The Limits of Comparing Ourselves to Ancient Christians

[Sargon]

I'd like to bounce some ideas off of you guys about the methodology we use when citing ancient Christian beliefs as support for modern LDS beliefs. Barry Bickmore's "Restoring the Ancient Church" is a treasure trove of ancient Christian ideas that resemble modern LDS ones. Our job has been made significantly easier by his work.

However, wherever we can quote an ancient Christian Father or Apologist who teaches something resembling Mormonism, we can usually find that same individual teaching something at odds with Mormonism. While many LDS beliefs are mirrored by ancient Christian beliefs, it is equally clear that many ancient Christian beliefs are not mirrored by modern LDS beliefs.

Is it fair for us to quote them then? Can we really look to them for support? By virtue of our claim to restoring the church from an apostacy, I think we can. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks put it this way in "Offenders for a Word", pg. 76:

Latter-day Saints, though, are in an enviable position here. Given our belief in an apostasy, we fully expect there to be differences, even vast differences, between the beliefs of the Fathers and Mormon doctrine. Any similarities that exist, however, are potentially understandable as survivals from before that apostasy. When any similarities, even partial ones, exist between Latter-day Saint beliefs and the teachings of the Fathers but are absent between contemporary mainstream Christendom and the Fathers, they can be viewed as deeply important.

Emphasis in the original.

A hypothetical, but reasonable discussion might go like this:

non-LDS: Can you show me a modern LDS doctrine that is taught in ancient Christianity?

LDS: Yes, doctrines A, B, and C were taught in ancient Christianity.

non-LDS: That is interesting. But, what about doctrines X, Y, and Z which were also taught in ancient Christianity, but do not fit with modern Mormonism?

LDS: Well, we believe that an apostacy occurred. Therefore, anything in ancient Christianity that resembles our beliefs is potentially evidence for our claims, and anything that is at odds with our beliefs can potentially be discounted as a result of apostacy.

I think the only thing we can appropriately do in regard to consulting ancient Christian beliefs is to demonstrate that certain Mormon doctrines are not exotic, that they have a place within Christianity, and then they potentially could have been taught by the original Church of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, I don't think we can demonstrate that because certain Mormon ideas are found in ancient Christianity that Joseph Smith must have restored them through divine inspiration. All we can know is that he might have.

For example, we can compare and contrast modern LDS teachings to ancient Zoroastrianism. Where we agree, we could theoretically claim that Joseph potentially restored those ideas. Where we disagree, we could easily attribute it to their apostacy. The same scenario could be played out by comparing Mormonism to any ancient faith. It doesn't seem like a particularly solid case for proving Mormonism.

So, I say we continue to compare and contrast Mormonism with ancient Christianity. It is a useful and faith-promoting exercise. However, I think we should be careful in understanding the limits of that exercise.

Any thoughts?

[JLFuller]

I'd like to bounce some ideas off of you guys about the methodology we use when citing ancient Christian beliefs as support for modern LDS beliefs. Barry Bickmore's "Restoring the Ancient Church" is a treasure trove of ancient Christian ideas that resemble modern LDS ones. Our job has been made significantly easier by his work.

However, wherever we can quote an ancient Christian Father or Apologist who teaches something resembling Mormonism, we can usually find that same individual teaching something at odds with Mormonism. While many LDS beliefs are mirrored by ancient Christian beliefs, it is equally clear that many ancient Christian beliefs are not mirrored by modern LDS beliefs.

Is it fair for us to quote them then? Can we really look to them for support? By virtue of our claim to restoring the church from an apostacy, I think we can. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks put it this way in "Offenders for a Word", pg. 76:

Emphasis in the original.

A hypothetical, but reasonable discussion might go like this:

non-LDS: Can you show me a modern LDS doctrine that is taught in ancient Christianity?

LDS: Yes, doctrines A, B, and C were taught in ancient Christianity.

non-LDS: That is interesting. But, what about doctrines X, Y, and Z which were also taught in ancient Christianity, but do not fit with modern Mormonism?

LDS: Well, we believe that an apostacy occurred. Therefore, anything in ancient Christianity that resembles our beliefs is potentially evidence for our claims, and anything that is at odds with our beliefs can potentially be discounted as a result of apostacy.

I think the only thing we can appropriately do in regard to consulting ancient Christian beliefs is to demonstrate that certain Mormon doctrines are not exotic, that they have a place within Christianity, and then they potentially could have been taught by the original Church of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, I don't think we can demonstrate that because certain Mormon ideas are found in ancient Christianity that Joseph Smith must have restored them through divine inspiration. All we can know is that he might have.

For example, we can compare and contrast modern LDS teachings to ancient Zoroastrianism. Where we agree, we could theoretically claim that Joseph potentially restored those ideas. Where we disagree, we could easily attribute it to their apostacy. The same scenario could be played out by comparing Mormonism to any ancient faith. It doesn't seem like a particularly solid case for proving Mormonism.

So, I say we continue to compare and contrast Mormonism with ancient Christianity. It is a useful and faith-promoting exercise. However, I think we should be careful in understanding the limits of that exercise.

Any thoughts?

Sargon

You hit upon a subject I have been thinking about for some time. How do we take part of what one ancient father says and disregard the rest? Are we not obligated to accept everything one of these people says? You provided a two-part system for judging. I suggest we can look to others who have commented on the subject as well. We should look to see how much strength there is in the argument by what was said about it by whom and over how long a period. If the idea held up over time, sans political involvement, and support was from other qualified thinkers then we can have more confidence in it. I am hesitant however to come to a conclusion based on whether it meets current LDS thinking. Our thinking is still in flux as well. No one I know is ready to make many absolute statements. At best we have something we can take to the Holy Ghost for confirmation at least on a personal basis. If, over time, there arises a widely held consensus then we can have more faith in our conclusions. We should be cautious and keep an open mind. This is not an either-or event. This is a process of discovery and new information is coming to light all the time. At best we have confirmation of a few commonly held beliefs based on the evidence we are presented with. They may allow the conversation to proceed to the next step. Who knows what we will be considering next?

[Scott26.2]

So, I say we continue to compare and contrast Mormonism with ancient Christianity. It is a useful and faith-promoting exercise. However, I think we should be careful in understanding the limits of that exercise.

Sargon, I agree completely with your thought. We must be cautious when comparing and contrasting Mormonism with Ancient Christianity, however we ought to be able to find some parallels. The following is a quote from:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/19...eification.html

Firstly, the apostasy began almost at the beginning of the Church in that early dispensation, the most notable mass-exodus of members being during the time of the very ministry of Christ.³ Even the leaders of the early Church were well aware that a time of testing was soon to come and that after their departure, the flocks of the Church would be overrun with wolves bringing damnable heresies with them.⁴ That such was indeed happening even in the days of the Apostles themselves was recorded in the Bible.⁵

Evidence that things had even gone so far that there were individuals claiming ordination to Apostleship in Christ's Church to lend support to their campaign to alter the Church from within is also found there as well.<A href="http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html#en6">⁶ Additionally, the Church was badly fragmented from the beginning as disagreements on various doctrinal points caused divisions among the various groups. As a result of all this, it should not be expected that every doctrine of the early Church would be preserved in its pristine form among the writings of the early fathers of the Church....On the other hand, it should be expected that a number of fairly close parallels should be found among those writings--especially among the earlier fathers of the early Church--if Joseph Smith is to be believed.

Good day

Scott26.2

[David Waltz]

Hello Sargon,

You wrote:

>>I think the only thing we can appropriately do in regard to consulting ancient Christian beliefs is to demonstrate that certain Mormon doctrines are not exotic, that they have a place within Christianity, and then they potentially could have been taught by the original Church of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, I don't think we can demonstrate that because certain Mormon ideas are found in ancient Christianity that Joseph Smith must have restored them through divine inspiration. All we can know is that he might have.>>

Me: Very well said, concise, cogent, and spot-on (from an LDS point of view).

Grace and peace,

David

[sleepyhead]

I'd like to bounce some ideas off of you guys about the methodology we use when citing ancient Christian beliefs as support for modern LDS beliefs. Barry Bickmore's "Restoring the Ancient Church" is a treasure trove of ancient Christian ideas that resemble modern LDS ones. Our job has been made significantly easier by his work.

However, wherever we can quote an ancient Christian Father or Apologist who teaches something resembling Mormonism, we can usually find that same individual teaching something at odds with Mormonism. While many LDS beliefs are mirrored by ancient Christian beliefs, it is equally clear that many ancient Christian beliefs are not mirrored by modern LDS beliefs.

Is it fair for us to quote them then? Can we really look to them for support? By virtue of our claim to restoring the church from an apostacy, I think we can. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks put it this way in "Offenders for a Word", pg. 76:

Emphasis in the original.

A hypothetical, but reasonable discussion might go like this:

non-LDS: Can you show me a modern LDS doctrine that is taught in ancient Christianity?

LDS: Yes, doctrines A, B, and C were taught in ancient Christianity.

non-LDS: That is interesting. But, what about doctrines X, Y, and Z which were also taught in ancient Christianity, but do not fit with modern Mormonism?

LDS: Well, we believe that an apostacy occurred. Therefore, anything in ancient Christianity that resembles our beliefs is potentially evidence for our claims, and anything that is at odds with our beliefs can potentially be discounted as a result of apostacy.

I think the only thing we can appropriately do in regard to consulting ancient Christian beliefs is to demonstrate that certain Mormon doctrines are not exotic, that they have a place within Christianity, and then they potentially could have been taught by the original Church of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, I don't think we can demonstrate that because certain Mormon ideas are found in ancient Christianity that Joseph Smith must have restored them through divine inspiration. All we can know is that he might have.

For example, we can compare and contrast modern LDS teachings to ancient Zoroastrianism. Where we agree, we could theoretically claim that Joseph potentially restored those ideas. Where we disagree, we could easily attribute it to their apostacy. The same scenario could be played out by comparing Mormonism to any ancient faith. It doesn't seem like a particularly solid case for proving Mormonism.

So, I say we continue to compare and contrast Mormonism with ancient Christianity. It is a useful and faith-promoting exercise. However, I think we should be careful in understanding the limits of that exercise.

Any thoughts?

Hello sargon,

If we use the methology of communion as an example, The Catholics believe that those in a leadership position (priests, bishops, and even the pope if he's physically able) serve communion. The LDS believe deacons should serve communion to both the membership and also the leadership. In the last supper the message being taught to the apostles is that they should be servants to those who they have responsible for. Jesus set the example by serving communion to his apostles. Do you believe that the catholics methodology of the leadership serving communion to be a result of the apostacy, and do you believe that the LDS medhodology, to be a correction of the apostacy?

[Gervin]

Was there ever a period of time when the Christian church had it completely "right?" When would that have been? Was there a particular church body that taught the correct ordinances, temple works, and beliefs from which other churches became apostate? What church would this have been?

[mfbukowski]

A hypothetical, but reasonable discussion might go like this:

non-LDS: Can you show me a modern LDS doctrine that is taught in ancient Christianity?

LDS: Yes, doctrines A, B, and C were taught in ancient Christianity.

non-LDS: That is interesting. But, what about doctrines X, Y, and Z which were also taught in ancient Christianity, but do not fit with modern Mormonism?

LDS: Well, we believe that an apostacy occurred. Therefore, anything in ancient Christianity that resembles our beliefs is potentially evidence for our claims, and anything that is at odds with our beliefs can potentially be discounted as a result of apostacy.

I think it is a huge methodological problem, and not easily solved. It appears that we are "cherry picking" doctrines, and perhaps we are. Yet if any of this could be conclusively proven, everyone would be simply LDS and we would need no faith. I have often wondered what the world would be like if some new rigorous discovery in physics proved that the earth blinked into existence exactly 6,000 years ago, and miraculously, virtually every scientist agreed. (Just give me a mention in the screen play) What would happen to faith? Would people still be immoral? Or is certainty really part of what we call "Satan's plan"? I really do believe that uncertainty is an essential part of the human condition -- there would be no growth without it!

Edit: Changed "certainly" to "certainty" - typo

[Scott26.2]

I think it is a huge methodological problem, and not easily solved. It appears that we are "cherry picking" doctrines, and perhaps we are. Yet if any of this could be conclusively proven, everyone would be simply LDS and we would need no faith. I have often wondered what the world would be like if some new rigorous discovery in physics proved that the earth blinked into existence exactly 6,000 years ago, and miraculously, virtually every scientist agreed. (Just give me a mention in the screen play) What would happen to faith? Would people still be immoral? Or is certainly really part of what we call "Satan's plan"? I really do believe that uncertainty is an essential part of the human condition -- there would be no growth without it!

I see your point but I think it is a bit strong. I don't think it is a huge problem to look for and identify parallels, connections and similartities between the restored gospel of Christ and the ancient gospel of Christ. "We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church..." Shouldn't we want to point the similarities out? Understandably, with caution and wisdom.

Scott26.2

[rhinomelon]

Good post, Sargon. This is precisely the kind of stuff I want to focus on in my graduate studies.

I see your point but I think it is a bit strong. I don't think it is a huge problem to look for and identify parallels, connections and similartities between the restored gospel of Christ and the ancient gospel of Christ. "We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church..." Shouldn't we want to point the similarities out? Understandably, with caution and wisdom.

But to take it one step further, an LDS person should also ensure that the similarities are really all that similar, or if it's just a matter of similar vocabulary being used to refer to very different things. For instance, in the area of deification, the early church fathers assumed as axiomatic that there is an ontological divide between God and man, Creator and created. LDS do not have this gap, and for this reason the respective language about deification may be similar at times, but the underlying beliefs and the eventual conclusions are widely different.

Take care, everyone

[mfbukowski]

I see your point but I think it is a bit strong. I don't think it is a huge problem to look for and identify parallels, connections and similartities between the restored gospel of Christ and the ancient gospel of Christ. "We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church..." Shouldn't we want to point the similarities out? Understandably, with caution and wisdom.

Scott26.2

Oh sure! No I personally do that all the time and I think everyone does- but the key is the "with wisdom" part. I am about to post a document that I think really points to parallels with early christianity, and really does require some creative "seeing" and contexualization that is probably unfounded to some degree -- the bottom line for me is that I think it is clear that Joseph Smith could not have come up with all these parallels on his own, but trying to "prove" the church is true based on them just won't fly. That methodology just doesn't work if you are being strictly logical about it. But we all just need to learn to live with the ambiguity I think, and know that it is all based on faith ultimately anyway.

[mfbukowski]

For instance, in the area of deification, the early church fathers assumed as axiomatic that there is an ontological divide between God and man, Creator and created. LDS do not have this gap, and for this reason the respective language about deification may be similar at times, but the underlying beliefs and the eventual conclusions are widely different.

But of course, because they were apostate.....and contaminated with Greek philosophy.....

[Scott26.2]

Oh sure! No I personally do that all the time and I think everyone does- but the key is the "with wisdom" part. I am about to post a document that I think really points to parallels with early christianity, and really does require some creative "seeing" and contexualization that is probably unfounded to some degree -- the bottom line for me is that I think it is clear that Joseph Smith could not have come up with all these parallels on his own, but trying to "prove" the church is true based on them just won't fly. That methodology just doesn't work if you are being strictly logical about it. But we all just need to learn to live with the ambiguity I think, and know that it is all based on faith ultimately anyway.

Well said. The paper you mention sounds wonderful. I will check your website for the next few days. Thanks

Scott26.2

[Sargon]

Hello sargon,

If we use the methology of communion as an example, The Catholics believe that those in a leadership position (priests, bishops, and even the pope if he's physically able) serve communion. The LDS believe deacons should serve communion to both the membership and also the leadership. In the last supper the message being taught to the apostles is that they should be servants to those who they have responsible for. Jesus set the example by serving communion to his apostles. Do you believe that the catholics methodology of the leadership serving communion to be a result of the apostacy, and do you believe that the LDS medhodology, to be a correction of the apostacy?

I think your question is more in regard to administration, and not necessarily eternal truths. While important, I rank that a bit lower than eternal truths in terms of importance.

Nevertheless, I think a case can be easily made that LDS leadership (above deacons) appropriately "serve" the membership in their own way.

I don't necessarily see the way in which Catholics choose to administer communion to be apostate (although, I don't claim to know very much about how they do it). They do it a bit differently than we do, but it isn't a question of being apostate or not. The important part is that authorized servants are doing it.

I think a much more important issue would be doctrines such as theosis, a doctrine expressly taught in early Christianity, though in a slightly different context that modern Mormonism.

[Sargon]

Good post, Sargon. This is precisely the kind of stuff I want to focus on in my graduate studies.

I'm secretly jealous of you! My graduate studies won't be nearly as interesting (petroleum geology).

But to take it one step further, an LDS person should also ensure that the similarities are really all that similar, or if it's just a matter of similar vocabulary being used to refer to very different things. For instance, in the area of deification, the early church fathers assumed as axiomatic that there is an ontological divide between God and man, Creator and created. LDS do not have this gap, and for this reason the respective language about deification may be similar at times, but the underlying beliefs and the eventual conclusions are widely different.

Take care, everyone

The quote I took from "Offenders for a Word" was in a section of the book that was addressing this precise doctrine. Peterson and Ricks very clearly point out that modern LDS ideas about deification are not exactly the same as those espoused by ancient Christians, but they nonetheless go on to describe where it is that our ideas converge.

They also address the issue of the Creator/creature gap, to a small extent. They make a modest attempt at discussing the ancient Christian emphasis on Christ's complete humanity as well as his complete deity, as a means of closing that gap. The section on that topic isn't exhaustive, because the book isn't about that topic, but they do a good job I think.

I think the principle still stands that if LDS can demonstrate that Joseph "restored" a good handful of authentic ancient Christian ideas in a form not too alien from their original context, and that those ideas were foreign to Joseph's time and place, a case can be made that he was inspired. We can't prove it, but for those of us looking for reasons to have faith, it can be a treasure trove.

Sargon

[rhinomelon]

But of course, because they were apostate.....and contaminated with Greek philosophy.....

Yes, this is what LDS believe. But then they point to elements of similarity between LDS beliefs and certain early church ones, conveniently ignoring the fact that these similarities owe a great deal to that same Greek philosophy. Deification, for example, and language about preexistence. So which is it, is Greek philosophy good or bad? And if the early church fathers used it to a great extent in those elements of similarity, can LDS really claim them as ancient corellaries to their own modern beliefs?

Take care

[Sargon]

Yes, this is what LDS believe. But then they point to elements of similarity between LDS beliefs and certain early church ones, conveniently ignoring the fact that these similarities owe a great deal to that same Greek philosophy.

Yes, this is precisely the type of thing I tried to outline in my OP. Is it right to cherry pick? Our position as a church claiming to restore lost doctrines does lend itself handily to that methodology, as sneaky as it might seem. I think it is appropriate to cherry pick, as long as we understand the limits of it.

Deification, for example, and language about preexistence. So which is it, is Greek philosophy good or bad?

I don't want to stray too far from the discussion about methodology, but I think a case can be made that deification has sufficient roots in Jewish thought.

And if the early church fathers used it to a great extent in those elements of similarity, can LDS really claim them as ancient corellaries to their own modern beliefs?

Take care

Indeed. On the topic of pre-existence, I don't see much room for claiming that the ancient Christians got that idea from Jesus or the apostles. I haven't done an in depth study or anything, but from what I know the only real source for the idea in ancient Christianity is Origen, who almost certainly got the idea from Greek philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, this is what LDS believe. But then they point to elements of similarity between LDS beliefs and certain early church ones, conveniently ignoring the fact that these similarities owe a great deal to that same Greek philosophy. Deification, for example, and language about preexistence. So which is it, is Greek philosophy good or bad? And if the early church fathers used it to a great extent in those elements of similarity, can LDS really claim them as ancient corellaries to their own modern beliefs?

Take care

Well no, I would say those beliefs don't come from Greek philosophy at all. I would like to see an example of deification in Plato. Good luck? Aristotle? Nope. Those go back to Genesis 1 - remember the elohim? The traditional Mormon argument would be that Greek religion, if that is what you are talking, about is an apostate version of all that was revealed to Adam.

But now of course we are simply demonstrating the faulty methodology we see in the OP and doing nothing to correct it.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. On the topic of pre-existence, I don't see much room for claiming that the ancient Christians got that idea from Jesus or the apostles.

It was definitely in the milieu in that part of the world at that time. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us"

[e=mc2]

rhinomelon:

Deification, for example, and language about preexistence. So which is it, is Greek philosophy good or bad? And if the early church fathers used it to a great extent in those elements of similarity, can LDS really claim them as ancient corellaries to their own modern beliefs?

We can find these elements of belief in the ancient Hebrew scriptures which predate the Greek philosophy. So that negates the problem you bring up.

[mfbukowski]

Well no, I would say those beliefs don't come from Greek philosophy at all. I would like to see an example of deification in Plato. Good luck? Aristotle? Nope. Those go back to Genesis 1 - remember the elohim? The traditional Mormon argument would be that Greek religion, if that is what you are talking, about is an apostate version of all that was revealed to Adam.

But now of course we are simply demonstrating the faulty methodology we see in the OP and doing nothing to correct it.

I'm wrong. I forgot my Plato. It's been a long time.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

In the area of deification, the early church fathers assumed as axiomatic that there is an ontological divide between God and man, Creator and created. LDS do not have this gap, and for this reason the respective language about deification may be similar at times, but the underlying beliefs and the eventual conclusions are widely different.

I think this is somewhat of an oversimplification of the problem. It's true that LDS believe that deification will make us literally like God and bridge the Creator-created gap. However, I think it can also be said that there is a real difference between mortal man and God; we are ontologically different even (in a sense). So, on that we can agree, at least partially, with the early Christians. Plus, there is evidence that some early Christians as late as Augustine believed that the Creator-created gap could be bridged (if Augustine is to be believed).

But God forbid that we should meet him with such an assertion as he says certain persons advance against him: "That man is placed on an equality with God, if he is described as being without sin;" as if indeed an angel, because he is without sin, is put in such an equality. For my own part, I am of this opinion that the creature will never become equal with God, even when so perfect a holiness shall be accomplished in us, that it shall be quite incapable of receiving any addition. No; all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this. (Augustine, On Nature and Grace, chapter 37)

The word "substance" is interesting since it is used by early Christians to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--they are "of one substance." I think the evidence suggests that the term "substance" was first understood by these Christians to mean the basic ontological nature of a being. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be of one substance, that is, each is of the same ontological nature. If some Christians thought that they would "be changed into the substance of God, and that [they] shall thus become what He is," I'd say their view is an awful lot like the LDS view; there may be a gap in our ontological natures now, but that gap is not unsurmountable through deification.

I think I have another quote or two around here on the same lines if I can find it. Seems like BCSpace used a good one or two before that seemed to suggest the same thing, FWIW.

Food for thought.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

We can find these elements of belief in the ancient Hebrew scriptures which predate the Greek philosophy. So that negates the problem you bring up.

That certainly is true. The ideas of preexistence in early Christianity doesn't have to be borrowed from Greek philosophy at all. However, the idea of preexistence as used by Origen, at least, clearly came from Greek philosophy. Origen was really steeped in that stuff.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Bump from outer darkness.

[Sargon]

It'd be nice if we could continue hearing people's thoughts about the apropriate way to use ancient Christian sources in apologetics, without straying too far into discussions about particular doctrines.

I think, however, that theosis is a great example that can be used to further the discussion. As has been pointed out, deification of man was a hallmark of ancient Christianity. It is also a hallmark of modern Mormonism. As we have recognized, however, the framework in which each respective philosophy places theosis is different.

I think the only way to talk about the ancient idea of theosis when defending the church is to show that although they are not exactly the same doctrines, ours isn't as unorthodox as most critics suppose. That is precisely the approach taken in Offenders For A Word.

In fact, one could potentially press the issue and argue that our version of theosis is vastly closer to the ancient idea of it than anything our (usually Protestant) critics have.

Beyond that, I hesitate to push the parallel further.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I think that using the early Christians in LDS apologetics is great and very useful. I've written a couple of papers that do just that. The early Christians had a lot of things to say that should interest us Mormon-folk. However, I think before any comparisons are made to Mormonism, we need to also compare what they had to say to modern mainstream Christianity. If we find that something the early Christians believed/taught is more like Mormonism than modern mainstream Christianity, then it's much more significant and maybe even meaningful, IMO.