1st/2nd century church

[rhinomelon]

Of course. But where we differ on this is that we do not acknowlege the schisms as legitimate. We have no concept of "the body of Christ" that can include all sorts of denominations. That is what annoys so many...the insistence we are it..the one.

You have several Restoration movements that began with Joseph Smith. Sounds pretty legit to me. Who's to say which one is "the correct one"?

What I mean is that the fact that Christian history involved schisms cannot be used to automatically assert something like the Great Apostasy, because LDS church history has similar events. In other words, one can't say, "Christianity had schisms, and Paul preached against them, so Christianity is obviously apostate." At least, one can't say that from an LDS perspective without having to face one's own history.

Okay, it's really not that big a deal to me. I don't want to sidetrack anybody

[Beowulf]

No Rhinomelon, you are right.

This is why it is important to us that we know which of the Restoration movements IS the right one.

Beowulf

Edit: This includes (or especially) a lineage line that every priesthood holder in the LDS church is informed of, going back to Joseph Smith and then to Peter, James, and John, and then to Jesus Christ.

This is the authority that LDS claim was lost, after the Apostles departed the Earth (probably around the time of Ignatius, and certainly before Origen, as Juliann pointed out above).

[juliann]

What I mean is that the fact that Christian history involved schisms cannot be used to automatically assert something like the Great Apostasy, because LDS church history has similar events. In other words, one can't say, "Christianity had schisms, and Paul preached against them, so Christianity is obviously apostate." At least, one can't say that from an LDS perspective without having to face one's own history.

Oh...I see. I don't use "schisms" as a sign of anything beyond stuff happens. What I do see as problematic is that there was no one there to settle the arguments as they were sorting out doctrine and making political plays in a group that was contentious but still loosely intact. The "heretics" had already been sidelined as heretics. That is why the first ECFs wrote about heretics instead of doctrine. It was a process of shoving one group after another out of the way by political power with doctrine ultimately being decided by committee.

[David Waltz]

Hi Juliann,

You posted the following:

>>Of course. But where we differ on this is that we do not acknowlege the schisms as legitimate. We have no concept of "the body of Christ" that can include all sorts of denominations. That is what annoys so many...the insistence we are it..the one.>>

Me: Warning

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes,

Interesting you may find it, but how can you possibly suggest that the above teaches of Purgatory?

[juliann]

More on baptism for the dead from Brill (and an indication of where scholarship is going on this topic):

http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id21448.htm

Although 1 Cor 15:29 ("Otherwise what are they to do,

who have themselves baptized on account of the dead?

If the dead are not really raised, why are they

baptized on account of them?") has received a vast

amount of attention in the biblical academy, there is

no scholarly consensus as to its meaning. In order to

break the current impasse, this volume reviews and

critiques the over forty different interpretations of

15:29, then examines the verse anew in terms of its

literary, historical, and theological contexts within

the writings of Paul. On the basis of this study, Hull

concludes that 1 Cor 15:29 is a dual rhetorical

question in which Paul holds up one group within the

Corinthian community as a laudable example for the

entire community. Specifically, those who have

themselves baptized are undergoing the rite of baptism

because of their steadfast faith in the resurrection

of Christ and, concomitantly, of Christians. They

undergo the rite of baptism "on account of the

dead"-on account of the fact that the dead are

destined for life-and thus shame the arrogance and

ignorance of those among the Corinthians who deny the

resurrection  (1 Cor 15:12).

[juliann]

My reading of the NT strongly indicates that if one is a Christian, then one is a member of

[ave maria]

And the LDS church has not been spared visits from the "schism bug" either, I remind you.

Of course. But where we differ on this is that we do not acknowlege the schisms as legitimate. We have no concept of "the body of Christ" that can include all sorts of denominations. That is what annoys so many...the insistence we are it..the one.

You are confusing two different things here.

One doesn't necessarily accept a schism as "legitimate" even if they accept them as part of the Body of Christ, or body of Christian believers.

You are correct that the LDS Church doesn't share a concept of the Church "visible and invisible," or the Body of Christ. I would be surprised to see this change, or to see it suddenly participate in ecumenical efforts to bring about unity in the Christian church.

[ave maria]

More on baptism for the dead from Brill (and an indication of where scholarship is going on this topic):

http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id21448.htm

Although 1 Cor 15:29 ("Otherwise what are they to do,

who have themselves baptized on account of the dead?

If the dead are not really raised, why are they

baptized on account of them?") has received a vast

amount of attention in the biblical academy, there is

no scholarly consensus as to its meaning. In order to

break the current impasse, this volume reviews and

critiques the over forty different interpretations of

15:29, then examines the verse anew in terms of its

literary, historical, and theological contexts within

the writings of Paul.

On the basis of this study, Hull

concludes that 1 Cor 15:29 is a dual rhetorical

question in which Paul holds up one group within the

Corinthian community as a laudable example for the

entire community. Specifically, those who have

themselves baptized are undergoing the rite of baptism

because of their steadfast faith in the resurrection

of Christ and, concomitantly, of Christians. They

undergo the rite of baptism "on account of the

dead"-on account of the fact that the dead are

destined for life-and thus shame the arrogance and

ignorance of those among the Corinthians who deny the

resurrection

(1 Cor 15:12).

It would be helpful if you'd elaborate. Exactly where do you see "scholarship going at the moment" with respect to baptism for the dead?

I'm still wondering if you're supporting the assertion that baptism for the dead was a legitimate practice of the early Christian church, or whether you simply believe "redemption for the dead" in general, or "salvation for the dead," if you prefer, was the focus.

[juliann]

It would be helpful if you'd elaborate.  Exactly where do you see "scholarship going at the moment" with respect to baptism for the dead?

What part of the above quote did you not understand? I fixed the formating. Maybe that will help you.

I'm still wondering if you're supporting the assertion that baptism for the dead was a legitimate practice of the early Christian church, or whether you simply believe "redemption for the dead" in general, or "salvation for the dead," if you prefer, was the focus.

I'm still wondering why you are avoiding the quotes and sources I have provided with your nonstop troll game of 20 questions.

[ave maria]

For starters, there is no such thing as "apostolic tradition".

That's rhetorical gamesmanship.

Anyone can say "there's no such thing as" regarding something they don't legitimately recognize.

Certain terms are employed by faith traditions to describe entities within their own experience. To that extent, the vocabulary might be more useful to them than to outsiders.

But dismissively saying, "there's no such thing as" fails to recognize it as a means of communicating something commonly recognized within a group, whether or not you acknowledge it as tangible or valid.

"Apostolic tradition" exists as a describable entity. Whether or not you acknowledge it is something else entirely.

[juliann]

But dismissively saying, "there's no such thing as" fails to recognize it as a means of communicating something commonly recognized within a group, whether or not you acknowledge it as tangible or valid.

"Apostolic tradition" exists as a describable entity. Whether or not you acknowledge it is something else entirely.

You scuttled a previous thread with your tapdancing around a simple request. Let's try again. Provide contemporary documentation of the line of succession upon which your claim of "apostolic tradition" rests. Then you can derail the thread insisting there is such a thing.

[ave maria]

It would be helpful if you'd elaborate.

[juliann]

And then only will they be removed from their punishments when the thought of repenting of the evil deeds which they have done has come into their hearts. But if it does not come into their hearts, they will not be saved, on account of the hardness of their heart." (Hermas Vision 3:7)

I'm not sure you want to be quoting Hermas in a thread discussing baptism for the dead.

[juliann]

Show us the money.

Shoot your blanks at someone else's feet. I have no intention of dancing to your incessant and nonresponsive demands. You have added nothing to this thread.

Quote Hermas for us since Johnny seems to value the text. Tell us about the reference to baptism. For the dead.

[ave maria]

But dismissively saying, "there's no such thing as" fails to recognize it as a means of communicating something commonly recognized within a group, whether or not you acknowledge it as tangible or valid.

"Apostolic tradition" exists as a describable entity.  Whether or not you acknowledge it is something else entirely.

You scuttled a previous thread with your tapdancing around a simple request. Let's try again. Provide contemporary documentation of the line of succession upon which your claim of "apostolic tradition" rests. Then you can derail the thread insisting there is such a thing.

Nonsense, juliann.

If you can't get past personality conflicts and try to engage in mutually respectful discussion, perhaps you should avoid the posts of those who annoy you.

But don't claim that I "scuttled an entire thread" or "tapdanced around an issue." The threads in question are in evidence, and you'll simply derail this one arguing about it.

My post above about the term "apostolic tradition" was apparently lost on you. It had nothing to do with "contemporary evidence for the same." It had to do with whether or not a particular group legitimately could use the term to describe something it mutually acknowledged within the group.

Otherwise, as noted, you're simply engaging in rhetorical gamesmanship.

Back to topic, please.

[ave maria]

Show us the money.

Shoot your blanks at someone else's feet. I have no intention of dancing to your incessant and nonresponsive demands. You have added nothing to this thread.

Quote Hermas for us since Johnny seems to value the text. Tell us about the reference to baptism. For the dead.

Your opinion is noted.

Would you actually like to have a conversation on the topic of redemption for the dead in early Christianity as compared to the current LDS Church, or non-LDS churches, or not?

I'm sure there are many here who would welcome some insightful elaboration from you regarding what you believe constituted "redemption for the dead" and where you perceive contemporary scholarship to be heading on the topic.

[juliann]

My post above about the term "apostolic tradition" was apparently lost on you. It had nothing to do with "contemporary evidence for the same." It had to do with whether or not a particular group legitimately could use the term to describe something it mutually acknowledged within the group.

Nice try. We mutually agree to use Santa Claus as a term, too. It's real legitimate in our society. And it doesn't make Santa one bit more real. Now produce contemporary documentation of your apostolic succession. You have so far refused to do so while demanding we accept that it exists.

[juliann]

The centrality of the Christian's covenant to repent of sin and obey god's commands had already been marginalized, and the traditional ordinances had lost their covenantal basis, being redefined as sacraments by which god's grace could be transmitted to a recipient through the mediation of a priest.  The subsequent shift to a theology that found truth in nature through reason ensured that the original covenantal understandings of the Christian's relationship to the Father could never be recovered, though their echoes would reverberate hauntingly down through the ages, leading many dissatisfied Christians to long for a restoration of original Christianity. 

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), 324. 

No one has picked this up....this was the most damaging loss to the early church. It is also part of what LDS consider the restoration and it is one of the things that (ironically) elicits so much antipathy from those who claim to own the title of Christian.

[ave maria]

My post above about the term "apostolic tradition" was apparently lost on you.  It had nothing to do with "contemporary evidence for the same."  It had to do with whether or not a particular group legitimately could use the term to describe something it mutually acknowledged within the group.

Nice try. We mutually agree to use Santa Claus as a term, too. It's real legitimate in our society. And it doesn't make Santa one bit more real. Now produce contemporary documentation of your apostolic succession. You have so far refused to do so while demanding we accept that it exists.

That isn't the best comparison.

A better comparison might be the term "patriarchal blessing."

While it might not be recognized as legitimate by other groups, it can be acknowledged as a describable entity (that is, Latter-day Saints believe it to exist, and use the term to describe that which they believe to exist).

Another example might be "First Vision." Not everyone acknowledges or believes that it happened, yet it still accurately describes something upon which everyone agrees--a phenomenon described and claimed by Joseph Smith.

So, you don't believe in apostolic tradition. That doesn't suddenly make it magically disappear, and it can still be discussed as a describable entity.

[ave maria]

The centrality of the Christian's covenant to repent of sin and obey god's commands had already been marginalized, and the traditional ordinances had lost their covenantal basis, being redefined as sacraments by which god's grace could be transmitted to a recipient through the mediation of a priest.

[juliann]

Another example might be "First Vision." Not everyone acknowledges or believes that it happened, yet it still accurately describes something upon which everyone agrees--a phenomenon described and claimed by Joseph Smith.

So, you don't believe in apostolic tradition. That doesn't suddenly make it magically disappear, and it can still be discussed as a describable entity.

How utterly absurd. Not one non-Mormon would acknowledge the validity of JS's visions. Everyone knows what apostolic tradition means. It is a euphemism for what was passed down from that unbroken succession. No unbroken succession...no supportable apostolic "tradition". If putting "apostolic" in front of your tradition makes you feel better have at it....but don't expect outsiders to take you seriously.

Produce contemporary documentation for the line of unbroken succession you insisted existed from the time of Christ in the other thread you derailed.

[juliann]

You're apparently agreeing with his claim that "covenants" disappeared as sacraments advanced.

Can you support that claim?

Still making covenants in temples, are you? What were the promises Justin associates with baptism? Provide evidence that you have maintained the early baptism covenants.

[ave maria]

Another example might be "First Vision."  Not everyone acknowledges or believes that it happened, yet it still accurately describes something upon which everyone agrees--a phenomenon described and claimed by Joseph Smith.

So, you don't believe in apostolic tradition.  That doesn't suddenly make it magically disappear, and it can still be discussed as a describable entity.

How utterly absurd. Not one non-Mormon would acknowledge the validity of JS's visions. Everyone knows what apostolic tradition means. It is a euphemism for what was passed down from that unbroken succession. No unbroken succession...no supportable apostolic "tradition". If putting "apostolic" in front of your tradition makes you feel better have at it....but don't expect outsiders to take you seriously.

Produce contemporary documentation for the line of unbroken succession you insisted existed from the time of Christ in the other thread you derailed.

I did that twice already, juliann, as you're aware.

Try to stay focused. Now, again, in this post, you've misunderstood entirely, as evidenced by your statement that "not one non-Mormon would acknowledge the validity of JS's visions."

That was exactly my point.

One doesn't have to acknowledge the validity of something to acknowledge it as a describable entity.

Since you don't understand, there's no point pursuing it further. I was simply explaining how you are engaging in rhetorical gamesmanship.

Now, back to topic. How do you perceive apostolic tradition, or the lack thereof, relating to it? It seems you're already off-topic commenting on it.

Can we get back to those doctrines and practices found in the first two centuries of Christianity that are currently exclusive to the LDS faith, not found in others?

[countbasie]