, anyway. It was a long, drawn out fight to get the belief that Catholics do anyway, requiring at least two councils to “get it right.” That, indeed, is the problem.

  • DCP the Lesser

    “Mormons think that they all become Gods if they are good Mormons that are married.”

    That is mostly true. Not everyone who are “good Mormons” will reach that high goal, however.

    “They believe Jesus was a human that became a God,”

    You have this wrong. Mormons who know their doctrines also know that Jesus was the Lord Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament and who was the creator of the heavens and earth under the direction of the Father. He was God before he emptied himself and became like us humans. You need do no more than read the Title Page of the Book of Mormon to know that. You should read that book and see for yourself.

    ” like they can become Gods too.”

    Yes, we do believe that Jesus will eventually make those who are worthy of it gods. So did the early Catholics. Here is an example:

    “It [knowledge] leads us to the endless and perfect end, teaching us beforehand the future life that we shall lead, according to God, and with gods;… Then becoming pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.”

    (Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:539)
    “Our religions are way different.”

    In some ways, yes. In many other ways, not as much as you might think, contrary to the opinions of those who know very little concerning us. In addition, we are closer to the ideas of the earliest Church Fathers than the current Catholic theology is concerning our “anthropological” doctrines.

  • DCP the Lesser

    “These papyrus have since been translated by several respected Egyptologists. Surprisingly… The translation by Egyptologists bears no resemblance to the text of the Book of Abraham as purportedly ‘translated’ by Joseph Smith. And… The papyrus has been dated to 2000 years after the possible time of Abraham.”

    The sections of the Book of Abraham were on the sections of papyrus that no longer are extant, so I am not surprised. Mathematical examination of the papyrus reveals that it was much longer than the small pieces which we now have. I ran the numbers and found that it was at least 21 feet long in its original. Books of Breathing (which is what is contained in the first parts of the scroll that now are extant) are between 3 and 7 feet in length, maximum. Just saying.

  • DCP the Lesser

    The author of the article above brought it up first. :-)

  • DCP the Lesser

    “Mormon teachings actually *deny* that Miracle.”

    Ummm, no.

  • DCP the Lesser

    “Mormonism has an Elohim of flesh & blood, & a Jesus (who was Michael) of flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit OTOH is a “personage of spirit”. This is not the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.”

    Neither the Father nor the Son in “Mormon” theology have flesh and blood. Flesh and bone, yes, but not flesh and blood. Additionally, recall your own doctrine of the Mystery of the Hypostatic Union. According to that Jesus has a resurrected body of flesh and bones–unless you refuse to believe that doctrine and also refuse to believe the Bible where it teaches that. The Mormons just take that extra step with their beliefs regarding the Father. Even the author of Hebrews implies such a thing. After all, how would the Son (who has a body) be the “exact representation of the [Father's] nature” if the Father were incorporeal and thus lacking such a body? Would they not then have differing natures with one of them being hypostatically bound to a body and the other not?

    Additionally, you are confusing Mormons with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the latter group believing that Jesus was and is Michael the archangel. Mormons do not believe this. For Mormons, Jesus was Jehovah, the God of Israel. Read the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants if you do not believe what I have written here.

  • DavidMHart

    Of course not. But belief in the existence of God is so central to all of the Abrahamic religions that if you don’t believe in God, you really should just have the courage to call yourself an athist, and not confuse things for everyone else by calling yourself a member of a religion that you don’t even believe the most basic tenet of.

  • JabbaPapa

    Thank you for this clear demonstration that you believe in neither God nor Christ — you believe in “God” and “Christ”.

    The Hypostatic Union, and its Mystery, concerns the uniting of two natures in one Person. The Mormon doctrines that you have described above directly contradict this.

    “exact representation of the [Father's] nature” — poor translation from the Greek. χαρακτήρ does not mean “exact representation” — the word basically means “imprint”, such as the imprint received from a printing press in the modern world for example. Verbum caro factum est — requires that the Nature of God is not Flesh, except in the Incarnation in the Christ.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well if you’re going to just completely ignore the Pope’s use of the word “excessive” in relation to these words, because it doesn’t gel with your LDS indoctrination, I really can’t see the point in continuing to try and show you how your indoctrinated preducices are blinding you to what’s written down here or there and what it actually does and doesn’t mean…

  • JabbaPapa

    deus is an adjective, that was so frequently nominalised that in mediaeval Latin it eventually lost its adjectival function entirely. In Old Latin there was actually no meaningful grammatical difference between adjectives and nouns, and many old words retained this ambiguity even until the Late Latin period, and it is even a feature of some vocabulary in even the Romance Languages.

    Even today, modern dictionaries of Modern Languages claim that adjectives and nouns using identical spelling are separate words — this is purely conventional. More deeply, they are the same word, used either as noun or adjective.

    Examples in English (this is an uncommon phenomenon in the English language) – cotton shirt ; table tennis ; christian

    Capitalisation is a form of punctuation in modern scripture — but your historical description is inaccurate — in fact the innovation was the invention of lower-case letters, not the other way round.

    Aquinas takes his quote from the Vulgate, written in a form of Late Latin which has several strong influences from Vulgate Latin. As such, the grammar and vocabulary in his quote should not be analysed according to the rules of either Medieval nor Classical Latin.

    The same noun/adjective confusion also existed for many old Greek words. It is in fact a common feature of old Indo-European words in many languages — deus and theos are in fact exactly the same word ; the root meaning is “divine”.

    Nominalised, the word meaning “divine” in either language is translated as “god/God”

    More specifically, here’s the context that your usual LDS superficial methodology  is ignoring :

    (which is the text of a Latin Mass, likely written by Aquinas originally, but having undergone several revisions)

    V/. Panem caeli dedit eis, alleluia.
    R/. Panem Angelorum manducavit homo, alleluia.
    [91533] Officium Sacerdos, noct. 1 l. 1 Lectio prima:
    Immensa divinae largitatis beneficia exhibita populo Christiano
    inaestimabilem ei conferunt dignitatem. Neque enim est aut fuit
    aliquando tam grandis natio quae habeat deos appropinquantes sibi sicut
    adest nobis Deus noster. Unigenitus siquidem Dei filius, suae
    divinitatis volens nos esse participes, nostram naturam assumpsit ut
    homines deos faceret factus homo. Et hoc insuper quod de nostro
    assumpsit, totum nobis contulit ad salutem. Corpus namque suum pro
    nostra reconciliatione in ara crucis hostiam obtulit Deo patri,
    sanguinem suum fudit in pretium simul et lavacrum, ut redempti a
    miserabili servitute a peccatis omnibus mundaremur.Et ut tanti beneficii
    iugis in nobis maneret memoria, corpus suum in cibum et sanguinem suum
    in potum sub specie panis et vini sumendum fidelibus dereliquit. O
    pretiosum et admirandum convivium salutiferum et omni suavitate
    repletum. Quid enim hoc convivio pretiosius esse potest, quo non carnes
    vitulorum et hircorum ut olim in lege, sed nobis Christus sumendus
    proponitur Deus verus? Quid hoc sacramento mirabilius? In ipso namque
    panis et vinum in corpus Christi et sanguinem substantialiter
    convertuntur, ideoque Christus Deus et homo perfectus sub modici panis
    specie continetur.

    As you can see — the context here is that of a meditation on the meaning of the Eucharist, specifically : transubstantiation.

    Meaning, as the bread becomes the Flesh of the Son, the wine the Blood of the Son – so then, we who partake of the Flesh and the Blood will partake of these divine Essences.

    This is also deeply a meditation on the nature off Incarnation itself — and only has meaning as relative to the two **different*** natures of teh Spirit and the Flesh.

    That is to say, we are Spirit and Flesh united as people, and this is a celebration of that Mystery.

  • JabbaPapa

    Simply ignoring on multiple occasions that the Ancient/Koine Greek word “theos” is different in several ways to the modern English word “god” is not a convincing argument.

  • JabbaPapa

    The above quote from Clement of Alexandria is quite obviously inspired by the heresy of gnosticism. As Mormonism is too, by the way. Qui se ressemble s’assemble …

    There are very strong doubts about the orthodoxy of his writings, and besides — unlike your biased characterisation, early Christianity simply was NOT defined by people at the outer fringe of it, such as Clement of Alexandria for example.

  • JabbaPapa

    The reason this has garnered no response is because it is so undeserving of getting one.

    Just FYI

  • JabbaPapa

    That’s a rather disgusting comment, isn’t it ?

  • Joshua M. Skains

    Nothing to do with Christianity? That’s just intellectually dumb.

  • Joshua M. Skains

    Or that folks like you have little intellectual capacity to actually have a response other than cheap quips like that. :)

  • Joshua M. Skains

    Technically ZERO archaeological evidence has been found for a great exodus, a key event in Christianity. Zero. None. Not a shred of evidence of an Exodus of any kind according to Egyptian archaeology nor any evidence of 40 years of a massive group wondering in the desert. Sometimes people have faith that humans simply haven’t found the evidence.

  • DCP the Lesser

    Saying that something *is* excessive is quite different from saying that something *might sound* excessive.

    Do they have Sylvan Learning Centers in England? If so, you might want to visit one for a consultation.

    The Pope did not say that the teaching was excessive and the end of the letter clearly enjoins this line of thinking on other priests. There is no blindness on my part but clearly there is on your part. Your gut tells you that this is blasphemous in nature and acknowledging that the Pope supports such teaching is something that you do not dare admit. That’s alright, though. Dig deeper. If you do you will see far more than I have mentioned here.

  • DCP the Lesser

    [Cluelessness] never was happiness. Go learn Egyptian. Then, comment intelligently.

  • DCP the Lesser

    The word theos is equivalent in meaning with the English “God”–unless grammar of the sentence shows otherwise. Otherwise it is a noun, pure and simple.

    If the predicate, it then can take the function of a quasi adjective by addressing the quality or nature of deity.

    I suggest that you learn Greek before spouting off the nonsense that you do.

  • DCP the Lesser

    “Thank you for this clear demonstration that you believe in neither God nor Christ — you believe in “God” and “Christ”.”

    Your misunderstanding notwithstanding, if this is so I am in good company with Luke and Peter, who recorded Peter stating that Jesus was “the Christ of God.”

    “The Hypostatic Union, and its Mystery, concerns the uniting of two natures in one Person. The Mormon doctrines that you have described above directly contradict this.”

    Not at all. Mormonism simply extends that to the Father as well as the Son.

    “exact representation of the [Father's] nature” — poor translation from the Greek. χαρακτήρ does not mean “exact representation” — the word basically means “imprint”, such as the imprint received from a printing press in the modern world for example. Verbum caro factum est — requires that the Nature of God is not Flesh, except in the Incarnation in the Christ.”

    Engage in root fallacy much? “Exact representation” is an acceptable translation of the Greek in its context. “Exact copy” is another acceptable translation of the word in its context..

  • DCP the Lesser

    “The Holy See has declared that Mormon baptisms are invalid…”

    Only recently. Originally they accepted “Mormon” baptisms. I wonder: How many people are in a world of hurt in the eternal world who died unbaptized because their Mormon baptisms were accepted when they converted to Catholicism?

  • DCP the Lesser

    “deus is an adjective”

    False. This was only true when Latin broke off from the Indo-European tree. It did not then mean “divine” but rather referred to “shining” in the original, being a reference to the shining ‘beings’ in the sky, or the stars. However, this meaning ceased to be used after Old Latin. The Ecclesiastical Latin of Aquinas carried no meaning which you describe. We have to go to the usage of the day to determine the meaning of Aquinas. The passage refers to men becoming gods–pure and simple. You must make it an adjective to remove the plain meaning.

    By the way, have you got scholarly documentation to support your false, ad hoc hypothesis?

  • DCP the Lesser

    No, they have only a very small part of the papyri. The rest is missing. The so-called “Egyptian Alphabet,” known officially as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, contain mostly only the very first characters on the original papyrus. The original was somewhere between 21 and 46 feet in length. No Book of Breathing in history was ever that long, none being much over 7 feet in length.

    But, certain copies of the Book of Breathing do have attached to them additional texts of varying kinds. A very small amount of evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham was attached to a copy of the Book of Breathing.

    I will agree, however, that Joseph Smith had a complete lack of understanding about Egyptian. In point of fact, just about everybody in his time was in the same boat. That much is evident.

    That is why it is so interesting that the Book of Mormon has a number of genuine Egyptian names and elements of Egyptian that show through the English text. He was clueless about Egyptian and there were no Egyptian lexicons available to him, and yet his Book of Mormon contains genuine Egyptian names, phonemes in compound names, and elements that show through in the translation. Figure that one out if you have to rely on naturalistic explanations for the coming forth of the book.

  • DCP the Lesser

    William F. Albright had a few interesting things to say about the Book of Mormon. Verification is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

  • Dave Sadler

     I’m always amazed at the intricate web of lies the otherwise intelligent but utterly brainwashed will happily regurgitate to defend this nonsense.  Whereas to the 6 Billion UN-brainwashed in the World, the image I’ve posted above is all they need to see to know the man was an absolute fraud.

    As for the Book of Mormon.  It is a work of fiction, and not a very good one at that.  Referred to as Chloroform in print by Mark Twain, it is guaranteed to put the most avid fan to sleep in minutes.

    This masterpiece contains over 700 direct plagiarisms from the KJV Bible, translation errors and 16th century scribe notes included.  It is completely unsupported by any archaeological evidence and completely refuted by DNA and other scientific evidence.  Again the 6 Billion of us not brainwashed see this very clearly.

    I look forward to another FAIR or FARMS regurgitation below. LOL

  • Phillip

    Another Mormon trying to use the orthodox doctrine of theosis to argue for the legitimancy of the LDS doctrine of exaltation and the plurality fof gods. You cannot understand that passage from the Catechism or the quotes from the Church Fathers without understanding the fundamental distinction between Creator and creatures that they all subscribed to (I can provide lots of quotes from the Fathers if you need convincing on that point). God alone is without beginning and uncreated. The universe and everything in it, including our spirits, had a beginning. If you don’t get that basic point you are going to be misinterpreting everything you read. If we become partakers of the divine nature and ‘gods’ in the next life, we will always remain dependant on God’s grace. We will not be gods by nature but by grace. There is only one God who is God in and of himself. We are not literal children of God or of the same essence as God.

  • Phillip

     “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”

    That is a quote from St. Irenaeus. You really think the Catholic Church is afraid of using the early Church Fathers? People convert to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) after reading the early Fathers, not Mormonism.They were all catholic Christians. 

    Irenaeus also taught that there is one uncreated immaterial God and that we are 100% created beings. He explicitly taught creation from nothing – no eternal matter.

    From Irenaeus’ Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:

    “For it is necessary that, things that are
    made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the
    beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him
    all things were made. And therefore it is right first of all to believe that
    there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what
    was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained.
    Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator
    of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no
    other God.”

    “This then is the order of the rule of our
    faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our
    conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the
    creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.”

    From Against Heresies:

    “It is proper, then, that I should begin
    with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the
    heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men
    blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is
    nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of
    His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord,
    the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding
    all things into existence.”

    “For, to attribute the substance of created
    things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit
    and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said
    regarding such a belief, that “the things which are impossible with men
    are possible with God.” While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of
    nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point
    preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance
    of His creation, when previously it had no existence”

  • Phillip

    of Alexandria was a catholic Christian. He also believed in creation from
    nothing by the one immaterial uncreated God. He taught that we were not literal
    spirit children of God, but creatures who by God’s grace can become adopted
    children (Stromata):

    “But God has no natural relation to us, as the authors
    of the heresies will have it; neither on the supposition of His having made us
    of nothing, nor on that of having formed us from matter; since the former did
    not exist at all, and the latter is totally distinct from God unless we shall
    dare to say that we are a part of Him, and of the same essence as God. And I
    know not how one, who knows God, can bear to hear this when he looks to our
    life, and sees in what evils we are involved. … But God being by nature rich in
    pity, in consequence of His own goodness, cares for us, though neither portions
    of Himself, nor by nature His children. And this is the greatest proof of the
    goodness of God: that such being our relation to Him, and being by nature
    wholly estranged, H nevertheless cares for us. For the affection in animals to
    their progeny is natural, and the friendship of kindred minds is the result of
    intimacy. But the mercy of God is rich toward us, who are in no respect related
    to Him; I say either in our essence or nature, or in the peculiar energy of our
    essence, but only in our being the work of His will. And him who willingly,
    with discipline and teaching, accept the knowledge of the truth, He calls to adoption,
    which is the greatest advancement of all.”

    “If, then, abstracting all that belongs to
    bodies and things called

    incorporeal, we cast ourselves into the
    greatness of Christ, and thence

    advance into immensity by holiness, we may
    reach somehow to the

    conception of the Almighty, knowing not
    what He is, but what He is not.

    And form and motion, or standing, or a
    throne, or place, or right hand or

    left, are not at all to be conceived as
    belonging to the Father of the

    universe, although it is so written. But
    what each of these means will be

    shown in its proper place. The First Cause
    is not then in space, but above

    both space, and time, and name, and

    “But were God possessed of a human form,
    He would need, equally with

    man, food, and shelter, and house, and the
    attendant incidents. Those

    who are like in form and affections will
    require similar sustenance … As,

    then, God is not circumscribed by place,
    neither is ever represented by

    the form of a living creature; so neither
    has He similar passions, nor has

    He wants like the creatures”


    “Those, then, that adhere to impious
    words, and dictate them to others,

    inasmuch as they do not make a right but a
    perverse use of the divine

    words, neither themselves enter into the
    kingdom of heaven, nor permit

    those whom they have deluded to attain the
    truth. But not having the key

    of entrance, but a false (and as the
    common phrase expresses it), a

    counterfeit key, by which they do not
    enter in as we enter in, through the

    tradition of the Lord, by drawing aside
    the curtain; but bursting through

    the side-door, and digging clandestinely
    through the wall of the Church,

    and stepping over the truth, they
    constitute themselves the mystagogues

    of the soul of the impious. For that the
    human assemblies which they

    held were posterior to the Catholic Church
    requires not many words to

    show. … Therefore in substance and idea,
    in origin, in pre-eminence, we

    say that the ancient and Catholic Church
    is alone, collecting as it does

    into the unity of the one faith”

  • Phillip

    You need to do some reading on the formation of the dogma of the Trinity. The core belief that Christ is both man and God, but distinct from the Father, has roots not in the 4th century but going back to the second century and the New Testament period. It was not pulled out of thin air in the 4th century councils.

  • Phillip

    The dogma of the Trinity does not state that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person. They are distinct persons who have relationships with each other. That is why we can say that God is love. Relationship is a fundamental aspect of God. The dogma of the Trinity states that they are one in substance/essence which is a way of saying that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are also fully divine – they are not creatures but are co-eternal with the Father. The are also God because they are of the one Father. God from God as the creed states. The bishops in council had the authority from God to define belief for the Church. They were (and are) the successors to the apostles in the government of the Church. Their authority comes from the original apostles passed down through the centuries by the laying on of hands. The Holy Spirit never deserted Christ’s Church as Mormons believe.

    Orthodox Christians are old-school in their fidelity to the one uncreated transcendent God and the full divinity of Jesus Christ. And of course we believe that Christ was also faithful to us and never abandoned his Church and Bride. The Mormon Jesus is apparently a bit more untrustworthy. He apparently forget his own advice to build on a rock. Who knows, maybe he has also deserted the current mainstream LDS church as the Mormon Fundamentalists in southern Utah claim. With the Mormon version of Jesus you can never be sure. Can’t trust his promises to be with us until the end or to not leave us orphans

  • DCP the Lesser

    “I’m always amazed at the intricate web of lies the otherwise intelligent but utterly brainwashed will happily regurgitate to defend this nonsense.  Whereas to the 6 Billion UN-brainwashed in the World, the image I’ve posted above is all they need to see to know the man was an absolute fraud.”
    Unfortunately for you, genuine, non-Mormon scholarship is beginning to recognize that there originally were two hands on the original papyrus rather than one. “Your” reconstruction–for that is what it is–depends upon there being only one hand raised. Since there were two hands, and an increasing number of scholars now are realizing that upon closer examination of the payrus now extant, your reconstruction goes out the window.
    The newest reconstruction still sees the facsimile as exclusively funerary but at least the claim long made by Mormons–that two hands are raised on the original–is now being show to be correct.
    You need to get up-to-date, Mr. Sadler.
    “As for the Book of Mormon.  It is a work of fiction, and not a very good one at that.  Referred to as Chloroform in print by Mark Twain, it is guaranteed to put the most avid fan to sleep in minutes.”
    Your opinion. Research conducted by the LDS Church shows that most people who don’t finish reading the Book of Mormon got stopped at the Isaiah passages. Those who skip the Isaiah quotations manage to finish the Book of Mormon with little difficulty. By the way, have you seen what Mark Twain said about the Bible? Mark Twain is probably not the best of sources to use to attack the Book of Mormon.
    “This masterpiece contains over 700 direct plagiarisms from the KJV Bible, translation errors and 16th century scribe notes included.  It is completely unsupported by any archaeological evidence and completely refuted by DNA and other scientific evidence.  Again the 6 Billion of us not brainwashed see this very clearly.”
    Have you ever read the Ante-Nicene Fathers in English? I dare you to count how many of the passages are nearly exact quotations from the KJV of the Bible.
    As to archaeology, the approaches to Book of Mormon archaology differs from those of the Bible. The Bible had it easy. Several cultures preserved the memory of many of the locations of the Bible so biblical archaeologists had a reference point to start with. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon. We do not know the exact location to look for artifacts so finding anything in America is quite difficult.
    As to the Old World, that picture is changing. We have narrowed down two locations for the first 17 chapters of the Book of Mormon on the Arabian Peninsula, Wadi Tayyib al-’Ism and Wadi Sayq. The presence of iron ore has been confirmed in the region of Wadi Sayq, supporting the Book of Mormon claim that Nephi went to get ore from his location to make tools for the Book of Mormon.
    The existence of Book of Mormon Nahom also has been substantiated by the finding of two altars which name the inhabitants of such a place.
    I also am aware of an interesting piece of evidence that was found not too many years ago in America. Remnants of smelted copper and iron were found in Mexico, dating to 300 BCE.
    As to DNA refuting the Book of Mormon, nothing could be further from the truth. You can regurgitate that claim all you want but it won’t make your claim true. You see, a small population of people intruding into a much larger population will leave little to no trace in the DNA. A recent study in Iceland demonstrates this little, unwelcome fact. In addition, this DNA argument you regurgitate was founded by a Plant Geneticist. Human genetics does not work the same as with plants. FYI.
    “I look forward to another FAIR or FARMS regurgitation below. LOL”
    Sorry, but you won’t get that from me. Everything I have mentioned before your response came from my own research on the subjects at hand.
    By the way, you mention regurgitations. That is exactly what “your” reconstruction (it is not even your reconstruction but one which you have regurgitated) is–regurgitation of critical claims that the most recent scholarship (you obviously are not aware of it) has shot down in flames. That is also what your DNA claim is–more regurgitation.

  • DCP the Lesser

    This doctrine of deification and multiplicity of beings called gods is too far widespread by the mid-second century to have been inspired by Gnosticism. In point of fact, every Father who wrote in-depth on the subject of salvation stated that men are deified and are made gods by the grace of Christ.

    Irenaeus, one of the most staunch anti-Gnostics in history, also taught the same teachings (although in more forceful language) as Clement of Alexandria on men becoming gods, and also mentions in a quotation of “the Elders” that there were three abodes for the future dwelling of those who would be saved.

    Justin the Martyr also taught that men are deified, but only the righteous. I once had to laugh at one Catholic translation of Justin’s writings that translate “deified” as “shall have bliss.” It was comical and sad all at once.

    As to Clement’s orthodoxy, he was widely respected by the Catholic community. So far as I am aware he was never condemned as was his student, Origen.

    Oh, and by the way, please provide your references for those who have doubts about the “Orthodoxy” of Clement. Please make sure that they are ancient sources, though. We would not want to show bias in the minds of those who came 10-20 centuries later than Clement of Alexandria.