Early Church Vs Latter-day

[stemelbow]

Does the latter-day Church benefit from a luxury that the early Church could not?

That is the initial question.

I hate to sound so baised in favor of LDS, but oh well.

If there was an apostacy in the early Church and if it (the apostacy) in effect eliminated the basic structure of the intended Church (apostles on down) very early on (the first century) then did the early Church lack a needed step of evolving as the latter-day Church perhaps benefits from?

I wonder a little on this. It seems like if there is a distinct falsehood that steered people away from so many truths that were later restored I would perhaps narrow that falsehood down to creation ex nihilo (I certainly may be wrong and open to correction). I might argue that the continued existence of Christianity had to take on some form of evolution early on which sparked the incorporation of fire-tested "truth" (such as creation ex nihilo), but we can't be sure this evolution was God-inspired. If that be the case then can we think that the fire-tested truths we latter-day's claim is evolution inspired of God?

Love,

stem

[TOmNossor]

I love your question. It has not been answered well enough in LDS thought.

I will quickly interact with a couple of your comments and then offer a huge mess of words (it is my way).

Does the latter-day Church benefit from a luxury that the early Church could not?

If there was an apostacy in the early Church and if it (the apostacy) in effect eliminated the basic structure of the intended Church (apostles on down) very early on (the first century) then did the early Church lack a needed step of evolving as the latter-day Church perhaps benefits from?

I think the Early Church lacked the ability (some of it is just associated with technology) to preserve and practice the esoteric rights associated with Temple Covenants. The loss of the Covenantal nature of the gospel is part of the apostasy according to Noel Reynolds (see below).

I wonder a little on this. It seems like if there is a distinct falsehood that steered people away from so many truths that were later restored I would perhaps narrow that falsehood down to creation ex nihilo (I certainly may be wrong and open to correction). I might argue that the continued existence of Christianity had to take on some form of evolution early on which sparked the incorporation of fire-tested "truth" (such as creation ex nihilo), but we can't be sure this evolution was God-inspired. If that be the case then can we think that the fire-tested truths we latter-day's claim is evolution inspired of God?

I think the acceptance of Creation ex Nihilo was a huge theological slip. But I do not think theological slips are at the heart of the apostasy. I think the apostasy is associated with the absence of authority. Ultimately theological slips are probably associated with the absence of authority, but this is not even absolute IMO(I would be open to the "accepted by common consent" as a protector of Orthodoxy for the CoJCoLDS however).

That being said, if the Catholic Churchâ??s authority defined infallibly error, then that is an issues since orthodoxy is protected by authority in the Catholic paradigm. In the LDS paradigm, I do not believe that orthodoxy is necessarily protected by authority. Instead God can direct the church in a direction through the valid authority. I think our union is orthopraxic in that we do the same thing/things. For example, we all sustain the prophet.

Now to my long winded response.

Early Christians in Disarray is a good collections of ideas that can be explored. Here is an essay by Noel Reynolds that is quite good (and similar to some of his work in the book).

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcri...15_Reynolds.htm

First, it seems that an apostasy theory must either place â??blameâ? with the apostles or postulate a blameless apostasy. I think our scriptures should suggest that apostasy is not something inflicted upon the church, but it is something that comes from within.

Second, I am quite partial to Dr. Reynolds view of the loss of Covenants resulting in many aspects of the apostasy. I was partial to his view before I encountered the New Perspective on Paul. Here is some (it is long feel free to skip) on how I think the NPP has supported the view that the loss of proper Covenantal understanding was part of the apostasy.

The CoJCoLDS has restored the Covenantal nature of first century Christianity. The various â??sola fideâ? groups have a profound misunderstanding of the Bible. The Catholic view of â??infused righteousnessâ? is quite solid, but lacking the â??Covenantal Nomismâ? that was prevalent in 1st Century Christianity. The CoJCoLDS is the restoration of this anceint form of Christianity.

Here are a few passages from a Reformed Scholar Cornelis P. Venema in a Reformed journal. Much latter he will attempt to dismiss the New Perspective on Saint Paul (NPSP or more commonly NPP), but if he fails (and I believe he does) then it would seem there is much strength offered to the LDS (and by association the Catholic) position through the NPSP.

When I consider the development in recent decades of what is known as the â??new perspective on Paul,â? I am newly reminded of those graduate school conversations. One of the more striking illustrations of the gap that obtains between contemporary biblical scholarship and the pulpit or pew is the emergence in biblical studies, particularly studies of the epistles of the apostle Paul, of this new view. Whereas in most Protestant churches, especially Lutheran and Reformed churches whose adherence to their confessions is more than a matter of lip service, the teaching of justification by faith alone remains a matter of special emphasis, Pauline scholars in the last several decades have engaged in a process of thorough- going deconstruction of the doctrine. Indeed, so widespread and influential is this new reading of Paul, which calls into question the Reformationâ??s understanding of the gospel, that it might be regarded as something of a consensus opinion among contemporary Bible scholars.

â?¦

However, whatever the gap between academy and pulpit, lectern and pew, this new approach to the interpretation of Paul is so revolutionary and far- reaching in its implications, it seems unlikely that it will not, sooner or later, have a profound affect upon the life and ministry of the church. If the Reformation misunderstood the gospel, as the new view intimates, things cannot go on as before. Not only must this be reflected in a new way of preaching the gospel, but it also has rather obvious implications for the historic division between Protestantism and Catholicism. It will also challenge directly churches whose confessions are the product of, and give summary expression to, the gospel as it was understood at the time of the Reformation.

Here is the first in Venemaâ??s series of articles from which the above quotes are taken.

http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/printarticle.asp?ID=566

Now, the NPSP is hardly a singular view, but there are common threads that Venema and I would suggest are quite universally accepted by those who deal first with what the Bible says in 1st Century Christianity (rather than first with developed theology of the Reformation). The most universal of these truths is that when the Reformation viewed Paul as anti-law, they misread Paul.

The term â??Covenantal Nomismâ? describes the Pauline emphasis (within context) of how the New Covenant while entered into by FAITH is not devoid of â??Nomismâ? or covenantal prescriptions.

It is my opinion that the Reformers misread Paul and rejected Catholic prescriptions upon behavior and â?¦.

Beyond this, it is my opinion that the Restoration recaptures the original spirit of First Century Christianity better than developed Catholicism because within the CoJCoLDS these prescriptions are specifically Covenantal. Hence we have a restoration!

With that in mind, I suggest two courses of investigation. My view would involve both in some way.

1. Conflict within the church made succession difficult and was part of the reason that God did no call apostles to replace dying members of the twelve. The Bible supports this view. Paul even calls Peter and the other Jerusalem Apostles, â??so calledâ? leaders.

2. The highest form of Covenants in the ancient church like in the modern church involve sacred ordnances. The preservation and spread (without perversion) of such esoteric rights was prohibitively difficult within the 1st century setting. Persecutions were problematic, but it was just too hard to share the Covenantal practices (the 1st century versions of our Temple ordinances) in an environment without the modern things available to the late 19th century CoJCoLDS. God could have done this, but such regular and dramatic divine intervention was not part of Godâ??s plan. The 1st century was the unique time when God would become Man and man would kill their God. A feature or side-effect of this time was that the fullness of Godâ??s covenantal plan would be lost to be restored later.

I think these and other ideas from Reynoldsâ?? book are in need of greater elaboration. I find things like Nibleyâ??s Apostles and Bishops In Early Christianity and James Barkers Apostasy from the Divine Church to be excellent sources on what happened, but to deal little with why (Nibley in passing mentions that the Apostleâ??s actions indicated that the knew their full authority would not continued). Other sources like From Apostles to Bishops by Father Sullivan and and The Rise of the Papacy by Robert Eno offer a Catholic take on the development of the view that the Catholic Bishop was the successor of the Apostle. If it were not for the restoration I could believe in Sullivan and Enoâ??s picture.

Of course the Restoration gives evidence of the Apostasy.

And.

Our spiritual testimonies are of a personal value to us, but are not apologetic tools IMO.

I think the history of the Early Church offers plenty of evidence that the Apostolic (general) and Peterine (specific) authority was not passed into the Catholic Church. I believe the LDS explanation of these events is stronger than the Catholic, but were their no Christian Church available to me that claimed a restoration, I would embrace the Catholic view.

I think the history of the Restoration offers plenty of evidence that there must have been an apostasy. But, if there was no Restoration, I would return to Catholicism.

Anyway, here are some of my thoughts.

Charity, TOm

[cinepro]

Your question could be just as valid in considering the "Early" LDS Church, and the Latter-day LDS Church. There has been quite an evolution in the short 177 year life of the Church, including internal power struggles and schisms. The evolution has also extended to the Temple ordinances, including the drastic reduction in performances (or at least public acknowledgment) of the higher ordinance of the Second Anointing.

I am reticent to criticize the changes in Catholicism's history when I imagine what the LDS Church could look like in 2,000 years!

For a lighter take on the subject, I recommend finding the short story "Joseph Smith Visits the Redwood City First Ward", published some years ago.

[Chris Smith]

Good question. The apostasy involved the establishment of a human priesthood where none was intended and the erection of special classes of men-- bishops, cardinals, Popes-- who had absolute authority over their followers and exclusive control over the creation and interpretation of the canon. This resulted in the marginalization of women, Jews, minority theological viewpoints, and charismatic figures within the church. It also resulted in a great deal of Papal sin and "unrighteous dominion" during the Middle Ages. Jesus, of course, reserved some of his harshest condemnation for such special classes of men, which in his day included the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.

We may wish that the LDS church had some special advantage over the early Christians in this regard, but unfortunately it did not. The LDS church experienced the beginnings of an apostasy of its own at the moment of its inception. In the words of David Whitmer,

I do not consider that the church was any more organized or established in the eyes of God on that day than it was previous to that day. I consider that on that day the first error was introduced into the Church of Christ, and that error was Brother Joseph being ordained as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" to the church.

The Holy Ghost was with us in more power during the eight months previous to April 6, 1830, than ever at any time thereafter. Almost everyone who was baptized received the Holy Ghost in power, some prophesying, some speaking in tongues, the heavens were opened to some, and all the signs which Christ promised should follow the believers were with us abundantly. We were an humble happy people, and loved each other as brethren should love.

Just before April 6, 1830, some of the brethren began to think that the church should have a leader, just like the children of Israel wanting a king. Brother Joseph finally inquired of the Lord about it. He must have had a desire himself to be their leader, which desire in any form is not of God, for Christ said "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." "He that would be great, let him be your servant." "For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great."A true and humble follower of Christ will never have any desire to lead or be first, or to seek the praise of men or brethren. Desiring any prominence whatever is not humility, but it is pride; it is seeking praise of mortals instead of the praise of God. Joseph received a revelation that he should be the leader; that he should be ordained by Oliver Cowdery as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" to the church, and that the church should receive his words as if from God's own mouth. Satan surely rejoiced on that day, for he then saw that in time he could overthrow them. Remember, "Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of man, and some revelations are of the devil." God allowed them to be answered according to their erring desires. They were like the children of Israel wanting a king, and God gave them a king, but it was to their final destruction.

...

I will prove that God called Brother Joseph to translate the Book of Mormon only, and that he was not called to organize and establish the church any more than the rest of us Elders. That God commanded him that he should pretend to no other gift but to translate the Book of Mormon, that God would grant him no other gift.

...

This part of this revelation in the Book of Commandments reads thus: "And he (Joseph) has a gift to translate the Book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift."

But in the Doctrine and Covenants it has been changed and reads thus:

"And you have a gift to translate the plates, and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you, and I have commanded you that you should pretend to no other gift, until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished".

All religious organizations seem at some point in their life to undergo a process called the "routinization of charisma," where by charismatic voices are replaced by stuffy old men in leadership positions. Tragically, the LDS church is no exception.

Best,

-CK

[PacMan]

CK:

You confound terms.

The LDS church experienced the beginnings of an apostasy of its own at the moment of its inception.

That would not be the church experiencing the beginnings of an apostasy, but apostates.

All religious organizations seem at some point in their life to undergo a process called the "routinization of charisma," where by charismatic voices are replaced by stuffy old men in leadership positions. Tragically, the LDS church is no exception.

So...did that happen pre- or post- J. Golden Kimball?

PacMan

[TOmNossor]

Your question could be just as valid in considering the "Early" LDS Church, and the Latter-day LDS Church. There has been quite an evolution in the short 177 year life of the Church, including internal power struggles and schisms. The evolution has also extended to the Temple ordinances, including the drastic reduction in performances (or at least public acknowledgment) of the higher ordinance of the Second Anointing.

I am reticent to criticize the changes in Catholicism's history when I imagine what the LDS Church could look like in 2,000 years!

For a lighter take on the subject, I recommend finding the short story "Joseph Smith Visits the Redwood City First Ward", published some years ago.

Cinepro,

I assume that you are not responding to me at all (or Noel Reynolds).

I do not believe that change/development of doctrine is a sign of apostasy except when it is internally inconsistent with stated practices.

I see development in all Christian structures that have investigated.

I find the Catholic appeal to authority sufficient to explain some development (and I cannot now say that any development was outside this explanation).

I find the LDS appeal to authority and revelation sufficient to explain development. And LDS who are less concerned with orthodoxy (you are a rather unorthodox LDS correct) seem significantly less phased by such things.

I find the acceptance of Catholic developments and simultaneous rejection of Catholic authority in Protestantism to be quite problematic.

Charity, TOm

[Chris Smith]

So...did that happen pre- or post- J. Golden Kimball?

Elder Kimball was certainly a uniquely spirited character in the Church's history. But his rise to prominence may be an example of routinization at work...

"Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church."

-CK

[PacMan]

Elder Kimball was certainly a uniquely spirited character in the Church's history. But his rise to prominence may be an example of routinization at work...

"Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church."

Hehehe. As my grandfather once told me, 'If the general membership of the church understood the diagreement that went on among the brethren at times, some would loose their testimonies over it.' There certainly is debate and and politicizing. But, the issue of revelation is most commonly, "Lord, is this OK?" Despite J. Golden's best intentions, I think the Lord approved of his call more then he himself would have liked!

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

I find the acceptance of Catholic developments and simultaneous rejection of Catholic authority in Protestantism to be quite problematic.

So do I. But unfortunately it's difficult for people to break with the past. Take for example the Protestants' de facto rejection of Paul's injunctions against women speaking in church. Rather than throw those portions out of the Bible altogether, they reinterpret them (even though everybody knows, deep down, that such reinterpretation is unwarranted). It seems that, since the Bible served as the basis for the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic leadership structures, Protestants have a hard time parting with any aspect of it. Nevertheless I think we see it being subverted in some respects, and I predict the day will come (though not for a long time) when modification of the canon will be less taboo.

-CK

[e=mc2]

California Kid:

"Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church."

An interesting point here CK. I noted in my recent reading (and reading...... and reading...... and READING!!!!!!) of both Robert Eisenman and Jeffrey L. Butz's materials on James the Brother of Jesus, that the followers and successors of Jesus were, according to many early Church Fathers, his own blood relatives. Butz even gives the line of succession from Jesus through James (which eventually became the Ebionites!) for over 13 successions of people! All blood relatives. It was a dynastic succession, not an Apostolic one. That raises more than a few eyebrows in and of itself yes?

Best to you my friend,

Kerry

[Obiwan]

Your question could be just as valid in considering the "Early" LDS Church, and the Latter-day LDS Church. There has been quite an evolution in the short 177 year life of the Church, including internal power struggles and schisms. The evolution has also extended to the Temple ordinances, including the drastic reduction in performances (or at least public acknowledgment) of the higher ordinance of the Second Anointing.

I am reticent to criticize the changes in Catholicism's history when I imagine what the LDS Church could look like in 2,000 years!

For a lighter take on the subject, I recommend finding the short story "Joseph Smith Visits the Redwood City First Ward", published some years ago.

Everything Joseph taught and instituted including Temple Ordinances is still practiced in the Church.

Just because when Joseph died and some men had some power and they took it upon themselves to lead various members of the Church this way and that when they didn't have the authority to do so doesn't mean anything. Apostasy from the Church does not make anything but that. The leadership and system was still intact. Contrary to the Catholic Church lower level leaders vied for power.