1st/2nd century church

[marvmax]

Ave Maria;

You brought up a point that I don't think has been responded to. I'm not going to quote it which is wrong because I'm a little limited for time.

I believe you asked something like

1) Why don't the Mormons study the ECF if they think they are important?

2) And in a related question, why haven't they studied them in the past?

1 Ans. We have two problems in trying to teach something like this in the church in general. When would we do it? And what would we give up to do it? Right now our General Church Lessons are oriented around the Scriptures, and the teaching of the modern prophets, and I think this is right. The church goes through a 4 year cycle of studying the Scriputre in the teen and adult SS classes (BoM, NT, OT&PGOP, D&C&PGOP). The leaders realized that this does not really do the scriptures justice, but they also realize that there are many new members of our church and they thought that it was unadvisable to wait say 8 years to come back and catch them up. Another related problem is that all classes are taught by amatures (of which I am one) and so it would be outside of their area of experiece to teach the ECF.

2) Ans We haven't had the expertise to study them in the past. (By we I mean the Mormon church in general.) Current Mormon apologetics are traced back to Hugh Nibley generally, although I personally think that it could go back to Sidney Sperry.

For the first 100 years of the Mormon church's existance most of the churches intellectual energy was dedicated to survival, and what little apologetics there were, were based primairly on protestant scholarship (and so have a heavy dose of anti-Catholicism, which was wrong and doesn't exist now among Mormon aplolgists in general IMHO). It really wasn't until after that time frame, and Nibley was in the vaguard, that Mormons started producing scholars that could address these topics. However, as Nibley points out in his book "Since Cumora" points out many of the documents that are now shedding light on early christianity were not abvailable until recently. It is also true that many of these topics weren't studied by anyone until the German scholars in the early 19th century started subjecting the Bible and it's claims to the "Critical Method". Mormons, by the way, do not find that coincidental . One reaction to this critical scholarship was the reaction of so called "Fundamental Christianity" which started to make claims of inerrency of the scriptures.

[Pahoran]

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

That's a good point. Just to amplify it this is a quote from Fr. Nehaus

source

In 1831, Alexander Campbell, cofounder of the Disciples of Christ, said that Smith pasted together "every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years." Much of the teaching reflects the liberal Protestantism of the time, even the Transcendental and Gnostic fevers that were in the air: e.g., a God in process of becoming, progressive revelation, the denial of original sin, and an unbridled optimism about the perfectibility of man.

With all due respect to the good Father, I'd like to see him locate anything like "a God in process of becoming" in the Book of Mormon, or "an unbridled optimism about the perfectibility of man" in any LDS scripture.

Of course the Book of Mormon contains a "denial of original sin." The notion is unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue.

And with all the respect due to AM, I'm afraid her argument is utterly bogus. Mormonism arose in a 19th-Century Protestant setting, and Protestantism is derived from Catholicism, therefore Joseph Smith somehow (by osmosis, I guess) was able to tap into pre-Catholic teachings that were unknown in his time and place?

How absurd is that?

When did Joseph ever lay eyes on a "Protestant theologian?" Unless you count local rural preachers as "theologians?"

If you want to find out what Latter-day Saints really believe and teach, Catholic priests, Alexander Campbell, apostates and anti-Mormon ministries with deceitful names like "Institute for Religious Research" are the last sources you should consult.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ave maria]

therefore Joseph Smith somehow (by osmosis, I guess) was able to tap into pre-Catholic teachings that were unknown in his time and place?

Namely?

I'd like specific examples of "pre-Catholic teachings that were unknown in his time and place."

[ave maria]

2) Ans We haven't had the expertise to study them in the past. (By we I mean the Mormon church in general.) Current Mormon apologetics are traced back to Hugh Nibley generally, although I personally think that it could go back to Sidney Sperry.

For the first 100 years of the Mormon church's existance most of the churches intellectual energy was dedicated to survival, and what little apologetics there were, were based primairly on protestant scholarship (and so have a heavy dose of anti-Catholicism, which was wrong and doesn't exist now among Mormon aplolgists in general IMHO). It really wasn't until after that time frame, and Nibley was in the vaguard, that Mormons started producing scholars that could address these topics. However, as Nibley points out in his book "Since Cumora" points out many of the documents that are now shedding light on early christianity were not abvailable until recently. It is also true that many of these topics weren't studied by anyone until the German scholars in the early 19th century started subjecting the Bible and it's claims to the "Critical Method". Mormons, by the way, do not find that coincidental . One reaction to this critical scholarship was the reaction of so called "Fundamental Christianity" which started to make claims of inerrency of the scriptures.

I very much appreciated this part of your response in particular, marvmax.

Thanks.

[docrick]

docrick and Ave:

The writings of the early christian fathers are interesting to be sure but they had no priesthood authority thus not privy to direct heavenly revelation for the whole church body.

Actually, I disagree to a point.

Yes I agree the Authority was taken from the earth. However, IMO, the ECF writings are very usefull. Especially when Mormons are accused of not interpreting scriptures as Chrsitiains do. Because here we have ECF writers interpreting them the exact same way we do. So how can LDS be cut from the Christian Fig tree when we interpret the same way as these Christians do?

Please don't misunderstand, I think the writings of the ECF's are useful. They are the closest we have to the time the Savior was on the earth.

I enjoy reading some of their works. I particularly like Dr. Bart Ehrmans book "lost christianities, the battle for scripture and faiths we never knew.

I maintain however I do not believe they were ordained to either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood and thus were not "prophets, seers or revelators"

Bart Ehrman doesn't hold the priesthood but I respect and agree with much of his writings.

Margaret Barker doesn't hold the priesthood but I find her work on the polytheism of ancient Israel fascinating and useful.

[docrick]

Let me "dumb this down" quite a bit.

The writings of the early christian fathers are interesting to be sure but they had no priesthood authority thus not privy to direct heavenly revelation for the whole church body.

They were debating and formulating the teachings of mere men.

The LDS church is the primitive church the way the Savior organized it when He was on the earth.  Our teachings are His teachings.

What was done after the death of the apostles and pre nicene creed is irrelevant except for interesting scholarship.

I don't believe any amount of scholarship can trump the spirit.

Ah the faith card.

With faith all is possible.

Thanks, docrick.

You've exactly responded to my question posed in my first post on this thread (page one).

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe as a Latter-day Saint that the writings of the ECF are really of limited usefulness to the LDS Church, as they were written during a time of apostasy. Is that correct?

With respect to your assertion that the teachings of the LDS Church are synonymous with the teachings of Jesus Christ as He "organized it (the church) when he was on the earth," I'd suggest you start a new thread on that topic.

See my response above but the writings of the ECF are useful so long as they possess correct doctrine taught by Christ as Gospel and are not the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"

I maintain the ECF's were not "prophets, seers or revelators"

Joseph Smith was. Gordon B Hinckley is.

[Zakuska]

Docrick,

However, as Nibley points out in his book "Since Cumora" points out many of the documents that are now shedding light on early christianity were not abvailable until recently. It is also true that many of these topics weren't studied by anyone until the German scholars in the early 19th century started subjecting the Bible and it's claims to the "Critical Method". Mormons, by the way, do not find that coincidental.

Since these documents have only come to light recently... one must ask... how did a 20 year old get all that information that wasn't avalalble... until recently.

I maintain however I do not believe they were ordained to either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood and thus were not "prophets, seers or revelators"

And I agree... Perhaps they had the arronic for a while since Bishop is the head of the Arronic. But that priesdhood doesn't hold the rights of the higher.

[juliann]

The writings of the early christian fathers are interesting to be sure but they had no priesthood authority thus not privy to direct heavenly revelation for the whole church body.

First, you can't talk about the "ECF" as if they were of one mind. You need to name them. Ave is trolling vacuous challenges to get you arguing about something so general it has no meaning....don't take the bait.

They were debating and formulating the teachings of mere men.

Even mere men can debate things that we may consider "truth". There were several speakers at General Conference that discussed the Reformers. It was almost overkill. They went out of their way to emphasize that no one was without the spirit or assistance of the Lord. It is not the "priesthood" that testifies of truth..it is the holy spirit. Many were doing important work and living the teachings as they knew them.

The LDS church is the primitive church the way the Savior organized it when He was on the earth.  Our teachings are His teachings.

The LDS church is not even organized in the same manner that it was a century ago. It is unreasonable to think that anything could remain the same for 2000+ years across time, space and culture.

What was done after the death of the apostles and pre nicene creed is irrelevant except for interesting scholarship.

To some it may be...for me it brought everything together in a way I could understand. It was the final piece of the puzzle that convinced me that I am in the right religion. Those who are unwilling to see how the original church crumbled into vying sects and political alliances between competing, self-appointed philosopher-theologians need to take a more careful look at this literature. I remain astonished that anyone would think a hierarchial organization such as the one in the NT...with named and known leaders....could disintegrate into pieces and still be considered the same. I continue to ask...where was the leaderwho should have been answering the questions and quelling the arguments over doctrine? This is mind boggling. There was no one there. Constantine had to step in!

[Zakuska]

I simply must share this post... Because it list some more LDS doctrine in the ECFs.

He's not Johnny?

Who are all these little gods running around Johnny?

"God of gods"

[Zakuska]

Juliann,

I continue to ask...where was the leaderwho should have been answering the questions and quelling the arguments over doctrine? This is mind boggling. There was no one there. Constantine had to step in!

Reminds me of the verse...

"My Lord... why hast though forsaken me."

Where was all the continuing revelation and appearances and Guidance from the Lord?

[Tanyan]

It would be nice if we had 7 secretaries as did Origen to write/type our responses for us !.

[juliann]

By the time any of the writers quoted above [John Chrysostom, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil] were involved, baptism and the other ordinances had all been transformed theologically into sacraments, none of which were understood to be based in covenants.  So when we look closely at the writings of the earliest Christian, we might naturally ask, "Where have all the covenants gone?"  Though the writings of this period occasionally allude to covenants and even occasionally feature them, there is nowhere evidence that the concept of ordinances based in covenants is either central or pervasive.

Noel B. Reynolds,"The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought" in Early Christians in Disarray: contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed., Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 297.

This is where LDS will diverge the most from the Church Fathers.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

I simply must share this post... Because it list some more LDS doctrine in the ECFs.

Zakuska,

You are mis-understanding the teachings of the ECFs.

See the links below

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=290825

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=291140

[Zakuska]

Johnny,

Did I misunderstand that Christ was YHWH? The Eldest Son of El Elyon?

First century: Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the first century A.D., is a well-known example of a Jew who inherited a tradition of calling the second God the "Word" (logos) and also the chief angel. "For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God, who is His Logos." Philo, Suppl. 1:150.

Second century: Many Christian writers such as second century Justin Martyr identify Jesus with Yahweh. Until the fifth century it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second god," the chief angel, or both. (Similarly, it was made clear that the Holy Spirit or "angel of the prophetic Spirit" occupies the third place.)

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause", and Peter in the "Clementine Recognitions" not only called Jesus both "God" and "angel," but also identified Him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:7-8.

Third century: Origen in "Against Celsus" would speak of Jesus as a "second God", but he added: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." In what sense are they "one"? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will."

Another third-century text called "The Threefold Fruit of the Christian Life" described Jesus as the angel, Yahweh of Hosts: "When the Lord created the angels from the fire he decided to make one of them his son, he whom Isaiah called the Lord [Yahweh] of Hosts."

Fourth century: Methodius of Olympus said Christ first among the Archangels, "And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Aeons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and the first of men, even Adam."

Eusebius of Caesarea equated Jesus with Yahweh, prince of the sons of El, spoken of in Deuteronomy 32:7-8. He also compared the hierarchy of being to the sun, moon, and stars spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Did I misunderstand that Christ was YHWH? The Eldest Son of El Elyon?

You are misunderstand the key word ... Christ is identified with Jehovah.

Second century: Many Christian writers such as second century Justin Martyr identify Jesus with Yahweh. Until the fifth century it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second god," the chief angel, or both. (Similarly, it was made clear that the Holy Spirit or "angel of the prophetic Spirit" occupies the third place.)

You are missing these ECF teachings:

- I do not mean that there are two Gods (Hippolytus 210AD)

- A Triad is preached by Scripture, neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods (Dionysius 262 AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- No division of substance, but merely an extension. Christ is Spirit of Spirit ... the two are one (Tertullian 197AD)

- The Logos is God, being the substance of God (Hippolytus 220AD)

[Zakuska]

Again Johnny you are speaking parsel tongue.

Christ is identified with Jehovah.

Apparently Johnny needs some English lessons.

What does the term "identify with" mean?

In Computer talk... "Classes and their properties are indtified with a URI."

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public...05Feb/0021.html

Or in other words the URI is the Name of the instance of a Class which tells us what something is.

So identifying Christ with YHWH is calling Christ himself YHWH one and the same being.

[David Waltz]

Hi Juliann

You posted:

>>The only thing that is difficult to support is a pre-existence. Baptism for the dead would be next but there is enough there to support that something was going on.>>

Me: I must disagree about the doctrine of pre-existence. Others besides Origen (who was clearly influenced by Platonism on this issue) clearly taught the doctrine. Even Augustine, prior to his writings on Pelagianism, was open to the doctrine of pre-existence.

Grace and peace,

David

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

What does the term "identify with" mean?

It means he is the only Son of the Father (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18); he is God himself (Jn 1:1).

Luke 1

[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

[43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

[68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

[72] To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

[David Waltz]

Hi Zak,

You wrote:

>>Deification of man was considered Christian Orthodoxy until Constantine wrested the power and set up the councils.>>

Me: The Catholic Church (the Roman and EO branches), teaches the doctrine of deification

[ave maria]

I maintain however I do not believe they were ordained to either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood and thus were not "prophets, seers or revelators"

Out of curiosity, to what priesthood do you believe they were ordained?

And why do you suppose to this day, priests are ordained "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek?"

Bart Ehrman doesn't hold the priesthood but I respect and agree with much of his writings.

Margaret Barker doesn't hold the priesthood but I find her work on the polytheism of ancient Israel fascinating and useful.

Isn't Margaret Barker an ordained Methodist minister? You might not believe she holds the priesthood, but doesn't she?

[johnny]

David Waltz  writes,

Even Augustine, prior to his writings on Pelagianism, was open to the doctrine of pre-existence.

Did Augustine continue with this doctrine ... was this doctrine different than the LDS theology of pre-existence?

Wikipedia says the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traducianism

While none of the Church fathers actively advocated Traducianism (i.e, the parental generation of souls),some of them

[johnny]

David Waltz  writes,

Me: The Catholic Church (the Roman and EO branches), teaches the doctrine of deification

[ave maria]

It's still my impression that a number of LDS here believe there are doctrines completely unique to Mormonism found and supported by the writings of the early Christian fathers, not found in any other faith.

Further, unless I'm misunderstanding, I believe some LDS posters maintain that at least some of those doctrines or practices were not in existence anywhere contemporary to Joseph Smith, and that he could not have had any explained exposure to them.

I'm interested in knowing what LDS posters on this thread think specifically. If there are doctrines unique to the LDS Church, not found anywhere else, but supported by the ECF, I'd like to see a list of as many as possible.

If there are doctrines found in the ECF that Joseph Smith could not have encountered anywhere, I'm likewise interested in knowing what those are.

[David Waltz]

Hi Johnny,

You posted the following:

>>Did Augustine continue with this doctrine ... was this doctrine different than the LDS theology of pre-existence?>>

Me: After the Pelagian controversy, Augustine became a vocal opponent of the doctrine of pre-existence; prior to this, the type of pre-existence he was open to differed from the LDS concept concerning the notion of

[David Waltz]

Hello again Johnny,

You asked the following:

>>Does this doctrine teach men become "a God" or that they become "God"?>>

Me: The EO