Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Restformationist

1st/2nd century church

Recommended Posts

The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Share this post


Link to post
The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Huh?

Who is trying to have it both ways?

Share this post


Link to post
The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Huh?

Who is trying to have it both ways?

Those who claim the Lord's true church is developmental, but that signs of development in the early Christian church are indications of apostasy.

Care to address it, or want to pass it onto someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Huh?

Who is trying to have it both ways?

Those who claim the Lord's true church is developmental, but that signs of development in the early Christian church are indications of apostasy.

Care to address it, or want to pass it onto someone else?

I see no problem with development at all.

The basis of the apostacy is I believe priesthood authority was lost upon the death of the apostles.

Now if I believed that priesthood authority existed in the "primitive Church" following the death of the apostles development would be seen as revelation and thus the Lord would be guiding his Church.

Following the death of the Apostles, there were no more "prophets, seers or revelators" just leaders with (IMO) no authority.

The difference today with "developments" is that the Lord's Church is led by a Prophet and thus by the Lord Himself. Any "developments" are done with the complete sanction of the Lord.

So real quick in a nutshell the difference is priesthood authority. In the "early Church" there was none, today there is.

Share this post


Link to post
The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Huh?

Who is trying to have it both ways?

Those who claim the Lord's true church is developmental, but that signs of development in the early Christian church are indications of apostasy.

Care to address it, or want to pass it onto someone else?

I see no problem with development at all.

The basis of the apostacy is I believe priesthood authority was lost upon the death of the apostles.

Now if I believed that priesthood authority existed in the "primitive Church" following the death of the apostles development would be seen as revelation and thus the Lord would be guiding his Church.

Following the death of the Apostles, there were no more "prophets, seers or revelators" just leaders with (IMO) no authority.

The difference today with "developments" is that the Lord's Church is led by a Prophet and thus by the Lord Himself. Any "developments" are done with the complete sanction of the Lord.

So real quick in a nutshell the difference is priesthood authority. In the "early Church" there was none, today there is.

So what Jesus Christ gave to the original apostles wasn't mean to pass on past one generation, in your view? Must have been pretty low-strength ordination.

Share this post


Link to post
The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Huh?

Who is trying to have it both ways?

Those who claim the Lord's true church is developmental, but that signs of development in the early Christian church are indications of apostasy.

Care to address it, or want to pass it onto someone else?

The point I am advocating is not that the Catholic Church is false because it develops.

I am saying that the CoJCoLDS

Share this post


Link to post

Well... Paul tells us that the seven chruchs (that John writes about) in Asia had all fallen into Apostasy. He also warns that after he was gone Apostasy would follow him.

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.

Acts 20

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

The flock is not spared! Not one.

The AntiChrist had to come in and overcome the saints. And kill them.

Dan. 7: 21

21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

Dan. 7: 25

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Rev. 13: 7

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

The Devil had to have his Day (1000 year reign). And the Gentiles had to trod down the holy city 42 months (1260years or time, times and dividing of a time) Then comes the restoration and preparation of the Day (1000 year reign) of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Huh?

I'm hearing various LDS posters claim that the "Lord's true Church" is developmental, and that we receive truth "line upon line, precept on precept," but that doesn't apply equally to the early Church?

Can't have it both ways, boys.

Huh?

Who is trying to have it both ways?

Those who claim the Lord's true church is developmental, but that signs of development in the early Christian church are indications of apostasy.

Care to address it, or want to pass it onto someone else?

I see no problem with development at all.

The basis of the apostacy is I believe priesthood authority was lost upon the death of the apostles.

Now if I believed that priesthood authority existed in the "primitive Church" following the death of the apostles development would be seen as revelation and thus the Lord would be guiding his Church.

Following the death of the Apostles, there were no more "prophets, seers or revelators" just leaders with (IMO) no authority.

The difference today with "developments" is that the Lord's Church is led by a Prophet and thus by the Lord Himself. Any "developments" are done with the complete sanction of the Lord.

So real quick in a nutshell the difference is priesthood authority. In the "early Church" there was none, today there is.

So what Jesus Christ gave to the original apostles wasn't mean to pass on past one generation, in your view? Must have been pretty low-strength ordination.

Oh I think it COULD have been passed on had there been righteous leaders. There were none to take the place of the apostles so the lord took the priesthood away.

I know you don't believe that and that is where our theological views diverge. I will never believe that the post apostolic, pre nicene or post nicene church had proper authority.

Leaders advocating the crusades, burning heretics (heretics in their eyes), and on and on could not be inspired by God IMO.

There was a restoration of priesthood authority and the heavens are once again opened.

Share this post


Link to post
The CoJCoLDS has always advocated that we embrace truth wherever we can find it. That we develop is much easier to explain than that the mere GUARDIAN of Tradition develops.

I think Tom you've nailed it right here.

The RCC claims GUARDIANSHIP of the traditions. So the Traditions should not have changed yet... we see time and again that they have. (eg Baptism, etc)

We claim things can and have changed, and that God can put things into and out of his cannon at will.

Share this post


Link to post
So what Jesus Christ gave to the original apostles wasn't mean to pass on past one generation, in your view? Must have been pretty low-strength ordination.

What is evidenced in history and shown in a fairly convincing way by Nibley

Share this post


Link to post
But what I maintain is that the departures from

Share this post


Link to post
LDS beliefs “hook up” with the Early Church in ways that often even Catholic beliefs cannot.

Such as?

I'd be interested in specific examples.

TOm, you've got a few posts above to which I'd like to specifically respond, but let me say at the moment that regarding the "see my third paragraph above" statement, you've misunderstood.

My primary interest is not whether or not the LDS Church can legitimately look at, piggyback on, or even "claim" the Early Christian Fathers (indeed, I do not, as juliann incorrectly claims, believe they are the exclusive possession of any one denomination, but are legitimately the ancestry of the body of Christian believers, and of the Church as a whole, visible and invisible--a concept not as easily shared by LDS tradition, but there nonetheless).

The "third paragraph" in the post I was referencing has specifically to do with my observation that a number of Latter-day Saints I believe inaccurately claim that the LDS Church has doctrines or practices that existed in the early Christian church, that do not currently exist in any other Christian denomination. And in so doing, they list things that do in fact currently exist in the current non-LDS Christian world (I've even noticed this in some FAIR articles).

I don't believe it's that difficult to understand how Joseph Smith could have formulated doctrines or practices found in early Christian writings, even if you believe he didn't have access to them personally. One cannot view Joseph Smith in a vacuum. He certainly came from a Protestant context, and a Protestant environment, and Protestantism derives initially from early Christianity. The Early Christian Fathers were not entirely unknown to the Protestant world, or to Protestant theologians.

Further, on your point regarding Catholic youth being taught or exposed to the ECF, I would add that while you might not have studied them, Catholic writing is replete with references to them, and there is ample inclusion of early Christian worship practices and doctrines throughout the Church, which are part of catechesis and worship. I've found as a Catholic I'm bombared by the writings and practices of the early Christian church in a way never experienced as a Latter-day Saint. (And certainly, liturgically and theologically, Catholicism has a twenty century legacy of tradition and the community of saints that are not acknowledged, not even in the first one, two or three centuries, by Latter-day Saints.) I think you understand my point.

One would think, as I've said before, that if it's a foundational claim of Mormonism that it is the legitimate restoration of the original Church, that the original Church would in fact be studied by its members. But that is not the case, at least not in official curriculum. There are generally no special classes offered on it, either. You won't generally go into an LDS bookstore and find books on the ECF. To my knowledge, Barry Bickmore was really one of the first and really one of the only people who stand out as spending much of any time on it at all.

Perhaps that will change. Perhaps one day Seminaries and Institutes will offer classes in the early Christian church. My own opinion, as stated before, is that the LDS Church has had a rather changing view over the past century-and-a-half regarding when the "Apostasy" really took place (and, as noted before, Noel Reynolds apparently shares my view on this). So, it's problematic for the LDS Church to know just how long and how far, beyond the New Testament itself, to take a closer official look at early Christianity to the extent that it will in fact be taught to general membership. Most here, I would respectfully suggest, if they are familiar with it it is because they have studied it on their own.

Catholic literature and scholarship, however, is replete with it.

Again, juliann is wrong in asserting that Catholicism, or any individual member of the Catholic faith, myself included, claims exclusive rights or ownership of the ECF; they are indeed the provenance of the entire Christian community and body of believers. Whether or not the LDS Church attempts to distance itself from the same is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
That is why it is so very interesting when we find things in the very early days that are supportive of unique LDS doctrine, but then disappear over the centuries.

Such as?

I ask simply because again, this is possibly an example of the same sort of thing I've seen elsewhere, that people claim a belief or practice "disappeared," and then later discover that the practice still exists in another faith tradition.

We've had examples of this even on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
One would think, as I've said before, that if it's a foundational claim of Mormonism that it is the legitimate restoration of the original Church, that the original Church would in fact be studied by its members. But that is not the case, at least not in official curriculum.

And why?

Because the Vatican Library was closed up until 1960s. Only those who had the means to travel there could study. :P

Catholic literature and scholarship, however, is replete with it.

Is repleat with it but also Ignores it at the same time. How many times have I quoted CCC460 on various boards to have some catholics claim it does not mean what it appears to mean. ANd that Im being Anti-Catholic. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
How many times have I quoted CCC460 on various boards to have some catholics claim it does not mean what it appears to mean. ANd that Im being Anti-Catholic. :P

A little like a non-LDS coming on an LDS board and quoting a former LDS leader make a statement that "appears" to communicate that God the Father had sexual intercourse with the mother of Jesus Christ, and LDS posters explaning that it doesn't necessarily mean what it appears to mean?

Same difference.

It isn't that it "doesn't mean what it appears to mean." It's that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. And you should accept the words of people of other faiths regarding the same.

Share this post


Link to post

ave maria,

From what I gather, BY proposed Jesus was conceived in Heaven by the Father, prior to being conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary. I don't think he was trying to refute the Virgin birth.

Share this post


Link to post
But what I maintain is that the departures from “orthodoxy” introduced by Joseph Smith are often inexplicably found in the earliest of early church writings.

Such as?

Share this post


Link to post

On the contrary Ave, It means exactly what it means. And you cant stand that it means anything remotely compatible to Mormonism.

Share this post


Link to post
ave maria,

From what I gather, BY proposed Jesus was conceived in Heaven by the Father, prior to being conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary. I don't think he was trying to refute the Virgin birth.

I understand, and I don't want to change the topic to how Jesus was conceived, or the Virgin Birth (which are not necessarily the same).

What I was trying to do was give an example to Zakuska that he might understand, where he reads a Catholic writing one way, and a Catholic explains it is not meant that way. Likewise, non-LDS can read writings of early LDS leaders one way, and LDS can explain that isn't exactly what is meant.

Share this post


Link to post

Such as?

-Baptims for the Dead

-The Apostles also preaching to the Dead in the Bowls of the earth after Christ Asceneded

All of these are existant in early writings.

Then we have the little problem of Baptism to infants.

The only thing Christ ever did with Children was put his hands on the and bless them.

Share this post


Link to post
On the contrary Ave, It means exactly what it means. And you cant stand that it means anything remotely compatible to Mormonism.

Do me a favor, and don't assume how I feel, or whether or not I can "stand" something.

Deal?

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't it just a few years ago when fellow Christians held up signs outside temple square mocking this "unique" doctrine of the LDS church infront of the world. Saying Christians had never had such a doctrine and it goes against the Bible. And here we are 4 years later, we see a complete reversal, and find out that it was Christian Orthodoxy for at least 300 years, till the councils stamped it out and dubbed it heresy? And now we see a complete flip flop and it added to the Cathesim?

oops... <blush>

Share this post


Link to post
I've heard there are 1st and 2nd century writings by Church leaders which suggest doctrines exclusive nowadays to the LDS Church are supported. Could someone point me in the right direction? (Links?) I think this could be an interesting discussion, once I read the quotes for myself.

God Bless,

Brent

Brent--

Regarding your initial question, if you're looking for an LDS perspective, I recommend you start here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/EC.html

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...