Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[ChristKnight]

One of the things that I've always had difficulty with accepting is the belief in the apostasy of the New Testament Church, the loss of God's priesthood on earth, along with the changing of various doctrines and practices (noting that while LDS certainly accept changes in the form of ordinances, such as the changes in the Endowment rite or the Sacrament with water instead of wine, such changes are believed to originate through revelation, with the implication that ancient changes to certain ordinances, such as baptism by pouring, were not inspired changes).

Now, I've browsed through a lot of LDS works related to the apostasy and the restoration of not only the priesthood, but true doctrines and practices. I've browsed (being honest, I won't say that I've closely read some of these) Restoring the Ancient Church, Inevitable Apostasy and Promised Restoration, Where Have All the Prophets Gone?, All Things Restored, The Gate of Heaven, etc. While I do find such things interesting, I admittedly have a problem with much of this, and this problem, among other things, have been causing me much difficulty lately: all of these works seem to pull from various divergent areas in the ancient Judeo-Christian milieu, finding parallels everywhere (I believe some criticize Hugh Nibley for having a particularly serious penchant for parallelism). But when it comes down to it, for me, I simply don't see where the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints existed anciently (i.e., the "Ancient Church" that Barry Bickmore is referring to in his book title). Now, I'm not expecting a carbon copy of the restored Church and the ancient Church, since LDS accept that certain things are revealed in these latter days. But to me, these apologetics seem to be pulling from over here and over there, and not a Former-day Saints Church that I guess I thought I'd be reading about in these books and articles. I'm assuming that the apologetic answer would be that the apostasy was already in full force, so there wouldn't be such evidence.

References to deification/theosis, as an example, aren't particularly compelling to me, as those ECFs that are referenced approached that doctrine from a different paradigm (i.e. how LDS Christians vs traditional Christians view God in relation to man), and it wasn't a belief that was lost, since its found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (though the East certainly emphasizes more than the West, as the West focuses a lot on entering the presence of God and beholding God face to face, i.e. the beatific vision).

Sooo yeahhh...just my thoughts lately, guess I'm trying to understand how these things are supposed to support the LDS claim to restoring an ancient Church of Jesus Christ, a unified, cohesive organization (since we accept that Christ only established one Church, not multiple churches with varying doctrines).

[Gillebre]

You can look at all the sources and ancient works you can get your hands on, but until you receive a personal witness from and by the power of the Holy Spirit, those things will always just be things you have a difficult time reconciling.

It's the same way with any member of the Church who struggles with faith in certain principles or doctrines of the Restored Gospel, not just the Great Apostasy. Studying the logic and parameters and prophecies and whatever else won't mean anything without a personal testimony of the truth of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A well-nourished testimony is essential to our survival in the times in which we live, where the Enemy of our souls has more power now than he ever had in the past (imo).

Once you ask, seek, and knock for yourself, in faith believing, nothing wavering, with real intent: then you (or anyone else) will know for themselves that it is true, and then you have a way of determining what is true by that same method applied to other things (such as how all the pieces fit together to necessitate the Restoration). Additionally, with that God-given personal testimony of what is true, the whats, whens, wheres, whys, and hows become less significant when God Himself sends you, His child, a witness that regardless of your mortal understanding, that it is true.

Then the difficulty you or others are experiencing will cease to trouble your mind as it does, because you will have the testimony of truth, and it (the personal witness) is meant to be the foundation of all other pursuits in your life.

Just my musings...

[Glenn101]

ChristKnight,

First of all, how much of the actual events, ordinances, the teachings of Jesus do you really believe have been preserved in writing and brought to us in this day? Do you think that Christ did not instruct his apostles on how to run the church after he was gone?

Why do we have references to such things as the three degrees of glory in the Bible but no clarifying information, or baptism for the dead with no clarifying instructions?

Maybe though, you need to ask the leader of the Church about this. Jesus has the answers.

Glenn

[kenporay]

If you dont think the original christian church was lost the I'd be interested in your description of it. Since it cannot have been any offshoot of the catholic church (because it existed before protestants started their own churches) and it cant be a modernly organized church.

Was it coptic, eastern or western? Or was it something else before nicea?

[volgadon]

Then the difficulty you or others are experiencing will cease to trouble your mind as it does, because you will have the testimony of truth, and it (the personal witness) is meant to be the foundation of all other pursuits in your life.

Just my musings...

While you are right that revelation should be primary, we shouldn't ignore the "scholastic" side of things, either. ChristKnight has asked some very good questions for which there should be reasonable answers.

[ChristKnight]

While you are right that revelation should be primary, we shouldn't ignore the "scholastic" side of things, either. ChristKnight has asked some very good questions for which there should be reasonable answers.

Thank you. And I agree. I do indeed believe in the importance of revelatory guidance from God in all things, but not to the exclusion of reason, or the "scholastic" side, hence the thread.

[ChristKnight]

If you dont think the original christian church was lost the I'd be interested in your description of it. Since it cannot have been any offshoot of the catholic church (because it existed before protestants started their own churches) and it cant be a modernly organized church.

Was it coptic, eastern or western? Or was it something else before nicea?

I don't necessarily disbelieve in the Apostasy, at least not yet, though I am, and always have, had difficulty with the concept. Anyway, what I'm interested in is essentially what Nibley is quoted as saying in the Forward to The World and the Prophets (I'm reading it now):

"Here we are simply indicating briefly that for better or for worse, the Mormons consistently find themselves in the company of the ancient saints and, accordingly, far removed from the ways of conventional Christians...It is a historical, not a theological or philosophical, vindication of our prophets."

Then after that, Phillips says:

"It is, of course, gratifying to Latter-day Saints to learn that they share the same attitudes and beliefs regarding God, prophets, revelation, death, miracles, free agency, martyrs, and tradition, among others, with the Early Christian Church."

What he says is specifically what I'm interested in, and, as I mention in my first post, the apologetics I've read simply don't, in my opinion, point to a single, cohesive, "Early Christian Church" (or what I term The Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints) with those "same attitudes and beliefs".

[ChristKnight]

ChristKnight,

First of all, how much of the actual events, ordinances, the teachings of Jesus do you really believe have been preserved in writing and brought to us in this day? Do you think that Christ did not instruct his apostles on how to run the church after he was gone?

I believe that Christ did instruct His apostles on how to run His Church after He was gone. I also think we do have a lot of great writings from early Christianity (though certainly not everything), hence why many apologists refer to these writings in attempts to find parallels to unique LDS beliefs.

Why do we have references to such things as the three degrees of glory in the Bible but no clarifying information, or baptism for the dead with no clarifying instructions?

Why?

Maybe though, you need to ask the leader of the Church about this. Jesus has the answers.

Glenn

I already have been asking God directly about this.

[mathonihah]

One of the things that I've always had difficulty with accepting is the belief in the apostasy of the New Testament Church, the loss of God's priesthood on earth, along with the changing of various doctrines and practices ...

For me the greatest evidence for the Apostasy is the Restoration. Why would God take the trouble of restoring his Church in the latter days through a modern day prophet if there had been no Apostasy? Now I agree that if you don't have a testimony of the Restoration, that is going to present a problem for you; but since I already have that testimony, it does not present a problem for me.

Edited March 15, 2013 by mathonihah

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe that Christ did instruct His apostles on how to run His Church after He was gone. I also think we do have a lot of great writings from early Christianity (though certainly not everything), hence why many apologists refer to these writings in attempts to find parallels to unique LDS beliefs.

I already have been asking God directly about this.

Here and above, I would recommend that you temporarily skirt the polemic and apologetic materials and personalities and focus on restorationist activities within recent centuries, climaxing with Vatican II back in the 1960s. A sincere effort has been made by a variety of people and churches to wend their way back to the beginning, all the non-Mormon restorationists admitting that the church has changed significantly over the past 2 thousand years. Remember that Alexander Campbell and others established the churches of Christ as a restoration of primitive christianity, a search which yet goes on in our time. What were and are the perceived elements of that "primitive" christianity? Why did the Puritans want a true restoration and which churches constitute their heirs today? The LDS Church is not alone in attempting to get back to basics, and the "devil" is in the details.

Moreover, what does the Bible refer to when it speaks of "the restoration of all things"?

[ChristKnight]

Here and above, I would recommend that you temporarily skirt the polemic and apologetic materials and personalities and focus on restorationist activities within recent centuries, climaxing with Vatican II back in the 1960s. A sincere effort has been made by a variety of people and churches to wend their way back to the beginning, all the non-Mormon restorationists admitting that the church has changed significantly over the past 2 thousand years. Remember that Alexander Campbell and others established the churches of Christ as a restoration of primitive christianity, a search which yet goes on in our time. What were and are the perceived elements of that "primitive" christianity? Why did the Puritans want a true restoration and which churches constitute their heirs today? The LDS Church is not alone in attempting to get back to basics, and the "devil" is in the details.

Moreover, what does the Bible refer to when it speaks of "the restoration of all things"?

Thanks. I definitely agree that throughout the ages, there have been/are many individuals and groups that sought to go back to "primitive Christianity", and believed that Christianity has changed significantly, to the point that a reformation/restoration was needed. I think the question I'm getting at is, what is that "primitive Christianity"? It seems as if each restorationist church (LDS, JW, churches of Christ, etc) views it differently. I mentioned earlier 2 quotes from the Forward of Nibley's The World and the Prophets (very interesting read), where we find mention of the "Early Christian Church", and Latter-day Saints being in the company of the ancient Saints, moreso than "conventional" Christians are. But I'm just not seeing that "Early Christian Church", if by "Church" we mean a single organization, a Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, if you will. Catholics would say that, even with the things that have come out from the Councils of Trent and Vatican II, they were always the "Early Christian Church", with the same priesthood authority and keys.

I think many interpret "the restoration of all things" to refer to Christ's Second Coming, and that "all things" will go back to the way they were.

Anyway, I always appreciate your posts, especially on temple-related topics.

[MormonMason]

While there are several interpretive tacks that can be taken with the following words of John, what think you of the significance of these words:

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

(1 John 2:18-19, New American Bible (Catholic))

Last hour of what? Did John really believe that he really was living in the time of the end of the world? Or, was he aware that it was the last hour of something else. What was he speaking of, the end of the world? The demise of the Church of his day? Other?

Note the context and his direct identification of who the antichrists were (former members of the Church who weren't really of the Church). Note closely the context of defections from the Church of these "many" individuals, which was the key to knowing it was the last hour of something. John does not say that it was the end of the world but that it was the last hour. His original readers would have known what he was saying and what he meant about "last hour."

I do not believe that John believed that the end of the world imminently was upon him and his readers. I think this passage is very relevant to the concept of the last hour of the Church before mass defections would take their toll on the way of the Church. But, not all will agree with this interpretation, I am sure. Thoughts?

Edited March 14, 2013 by MormonMason

[saemo]

Here's my thoughts on the idea of reverting to a "primitive church". Christ established a living Church, and gave to it the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What Catholics (east and west) call the birthday of the Church. Either you believe the Holy Spirit guides Christ's Church today, and always has, or you don't. There are aspects of the Church that are in the "cannot change ever" category, doctrines that are set. Christ has died, Christ has risen, He will come again. That is the Gospel.

The idea the one has to search for Christ in novelties outside of the Church He established is rooted in an idea that Christ can no longer be found in His Church. It is the Protestant temptation, and not the Catholic understanding of "Church". The Church is Christ and Christ is the Church. We return, wounded, to Christ who is always present in His Church. He is always faithful.

As for restoration of all things, that of course refers to Jesus Christ Himself. He has restored us to Life and restored to us, and for us, the Kingdom of Heaven. We are a pilgrim Church, the Kingdom of God, journeying towards the fulfillment of the Kingdom, in Christ. Christ's Church exists for one reason and one reason alone, to bring people to Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit guides us through the ages, through different times, and different cultures. As we journey we seek to deepen our understanding of the mysteries revealed in Jesus Christ, including the Church itself. As errors arise, they are addressed and clarified. As a Catholic I believe without doubt that the Holy Spirit works through sinful humans, to bring about divine will. Guiding our Bishops, who are our shepherds. I find it more than incredulous to believe that the Church that Christ established on the Apostles, given the Holy Spirit to guide them until the end of ages, failed. I don't know that you would find a Catholic (again east or west) that would see the claim of Christ's Church failing, as anything but a lie.

Hope that helps.

[MormonMason]

That is just the thing. Christ stated that the gates of Hades (RSV: "gates of death") would not prevail against the church/rock upon which it be built. Hades is the realm of the dead in the Bible. The only way in which the realm of the dead could prevail against something is to keep it inside the realm of the dead. However, something very often ignored in the underlying imagery and text is that the only way to face the gates of the realm of the dead is to die!

We know that Christ, the Rock upon which the Church was built, faced the gates of Hades and was not prevailed against. How could the Church also face the gates of the realm of the dead without also dying? And, if the Church did die and returned from Hades by not being prevailed against by the gates, is not that something that can be seen to represent the Church dying and restored to life? And, if that is the case then the concept of a an apostasy or defection and a restoration is the most consistent one and one based upon the literal, underlying symbolism regarding gates of Hades not prevailing against a thing.

Of course the Catholics would deny that such ever could happen and that such would be a lie. To say otherwise would undermine everything claimed by and for them and the "perpetuity of the Church."

[saemo]

The Church doesn't have to die to live. It is Christ, and Christ alone, who did that for us. Like Christ, it's head, the Church is alive because it lives in Him. Perpetuity is an interesting choice of words. We see continuity. Not because that is what we want to see, but because that is the reality of what we believe. The reality has a name, Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns forever.

Edited March 14, 2013 by saemo

[rodheadlee]

nevermind

Edited March 14, 2013 by rodheadlee

[ChristKnight]

"

http://en.wikipedia....val_Inquisition

You don't think the Church needed a restoration? I suggest you look up midieval inquisition on wikipedia.:

"Torture

Torture could be used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. Torture was undoubtedly used in the trial of the Templars, but is in fact not much found in heresy trials until the later fourteenth century. Torture methods that resulted in bloodshed, births, mutilation or death were forbidden. Also, torture could be performed only once. However, it was common practice to consider a second torture session to be a "continuation" of the first. The most commonly employed methods of torture methods included hanging by the wrists, with weights suspended from the ankles (a form of torture known as strappado); the rack; foot roasting; and the water torture.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Punishment

Among the possible punishments were prayer, pilgrimage, wearing a yellow cross for life, banishment, public recantation, or, occasionally, long-term imprisonment. The unrepentant and apostates could be "relaxed" to secular authority, however, opening the convicted to the possibility of various corporal punishments, up to and including being burned at the stake. Execution was neither performed by the Church, nor was it a sentence available to the officials involved in the inquisition, who, as clerics, were forbidden to kill. The accused also faced the possibility that his or her property might be confiscated. In some cases, accusers may have been motivated by a desire to take the property of the accused, though this is a difficult assertion to prove in the majority of areas where the inquisition was active, as the inquisition had several layers of oversight built into its framework in a specific attempt to limit prosecutorial misconduct.

The inquisitors generally preferred not to hand over heretics to the secular arm for execution if they could persuade the heretic to repent: Ecclesia non novit sanguinem. For example, Bernard Gui, a famous inquisitor working in the area of Carcassonne (in modern France), executed 42 people out of over 900 guilty verdicts in fifteen years of office. Execution was to admit defeat, that the Church was unable to save a soul from imagined heresy, which was the goal of the inquisition.^{[citation needed]}

Do you think the Protestant Reformation was the restoration?

I'm running out the door to work right now, but just wanted to say that Catholics have appropriate ways of understanding the Inquisition in the context of their beliefs and the church-state dynamic (and aren't afraid of saying that certain things the Church and/or Popes did were wrong), in the same way that we view things like MMM. And I politely ask if you could address the OP. Thanks

And no, I don't think that the Protestant Reformation was "the restoratIon".

[MormonMason]

The Church doesn't have to die to live. It is Christ, and Christ alone, who did that for us. Like Christ, it's head, the Church is alive because it lives in Him. Perpetuity is an interesting choice of words. We see continuity. Not because that is what we want to see, but because that is the reality of what we believe. The reality has a name, Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns forever.

To face the gates of Hades, which are in the realm of the dead, it must have done so. That is the only way to face those gates. This passage I commented on makes more sense with that understanding than with the other. Just as the visible body of Christ died and was raised from the dead, while the spirit of Christ descended into Hades to break the bonds of death and to preach to the spirits in prison, so did the visible Church--the organization--die while the invisible Church lived on. But, death is how one faces the gates of Hades, in Hades. There is no getting around that. That is the miracle of the Restoration. Satan tried to kill the visible Church but he failed because Christ raised it up again. The gates of Hades could not prevail against the Church because it could not be kept within the gates of Hades and remain dead. Restoration using three of the original Twelve ensured the absolute survival of the visible, organized Church and made it so that the gates of Hades could not prevail against the Church. It makes perfect sense and fits the imagery underlying the passage and the mythos behind the imagery of the realm of the dead and its gates. Edited March 14, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

By the way, to what do you think John was referring when he said that it was now in his own day "the last hour" and that this time was marked by the defection of Christians who became the very antichrist that was to come? Do you think he referred to living in the end of the world in his own day, thus believing something quite false, or was it something else? What do you think that "something else" was if not the Church?

Edited March 14, 2013 by MormonMason

[saemo]

To face the gates of Hades, which are in the realm of the dead, it must have done so. That is the only way to face those gates. This passage I commented on makes more sense with that understanding than with the other. Just as the visible body of Christ died and was raised from the dead, while the spirit of Christ descended into Hades to break the bonds of death and to preach to the spirits in prison, so did the visible Church--the organization--die while the invisible Church lived on. But, death is how one faces the gates of Hades, in Hades. There is no getting around that. That is the miracle of the Restoration. Satan tried to kill the visible Church but he failed because Christ raised it up again. The gates of Hades could not prevail against the Church because it could not be kept within the gates of Hades and remain dead. Restoration using three of the original Twelve ensured the absolute survival of the visible, organized Church and made it so that the gates of Hades could not prevail against the Church. It makes perfect sense and fits the imagery underlying the passage and the mythos behind the imagery of the realm of the dead and its gates.

I see the Hades reference as analogous to Satan, who is the father of death and sin. Satan was conquered by the Passion of Christ. While you see the Church as something separate from Christ, we do not. She is His Bride.

Edited March 14, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

By the way, to what do you think John was referring when he said that it was now in his own day "the last hour" and that this time was marked by the defection of Christians who became the very antichrist that was to come? Do you think he referred to living in the end of the world in his own day, thus believing something quite false, or was it something else? What do you think that "something else" was if not the Church?

I think it is clear that the first generation Christians believed Christ would return in their lifetime. It is not a false belief, it is how they understood what Christ said, when He said He would return. Other than that, this is just one of the examples that LDS use in an effort to prove a total apostasy. No doubt, individual and even whole communities apostatized. What LDS ignore, completely, are the faithful, who have always existed and still do. I am reminded of this at every Mass, when we pray, "Lord, look not on our sins but on the faith of your Church." In other words, we believe in the Mercy of Jesus Christ.

Christ has not yet come again, and there will be a great apostasy before His coming. Some in the Catholic Church see that now, as the faithful leave for secularism and/or non-Christian religions.

I stick to the words of Christ. Be ever prepared and watchful, but only the Father knows the time. Maranantha!

Edited March 14, 2013 by saemo

[Ahab]

Sooo yeahhh...just my thoughts lately, guess I'm trying to understand how these things are supposed to support the LDS claim to restoring an ancient Church of Jesus Christ, a unified, cohesive organization (since we accept that Christ only established one Church, not multiple churches with varying doctrines).

Apostles. Keys. Authority. The priesthood of God is what was restored, and it required people with it to come here from some other place because nobody living here on this planet as a mortal really had it. Without that authority to share the gospel and say what in fact it really is nobody here would have had access to the power of salvation. The gospel must be preached by people who know it, correctly, and who are authorized to share it with others while also administering the ordinances of the gospel, correctly.

Before that restoration in this dispensation, what did we have? People with a form of godliness but who denied the power of it. Oh I know you wouldn't hear anyone here say they were denying the power of godliness, but they really were. "God doesn't reveal himself from heaven anymore" "Here, here, listen to us" "We've got what you need" "There are no more apostles" "We don't need another Bible"

Just think of it this way: Without the restoration of the priesthood all we would have on this Earth among mortals would be those who would not have the priesthood of God and all that flows from them having those keys to administer in the kingdom of God. We'd still have other churches, to be sure, but we wouldn't have the true church of Christ among mortals on Earth. For that we need to have people with the keys to the kingdom of God among us with the power to share the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While you are right that revelation should be primary, we shouldn't ignore the "scholastic" side of things, either. ChristKnight has asked some very good questions for which there should be reasonable answers.

To add to that...the Church is a living thing, growing, learning and seeking to understand the world around it. This is the way Joseph set it up (by revelation). Otherwise, why have ongoing Prophets and Apostles, he gave them Priesthood Power, so that they could direct the Church. The problem with just saying, "well this is how they used to do it" works on the assumption that things are the same as in Moses, Christ's, or our day. We must adapt (within reason) to survive. The work of God is ongoing. At Stake Conference last Sunday, our visiting GA spoke of the increase of missionary applications, noting that Sister Missionary app's are up 600%. Something big is happening within the Church and our sisters are going to play a much larger role in bringing all of us to Christ.

[rodheadlee]

. And I politely ask if you could address the OP. Thanks

.

Sorry, must have been reading in my sleep.

[Alan]

I believe many LDS have a misunderstanding of the apostacy.

Many commentators suggest that the apostacy occured early in the 2nd century at the latest. This just does not fit with the facts, not is it consistent with prophecy. They early church lasted a lot longer than this in my view. It was wounded, for sure; but it didn't die straight away.

Hugh Nibley points out that the Apostles left instructions on how to perpetuate the office of Bishop (an Aaronic Priesthood office remember). This required 3 serving nearby Bishops to select and ordain a new Bishop. The Bishop (as an Aaronic Priesthood holder) had authority to ordain Priests and Deacons without referral to a higher authority. Therefore, the church we see emerging was under Aaronic administration. This could have continued for a long time. It is interesting to note that when we look at the Roman/Orthodox/Anglican church today this is essentially what we see - Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

At this point, the church was not what it was during the apostolic era, but as holders of the Aaronic Priesthood it was not apostate. However, it could not carry out Mechizedek functions of course, but perhaps over the years they attempted to and this is where the ordinances were changed and the apostacy really started to bite.

I believe there is very good evidence that the remaining flickering light was finally extinguished in 570AD.