It is a common LDS belief that Christianity fell into apostasy because of the corruption of Greek philosophy. By the fourth century, Christian theologians had rearticulated the beliefs and understandings of Christian orthodoxy using the substance and techniques of philosophy, with most of the resource being that of a popular version of Platonism. The statements of belief and the defenders of those statements make that unmistakable. However, it has become clear that the assimilation of Hellenistic philosophical tradition into Christianity was the consequence—not the cause—of the apostasy as we understand it.

Prior to the arrival of Clement of Alexandria and during the first 150 years of Christianity, references to contemporary philosophies by Christians were clearly limited to dealings with outsiders. But guess who was coming to dinner and staying? Following a tradition going back to Paul (Acts 17:18-31), missionaries would allude to beliefs of philosophers contemporary to their time as a means of introducing their own message. This was an attractive strategy where the philosophically literate community shared with the Christians sincerity about living a excellent life defined by a rejection of the vulgar excesses of pagan worship and the folly of pagan mythology. Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr, found the philosophical beliefs of the Roman elites most useful on which to articulate their own Christianity.

But Clement took a much bigger step near the end of the second century when he consciously adopted the rational methods of philosophy as the tools of Christians in pursuit of the truth. While this philosophical strategy was never uncontroversial, it spread rapidly throughout the Christian community and was both officially and firmly established by the fourth-century councils that produced the Christian creeds.

The interesting discovery for Latter-day Saints comes when they realize that traditional Christians—Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern—regard this adoption of Hellenist philosophy as the salvation of the incomplete and struggling Christian community.

Clement was consciously following the example of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who had written volumes in the decades just before Christ's ministry in which he systematically allegorized the Old Testament bringing it into accord with a contemporary form of Platonism.

We must remember the world was a much larger place at this time where most Christians depended upon oral tradition to exchange newer truths. By the last two decades of the second century, not only had all the authorized apostles and prophets “disappeared”, but the first generation of Christians who had the benefit of knowing and hearing them were also gone. Lacking faithful witnesses, those authoritative voices who clarified scriptural uncertaintiesleft a void. Christians became ever more lost to the philosophies of men for divine direction for their new life challenges.

If the philosophical pontifications found at blogstream seem distant from simple common sense biblical truths, know by what tradition they come.

The party continues at the Theology for Dummies. This time they pound the medieval drum for Original Sin. A misinterpretation of the original sin of Adam has created endless anguish for parents who have lost little children for not having been sprinkled in so-called baptism taught in sectarian churches on this subject. The doctrine of original sin was the inspired call from the Council of Carthage of the Catholic Church (418 A.D.), again at the Council of Orange in 529 and at the Council of Trent in 1546. So determined was orthodoxy in its leadership.

Although Catholic in origin (as most orthodox doctrines), many a Protestant church continue to hold to it. It remains one of the more visible doctrines that so divides orthodox Christianity that the differences have become largely ignored. Thus, Protestant Church baptism is not regarded as essential for salvation.

Methodists and Presbyterians say that baptism is not necessary but nevertheless perform baptism by all methods upon request.

The clearest definition of "original sin" in the context of sectarian churches of course comes from the Roman Catholics. The book Catholic Belief, published in Great Britain in 1957, says of original sin: "The Church teaches . . . that all men, naturally descended from Adam (Our Lady alone excepted) [it is the belief of that church that Mary the mother of Christ was exempt from original sin], have contracted the guilt of original sin; in other words, that they come into this world deprived of the sanctity and justice which God intended them to have. . . . Original sin is a state of sin which we inherit." (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, Ltd., 1957, p. 7.)

The Question Box, published by the Roman church to answer questions raised by Protestants, says of original sin: "It was a grievous sin, because Adam could easily have avoided it, as there was in him neither ignorance nor concupiscence [a strong or ardent desire], and he certainly knew, as head of the race, what terrible consequences would follow for all mankind." (P. 219.)

Baptism is erroneously stated to be the means of escape from the stain of original sin.

It is dreadful how seriously sectarian people misinterpret the fall of Adam. The Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear that the fall was part of the divine plan and a necessity. In its absence, there would have been no human race. Adam and Eve were physically unable to have children in their paradisiacal condition. Compounding the error is the supposition that baptism was provided to eliminate the disability of original sin.

The scriptures are very clear in affirming that if Adam and Eve were to partake of the forbidden fruit, death would result. Therefore, death was the penalty for the original sin, and baptism does not overcome death. The Savior's resurrection did that.

". . . in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," says the King James Bible (Gen. 2:17), in explaining the sin of Adam and Eve.

The Torah: "Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat, but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it, for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die."

The Jerusalem Bible: "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat it you shall most surely die."

The Complete Bible, by Smith and Goodspeed, reads: "From every tree in the garden you are free to eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat; for the day that you eat of it, you shall certainly die."

The Living Bible, Billy Graham Crusade Edition, states: "You may eat any fruit in the garden except from the Tree of Conscience—for its fruit will open your eyes to make you aware of right and wrong, good and bad. If you eat its fruit, you will be doomed to die."

Other new translations could be listed, but all agree: death was the penalty for eating from that tree.

The book of Moses, which was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith and therefore was not subject to any mistakes in translation, reads:

"And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Moses 3:16-17.)

An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed reads:

"Now the serpent was the most clever of all the wild beasts that the Lord God had made.

"`And so God has said that you are not to eat from any tree of the garden?' he said to the woman.

"`From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat,' the woman said to the serpent; `it is only concerning the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden that God has said, "You may not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you die."'

"But the serpent said to the woman,

"`You would not die at all; for God knows that the very day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods who know good from evil.'"

And Billy Graham's Bible says:

"The serpent was the craftiest of all the creatures the Lord God had made. So the serpent came to the woman. `Really?' he asked. `None of the fruit in the garden? God says you mustn't eat any of it?'

"`Of course we may eat it,' the woman told him. `It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not to eat. God says we mustn't eat it or even touch it, or we will die.'

"`That's a lie!' the serpent hissed. `You'll not die! God knows very well that the instant you eat it you will become like him, for your eyes will be opened — you will be able to distinguish good from evil.'"

Other modern translations equally match. All say that death was the result of the fall.

With the facts before us, as contained in the various versions of the scriptures, and particularly in the revelation known as the book of Moses in our Pearl of Great Price, can anyone fail to see that it is death which resulted from the fall?

And what removes death? Baptism? Not.

It was Christ's atonement and resurrection that overcame death. Baptism had absolutely nothing to do with it. All people, baptized or not, Christian or not, Jewish or not, gentile or not, will be resurrected through the power of Christ.

Paul expressed it: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22.) Paul also discoursed on the relationship of Adam to Christ, and of the fall to the redemption, and said: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen;And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.Then they also which are falleth asleep in Christ are perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:12-22.)

It is obvious, then, how widely the churches of the world have strayed from the truth with regard to Adam, the fall, Christ and the resurrection, and the true doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins.

Our second Article of Faith is directed to this point: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

Immaterialism overcame the Corporeal Trinity after a three hundred year struggle,

In all LDS discussion (as well as in early Judaic and Christian sources), spirits are not understood to be immaterial but rather to be composed of refined matter. They are nevertheless, bodies (see Ether 3:16). Accordingly, The term corporeal means having a body of any kind, including those comprised of spirit matter as well as flesh and bone.

The book of Ether tells of the appearance of the Lord in his spirit body to the brother of Jared long before the Incarnation (Ether 3:6-18) and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood. (Ether 3:6)

Biblical also are the words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses on the mountain top, And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses: therefore Moses could endure his presence. (Ex. 33:11). For instance, Acts 7:56 tells of Stephen seeing God and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Even more explicit are the many references to God’s body parts, such as "I [Jacob] have seen God face to face" (Gen. 32:30) "they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet" (Ex. 24:10) on and on. Though the basis of scriptures such as these, early Christians simply took it for granted that God has a body similar to man’s. This does not mean they though Him to be an exact representation of man. Unlike man, for example, God is holy, as Hosea 11:9 states: "For I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee."

Know this, in all of rabbinic literature [covering both the tannaitic (70-200 a.d.) and amoraic (220-500 a.d.) periods] there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form. The question wasn’t, "Does God have a body?" the question was, "What kind of body does God have?" 107

Immaterialism was introduced into Christian theology at least as early as the mid-to-late second century, with Clement of Alexandria (about a.d. 150-213) being perhaps the first to unequivocally refer to God as immaterial. Immaterialists eventually achieved victory in changing God, but only after a 300 year struggle with Christians who held persistently to the primitive doctrine of divine embodiment.

The metaphysical trinity argument for the non-corporal (bodiless) nature of God of Blogstream found within the “Theology for Dummies” can be identified as such:

• The metaphysical Trinity is the most excellent object of religious worship.


• The most excellent object of religious worship cannot be limited in any way (though Thomisguy argues for limits of his choosing).


• If God were corporeal, he would be limited in all that he could not be, (the same time everywhere problem).


• Therefore, God cannot be corporeal. (1) (2) (3)

As a first objection to premise 2, if it is understood plainly, Thomisticguy himself cannot for every case affirm it. For if his nonphysical quasi-pantheistic God were absolutely unlimited, he would have to be the whole of reality and thereby not the Creator- God. The Creator- God of theist theology must be distinct from his creations and must allow his created some measure of independence from himself. This is where the self described theologian of the dummys misfires again. Thomisguy affirms in every way that his God manipulates His creation to the ends He wishes (see his topic “ God can Make You Do What He Wants You to Do” ) with no essential independence. But the adoring groupies still tumble over each other in following the megachurchman. Thus, if God were not limited in any way, God could not have power over any positive or negative determinate attributes. For example, if God were immutable he would be limited in that he could not be mutable and, most certainly, if he were unlimited atemporally he would be limited in that he could not be temporal. Indeed, an absolutely unlimited being may well require "a deific absence of anything definite." But Thomisguy employs his deity-formula to generate an extensive system of divine attributes. The necessity of the Metaphysical deity is the mother of invention.