[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am still having a little trouble here. Perhaps to understand it I need to read the Great Apostasy, which I never have read. OTOH, I suspect that it may go a little deeper than that. IOW, my guess is it is not just a dispute about the cause of the apostasy but about whether there ever was a church at all in the terms we LDS think about it (which you suggest in your post). This seems to me to be a much larger issue than the source of heretical and corrupting influences. It's one thing to say that the concept of logos was borrowed from the Greek; it is another to say that without the Greek there was no concept of logos nor any comprehension of that role.

A couple of thoughts. First, you did have an agenda, even if you weren't trying to push it, and I think you have shown it here. Second, The unwritten version of Christianity, as you describe it, could still be described in Hellenic terms, could it not? The apostasy was from practice and doctrine (IMO), but not from expression of same, per se. I rather enjoyed the readings from the links you and Arch posted and I see little in there that disturbs me in my faith. In fact, I quite like some of the concepts I encounter there and see nothing wrong with them, be they from Greece or elsewhere. To be honest, I have never really paid attention to FARMS, and so I may be missing the boat, but I just don't see what the problem here is supposed to be.

Seattle likes to pick and choose his pieces. There are a few poorly written apologetics where some of the guys summarize extremely superficially what occurred to suit their arguments, but Seattle is being equally disingenuous to cover all over there with that label. Frankly, I don't look nor have I have looked to FARMS for my understanding but go to the original sources. I agree that the original doctrines or expressions don't threaten my beliefs nor should they. Seattle is attacking strawmen.