Restoration Of The Primitive Church

[Lamanite]

Hey guys, just need some help fleshing this subject out.

Sixth Article of Faith-

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church"

As best as I can determine the idea of Joseph restoring the Primitive Church directly refers to a Church the Savior established/organized in the first century. But when I look at historical records for the first century (for which there are very few) I can't find anything remotely resembling what Joseph organized in 1830-

In fairness, throughout Mormon discourse there are mentions of Old Testament elements to the restoration, just not as prevalent or frequent.

Any thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Buzzard]

The entire 6th article of faith reads: We believe in the same ^aorganization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, ^bprophets, ^cpastors, ^dteachers,^eevangelists, and so forth. Apostles, check. Prophets, if the organization is the same, would put Peter in that position, so probably another check. Pastors was explained by JS to mean bishops, which are discussed by Paul in his epistles. Check. Teachers seems fairly self-evident, assuming they had Sunday School, or something analogous. Tentative check (?). JS said that evangelists meant Patriarchs, no mention of those that I can find in the NT. So, three, possibly four out of five. Given the sketchy nature of records surviving since the days of the primitive church, that's not a bad average.

[Darren10]

Daniel Peterson recently wrote a great article right up your alley:

Patheos link:

“Echoes of Aaronic Priesthood offices continue still today in the most ancient churches of Christendom”

Direct link:

Defending the Faith: Echoes of Aaronic Priesthood offices continue still today in the most ancient churches of Christendom

Reading ancient Christian history through Latter-day Saint eyes, it seems reasonable to assume that ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood were more common than were Melchizedek Priesthood ordinations. After all, callings in the lesser priesthood typically precede those in the higher, and, just as today, some, for whatever reason, would’ve failed to proceed all the way to the higher priesthood. Moreover, there is reason to believe that entrance into the Melchizedek Priesthood was more restricted anciently than today.

Thus, as legitimate priesthood authority began to disappear from the early church, it would again seem reasonable to assume, on the basis of sheer numbers, that Aaronic Priesthood officers and ordinances lingered longer, and were more prominent, than those of the Melchizedek.

In this light, it’s not surprising that titles and rituals associated by Mormons with the Aaronic Priesthood characterize the ancient churches of Christendom in the centuries following the death of the apostles. Thus, for example, the three major orders of offices in the Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches are the diaconate (that of the deacons), the presbyterium (the word literally refers to “elders,” but these are actually priests) and the episcopate (the order of bishops). In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, deacons and priests are officers within the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. But so, too, are bishops. Although the office is typically held by a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood, it’s actually an Aaronic Priesthood calling, and bishops preside over the Aaronic Priesthood within their wards.

He continues by mentioning baptism, sacrament, anointing the sick. I found the article very insightful and yet I got no takers in my Gospel Doctrine class to the weblink. . LoL my feelings weren't hurt but it was disappointing. Anyway, this does go along with what you're seeking in that it shows how the Christian Church more or less proceeded without the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. As for this higher priesthood, I think Margaret Barker has a great article on this but I'll have to look for it.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Here's a part analysis on Margaret Barker's paper called "Who was Melchizedek and who was his God?":

Following this premise, she explains that the Melchizedek Priesthood is eternal, that is a higher priesthood than the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, that the prophets held this priesthood, that it is essential in the temple, and serves in the holy of holies to make one born as a son of God, or a Melchizedek Priest.

http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/05/margaret-barker-on-melchizedek.html

Here's a direct lin to Barker's paper:

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Melchizedek_Barker.pdf

[Spammer]

...except Barker always writes about The Melchizedek High priest and the Holy of Holies to account for and explain the origin of Catholic/Orthodox liturgies and the Eucharist.

[Robert F. Smith]

Daniel Peterson recently wrote a great article right up your alley:

Patheos link:

“Echoes of Aaronic Priesthood offices continue still today in the most ancient churches of Christendom”

Direct link:

Defending the Faith: Echoes of Aaronic Priesthood offices continue still today in the most ancient churches of Christendom

Quote

Reading ancient Christian history through Latter-day Saint eyes, it seems reasonable to assume that ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood were more common than were Melchizedek Priesthood ordinations. After all, callings in the lesser priesthood typically precede those in the higher, and, just as today, some, for whatever reason, would’ve failed to proceed all the way to the higher priesthood. Moreover, there is reason to believe that entrance into the Melchizedek Priesthood was more restricted anciently than today.

Thus, as legitimate priesthood authority began to disappear from the early church, it would again seem reasonable to assume, on the basis of sheer numbers, that Aaronic Priesthood officers and ordinances lingered longer, and were more prominent, than those of the Melchizedek.

In this light, it’s not surprising that titles and rituals associated by Mormons with the Aaronic Priesthood characterize the ancient churches of Christendom in the centuries following the death of the apostles. Thus, for example, the three major orders of offices in the Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches are the diaconate (that of the deacons), the presbyterium (the word literally refers to “elders,” but these are actually priests) and the episcopate (the order of bishops). In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, deacons and priests are officers within the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. But so, too, are bishops. Although the office is typically held by a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood, it’s actually an Aaronic Priesthood calling, and bishops preside over the Aaronic Priesthood within their wards.

Speaking only of the Aaronic priesthood as operated by the LDS Church, yes. This is a good summary. However, the priesthood of Aaron among the Jews is official also and continues unabated. The Aaronic priesthood among the Jews is divided into the entire tribe of Levi (Levites) and those of that tribe who are direct descendants of Aaron himself. The latter are the Aaronic priests (kohens) among whom some can function as chief or high priests. Within the LDS Church the latter can also function as bishops without counselors -- if allowed by the First Presidency (D&C 68:15-21, 107:16-17). The remainder of the Levites are helpers. At ancient temples they sang the liturgy (Psalms) and performed other tasks as directed by the Aaronides. The Levites were a permanent tribe of temple workers.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Hey guys, just need some help fleshing this subject out.

Sixth Article of Faith-

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church"

As best as I can determine the idea of Joseph restoring the Primitive Church directly refers to a Church the Savior established/organized in the first century. But when I look at historical records for the first century (for which there are very few) I can't find anything remotely resembling what Joseph organized in 1830-

In fairness, throughout Mormon discourse there are mentions of Old Testament elements to the restoration, just not as prevalent or frequent.

Any thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

We have been discussing this very issue over at http://www.mormondia...ent-lds-church/ . The Church of Jesus Christ (the one He established in the meridian of time) is technically the Kingdom of God on Earth, and it has existed from time to time (from dispensation to dispensation) based on the behavior of humankind. It can take different forms, according to the needs of the eternal priesthood -- which operates in heaven and on earth simultaneously.

As I said on that other thread: Among the matters restored by God in reestablishing his Church with the Latter-day Saints are the following important principles and practices:

no infant baptism / baptism by immersion / baptism for the dead

continuing revelation / open canon

priesthood ordination by one having authority (lay priesthood)

Plan of Salvation / Great Plan of Happiness

Theosis / apotheosis / Deification

Premortal existence of spirits / coeternal with God

Grand Council in Heaven

free agency

creation from pre-existent matter

corporeality of God the Father / anthropomorphic deities / naturalistic deities / solution to problem of evil-theodicy

Heavenly Mother / consort of YHWH

temple endowment / esoteric rites

Edited March 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[MormonMason]

Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests.

(Didache 13:3)

[CV75]

But when I look at historical records for the first century (for which there are very few) I can't find anything remotely resembling what Joseph organized in 1830-

Aside from what is offered in the New Testament (word search "ordain", plus the usual references such as Ehesians 4:11; Matthew 16:9, etc.), how would you desccribe the organization of the primitive Church?

[Lamanite]

Thanks for all the replies so far. I really appreciate everyone helping me out. Robert that you for bringing that other thread to my attention; it has been helpful.

CV75- I wouldn't describe it or define it simply because right now I don't think a church or organization existed. However, I've labored through the corpus of GC from 1851-present and the use of the words restore and restoration seem to imply that a literal Church (institution) and ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles were restored exactly as they were in the first century. At least that's my understanding but I could be wrong.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't think a church or organization existed.

So the scattered branches of the Saints were sending questions to the apostles to answer and reading their letters just because?

[MormonMason]

...

CV75- I wouldn't describe it or define it simply because right now I don't think a church or organization existed.

...

Both did exist. The Church was badly fragmented from the beginning but it and an organization did exist. There were local leaders (Bishops and Elders, etc.) and general leaders (apostles and prophets) who held the keys and kept the local leaders in line as best they could.

Even if we excluded the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), as some are wont to do when dismissing the idea of organization in the early Church, we still would see titles of leadership and other names of offices in the Church in the undisputedly 1st century texts, as well as "helps and governments" among the gifts of God, all of which are indicative of organizational structure. How many functional governments do you know about which have no organizational structure?

It also is clear that some sort of organization, including apostles and prophets, was expected to remain until a unity of faith was achieved. It also is clear on a careful reading of the New Testament that there were disciplinary procedures, which also is indicative of organizational structure, and a Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for all the replies so far. I really appreciate everyone helping me out. Robert that you for bringing that other thread to my attention; it has been helpful.

CV75- I wouldn't describe it or define it simply because right now I don't think a church or organization existed. However, I've labored through the corpus of GC from 1851-present and the use of the words restore and restoration seem to imply that a literal Church (institution) and ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles were restored exactly as they were in the first century. At least that's my understanding but I could be wrong.

Big UP!

Lamanite

To expect "exactly" the same is not necessary. Circumstances and even language differ from one culture to another, and the church organization is merely an appendage to the priesthood. This has been true in all dispensations. The decentralized and non-hierarchical notions of the Campbellites and others of the same persuasion as the Churches of Christ are simply wrong. The organization at Qumran (Essenes), in the synagogue (Jews), and among early Jewish Christians was virtually the same. Even the liturgy was the same at the beginning, and (as Eric Werner has shown) continues even to this day to have close similarities.

[CASteinman]

...except Barker always writes about The Melchizedek High priest and the Holy of Holies to account for and explain the origin of Catholic/Orthodox liturgies and the Eucharist.

that actually sounds interesting to me.

[CASteinman]

As best as I can determine the idea of Joseph restoring the Primitive Church directly refers to a Church the Savior established/organized in the first century. But when I look at historical records for the first century (for which there are very few) I can't find anything remotely resembling what Joseph organized in 1830-

I think that this book

http://www.amazon.com/Charting-New-Testament-John-Welch/dp/0934893640

Would help you a lot.

Do not buy it for $66. It can be had for less.

If I recall correctly it contains charts with organizational comparisons.

I would also suggest that what was restored in 1830 was not the full vision. I don't believe you can assume that we have anywhere near the full vision of the Church until AFTER D&C 107 was brought forward.

[Lamanite]

"To expect "exactly" the same is not necessary."

Good stuff.

[CASteinman]

To my mind, a great deal made sense when someone kinda led me to the idea that the men called "Bishops" in the New Testament are more like what we call "Stake Presidents" and that our Bishops are probably closer to Deacons in the New Testament. Roughly. Not precisely.

[ChristKnight]

Hey guys, just need some help fleshing this subject out.

Sixth Article of Faith-

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church"

As best as I can determine the idea of Joseph restoring the Primitive Church directly refers to a Church the Savior established/organized in the first century. But when I look at historical records for the first century (for which there are very few) I can't find anything remotely resembling what Joseph organized in 1830-

In fairness, throughout Mormon discourse there are mentions of Old Testament elements to the restoration, just not as prevalent or frequent.

Any thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

As already mentioned, I recently started a thread on this topic Perhaps we should have them combined?

Anyway, I do understand where you're coming from in a sense, though I take a different approach, mostly focusing on the issue of complete apostasy of authority, as well as understanding whether the various unique LDS beliefs (such as pre-mortal existence/man co-eternal with God, embodied God, temple ordinances, Heavenly Mother, higher and lesser priesthoods, etc) are found anciently in a singular, unified Church, i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, instead of being found dispersed in varying and disparate groups and individuals (allowing of course for modern revelation). I have also been advised to not focus on the apologetic works that I have been reading (Restoring the Ancient Church, Where Have All the Prophets Gone?, etc), and read non-apologetic works on, essentially, the Jewish background of the emergence of Christianity. I will also admit that, in my opinion of course, I have found that the apologetic works have not been convincing to me in showing a unified ancient LDS Church with those doctrines that they discuss as being found anciently in the "primitive Church"/"Early Christian Church" (though I'm sure a validly LDS response would be because the apostasy was already in full force), so I'm hoping this refocus on reading will be better.

As far as prophets in the Church, I do think that prophecy and revelation is important in the Lord's true Church. Thinking aloud, and only sharing my thoughts, I do find that much of what I like in that area can also be found in the faith I left, the Catholic Church. While a few other traditional/mainstream Christian faiths may say that the "Heavens are closed"/"no more prophets"/"no more gifts of the Spirit", etc., I find that the most ancient traditional Christians churches, such as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, have always believed that God guides His Church through the Holy Spirit, inspiration is provided to all,the Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Spirit in their decisions, private revelations (i.e. revelations to individuals that people are not required to believe, but many of the more...extravagant ones are approved by Catholic authorities as worthy of belief) to prophets and prophetesses, and of course the gifts of the Spirit. On the other hand, I do think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints emphasizes such things much more, especially the need for continuing revelation to guide the Church at all times (meaning, I think the LDS Church refers to "revelation" more frequently).

Anyway, just my thoughts!

[Lamanite]

...

I'm fine accepting the idea that restoration referrs to the gospel with all its attendant doctrines and principles. The challenge comes when I look at the Church's accepted definitions of restore and restoration. Presently and historically those words generally describe a very specific restoration of, lets say, ordinances. Well, if we look at the first century there is no evidence of exact replicas of our modern ordinances. Then I have to start redefining restore to mean "kind of" restore and then on to "kind of in a way" restored. I could accept that the ideas communicated by the endowment are eternal and Joseph restored those by placing them within a modern framework.

Although Mormon apologists seem to disagree with me, I can't find an organization or institution with a unified priesthood and system of government. That being the case I don't know what Joseph was restoring by way of a church/institution/organization. Joseph's church in the 1830's resembled in structure and councils other churches of the time more than it did anything from the first century. The first century Christian evangelizing seems to be more charismatic than institutional.

Finally, they all thought Jesus was going to be right back! I can't really articulate why or where this fits into the problem but I have a hunch it's important.

Just thoughts I'm batting around.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[EllenMaksoud]

Here's a part analysis on Margaret Barker's paper called "Who was Melchizedek and who was his God?":

http://lds-studies.b...elchizedek.html

Here's a direct lin to Barker's paper:

http://www.templestu...edek_Barker.pdf

Years ago, I heard various teachers in the Baptist church refer to Melchizedek as either Jesus Christ, or a "type" of Christ, what ever that is.

[Bart Burk]

According to this article, Catholic priests are ordained to the "order of Melchizedek":

http://catholicexchange.com/the-order-of-melchizedek/

Contrary to what might be expected, the first priest mentioned in the Bible is not from the Tribe of Levi. In fact, the first priest is described before Levi is even born. In Genesis 14, we are introduced to Melchizedek, who is described as “Priest of God Most High.” Identified in Psalm 110 and extensively reflected upon in the Letter to the Hebrews, Melchizedek remains an elusive figure in the Scripture.

Even so, he appears in the Roman Canon at Mass; today’s priests are ordained to “the Order of Melchizedek,” and his appearance in Genesis forms the basis of some of our theology of the priesthood."

[Ahab]

According to this article, Catholic priests are ordained to the "order of Melchizedek":

http://catholicexcha...of-melchizedek/

Well, at least they think they are. Their claim doesn't mean they actually are.

[Bart Burk]

Well, at least they think they are. Their claim doesn't mean they actually are.

That wasn't my point. The point is the idea of the Melchizedek Priesthood was not lost in some apostasy. We can have a disagreement about authority. In fact, this makes the LDS claim that the Melchizedek Priesthood was part of the early church more plausible regardless of what you believe about Catholicism. Most Protestants would limit the Melchizedek Priesthood to Christ alone. If you read the entire article you might find some other interesting tidbits.

[Ahab]

In fact, this makes the LDS claim that the Melchizedek Priesthood was part of the early church more plausible regardless of what you believe about Catholicism.

Well, yeah, because the Catholic church isn't and never has been the same Church as the earlier Church of Christ.

The true Church of Christ has always had people with the Melchizedek order of priesthood, having been passed down to us on this Earth since Adam in the garden of Eden, as he got it from our Father. Adam had it, Enoch had it. Noah too, as well as Melchizedek himself, and Abraham, and Moses, and Joshua, and Samuel, and Nathan, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, etc etc, along with a lot of other people I haven't mentioned.

Just don't confuse the Catholic church with the true Church of Christ, because it never has been the same Church.

[Bart Burk]

Well, yeah, because the Catholic church isn't and never has been the same Church as the earlier Church of Christ.

That's something you really can't prove even if you believe it. It's a matter of faith that you have in your personal spiritual experience. I do think it should be interesting to LDS that the most ancient of churches that is still around claims to have the Melchizedek Priesthood as well. The LDS idea of the Melchizedek Priesthood is not as far-fetched as some Protestants would claim.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Bart Burk