Historical Christianity - What Is It Anyways?

[jskains]

So as we hear the girl from Fox news, or this recent pastor declare us a cult, we also hear a lot about "Historical" Christianity. But what is it? Evangelicals make a lot of claims that they are part of "Historical" Christianity, but they are not Catholic. Wouldn't Catholicism, which they despise, have a much more solid claim of this title?

So it goes from an illegal religion in Rome, to acceptance by Constantine, to the (IMHO) very human political experience known as Nicene. Then we get the Roman Catholic Church, then we get Martin Luther, who starts a protest against the Catholic Church, then his followers split up, then you have the hundreds of splinters we have today.

If I plucked St. Augustine, or any other "Father" of Christianity, would they agree that Evangelical Christianity is "historical" or "Orthodox" Or would they find their current believes heretical? Would even Martin Luther agree that current protestant Churches are official Christian?

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

[Zakuska]

So as we hear the girl from Fox news, or this recent pastor declare us a cult, we also hear a lot about "Historical" Christianity. But what is it? Evangelicals make a lot of claims that they are part of "Historical" Christianity, but they are not Catholic. Wouldn't Catholicism, which they despise, have a much more solid claim of this title?

So it goes from an illegal religion in Rome, to acceptance by Constantine, to the (IMHO) very human political experience known as Nicene. Then we get the Roman Catholic Church, then we get Martin Luther, who starts a protest against the Catholic Church, then his followers split up, then you have the hundreds of splinters we have today.

If I plucked St. Augustine, or any other "Father" of Christianity, would they agree that Evangelical Christianity is "historical" or "Orthodox" Or would they find their current believes heretical? Would even Martin Luther agree that current protestant Churches are official Christian?

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

Watch the video linked here and then we can discuss what Modern SBC's such as the Good Pastor Jeffers thinks "Traditional" Christianity Is.

He thinks that Traditional Christianity has always taught "Faith Alone" salvation, but the Catholic Church added works to Salvation, thus deviating from the New Testament. Something tells me the Good Pastor is WAY out of touch with Christian History!

http://www.mediaite....ter-than-obama/

Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[zerinus]

So as we hear the girl from Fox news, or this recent pastor declare us a cult, we also hear a lot about "Historical" Christianity. But what is it? Evangelicals make a lot of claims that they are part of "Historical" Christianity, but they are not Catholic. Wouldn't Catholicism, which they despise, have a much more solid claim of this title?

So it goes from an illegal religion in Rome, to acceptance by Constantine, to the (IMHO) very human political experience known as Nicene. Then we get the Roman Catholic Church, then we get Martin Luther, who starts a protest against the Catholic Church, then his followers split up, then you have the hundreds of splinters we have today.

If I plucked St. Augustine, or any other "Father" of Christianity, would they agree that Evangelical Christianity is "historical" or "Orthodox" Or would they find their current believes heretical? Would even Martin Luther agree that current protestant Churches are official Christian?

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

It is a loaded statement intended to convey the idea that Mormonism is not a continuation of the Church established by Jesus Christ, thus in essence trying to portray us as being other than Christian. The answer to that is simple: It is “historical Christianity” that is not in fact a continuation of the Church established by Jesus Christ, because that church went into Apostasy, and therefore it is not a true representation of the Church of Christ. Mormonism is a Restoration of that original Church, and therefore it is the only true representation of the Church originally established by Jesus Christ.

Edited October 9, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

I wonder if the Reformers like Luther and Calvin thought of themselves as "historical Christians".

[3DOP]

I wonder if the Reformers like Luther and Calvin thought of themselves as "historical Christians".

I think it pretty certain that they did Cal. Martin Chemnitz was a Lutheran scholar a generation or two after their founder who is sometimes called "the second Martin". He did a study to counter the claims of the Council of Trent. It has been a long time since I read him or Calvin, but I recollect that he made numerous appeals to the Fathers, and especially St. Augustine. I think it tends to be forgotten by us in the internet age, that patristic studies are more advanced now than then. What we can perceive to be doctrinal novelty now, was less easily seen then, and just about impossible for lay people without access to a major library. Of course, as you know, I think those who remained faithful to the Catholic Church, are those who have been subsequently proven to have maintained continuously what the Church had been teaching through the centuries.

I have for over a decade admitted that a Restoration such as that proposed by the followers of Joseph Smith makes sense historically. You have an explanation for why there might be some foundational doctrines of "historical Christianity" that must be called into question. The Reformers on the other hand, call into question foundational doctrines of historic Christianity, and then in the name of "historic Christianity" suggest that for some reason the very doctrines of God (Nicea, Chalcedon) as proposed by historic Christianity are untouchable. If historic Christianity was wrong about the doctrines of salvation for over a millenium, I see it as almost a necessity to believe that a re-evaulation of EVERYTHING must be considered. I don't think the Reformers take their principles to their consistent conclusion. Given the circumstances, Latter-day Saints are the more consistent "Protestant", if you will.

Time for Mass...Maybe see you after...Good post jskains.

God bless,

3DOP

Edited October 9, 2011 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

We willing state that both Catholics and Protestants are Christian. Though they both obviously don't believe the same as us. In LDS veiw the rightful Priesthood Authority was gone and over hundreds of years before the Catholic Church even existed.

[Calm]

I think it pretty certain that they did Cal....

Good to know, thanks.

[diglot]

So as we hear the girl from Fox news, or this recent pastor declare us a cult, we also hear a lot about "Historical" Christianity. But what is it? Evangelicals make a lot of claims that they are part of "Historical" Christianity, but they are not Catholic. Wouldn't Catholicism, which they despise, have a much more solid claim of this title?

So it goes from an illegal religion in Rome, to acceptance by Constantine, to the (IMHO) very human political experience known as Nicene. Then we get the Roman Catholic Church, then we get Martin Luther, who starts a protest against the Catholic Church, then his followers split up, then you have the hundreds of splinters we have today.

If I plucked St. Augustine, or any other "Father" of Christianity, would they agree that Evangelical Christianity is "historical" or "Orthodox" Or would they find their current believes heretical? Would even Martin Luther agree that current protestant Churches are official Christian?

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

If I had to define "historical Christianity", I would describe it as the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church. I personally don't think Protestanism (and certainly not American Evangelicalism) could describe themselves as part of "historic" Christianity.

Though, being part of mainstream Christianity, I know why American Evangelicals consider themselves to represent historical Christianity. They usually consider churches which adhere to the seven "ecumenical councils" to be how "historic Christianity" should be defined. Though, I really think most Christians probably only really know about two or three of the councils anyway.

To me, "historic Christianity" is largely an irrelevant term that is arbitrarily defined so as to exclude those whom the definer wants to exclude.

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

I don't think Luther would cast it as a cult, but I doubt he would be overly enamored with evangelicalism either.

Edited October 9, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

By the way, I always get a chuckle how most churches assert that they are the true continuation of the apostolic church; that they alone hold all the apostolic doctrines and practices.

It's especially prevalent in Catholicism as Catholic apologists try and turn every early church father into a faithful member of modern-day Roman Catholicism. Other churches exhibit this tendency to varying degrees too: evangelicals, Mormons, etc.

Edited October 9, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

By the way, I always get a chuckle how most churches assert that they are the true continuation of the apostolic church; that they alone hold all the apostolic doctrines and practices.

Why should that be so surprising to you? What else did you expect them to do? How else could they justify their claim to legitimacy except by their appeal to Apostolic authenticity?

[diglot]

Why should that be so surprising to you? What else did you expect them to do? How else could they justify their claim to legitimacy except by their appeal to Apostolic authenticity?

It's not surprising to me. I just find it humorous that everyone tries to align their beliefs and practices with those of the early christian period.

I think people should just let the early church fathers be the early church fathers, instead of trying to turn them into Catholics, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Mormons, etc.

Edited October 9, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

It's not surprising to me. I just find it humorous that everyone tries to align their beliefs and practices with those of the early christian period.

The same question still applies. Why should that be so "amusing" to you? What else did you expect them to do?

I think people should just let the early church fathers be the early church fathers, instead of trying to turn them into Catholics, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Mormons, etc.

I find that statement still puzzling. Nobody is trying to "turn" them into anything. But if they find support for their beliefs in the Early Church Fathers, why should they not declare it? I don't know about Protestants and Evangelicals; but Mormons for example find very strong support for the doctrine of deification in the ECFs. If so, why should they not declare it? Why don't you think that is a significant enough observation that it should be noted?

Edited October 9, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

The same question still applies. Why should that be so "amusing" to you? What else did you expect them to do?

I would expect them to be honest with the evidence and not try to find a direct line of continuity between the apostolic period and whichever current church they belong to.

I find that statement still puzzling. Nobody is trying to "turn" them into anything. But if they find support for their beliefs in the Early Church Fathers, why should they not declare it? I don't know about Protestants and Evangelicals; but Mormons for example find very strong support for the doctrine of deification in the ECFs. If so, why should they not declare it? Why don't you think that is a significant enough observation that it should be noted?

If one finds evidence for a particular doctrine in the early Christian writings, then by all means, go ahead and declare it.

But I have come across many people (from a variety of denominations/churches) who search so hard to find their current doctrines in early Christian writings, that it leads to them finding their doctrine in early texts where it just simply isn't found.

For instance, I have heard and read Mormons point to 1 Cor 15.29 as evidence that the current LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead was practiced in the early church. This is exactly what I am talking about. Taking a solitary and obscure reference to something found in the early church and utilizing it as evidence supporting a contemporary doctrine/practice is effectively trying to turn an early church father into a proto-Mormon.

Edited October 9, 2011 by diglot

[The Nehor]

I find that statement still puzzling. Nobody is trying to "turn" them into anything. But if they find support for their beliefs in the Early Church Fathers, why should they not declare it? I don't know about Protestants and Evangelicals; but Mormons for example find very strong support for the doctrine of deification in the ECFs. If so, why should they not declare it? Why don't you think that is a significant enough observation that it should be noted?

I would expect that it is more because it is an interest thing then an evidence we need. Our doctrine comes from revelation, not perusing ancient sources. When the two are found to contain similarities some LDS with an interest in such things are delighted and study it. However they are not going to find some obscure piece of doctrine from Clement or Ignatius and then present it to the LDS apostles and demand it be taught as doctrine.

[Vance]

I think it pretty certain that they did Cal. Martin Chemnitz was a Lutheran scholar a generation or two after their founder who is sometimes called "the second Martin". He did a study to counter the claims of the Council of Trent. It has been a long time since I read him or Calvin, but I recollect that he made numerous appeals to the Fathers, and especially St. Augustine. I think it tends to be forgotten by us in the internet age, that patristic studies are more advanced now than then. What we can perceive to be doctrinal novelty now, was less easily seen then, and just about impossible for lay people without access to a major library. Of course, as you know, I think those who remained faithful to the Catholic Church, are those who have been subsequently proven to have maintained continuously what the Church had been teaching through the centuries.

I have for over a decade admitted that a Restoration such as that proposed by the followers of Joseph Smith makes sense historically. You have an explanation for why there might be some foundational doctrines of "historical Christianity" that must be called into question. The Reformers on the other hand, call into question foundational doctrines of historic Christianity, and then in the name of "historic Christianity" suggest that for some reason the very doctrines of God (Nicea, Chalcedon) as proposed by historic Christianity are untouchable. If historic Christianity was wrong about the doctrines of salvation for over a millenium, I see it as almost a necessity to believe that a re-evaulation of EVERYTHING must be considered. I don't think the Reformers take their principles to their consistent conclusion. Given the circumstances, Latter-day Saints are the more consistent "Protestant", if you will.

Time for Mass...Maybe see you after...Good post jskains.

God bless,

3DOP

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

I too, have found it strange that the reject nearly EVERYTHING Catholic, accept the doctrine of the trinity which they unquestionly accept even though it isn't specifically found in the Bible.

To Catholics, it not being found in the Bible isn't a problem because they believe in the (infallible?) leadership of the Popes.

Sola scriptura Protestants, on the other hand, don't have a leg to stand on. They cannot derive the doctrine from the Bible but must PRESUME it first and then read it back into the Bible.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Vance

[zerinus]

I would expect them to be honest with the evidence and not try to find a direct line of continuity between the apostolic period and whichever current church they belong to.

I fail to see a justification for your concern; unless you can illustrate your point with a few specific examples. I don’t see a genuine cause for concern that they are not being “honest with the evidence”.

If one finds evidence for a particular doctrine in the early Christian writings, then by all means, go ahead and declare it.

But I have come across many people (from a variety of denominations/churches) who search so hard to find their current doctrines in early Christian writings, that it leads to them finding their doctrine in early texts where it just simply isn't found.

For instance, I have heard and read Mormons point to 1 Cor 15.29 as evidence that the current LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead was practiced in the early church. This is exactly what I am talking about. Taking a solitary and obscure reference to something found in the early church and utilizing it as evidence supporting a contemporary doctrine/practice is effectively trying to turn an early church father into a proto-Mormon.

Paul was an Apostle, not just anybody. He was in a position to speak with special authority about Christian doctrine. That quote comes from canonized scripture, not from the ECFs; and gets treated in the same way that other scripture is treated. It is authoritative enough to form the basis for Christian doctrine. I just do not understand why 1 Cor. 15:29 cannot be used to base Christian doctrine one, in the same way that the rest of the Bible can be. Why discriminate between one portion of the Bible and another? I do not understand.

[diglot]

I fail to see a justification for your concern; unless you can illustrate your point with a few specific examples. I don’t see a genuine cause for concern that they are not being “honest with the evidence”.

A few specific examples from who? I am speaking in generalities, not of a specific person(s).

Paul was an Apostle, not just anybody. He was in a position to speak with special authority about Christian doctrine. That quote comes from canonized scripture, not from the ECFs; and gets treated in the same way that other scripture is treated. It is authoritative enough to form the basis for Christian doctrine. I just do not understand why 1 Cor. 15:29 cannot be used to base Christian doctrine one, in the same way that the rest of the Bible can be. Why discriminate between one portion of the Bible and another? I do not understand.

Even if you understand that verse to be authoritative enough to form the basis of Christian doctrine, you can not form any doctrine from it! Paul mentions that some people "baptize from the dead". Period. He doesn't extrapolate what that means. There are at least 20 different interpretations of this verse in the scholarly literature. In fact, it's possible to assert that Paul was deliberately dissociating himself and the Corinthians from the people who practiced it ("what will those do who are baptized for the dead? .... Why are we also in danger every hour")

Reading the modern LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead into 1 Cor 15.29 is as silly as Evangelicals trying to read Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian Christology back into John 1.18. And this is what I am referring to when I say that everyone tries to turn the early church fathers into ancient members of their modern day churches.

Reading the "orthodox" Christology of mainstream Christianity back into John 1.18 is egregious eisegesis. But many evangelicals do this because they assume (and desire) all the early Christians to be Trinitarians.

Likewise, reading LDS doctrine into 1 Cor 15.29 is pure eisegesis, plain and simple. The reason for doing this then, must be some sort of need to depict Paul as some sort of proto-Mormon.

Edited October 10, 2011 by diglot

[wenglund]

What is important to me is not to confuse historical Christians with hysterical Christians.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[3DOP]

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

I too, have found it strange that the reject nearly EVERYTHING Catholic, accept the doctrine of the trinity which they unquestionly accept even though it isn't specifically found in the Bible.

To Catholics, it not being found in the Bible isn't a problem because they believe in the (infallible?) leadership of the Popes.

Sola scriptura Protestants, on the other hand, don't have a leg to stand on. They cannot derive the doctrine from the Bible but must PRESUME it first and then read it back into the Bible.

Hi Vance. I think we are in substantial agreement.

A minor quibble if I may. I cannot concede that I think the Trinity is absent from the Bible. I am convinced that the Scriptures allow us to believe that God is in some way One and God is in some way Three. I can concede say that the Nicene dogma is not CLEARLY taught in Scripture. The Scripture is always susceptible to multiple plausible interpretation EVERY time there is a controversy. That is WHY there is controversy! It isn't because a whole bunch of people are stupid. Arius wasn't a fool. Neither was Luther, nor Calvin, nor you guys. The Bible is very difficult and complex literature, and easily gives way to alternative points of view.

A second small quibble would be that for Catholics, it is the function of Sacred Tradition to resolve questions as they arise, rather than papal action. The pope himself is subject to Tradition, what we believe the Church has always taught. The pope if he chooses, may infallibly bind the Church to a certain belief, but He has to rest is conclusion on the authority of Apostolic Tradition. That is just what Pope John Paul II, a most progressive pope did, when with what seemed almost like reluctance, he declared that he had no authority to teach that women could be ordained priests.

Thanks for the kind words. (I don't think substantial agreements are made out of matter, but are immaterial realities. Heh.)

3DOP

Edited October 10, 2011 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

double post

Edited October 10, 2011 by 3DOP

[zerinus]

A few specific examples from who? I am speaking in generalities, not of a specific person(s).

That is the problem. Generalizations are meaningless unless they are grounded in fact; and that this one does not appear to be.

Even if you understand that verse to be authoritative enough to form the basis of Christian doctrine, you can not form any doctrine from it! Paul mentions that some people "baptize from the dead". Period. He doesn't extrapolate what that means.

He does. He links it to a true doctrine, the doctrine of the resurrection. He cites that practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. Why would Paul want to cite a false practice as evidence for faith in the resurrection? It makes no sense otherwise.

There are at least 20 different interpretations of this verse in the scholarly literature. In fact, it's possible to assert that Paul was deliberately dissociating himself and the Corinthians from the people who practiced it ("what will those do who are baptized for the dead? .... Why are we also in danger every hour")

That is a matter of interpretation. People can interpret scripture any way they like; it doesn’t mean that they are right. There is no way that twenty interpretations can all be right. Non-LDS will not accept any scripture interpretation that will support LDS doctrine; so that proves nothing.

Reading the modern LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead into 1 Cor 15.29 is as silly as Evangelicals trying to read Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian Christology back into John 1.18. And this is what I am referring to when I say that everyone tries to turn the early church fathers into ancient members of their modern day churches.

We are not “reading” anything into anything. Our belief in baptisms for the dead is derived from modern revelation, not from Paul. But when we find that Paul’s teachings supports that doctrine, why should we not acknowledge it?

Reading the "orthodox" Christology of mainstream Christianity back into John 1.18 is egregious eisegesis. But many evangelicals do this because they assume (and desire) all the early Christians to be Trinitarians.

I have no idea what you are referring to here; but scripture interpretation can be correct or incorrect. I don’t know what they “read into John 1:18”. If it is a correct doctrine then it is correct, and if it isn’t then it isn’e

Likewise, reading LDS doctrine into 1 Cor 15.29 is pure eisegesis, plain and simple. The reason for doing this then, must be some sort of need to depict Paul as some sort of proto-Mormon.

“Exegesis” or not, it is a scripture interpretation; and I believe a correct one.

[diglot]

He does. He links it to a true doctrine, the doctrine of the resurrection. He cites that practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. Why would Paul want to cite a false practice as evidence for faith in the resurrection? It makes no sense otherwise.

no he does not extrapolate on what it means. Mentioning "those who are baptized for the dead" in a context of ressurection is hardly elaborating on it. If anything can be gleaned from Pauls mention of baptism for the dead, it is that he seems to deliberately dissociate himself and the Corinthian audience from the practice ("why do we stand in jeopardy... why do those who are baptized...).

That is a matter of interpretation. People can interpret scripture any way they like; it doesn’t mean that they are right. There is no way that twenty interpretations can all be right. Non-LDS will not accept any scripture interpretation that will support LDS doctrine; so that proves nothing.

Lol this is not some sort of conspiracy to reject LDS beliefs. Scholars don't care if the verse ends up supporting LDS doctrine or not. Paul's mention of the baptism is ambiguous and is open to many interpretations.

We are not “reading” anything into an. Our belief in baptisms for the dead is derived from modern revelation, not from Paul. But when we find that Paul’s teachings supports that doctrine, why should we not acknowledge it?

Because it is dishonest to say Paul supports LDS doctrine in this verse without some important qualifications.

Edited October 10, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

no he does not extrapolate on what it means. Mentioning "those who are baptized for the dead" in a context of ressurection is hardly elaborating on it.

Of course it is. He is citing the practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. He is saying, “If the resurrection is not true, why are people baptized for the dead?” That is another way of saying, “If they did not have a hope of the resurrection, they wouldn’t want to practise baptisms for the dead.” You would have to twist the obvious meaning of the words to come to any other conclusion than that baptisms for the dead was practised in the days of Paul, and he approved of the practise.

If anything can be gleaned from Pauls mention of baptism for the dead, it is that he seems to deliberately dissociate himself and the Corinthian audience from the practice ("why do we stand in jeopardy... why do those who are baptized...).

That again is a very twisted way of treading those verses. “Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” is simply another evidence he gives for his belief in the resurrection. He cites two instances in his own life, and the life of the other saints and Apostles as evidence of their faith in the resurrection: one is their practise of the baptism for the dead; the other is their willingness to jeopardise their lives for the sake of the gospel. He is saying that if we did not have a hope of the resurrection, we would not want to risk our lives for the gospel’s sake, nor would we practise baptisms for the dead.

Lol this is not some sort of conspiracy to reject LDS beliefs. Scholars don't care if the verse ends up supporting LDS doctrine or not. Paul's mention of the baptism is ambiguous and is open to many interpretations.

Show me one biblical passage that Mormons interpret in favor of their peculiar beliefs, that LDS critics agree with.

Because it is dishonest to say Paul supports LDS doctrine in this verse without some important qualifications.

It is not dishonest if it is true; and no one is in a better position to tell us if it is true or not than a great prophet of God, which is what Joseph Smith was. He interpreted it that way; and I agree with his interpretation.

[Storm Rider]

So as we hear the girl from Fox news, or this recent pastor declare us a cult, we also hear a lot about "Historical" Christianity. But what is it? Evangelicals make a lot of claims that they are part of "Historical" Christianity, but they are not Catholic. Wouldn't Catholicism, which they despise, have a much more solid claim of this title?

So it goes from an illegal religion in Rome, to acceptance by Constantine, to the (IMHO) very human political experience known as Nicene. Then we get the Roman Catholic Church, then we get Martin Luther, who starts a protest against the Catholic Church, then his followers split up, then you have the hundreds of splinters we have today.

If I plucked St. Augustine, or any other "Father" of Christianity, would they agree that Evangelical Christianity is "historical" or "Orthodox" Or would they find their current believes heretical? Would even Martin Luther agree that current protestant Churches are official Christian?

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

The historical church is an alias for the traditional church or the Catholic and Orthodox churches and their immedate sisters. The Evangelical churches have no legitimate claim to this title/group because they do not claim a restoration and are a direct offshoot of the Protestant groups.

All churches like to claim certain things in order to legitimize their relationship to Christ and his church. We, the LDS Church, have a very first history of this and it is not surprising for the EV to do something similar. However, they firmly fall into the group that is a church of man with not even an attempted illusion of having authority other than belief.

[diglot]

Of course it is. He is citing the practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. He is saying, “If the resurrection is not true, why are people baptized for the dead?” That is another way of saying, “If they did not have a hope of the resurrection, they wouldn’t want to practise baptisms for the dead.” You would have to twist the obvious meaning of the words to come to any other conclusion than that baptisms for the dead was practised in the days of Paul, and he approved of the practise.

Show me one biblical passage that Mormons interpret in favor of their peculiar beliefs, thqat LDS critics agree with.

yea,I guess all the scholars who have commented on this verse are just twisting Paul's words which obviously support LDS doctrine.

I guess that makes sense if you label any person who isn't a Mormon as a "LDS critic".