The Apostasy from the True Concept of God

The time period immediately after the apostles was not a time of religious oratory and debate. That came in a later period. This was a time of humble missionary work and persecution. However the apostasy from the truths of original Christianity had already started during this period. This apostasy is already attested to in the biblical record BEFORE the departure of the apostles. (Acts 20:29; Gal 1:6; 1Tim 1:6; 2 Tim 1:15, 2:18; Rev 2:2) I find it particularly interesting that even some of the leaders of the church had rejected the apostles. John tells us that "Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. . . prating against us with malicious words. . . neither doth he himself receive the brethren and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (3 John 9-10)

The Apostles had no difficulty understanding the nature of God. They had personally interacted with Jesus and he had appeared to them after his resurrection. They knew he had a body before he died and they knew that he had a body after his resurrection. Nowhere does the scriptures suggest that he would ever discard his body. On the contrary, when Christ returns the scriptures say that he will be questioned, "What are these wounds in thine hands?" (Zach. 13:6) Therefore we know that he will still have his body. The doctrine that Jesus and his father were "one" caused some of the confusion. But Christ prayed in that garden that we all should be one, "neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:20-21) Therefor in whatever way Jesus and his Father are one, we are also to become one. He is not praying that we all lose our identity and become of one substance.

So where did this confusion about the nature of God arise? Greek philosopy was well established at the time of Christ and it conflicted with some of the doctrines taught by Jesus Christ. "Such was the prestige of the Greek thinkers that their main conclusions were not questioned. Could the Christian teachings be accepted unless they harmonized with the philosophical conclusions? It seemed imperative to reconcile the Christian beliefs with the teachings of the philosophers, at least with such of them as had long been unquestioned and seemed self-evident to the world of that day." (Barker, James L., The Divine Church, Vol 2, p. 24)
"Ancient philosophy could not comprehend the creation of the world by God. God's supreme perfection prevented his entering into direct relation with the world; nature is too weak to sustain the immediate action of the divinity. God could not create or act upon his creature except through an intermediary. . . . This intermediary is the Word or Logos, necessarily unequal to the supreme God." (Mourret-Thompson, History of the Catholic Church. vol. 2, p. 13)

"The ideas of beauty, justice, goodness, etc., which for us are abstractions, are for Plato realities. In other words, the good, the beautiful, the just, are abstract ideas, which do not exist apart from the object. But for Plato these abstract ideas are the realities. The objects with which they are associated are perishable, therefore the only reality is the 'idea' or 'form' back of the object.
For Plato, the Supreme Being is absolute goodness and, since matter, for him, is evil and a hindrance to the perfect expression of the 'idea,' God is immaterial" (Barker, James L., The Divine Church, Vol 2, p. 25)

And for Aristotle, "the Supreme Being is immaterial, it can have no impressions, no sensations, nor appetites, nor a will in the sense of desire, nor feelings in the sense of passions: all these things depend on matter." (Weber, History of Philosophy, p. 116) "Very little of 'orthodox' Christian doctrine of today can be traced farther back than the middle of the third century. It was 'developed and made more precise' (Lortz-Kaiser, History of the Church, p. 93) by the Greek method of philosophical reasoning and took form in the councils and the writings of the theologians of the forth and fifth centuries." (Barker, James L., The Divine Church, Vol 2, p. 30)

With the conflict between the Greek philosophers who contended for one immaterial God and the Christians who spoke of God the Father and Jesus as being divine, the following questions were being asked: How can Jesus be divine if there is only one God? Is there one God or two Gods? What is the relationship of Jesus to God? If God created everything, did he create Jesus? If Jesus is the son of the Father, how can he be co-eternal with him? If Jesus is divine is he equal to the Father? Among the answers that were given at that time were the following: The Father and Son were only manifestations of one God. Jesus only appeared to be human. The Father was God and Jesus was also divine and numerically distinct. Jesus was not really the Son of God, but his Son by adoption. "The Church from the time of the apostles considered three "Persons" divine. Towards the end of the second century, Theophilus includes them in a new name, Trinity of Triad. About 200, the Father and the Son are called God, and the Montanists apply the term also to the Holy Ghost." (Barker, James L., The Divine Church, Vol 2, p.34)

Originally the term "trinity" did not imply a single God but it was meant to imply the 3 distinct persons of the Godhead.

Around 320 AD Arius begin to have a strong following for his concept of the Trinity. "For Arius, the second Person of the Trinity did not exist from all eternity, the Son of God was merely the first born of created men." (Mourret-Thompson, History of the Catholic Church, vol 2. p. 11)

This caused a split within the church. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius were opposed to these views of Arius. "The situation became grave. On one principal point the high clergy of Alexandria were divided; some with Alexander taught the absolute divinity of Christ; others with Arius, recognized only a relative and secondary divinity." (Duchesne, Ancient History of the Church, p. 131)

The pagan public even became interested in the conflict and "The quarrels of Arius and of Alexander echoed even in the theatres." (Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, vol. 2, p. 138)

Toward 312 AD, when bishop Alexander of Alexandria hear Arius teach that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father, and subordinate to the Father, he forbade him to preach the doctrine. But Arius ignored the bishop. "To put an end to the discussion, Alexander convoked about a hundred bishops from Egypt and Lybia to council in Alexandria, 321. The council condemned the teachings of Arius as heretical, and excommunicated him and his followers. He was obliged to give up his church." (James L. Barker, The Divine Church, vol. 2, p. 38)

At this time Arius left Alexandria for Palestine. He was well received by Eusebius of Caesaria who agreed with his ideas. Eusebius of Nicomedia, the other Eusebius, also agreed with Arius and sought to influence others by writing many letters. Alexander became alarmed at this and also sent letters to various bishops. "My intention was to say nothing about it, . . . But as Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, believes himself entrusted with all ecclesiastical matters since having abandoned Beryta he had coveted and occupied the church of Nicomedia without anyone daring to protest; as this Eusebius has made himself the patron of apostates and has undertaken to write letters in his (Arius') support and to attract to the heresy, which attacks Christ, men only slightly acquainted with the question, it appeared urgent for me, who am not ignorant of that which is written in the Law, to keep silence no longer, and to warn all of you, in order that you may be acquainted with both those who have become apostates and with their pernicious expressions of heresy, in order that, if Eusebius writes to you, you may pay no attention to him." (Migne, P. G. t. XVIII, c. 572, cited by Jacquin, Histoire de l'Eglise, vol 1, p. 310) Arius returned to Egypt and the quarrel continued. He composed a work of prose and verse, "The Banquet" in his defense, but only fragments remain.

It is interesting to note here how they tried to resolve the conflict. Apparently there was not a recognized central authority to which the problem could be referred. In the New Testament when a problem arose about observance of the Mosaic Law, it was decided that Paul and Barnabus and some others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders. And there they reached a decision which "seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us"(Acts 15:1-29)

Such was the condition of the church when Constantine, by his victory over Licinius (324), became master of the Empire, of the Orient as well as of the West. He sought for a method to unify the Empire. "It appeared to him that unity of religion was necessary in order to assure political unity, and that only Christianity was (sufficiently) strong for that because it was the religion of the future." (Boulenger de la Fuente, Historia de la Iglesia, p. 127)

Constantine sent his religious advisor, Hosius, bishop of Cordova, with a letter to Alexander and Arius for them to put aside their dispute. When this effort failed he decided to call a general (ecumenical) council of the church. By the way "ecumenical" is precisely equivalent to imperial; for the technical meaning of e oikoumene (literally, "the inhabited world") was the Roman Empire, as in Luke 2:1 (Smith, Student's Ecclesiastical History, vol 1. p. 254 note).

Considering the Catholic church's claim that the authority for the leadership of the church went from Peter to the Bishop of Rome, the following quote is interesting.

"Most Catholic writers, looking back upon this event (the Council of Nicea), have felt positive that no such assembly could have taken place without the instigation or cooperation of Sylvester (bishop of Rome). Yet all such contemporary evidence as we have concurs in making Constantine alone the author and promoter of the huge enterprise, even as he had been of the Council of Arles. Eusebius gives him the sole credit, as do the letters issued by the Council itself, and he himself, both then and afterwards, spoke of it as the council which he had summoned." (Shotwell and Loomis, The See of Peter, p. 470)

So here we have Constantine who is not a Christian organizing councils and as we shall see, deciding the outcome.

"The opinions (of the members of the Council) followed three directions: The Egyptians and the Occidentals defended the orthodox doctrine (Athanasian) -- Athanasius was the spokesman for Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; the majority of the Orientals (the moderate group) held for the divinity of Christ, but hesitated to recognize his perfect equality with the Father; about twenty adherents of Arius declared the Verb (Jesus) a simple creature." (Albers-Hedde, Manuel d'Histoire Ecclesitique, vol. 1, p. 153)

For Arius the Father and Son were distinct personages and the Son was subordinate to the Father. The Arians used the following scriptures:

"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old" (Prov. 8:22) "but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) "for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:38) "and this is life eternal, that they may know thee, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) "The Son can do nothing of himself." (John 3:19) "Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18)
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name." (Philippians 2:9) And also passages that represented Jesus suffering, growing in wisdom etc. (Luke 2:52; John 11:33, 38; Matthew 26:39)
Athanasius, for whom the Father and the Son were of one substance, used the following passages:
"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) "The Father is in me and I in the Father." (John 10:38) "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9) After Arius had spoken, it was clear that his case was lost and the two Eusebius had to intervene with the emperor from taking measures against Arius. From this time the friends of Arius tried to get the council to vote a formula that would leave open speculations concerning the origin and nature of Jesus Christ. Whereas, Athanasius and his friends tried to get the third (moderate) party to come out for or against the traditional doctrine. After a couple suggestions by Eusebius of Nicodemous, Eusebius of Caesarea then proposed the baptismal formula in use in his own church.

"We believe in One God, Father, all-Sovereign, Creator of all things whatsoever, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, only-begotten Son, the First-born of all creation, begotten of God the Father before all the ages, by whom also all things came into being, who became flesh for our salvation, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Ghost. (We believe) that each of these is and subsists: the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also says when he sends his disciples to preach: Go and make all nations disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The Athanasians were objected to the inference that there was a lack of union of the Son with the Father--"each of these is and subsists." They also refused to accept the expression "the first-born of all creation" [which I find interesting since that is a direct quote of Col. 1:15] and "begotten of the Father before all the ages," since they claim that the Son was co-eternal with the Father.

To prevent false interpretation by the Arians, it was suggested that Jesus be declared to be of the essence (eks ousis) of the Father. Athanasius, it appears, would have been content with this statement, but someone, thought to have been Hosius, proposed the term omoousios, composed of two words, of which one meant the same and the other substance. (James L. Barker, The Divine Church, vol. 2, p. 52)

"This creed of Eusebius was however accepted as the basis of the new symbol, but in an amended form. There was only one way of making Arianism impossible, and that was use a word, which was not only unscriptural, but which was in bad repute as having been used by the heretics Valentinus and Paul of Samosata. [and condemned by the Third Council of Antioch] The Son must be declared to be of one substance or essence (omoousios) with the Father, in order to exclude Arius from the Church. . . . The (h)omoousion left no room for Arianism. If our Lord was declared to be of one substance with the Father, the whole theory of Arius, that He was of a lower nature, and capable of change and even sin, entirely fell to the ground." (Foakes Jackson, History of the Christian Church to A.D. 461, pp. 312, 313)

The formula decided upon was the famous Nicene creed: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible: and in one Jesus Christ, the Son (Word) of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is of the essence (substance) of the Father. God from God, Light from Light, (Life from Life), very God from very God, begotten not made, of one essence (substance) with the Father, (omoousion to Patri) through whom all things came to be, both things in heaven and things on earth; Who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down, and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens (to the Father), is coming to judge living and dead; and in one Holy Ghost." (Bartlett and Carlyle, Christianity in History, p. 265)

It turns out that this compromise position was imposed by Constantine. "At the beginning of the council, the party of moderate Arian views, of which Eusebius of Nicomedia was the most influential member, was in the majority, and '(h)omoousios' (one substance) had some difficulty in securing acceptance; it was imposed rather than accepted. Hosius supported it energetically; the same was true of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Emperor made it known that he desired the use of the word. This was, for many, a capital argument." (Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, vol. II, pp. 154, 155)

When they placed before the Emperor the formula of the synod, he regarded it as inspired by God, as revealed by the Holy Spirit speaking through the saints, and threatened to exile anyone who would not sign. We have seen the effect of these threats. The Emperor carried them out without delay, and exiled Arius to Illyria, the two bishops Secundus and Theonas, who had refused to sign, and the priests who were attached to them. He commanded at the same time to deliver to the flames the books of Arius and of his friends, and threatened with the penalty of death those who would conceal them . . . Later Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea were also deposed and banished, because, while admitting the symbol, they did not recognize the deposition of Arius and had admitted the Arians among them. At the same time the churches of Nicea and Nicomedia were invited by the Emperor to elect orthodox bishops in the place of the bishops who had been sent into exile. (Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, tome I, 1 re partie, p. 449-450) After seeing this type of information, some are inclined to try and show that this concept of God was believed by the early Church Fathers. The historical exposition of J. Kuhn . . . as free as it is learned, frightened the Anglican Bullus, who thought the faith of the high church had been attacked and who sought with great expense of erudition to demonstrate that which is not capable of demonstration: namely, that before the Council of Nicea all the Fathers had clearly and exactly professed the doctrine of Nicea (Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, tome I, 1 re partie, p. 337-338)

And so the doctrine of the Trinity was started. It was absent from the scriptures but is now accepted as the "orthodox" doctrine of the Christian church. There was no church leadership, apostles or prophets that decided the issue. Instead it was a pagan ruler that organized and declared his support for this new doctrine. It was his support that shifted the foundation doctrine of Christianity and established it by the force of his power as the basis of faith in the newly adopted religion of the realm.

I must say reading Galatians 1:6, from this understanding shows that the Lord was talking about shortly after he leaves, his enemies will change his doctrine, It had nothing to do with the Latter-Days.

Acts 20
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Gal 1
(Now the Lord is talking about 1st century AD not in the latter days)

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

(the Book of Mormon did not come in the 1st century!)Rev 14: 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,(this prophesy is for the latter days)

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

1 Tim 1:6
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

3 John 9-11
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

What is the purpose of this post?

I think it's a history lesson. Here's what LDS scholar Hugh Nibley had to say, way back in 1954, on the topic:

Prophets and Creeds

For a long time the world refused to look upon Mormons as Christians. Indeed most people still think of them as a tertium quid, unique and isolated from all other creatures. There is some justice in this viewpoint if one defines a Christian as one who subscribes to the creeds of Christendom, but the dictionary gives no such definition: for it, a Christian is simply one who believes in Christ, with nothing said about adherence to formulae describing his nature devised three hundred years after his death. The Latter-day Saints do not accept the ecumenical creeds because they were not given by the power of revelation but worked out by committees of experts. As we noted last week, the early church could not make too much of the inability of philosophers to discover the nature of God, yet the first and greatest of the councils, that of Nicaea, may be described without exaggeration as a philosopher's field day. Let us consider briefly a few steps that led to the formulation of the Nicene Creed.
It all began when Bishop Alexander of Alexandria "one day in a meeting of his presbyters and the rest of the clergy under him, theologized in a rather showy way (philtimoteron) on the subject of the Holy Trinity, philosophizing to the effect that in a triad was really a monad. Arius, one of the presbyters under his authority and a man not unskilled in dialectic give and take, . . . took the extreme opposite position just to show how much smarter he was (out of philoneikias) . . . and replied bitingly to the things the Bishop had said." Socrates, the historian, concludes a summary of Arius' speech on this occasion by saying, "Constructing his syllogism by this novel reasoning, he attracted everybody's attention, and with a small spark lit a mighty blaze." [1] Now isn't this a perfect illustration of those very vices and follies for which the original Christians condemned philosophy? The bishop, philosophizing in a showy way, not seeking truth but just being smart, using technical terms-- triad and monad-- unknown to the scripture, is refuted by a clergyman carefully trained in that dialectic art which the early Fathers so abhorred; he too, animated not by love of truth but by a desire to outshine the bishop-- such is the spirit in which the great investigation begins.
The "mighty blaze" mentioned by Socrates divided the Christian world into warring factions, and the Emperor Constantine wrote a strong letter to the heads of both parties. In this letter he says among other things, "These and such like technical questions . . . are simply a sort of parlor game (ereschalia) for the passing of idle time, and albeit they may be justified as providing a kind of training for the wits, they are best kept locked and confined in your own minds, and not lightly aired in public places nor foolishly permitted to reach the ears of the masses. For just how many people are there who can understand such advanced and extremely puzzling matters, or have any clear idea what they are about, or give a correct explanation of them? And even if someone should suppose that he could understand it easily, how many of the common people will he be able to persuade? Or who would be able to carry on a disputation in the subtleties of such technical questions without running an appalling risk? Therefore a great outpouring of words in such matters should be prohibited, lest the problem presently carry us beyond the depths of our own limited understanding, or we go beyond the limited training of those who listen to our teachings, who can no longer understand what is said, and out of this double defect the whole society necessarily fall into blasphemy or schism. While you wrangle with one another over minor, nay, utterly trivial matters, it is not right that God's numerous people should be led by your minds; in view of your disunity, such a thing is utterly wrong, absolutely improper." [2] What a lecture to the leaders of the Church! And these were the men who were to make the creeds.
In the end, the emperor had to summon, as we all know, the great Council of Nicaea. While the gathering body of churchmen was waiting for the latecomers to arrive, some interesting preliminary discussions were held. These illustrate perfectly the spirit of the whole thing. We are told that a large number of laymen were there, experts in the art of dialectic, entering enthusiastically into the discussions on every side. "Meanwhile, not long before the general assembly was to take place, certain dialecticians were addressing the multitude and showing off in controversy. Great crowds being attracted by the pleasure of hearing them, one of the confessors, a layman with a clear head, stood up and rebuked the dialecticians and said to them that Christ and the Apostles did not give to us the dialectical art nor empty tricks, but straightforward knowledge preserved by faith and good works. When he said this, all those present were flabbergasted, and then agreed. And the dialecticians, hearing straight talk, became a good deal more sober and contained. Thus was abated the uproar which dialectic had stirred up." [3] There were still clear heads in the church, but they did not belong to the men who were about to make the creed. They are represented here by an aged layman, a martyr-- that is, one who had refused to deny the faith in persecution-- a link with the real old church, who here appears among the squabbling doctors as a "nine-days' wonder" when he reminds them how far from the track of Christ and the Apostles they have come. They were abashed for the time, but not repentant.
Let us skip to the closing speech of the mightiest of councils. It was delivered, fittingly, by the emperor, "who was first to bear witness to the correctness of the creed," according to Eusebius in a letter to his own flock, " . . . and he urged everyone to come to the same opinion and sign the statement of dogmas and to agree with each other by signing a statement to which but a single term had been added-- the word, homoousion." The emperor then proceeded to explain with much technical language that word (which had been agreed on in committee) and the final verdict that the thing was really incomprehensible. "So in such a manner," Eusebius concludes, "our most wise and most devout (eusebes, blessed) Emperor philosophized; and the Bishops by way of explaining the homoousios prepared the following statement." [4]
In the statement that follows occurs an interesting admission: "We are well aware that the Bishops and writers of ancient times when discussing the theology of the Father and the Son never used the word homoousios." To allay the doubts of his flock Eusebius hastens to assure them that "the faith here promulgated . . . we all agreed upon, not without careful examination and according to opinions presented and agreed upon in carefully stated logismoi, and in the presence of the most devout Emperor." In other words, the committee had worked hard. All the trouble has been caused, according to this document "by the use of certain expressions not found in the Scripture. . . . Since the divinely inspired Scriptures never use such terms as 'out of nothing,' or 'that existed which at one time did not exist,' and such like terms; for it did not seem proper (eulogon) to say and teach such things, . . . never in times before have we thought it proper to use these terms." [5] The letter then proceeds to authorize the use of those very terms which it acknowledges to be unknown to the early Christians. Had God so changed his nature that he needed new terms to describe that nature? We left the word logismoi untranslated above, because Paul uses the very same word in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 when he says that revealed knowledge, the Gnosis, invalidates or confounds all logismoi, that is, calculations of men. Now Eusebius takes comfort in the thought that the Nicene Creed is made up of carefully worded logismoi. You see how the foundations of doctrine had shifted from prophetic revelation to human reason. Latter-day Saints would regard such a change as fatal to the church, and in this they are in good company. For though conventional church histories pass over it in complete silence, the fact is that the early ecumenical councils of the church were viewed by the leading churchmen of the time and the general public alike as a most grave and alarming symptom. Let some of these men explain it in their own words.
Athanasius, one of the star performers at Nicaea, viewed with alarm the councils that immediately followed that one: "What is left to the Catholic church to teach of salvation if now they make investigations into the faith, and set up a present-day authority to give out official interpretations of what has already been said? . . . And why do the so-called clergy dash back and forth trying to find out how they should believe about our Lord Jesus Christ? If they had been believing all along they couldn't possibly be searching now for something they don't have!" Everyone is laughing at the Christian leaders, Athanasius says, and is saying, "These Christians don't know what to think of Christ!" which of course weakens their authority. [6] "What is the use of all these synods?" he asks. "In vain do they dash hither and yon under the pretext that synods are necessary to settle important matters of doctrine, for the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for all that." [7] (Note where Athanasius finds the court of last appeal-- not in any episcopal see, but simply in the scripture.) "We contradict those who were before us, depart from the traditions of our fathers, and think we must hold a synod. Then we are seized by misgivings, lest if we simply come together and agree our diligence will be wasted; so we decide that the synod ought to be divided into two groups, so we can vote; . . . and so we render ineffective what was done at Nicaea under pretext of working for greater simplicity." [8] Could one ask for a better description of the strangely modern state of mind in which the early creeds of Christendom were hammered out-- the zeal of the busy, self-important committeemen; the fussy, fuzzy preoccupation with procedure and busy-work; the urge to hold meetings come what may? "All these synods are unnecessary," Athanasius repeats, "and they are unnecessary because we have the Scripture; and if the Scripture is a subject of disagreement in the synods, then we have the writings of the Fathers. The men at Nicaea were not unmindful of this. . . . As for these other synods, they simply don't make sense, and they never get anywhere." [9] And again: "Who can call such people Christians, or how can we speak of faith among men who have neither reason nor writings that aren't changing all the time, but to suit every circumstance are being everlastingly altered and reversed?" [10]
We turn next to Athanasius' great western contemporary St. Hilary: "It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous," he writes in a famous passage, "that there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them arbitrarily. . . . The homoousion is rejected, and received, and explained away by successive synods. . . . Every year, nay every month, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who change their minds, we anathematize those whom we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin." [11] And later to the emperor: "The faith has been corrupted-- is reformation possible? The faith is sought after as if it were something not in our possession. The faith has to be written down, as if it were not in our hearts. Having been reborn by faith, we are now being taught the faith just as if our rebirth had been without faith. We learn about Christ after we have been baptized, as if there could be any baptism at all without a knowledge of Christ." [12] Here the synods and creeds are depicted as a declaration of bankruptcy, a clear indication that the faith is lost, a frantic attempt to fill a vacuum. And the filling was to be done with words, the endless talk of the philosophers.
Speaking of an episode of the Council of Nicaea, the historian Sozomen wrote, "It would be hard to say which is the more miraculous, to make a stone speak or to make a philosopher stop speaking." [13] But let us hear Hilary: "Since the whole argument is about words, and since the whole controversy has to do with the subject of innovation [i.e., the introduction of philosophical terms not found in the scripture], and since the occasion of the discussion is the presence of certain ambiguities, and since the dispute is about authority, and since we are quarreling about technical questions, and since our problem is to reach a consensus, and since each side is beginning to be anathema to the other, it would seem that hardly anybody belongs to Christ (or is on Christ's side) any more. We are blown about by winds of doctrine, and as we teach we only become more upset, and the more we are taught, the more we go astray." [14] What a commentary on Nicaea! "We avoid believing that of Christ which He told us to believe, so that we might establish a treacherous unity in the false name of peace, and we rebel with new definitions of God against what we falsely call innovations, and in the name of the Scriptures we deceitfully cite things that are not in the Scriptures: changeful, prodigal, impious, changing established things, abolishing accepted doctrine, presuming irreligious things." [15] Here Hilary is not denouncing heretics and separatists. Like Athanasius, Eusebius, Basil, Chrysostom, Akakius, Eleusius, Phoebadius, and a host of lesser lights, he is depicting not the folly of the few, but, as he puts it, "the faith of our miserable age. . . . Last year's faith," he asks, "what is the changeful stuff that it contains? First it silenced the homoousion, then it preached it, then it excused it, then it condemned it. And where does that sort of thing lead to? To this, that neither we nor our predecessors were in a position to be sure of preserving any sacred thing intact." [16] When men are left to their own resources, without the guidance of living prophets, even the great tradition will not preserve the true faith, for, as Hilary has just noted, men are not able of themselves to preserve that tradition.
We have quoted a few statements-- by no means all the pertinent ones-- of two of the most respected voices in Christendom, men who were present in person at the great councils of the fourth century in which the Christian creeds as we now have them received their definitive form. How these men miss the voice of the prophets! The fact that the church should hold councils to decide on basic doctrines centuries after Christ and the Apostles are supposed to have given these doctrines to the world greatly disturbs not only them but also, as they repeatedly tell us, the general membership of the church as well. The fact that those councils carry on their deliberations after the manner and in the artificial language of the schools of philosophy distresses them even more. Throughout the Middle Ages the ablest men labored mightily to comprehend and restate in intelligible terms those ever-illusive definitions of God, school succeeding school exactly as in the fourth century. The Reformation, striving to correct administrative abuses and restate moral principles, left the basic doctrines untouched, and to this day the whole Christian world, from the cool recesses of high-church Gothic to the torrid canvas of the revivalist, owes allegiance to the angry and perplexed churchmen of the fourth century. The long centuries have shown, and have shown exhaustively, that "man cannot by searching find out God." Unless dictated by God himself through revelation, any creed must necessarily be a compromise, to establish, as Hilary puts it, a treacherous unity in the false name of peace, and at the price of deliberately sacrificing truth. In the long history of the creeds, time has strikingly vindicated the prophets. If we are to have a creed, the living voice of prophecy alone can prescribe it, and in this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands alone.
Key To Abbreviations
PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus . . . Series Graeca (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-1866), 161 volumes.
PL J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus . . . Series Latina (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-1864), 221 volumes.

Footnotes
1. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History I, 5-6, in PG 67:41.
2. Ibid., I, 7, in PG 67:56-57.
3. Ibid., I, 8, in PG 67:64.
4. Ibid., also citing Eusebius' letter, in PG 67:68, 72.
5. Ibid., under heading Symbolum, in PG 67:76.
6. Athanasius, De Synodis, in PG 26:684.
7. Ibid., in PG 26:688.
8. Ibid., in PG 26:689.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., in PG 26:760. This is the summary.
11. Hilary, Epistle to Constantine II, 4-5, in PL 10:566-67.
12. Ibid., II, 6, in PL 10:567-68.
13. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History I, 18, in PG 67:917.
14. Hilary, II, 5, in PL 10:566-67.
15. Ibid., II, 6, in PL 10:568.
16. Ibid., II, 5, in PL 10:567.

He created a physical universe because He wanted to.

But you're still left with the problem of a perfect, spiritual being deciding that the best way to accomplish His purposes included the creation of an imperfect, corrupt and physical universe.

Here's what LDS scholar Hugh Nibley has to say about the teachings of the early Christian church and how they were changed over time. This included the Church's stance on physical matter:

A good example of the teachings propounded in the early Jewish and Christian documents, now being forced on us, is "cosmism." The word was used by Carl Schmidt (the great document man of that time) at the turn of the century. A very important Christian document discovered in 1897 is called the Epistle of the Apostles -- an old, very long, and vitally important document of the early church. It opened our eyes to a lot of this. Schmidt edited it, and although he didn't coin the term, he was the one who pointed out that this is what makes the difference between the early church and the later church. The early church accepts "cosmism": Somehow the physical cosmos is involved in the plan of salvation. We say "naturally," and Fred Hoyle says, "You can't make three meaningful sentences about anything without some reference to the physical world." But that's not what was thought in Alexandria. In the third and fourth centuries, it was very fashionable at the university of Alexandria to allegorize and spiritualize everything. Everything had to be spiritual, and the Doctors converted the Jews (e.g., Philo) and the Christians. All eight early Christian Doctors of the church were students at the university of Alexandria, and they followed the party line. Talk of physical, tangible things was crass, vulgar, nonintellectual. When the Doctors of the third and fourth centuries adopted the attitudes and teachings of the university of Alexandria, they turned their backs on what they called the "old wives' tales" of the early church.
It was Jerome who coined the term "Primitive Church," to him a term of contempt. The early Christians were primitive. They didn't have the education the Doctors had, and so the Doctors got rid of all the offensive ideas; and it wasn't too hard, because they had all the learning of the day on their side. They denounced and renounced most passionately what was called "cosmism" as being the crassest literalism and materialism, the complete antithesis of everything that was intellectual and spiritual.
But they were stuck with three doctrines they didn't like at all, and this unsettled them, because they couldn't find a way to get around them. The first was creation. After all, the physical world is a terrible mistake. According to Neo-Platonism, God is essence and spirit and is pure, and all matter is bad. As Iamblichus says, "Any contact with matter corrupts even God Himself." [Iamblichus, On the Mysteries I, 11-16, 19-21, in Edouard des Places, ed., Iamblique, Les Mystès d'Egypte (Paris: Belles lettres, 1966), 59-62, 67-68, 71-74, 76-77.] But who created this physical world? According to them, God did, and such a creation by God stumped them. They couldn't understand how God could actually create a physical world, for he was pure spirit, pure essence; and all physical things are a vile corruption. Why would he make a physical universe?
But even worse was the incarnation, the second point. Origen said, "I don't think the apostles could understand that; I don't think even the angels could understand that. How could God be born into a little child and have a body?" Origen works on this dilemma: He had to be fed when he cried and had to have his change of diapers. [Origen, Peri Archon (De Principiis) II, 6, 1-2, in PG 11:209-11.] Such is unthinkable. There can't be such a thing. Imagine how the schoolmen at the university of Alexandria would go for that.
After you've accounted for the physical things with some kind of argument, the third and worst of all things is for the Lord to resurrect us all with these physical bodies after we have finally sloughed off the mortal coil and gotten rid of the vile material connection. After returning to pure essence, to the nothingness from which we came, we are then stuck with a physical body forever! They didn't like that at all.
Yet these were the teachings of the early church, which couldn't get away from such "cosmism."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.