Esoteric teaching and rituals in the Early Church

[mpschmitt]

I'm retracting this thread. I think it was a mistake to post it and I can sense it's already going in a direction I didn't want it to go...

[Mike Reed]

I keep hearing the assertion from rather prominent Anti-Mormon writers that there is no evidence whatsoever that Early Christians had anything remotely similar to the more esoteric aspects of LDS worship.

A quote from such an "anti-Mormon" would be nice.

There is ample evidence in my view that esoteric and more advanced, symbolic, ordinance-based teaching was present in the Early Christian church, so I'm always dumbfounded by the categorical declaration that there isn't by well read, studious (sometimes PhD level) scholars seeking to prove Mormonism false.

Like who?

I've also concluded that in order for ol' Joe Smith to have made all of this stuff up, he would have had to do an awful lot of reading in an awful lot of obscure (sometimes non-existent in his day) texts to have added so many details that have ancient analogues.

Occult manuals that were available in Smith's day recorded similar anointing rituals, as did masonic exposes. Catholics also had similar anointing rituals... so I can't say that I am all that impressed by your discovery. As I have argued before... there is no need to leap-frog the migration path (of ideas) back to antiquity, when those ideas were available in Smith's 19th century environment.

[Hyrum Page]

Occult manuals that were available in Smith's day recorded similar anointing rituals, as did masonic exposes. Catholics also had similar anointing rituals... so I can't say that I am all that impressed by your discovery. As I have argued before... there is no need to leap-frog the migration path (of ideas) back to antiquity, when those ideas were available in Smith's 19th century environment.

Of course, he might find it equally improbable that Smith brought together obscure references from hundreds of books together to form Mormonism. It can be a matter of perspective. If you believe in revelation, as he does, the leapfrog looks a lot more economical. It is difficult to see how Joseph Smith would have ever had the time to construct the complex quasi-scholarly edifice you seem to be proposing.

[mpschmitt]

A quote from such an "anti-Mormon" would be nice.

Like who?

I listed a few, but then I changed my post. I'm not in the business of advertising for anti-Mormons. Suffice it to say if you're familiar enough with the prominent players, this error should be apparent without much searching.

[Mike Reed]

I'm not going to link to the actual articles because they talk in more detail than I'm comfortable with

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for a quote. Provide a quote, and I will google search the source myself. Provide one from a well read PHD level scholar.

Freemasonry... does not even begin to explain the most significant aspects and overlaps in many areas.

I disagree.

[mpschmitt]

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for a quote. Provide a quote, and I will google search the source myself. Provide one from a well read PHD level scholar.

I disagree.

Mike, just PM me if you want to continue this discussion...

[Mike Reed]

Mike, just PM me if you want to continue this discussion...

I want you to substantiate your claim here. CFR.

[Mike Reed]

I'm retracting this thread. I think it was a mistake to post it and I can sense it's already going in a direction I didn't want it to go...

Bummer.

[BCSpace]

Hard to comment about the OP now obviously but....

I keep hearing the assertion from rather prominent Anti-Mormon writers that there is no evidence whatsoever that Early Christians had anything remotely similar to the more esoteric aspects of LDS worship.

A quote from such an "anti-Mormon" would be nice.

I can't recall hearing much if anything from antiMormons about the early esoteric rites, but I do know from experience that they consistently ignore such evidences just as they ignore clear evidences from the Bible.

[mpschmitt]

I want you to substantiate your claim here. CFR.

Okay I'll humor you here with one quote from Hank H. (both a PhD and an Anti-Mormon, so that should satisfy both of your criteria), uncited because I don't like giving him business. If you want the location, I'll PM you with it...

Mormons typically argue that their temples and ordinances are carry-overs from Hebrew tradition. However, the fact is that there are no biblical sanctions for secret temple ceremonies (cf. Isa. 48:16; John 18:20). And while the temple in Jerusalem previously served as God

[USU78]

Okay I'll humor you here with one quote from Hank H. (both a PhD and an Anti-Mormon, so that should satisfy both of your criteria), uncited because I don't like giving him business. If you want the location, I'll PM you with it...

Don't let him goad you into making the Anti case for them . . . which consists simply of throwing enough mud that the noncognoscento gets confused.

Your instincts were right -- if he makes a nonsense claim, which no reasonably experienced poster would make, it's not useful to have the conversation.

[Zakuska]

Okay I'll humor you here with one quote from Hank H. (both a PhD and an Anti-Mormon, so that should satisfy both of your criteria), uncited because I don't like giving him business. If you want the location, I'll PM you with it...

I have always wondered how people who take the stance that there were no secret teachings and washing and anoiting ceremonies in the NT church could be so blind as to over look them staring them right in the faces.

1. Heb. 5: 14 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

[Mike Reed]

Okay I'll humor you here with one quote from Hank H. (both a PhD and an Anti-Mormon, so that should satisfy both of your criteria), uncited because I don't like giving him business. If you want the location, I'll PM you with it...

I think you are too generous in calling HH a well read studious scholar. Thanks for the quote though.

[Droopy]

The evidence is mountainous. Anyone wishing to go over the 1st Book of Jeu can do so online at the Gnostic Society Homepage. The original MacDermot book is extremely hard to find, and has been out of print for sometime. Then, go back and read again the Nag Hammadi library (I've got the vast majority of it on my hard disk), look at the ancient Mandean funerary and resurrection texts, and Bishop Cyprian's text on the Mysteries. The early Church in its various incarnations was awash in ceremonies, motifs, and ritual symbolism closely allied to the modern Endowment. One might want to consult The Gospel of Philip for a Christian gnostic interpretation of the importance of marriage and the "mirrored bridal chamber" to personal exaltation.

Nibley has written a great deal on this issue, and Bickmore's book is an excellent introduction. The primary sources are the best, however.

[Mike Reed]

Don't let him goad you into making the Anti case for them . . .

"Them"? Why do you presume that my position is the same as HH, McKeever, et al?

Your instincts were right -- if he makes a nonsense claim, which no reasonably experienced poster would make, it's not useful to have the conversation.

Making a claim is one thing. Asking someone to cite the arguments they attempt to rebut is quite another. You know the difference, don't you?

[USU78]

"Them"? Why do you presume that my position is the same as HH, McKeever, et al?

Making a claim is one thing. Asking someone to cite the arguments they attempt to rebut is quite another. You know the difference, don't you?

For Mike to make a CFR claim, demand that the antis identified in the reference(s) be PhD level, implicitly claiming ignorance of the largish volume of information after posting hereabouts for quite a while where the subject has come up many, many times, and then wonder why people would doubt his bonafides asks of us a task too difficult for humankind: ignore the obvious.

I'm just not up to it, Mike. Neither's the OP, apparently.

[Smith]

I'm retracting this thread. I think it was a mistake to post it and I can sense it's already going in a direction I didn't want it to go...

This is a bummer, I was looking forward to an interesting thread. I would suggest you close it or ask one of the mods to if you no longer wish it to continue.

[Mike Reed]

For Mike to make a CFR claim, demand that the antis identified in the reference(s) be PhD level

I only made the CFR because Mpschmitt himself asserted that well read, studious, PhD level scholars were making such claims.

implicitly claiming ignorance of the largish volume of information after posting hereabouts for quite a while

I did not implicitly claim ignorance of the "information." I claimed ignorance over whether such people (well read, studious, PhD level scholars, who are making such claims) existed. Comprende?

I'm just not up to it, Mike.

Right. You'd much rather reserve your time and effort for throwing out false accusations and baseless insults against participants on this forum.

[Droopy]

For Mike to make a CFR claim, demand that the antis identified in the reference(s) be PhD level, implicitly claiming ignorance of the largish volume of information after posting hereabouts for quite a while where the subject has come up many, many times, and then wonder why people would doubt his bonafides asks of us a task too difficult for humankind: ignore the obvious.

I'm just not up to it, Mike. Neither's the OP, apparently.

As I recall, these were the same tactics used to bog down and control the terms and perimeters of the debate during the long and drawn out "Mormon cross aversion" thread of some time back.

I too, am not up to arguing according Mike "by this ye shall conquer" Reed's narrow credentialist requirements.

[Mike Reed]

I too, am not up to arguing according Mike "by this ye shall conquer" Reed's narrow credentialist requirements.

The "narrow credentialist requirements" were not defined by me. Aren't you paying attention?

[Droopy]

The "narrow credentialist requirements" were not defined by me. Aren't you paying attention?

You were the CFR man of the hour at every opportunity during the cross aversion debate. You called for them here and there and everywhere, even in response to interpretational statements and philosophical or logical extrapolations.

I'm with USU that I'm just not up to that right now.

[noel00]

Nibley has written a great deal on this issue, and Bickmore's book is an excellent introduction. The primary sources are the best, however.

Nibley's paper in Church History is full of holes, especially his comment about missionary work folding up. Just read Michael Green's book Evangelism in the Early Church for contrary evidence.

[Droopy]

Nibley's paper in Church History is full of holes, especially his comment about missionary work folding up. Just read Michael Green's book Evangelism in the Early Church for contrary evidence.

I can't comment on that because I've never read it. I'm thinking primarily of Temple and Cosmos, and Mormonism and Early Christianity, among a number of his other forays into this area. Bickmore's book is also very well researched and clearly stated.

There is no doubt whatever that the original early Church was understood to be a mystery religion, having both exoteric and esoteric aspects. The forty day teachings of Jesus Christ to his disciples are mentioned in the NT, but never taught openly, and the disciples were asked by the Savior specifically not to do so.

Immediately upon the passing of the apostles from the scene, numerous sects, including gnostic, claiming to be the true "orthodox" church and claiming to have the true and authorized mysteries, arose and proliferated. Neither Joseph Smith or anyone in his day knew of or had their doctrinal or ritual texts. Only since Joseph have they "spoken from the dust" and do we see the shadows, echos, fragments and, in many places, clearly delineated similarities to doctrines and ceremonial practices that came forth again during the Restoration.

The Roman orthodox church, a major competitor, lost the mysteries entirely, but apparently absorbed some aspects of them into the mystery of the Eucharist. Some branches of the Christian gnostic movement retained very detailed and unambiguous aspects of what we recognize as the Endowment, but in bastardized forms. Protestantism, and in particular, contemporary Protestant religion, has utterly nothing of this in its historic worship or doctrine.

Taken together, the Christian Apocrypha, Jewish Pseudopigrapha, the Qumran scrolls, gnostic Christain writings, ancient Egyptian religion, Jewish Midrash, Kabbalistic writings, Mandean funerary texts,and other evidence, seem to all point inexorably in one direction...toward the Restoration.