Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Concerning Nibley, is this a quote or a summation of what he said?

[Ahab]

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.

The Aaronic order can't function effectively enough without the Melchizedek order, though. Someone has to hold and be able to utilize all of the keys of the kingdom, and a bishop isn't qualified to hold or utilize all of them, or all of the ones which are necessary for salvation. No apostles, no temples, no higher ordinances, including the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Without that the Church is lacking too much and can't do it's job of saving men through the power of the gospel.

And a fall is a fall even if it's not as far as they could have fallen, so it would still be an apostasy, which refers to a falling away.

[Stone holm]

I had always understood the apostasy to have been complete at the point where Emperor Constantine made Christianity the established religion of Rome. Wasn't it at that time that Platonic notions of the nature of God were engrafted in?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I had always understood the apostasy to have been complete at the point where Emperor Constantine made Christianity the established religion of Rome. Wasn't it at that time that Platonic notions of the nature of God were engrafted in?

It was an effort to bring factions together and exclude others, sadly the death of many who did not subscribe to it and many wars. The war between Spain and England during the rule of Elisabeth I, was such a war, even though both believed the Nicene Creed. Many "Christian Martyrs were killed by waring factions which had gained political strength...had Spain won the Protestant movement would have been in serious trouble. Some say the KJV 1611, was created in large part to debunk the Catholic Church's hold on power and Gov't, and establish the sovereignty of Kings. King James who aided in this endeavor was no "saint".

[Ahab]

I had always understood the apostasy to have been complete at the point where Emperor Constantine made Christianity the established religion of Rome. Wasn't it at that time that Platonic notions of the nature of God were engrafted in?

Complete in what sense? The Church is a specific organization, so when the last member died, that was it. The Church didn't become another church, if that's what you're thinking, as if the true Chruch of Christ could become a false or imposter church. Some people just started another church without the priesthood and keys (God's authorization) necessary for salvation and convinced enough people, eventually, that was the true church of Christ. The falling away started when the apostles were still living and without them to constantly straighten things out the church just withered and died, as each member left to join another church or die.

[halconero]

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.

One concern with this view that I have is the ordination of new Bishops. When a bishop dies, who approves the new one?

[3DOP]

ChristKnight, hi.

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).

3DOP

Catholics need not concede that the rite of baptism is changed from the days of the Apostles. The mode of baptism (immersion, aspersion, pouring) has always been optional. Note what is written in the Didache, which is accepted by many scholars as a document that precedes much of the New Testament chronologically. The simplicity of the Baptismal Rite as given, without any exorcism or other ceremony argue for a very early date:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

---ch. 7

This instruction reflects the discipline of the Apostolic Church. To make baptism more available understands the mercy of God. The saving waters need not be withheld because of difficulties in immersing the candidate. This would hold for those with physical infirmity as well as when water is scarce because it is either frozen or dried up.

As for the priesthood, look at the travesties that the Mosaic priesthood survived. It is amazing. Temples destroyed, priestly perversions, and yet when the Saviour comes, John the Baptist is born to a true priest, Zacharias, and Jesus refers to the latest Temple, built by Herod, as "My Father's House"! If the Old Covenant was so enduring, if the veil of the Temple was only rent when the Son of God is crucified, maybe we should be wary about claims that the New Covenant priesthood (built on better promises according to the Letter to the Hebrews) was lost because of alleged misbehavior or doctrinal error.

Maybe I can have more tomorrow.

3DOP

[mathonihah]

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".

For me, a Mormon starting to question the Restoration needs to find a plausible explanation for the Book of Mormon first, before forming opinions based on what Nibley or Phillips have said. Those guys speak for themselves. They don't speak for Mormonism. They have no authority to. It is the Book of Mormon which speaks not just for Mormonism, but for God. It claims that God is the author of it. That claim is either true or not. That should be the starting point of the investigation, not Nibley or Phillips. Nibley and Phillips, like the rest of us, "see through a glass darkly". If you are serious about investigation (or reinvestigating) Mormonism, you should start with something that is more fundamental.

[ChristKnight]

Thanks for all the comments. Just got in from work and am exhausted, so I'll respond to posts individually later on. Just wanted to say that while I do appreciate the discussion on the Apostasy, I am also interested in seeing views on the issue of the "Former-day Saints Church"/"primitive Church"/"early Christian Church"/"the Ancient Church", as "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)."

I do find it interesting that some place the completion of the apostasy later than the death of the apostles. I think that Nibley would agree with such an assessment, at least as I continue reading "The World and the Prophets", he cites certain ECFs in support of the presence of prophets and the prophetic gift in the post-Apostles Church, which would be odd if the apostasy was complete by that point. I think placing the apostasy later than the death of the apostles does have interesting implications as to how the Church continued to function with authority if apostles were not there (since, LDS would reject the Catholic/Orthodox belief that the bishops were the successors of the apostles, with apostolic authority).

But yeah, I really am interested in hearing more about how others view the matter of a cohesive "primitive Church" that is restored in these latter days, as when I look at apologetics about the ancient Church, apologetics that claim to be focused on "the ancient Church", the "early Christian Church", I have a hard time seeing those works focusing on a "Church", instead of support from all over (ECFs, gnostic writings, apocryphal texts, Egyptian writings, etc etc).

Thanks!

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Of course they do, thus sharing a lot in common with LDS claims to authority & keys. For Catholics, that even includes the priesthood of the Anglican Church (=Episcopal), and a married Anglican priest can be a priest (with wife and children) over a Roman Catholic parish -- if he wishes to make the transition to Roman Catholicism.

What I find more interesting is the powerful effort at Vatican Ii to get back to that authentic early Christian Church, and we must rightly ask just what are the characteristics of that primitive church? Hugh Nibley treated the issue in detail in his "The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," Church History, 30/2 (June 1961):131-154, which is available in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, IV (1987), 168-208, and online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=55&chapid=523 . This article in Church History (a non-Mormon journal) caused a stir and some hot discussion there, Nibley actually being defended by prominent non-Mormon scholar Robert M. Grant.

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.

The Dominican priest, Jordan Vajda, OP, even writes:

It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and "gotten it wrong" on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a "great apostasy" on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the "restoration of all things.”

Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," master's thesis (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1998), 14.

The notion of a restitution/restoration of all things is complex, and we need to refer to actual mention of it in Matthew 17:11, Acts 3:21. What did Jesus mean that Elias (John the Baptist, 17:13) must come in the future and restore all things? Elias had just been with them on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:3). In Acts 3:21 we must ask whether we cast our net broadly enough to take in the restoration of the Jews to their prior position as the chosen people (Romans 11:25-26) back in the Promised Land -- a phenomenon taking place in our own time.

[3DOP]

Robert F. Smith

Of course they do, thus sharing a lot in common with LDS claims to authority & keys. For Catholics, that even includes the priesthood of the Anglican Church (=Episcopal), and a married Anglican priest can be a priest (with wife and children) over a Roman Catholic parish -- if he wishes to make the transition to Roman Catholicism.

3DOP

Some married Anglican ministers have been ordained as Catholic priests. The Anglican Rite of Ordination underwent ongoing changes after they left the Catholic Church. While the form and matter would be valid now, it was determined by a 19th Century study under Pope Leo XIII, that there was a lengthy period early on whereby they definitely used an invalid ordinal. I do not recall if the problem was with episcopal orders or for the priesthood itself. But eventually, the validly ordained bishops died off. Even though the rite eventually made appropriate corrections according to the ruling of Leo XIII, Anglicans no longer have ministers who can validly ordain.

An Anglican who wishes to make the transition to Roman Catholicism is in no different position than ministers from any other Protestant community. They must first gain the approval of their ordinary (the local bishop), and then ask him for Holy Orders.

Edited March 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

ChristKnight

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.

3DOP

My introduction to these internet discussions began with a very civil discussion in which Barry Bickmore was participating. In my opinion, the weakness of his book is that it gives a picture of non-LDS Christianity that is confused both as to the former and latter days. He tends rather than to address the claims of any one church, lump all of them together to show how non-LDS Christianity can not be the true church. Of course, I do not believe that non-LDS Christianity is the true church.

Later today, using the earliest church fathers, I hope to present a unifying principle that shows how the Church which was founded by Christ, and was propagated under the Apostles, may be perceived to have survived unto this day. It will show how and why, if we will correctly analyze the claims of early Christianity, we MUST be allowed to distinguish between those who observed this unifying principle, and those who ignored it.

[Alan]

The Aaronic order can't function effectively enough without the Melchizedek order, though. Someone has to hold and be able to utilize all of the keys of the kingdom, and a bishop isn't qualified to hold or utilize all of them, or all of the ones which are necessary for salvation. No apostles, no temples, no higher ordinances, including the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Without that the Church is lacking too much and can't do it's job of saving men through the power of the gospel.

And a fall is a fall even if it's not as far as they could have fallen, so it would still be an apostasy, which refers to a falling away.

The Aaronic order administered the "church" successfully in Old Testament times.

I currently serve as a Bishop in the church. If I woke up tomorrow to find that all church authorities above my level were dead, would I and my ward be in apostacy? No, of course we wouldn't. Should I in these circumstances lock the doors of the church, go home and forget it all? No.

I could continue to operate in my sphere of responsibility. I could continue to ordain men to the Aaronic offices. We could continue to organise home-teaching, to baptise, to administer the sacrament etc. There would be many things we could not do, but that would not make us apostate.

Therefore I contend that the removal of the apostles and seventy's did not plunge the church into immediate apostacy, but rather, a slow gradual death over a considerable period of time.

The church would likely have lasted longer in isolated areas of the world where many of the later pollutions failed to reach for a long time. Perhaps here in the British Isles for example.

One major problem, of course, would be the absence of anyone to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, as this is a function of the higher priesthood. We would therefore have to function as a church in much the same way as much of Christendom does now. The presence of the Spirit without the gift. I think in these circumstances many people would attempt to have the Spirit more by trying to be extra holy, devoting themselves to scripture study, denying the world and performing good works. Monastacism would therefore begin to emerge and, well, ............ the rest is history.

So a fall is not necessarily a total apostacy; certainly not to begin with anyway.

[Alan]

Concerning Nibley, is this a quote or a summation of what he said?

I read it in his book Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church.

[mathonihah]

The Aaronic order administered the "church" successfully in Old Testament times.

I currently serve as a Bishop in the church. If I woke up tomorrow to find that all church authorities above my level were dead, would I and my ward be in apostacy? No, of course we wouldn't. Should I in these circumstances lock the doors of the church, go home and forget it all? No.

Agreed.

I could continue to operate in my sphere of responsibility. I could continue to ordain men to the Aaronic offices. We could continue to organise home-teaching, to baptise, to administer the sacrament etc. There would be many things we could not do, but that would not make us apostate.

Not agreed. It wouldn't make you apostate overnight (or even at all); but it would deprive you of the priesthood keys to function as officers to ordain others, or perform other sacraments; because you hold (and exercise) those keys by delegation from higher authorities. You would not lose your priesthood, but you (and others) would lose the respective keys to exercise the priesthood in various callings in the Church.

Therefore I contend that the removal of the apostles and seventy's did not plunge the church into immediate apostacy, but rather, a slow gradual death over a considerable period of time.

That is also partly right. The church did not die in that sense of the term either. It continued to live in the hearts of the true believers in Jesus Christ, and in his gospel. It died ecclesiastically, or as an institution or organized religion. But it continued to live as a body of true believers in Jesus Christ.

The church would likely have lasted longer in isolated areas of the world where many of the later pollutions failed to reach for a long time. Perhaps here in the British Isles for example.

Not really. Once the keys were lost, the institutional demise of the Church was inevitable, under any other circumstance except the restoration of the priesthood keys.

One major problem, of course, would be the absence of anyone to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, as this is a function of the higher priesthood. We would therefore have to function as a church in much the same way as much of Christendom does now. The presence of the Spirit without the gift.

That is a contradiction of your own stated position. If you are a bishop, you should be a high priest of the Melchizedek order, and therefore have the authority to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (as would the other elders and high priests in your ward). If your assumptions were valid, you (and other) should be able to continue to use your priesthood to perform ordinances that pertain to the Melchizedek order, which includes the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is not logical to assume that you will be able to continue to use your Aaronic priesthood keys as bishop under those circumstances, but not the Melchizedek. You either lose all of them or retain all of them. It can't be half and half.

I think in these circumstances many people would attempt to have the Spirit more by trying to be extra holy, devoting themselves to scripture study, denying the world and performing good works. Monastacism would therefore begin to emerge and, well, ............ the rest is history.

So a fall is not necessarily a total apostacy; certainly not to begin with anyway.

It is a total loss of the priesthood keys, and over time of the priesthood itself, however way you wand to define it.

[ChristKnight]

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.

What do you think is the relationship between the Holy Spirit guiding the Church anciently, and the Spirit guiding the LDS Church in the latter days? Now, I know you're Catholic, but how do you see the issue of a Spirit-guided Church anciently, ending in total apostasy, and a Spirit-guided restored Church (I hope I'm making sense)?

I do think it's important to think of the Church as Christ, as it is His Body. And on the other hand, I do find the analogy of the Church with Christ's Body in relationship to the apostasy (that the Church "died" just like Christ did, and was resurrected, therefore the gates of Hades didn't prevail. this is something I've said multiple times as well).

Thanks!

[ChristKnight]

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.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. Specifically, I'm trying to look at the what was that "ancient/primitive Church" (noting the singular "church" as we use it today for the LDS Church) like back then.

As far as denying the power of godliness, while I do agree that certain churches claim what you've given, I don't think it applies to some churches (at least the "God doesn't reveal himself from heaven anymore"). While I'm sure the Catholic and Orthodox posters can articulate it better than me, I'm sure they'd say that they believe that God never stopped providing revelation and inspiration from Heaven, and that the Holy Spirit is believed to be guiding their churches. On the other hand, it seems to me that the LDS Church emphasizes the need for revelation, inspiration, prophets, etc, at least more overtly.

And one great issue I see with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and what keeps me in the LDS Church, at least at this point), is the issue of apostles, as you bring up. I don't see how bishops received apostolic authority and were successors to the apostles. In the Bible, we see apostles and bishops separately at the same time. Bishops were local authorities. It would be interesting to see how they view the LDS belief in the necessity of the apostolic office, as distinct from the episcopate/bishopric, and to see how they understand the relationship between bishops and apostles.

[ChristKnight]

Sorry, must have been reading in my sleep.

Haha no prob. The thread is evolving somewhat anyway (though I don't want to lose my main interest as expressed in the OP, the issue of a Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, that singular "Church" that various apologists refer to in titles such as "Restoring the Ancient Church", "the Primitive Church", the "Early Christian Church", etc).

[ChristKnight]

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.

Did the early Christians have an understanding of Aaronic vs Melchizedek Priesthood offices and authority?

In the Catholic context, I know that each priesthood office has different "powers", where a deacon cannot celebrate the Eucharist/Sacrament, and for a priest to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, they must get delegated authority from the Bishop, who has that power.

What is the significance of the 570 AD date?

I do think that Nibley would agree that the apostasy wasn't complete until much later, as he frequently cites ECFs in support of the presence of prophets and the prophetic gift, miracles, etc post-apostles.

[ChristKnight]

ChristKnight

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.

3DOP

My introduction to these internet discussions began with a very civil discussion in which Barry Bickmore was participating. In my opinion, the weakness of his book is that it gives a picture of non-LDS Christianity that is confused both as to the former and latter days. He tends rather than to address the claims of any one church, lump all of them together to show how non-LDS Christianity can not be the true church. Of course, I do not believe that non-LDS Christianity is the true church.

Later today, using the earliest church fathers, I hope to present a unifying principle that shows how the Church which was founded by Christ, and was propagated under the Apostles, may be perceived to have survived unto this day. It will show how and why, if we will correctly analyze the claims of early Christianity, we MUST be allowed to distinguish between those who observed this unifying principle, and those who ignored it.

Thanks I look forward to that.

[ChristKnight]

Of course they do, thus sharing a lot in common with LDS claims to authority & keys. For Catholics, that even includes the priesthood of the Anglican Church (=Episcopal), and a married Anglican priest can be a priest (with wife and children) over a Roman Catholic parish -- if he wishes to make the transition to Roman Catholicism.

I don't think that is entirely correct. Yes, Anglican priests that convert to Catholicism would be allowed to remain married as Catholic priests (noting that Eastern Catholicism also allows for married priests, mirroring the Orthodox practice). However, the Catholic Church does not regard the Anglican Communion as having valid sacraments, including Holy Orders. The Anglican priest that converts to Catholicism and serves as a Catholic priest would have to be "re"-ordained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanorum_Coetibus#Married_former_Anglican_clergy_and_rules_on_celibacy

What I find more interesting is the powerful effort at Vatican Ii to get back to that authentic early Christian Church, and we must rightly ask just what are the characteristics of that primitive church?

I'd be interested in seeing how the Catholics understand the role of Vatican II. Do they understand it to be about getting "back to that authentic early Christian Church"?

And YES, I am most certainly asking "just what are the characteristics of that primitive church"! That's what I'm seeking to understand, especially in light of LDS apologetics, as I describe in the OP.

Hugh Nibley treated the issue in detail in his "The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," Church History, 30/2 (June 1961):131-154, which is available in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, IV (1987), 168-208, and online at http://maxwellinstit...d=55&chapid=523 . This article in Church History (a non-Mormon journal) caused a stir and some hot discussion there, Nibley actually being defended by prominent non-Mormon scholar Robert M. Grant.

Thanks, I'll read that. Does this article talk about the characteristics of the primitive Church, or about how the early Christians believed that the Church wouldn't survive and a total apostasy was imminent (at least that's what I get from a cursory glance, though I do need to actually read it)?

The Dominican priest, Jordan Vajda, OP, even writes:

It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and "gotten it wrong" on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a "great apostasy" on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the "restoration of all things.”

Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," master's thesis (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1998), 14.

The notion of a restitution/restoration of all things is complex, and we need to refer to actual mention of it in Matthew 17:11, Acts 3:21. What did Jesus mean that Elias (John the Baptist, 17:13) must come in the future and restore all things? Elias had just been with them on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:3). In Acts 3:21 we must ask whether we cast our net broadly enough to take in the restoration of the Jews to their prior position as the chosen people (Romans 11:25-26) back in the Promised Land -- a phenomenon taking place in our own time.

Thanks, I'll look into Vajda's article/thesis (I believe I've seen it on the MI website, but haven't read it in a long time). Am I to understand that Vajda is now LDS?

And yes, the belief in divinization is definitely important in one's soteriology. I am always interested in reading about the similarities and differences between the LDS exaltation and Catholic/Orthodox theosis.

[daz2]

I see the restoration differently from a lot of Latter-day Saints. I see it more as a system restore order on a computer that takes the computer back to an initial state, not necessarily because the computer, with all the virus infections and programs added (some of which are now outdated) in the meantime is "apostate" or "wrong" or "without power or authority", but because it has reached a point where its functioning has become so slow, with frequent crashes, that something needs to be done so it can function better. Rather than try to take off programs and search for viruses one by one, the "restoration" means simply to go back to a more original operating system and cleaned up hard drive. Kind of like zero based budgeting. I also think that in part is what other "restorationists" have meant, not so much that the Church needs to be and remain frozen exactly as it was 2000 years ago, but that it needed a "system restore" command first before adding computer programs that we need today to accommodate changes and current society and culture. There is great beauty and wisdom and the power of God in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and other Christian traditions. As a Latter-day Saint, I simply believe that God wanted a system restore order on the computer of life, so that the Church could function more effectively.

[Ahab]

The Aaronic order administered the "church" successfully in Old Testament times.

Your idea of successfully seems to be a lot different than mine. Perhaps you're considering the fact that there was usually at least 1 person with the keys to oversee the Aaronic priesthood, such as Moses did, and then Joshua did, followed by other people who held that higher order like Nathan, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah, etc. I'm thinking particularly of how the gift of the Holy Ghost was not given to most of the others members in the Church during that time since the Aaronic priesthood can't confer that gift upon others, although I realize there were still a few people back then who received it.

I currently serve as a Bishop in the church. If I woke up tomorrow to find that all church authorities above my level were dead, would I and my ward be in apostacy? No, of course we wouldn't. Should I in these circumstances lock the doors of the church, go home and forget it all? No.

You happen to be a high priest too, though, so you have the higher priesthood to work with, personally. Back then the higher priesthood was restricted to very few instead of given to the Church, generally. Think of how not having that higher order would effectively cripple you or at least the others you oversee in spiritual matters. I know that if you didn't have the higher priesthood you could still do a lot within your limits as a bishop, under the Aaronic order, but there would still be a whole lot that you and your other ward members would miss out on by not having the higher priesthood like you and they have it right now. And even now most of us still fall short of utilizing that gift to our full potential.

I could continue to operate in my sphere of responsibility. I could continue to ordain men to the Aaronic offices. We could continue to organise home-teaching, to baptise, to administer the sacrament etc. There would be many things we could not do, but that would not make us apostate.

Yes it would. You would be in a fallen condition compared to the condition you can now enjoy with the higher priesthood. You don't have to be totally apostate to the max to be in an apostate condition. All "apostate" refers to is a fallen condition, after previously being in a better condition.

Therefore I contend that the removal of the apostles and seventy's did not plunge the church into immediate apostacy, but rather, a slow gradual death over a considerable period of time.

It was an immediate apostasy which started gradually before it got worse and worse. I agreee that it wasn't 100% all at once for the Church, collectively, but when the whole Church lost 1 blessing that it had enjoyed before, collectively, like a man to properly fill the role of Peter along with having the keys of the kingdom, then it was in an apostate condition even though the Church still enjoyed many other good things. The loss of the higher priesthood was a biggie, and it didn't take very long before that was gone from among them.

The church would likely have lasted longer in isolated areas of the world where many of the later pollutions failed to reach for a long time. Perhaps here in the British Isles for example.

The isle of Patmos probably enjoyed the most blessings the longest, since that's where John was for a while. Still, before that, only a few were able to enjoy the blessings of the higher priesthood. Think of all that entails, even without considering temple blessings.

One major problem, of course, would be the absence of anyone to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, as this is a function of the higher priesthood. We would therefore have to function as a church in much the same way as much of Christendom does now. The presence of the Spirit without the gift. I think in these circumstances many people would attempt to have the Spirit more by trying to be extra holy, devoting themselves to scripture study, denying the world and performing good works. Monastacism would therefore begin to emerge and, well, ............ the rest is history.

Uh, yeah, and without us the whole of Christendom would still be in an apostate condition just as it was before the priesthood was restored. You do realize that, don't you? How much more apostate do you think people can get?

So a fall is not necessarily a total apostacy; certainly not to begin with anyway.

I agree, but it is still an apostasy when the Church collectively loses even 1 blessing it had enjoyed before that "fall".

[kenporay]

Earlier in the thread it was posited that the didache (sp) allowed baptism to acceptably performed by either of full body immersion or a pouring/sprinkling of water...that the didache was older than the NT, and the didache cotained instructions from apostles.

Tevilah is a full body immersion that was performed upon conversion to Judaism. Baptism is a greek word describing the same practice. John the baptist didnt invent it, it's not a christian invention..

Now, whether the Jewish men who were called by Jesus to be special witnesses would change the ceremonial immersion to another washing...that's a huge question.

If a person is damned without baptism, then it becomes very important to be able to quickly and efficiently able to baptize. Those who are near death, infants, etc would benefit from a pouring. If infants who died without baptism werent damned by a loving deity and if proxy babtism was available then the baptism could remain as it was in the OT.

[saemo]

What do you think is the relationship between the Holy Spirit guiding the Church anciently, and the Spirit guiding the LDS Church in the latter days? Now, I know you're Catholic, but how do you see the issue of a Spirit-guided Church anciently, ending in total apostasy, and a Spirit-guided restored Church (I hope I'm making sense)?

I do think it's important to think of the Church as Christ, as it is His Body. And on the other hand, I do find the analogy of the Church with Christ's Body in relationship to the apostasy (that the Church "died" just like Christ did, and was resurrected, therefore the gates of Hades didn't prevail. this is something I've said multiple times as well).

Thanks!

I see the claim that the Holy Spirit failed in guiding Christ's Church to be untenable because it lacking in evidence. I see the LDS idea of a great apostasy the same as those who claim men never walked on the moon....conspiracy theories that MUST deny evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that priesthood authority was lost, and when did it happen? (Cue the conspiracy theories.) It is easy for me to see the historical evidence for the continuity of Christ's Church, including priesthood authority.

LDS go on possibilities, and anyone can believe anything is possible. You then have to ask what, based on the evidence, is probable? What I find is that LDS apologists rewrite history in order to make the possible, probable. History then becomes belief, rather than a witness for an age.

LDS believe in eternal marriage, unless you're talking about the Bride of Christ, His Church? Other than that, it is just reinterpretation of scripture, and you can find no evidence that the early Church held any belief that it was going to die and be raised! On the contrary, the belief is in continuity, with the historical evidence pointing to the reality of continuity. If you want to believe the Church died, then where is the evidence for this???? You're going to go to the Church's own historical writings, including the NT, to prove the Church died? Really??????

eta: Also, if the Church is resurrected shouldn't it then be said that it is now exalted? Do you think it is going to take a thousand years for that to happen?

Occam's razor seems to be in play here. Complicated theory, or the simple truth?

Edited March 15, 2013 by saemo