Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[Helen47]

Read Michael Greens Evangelism in the Early Church.

[rodheadlee]

3DOP, I'll have to make this short, I'm packing to leave Costa Rica for Mexico in my sailboat. Perhaps later we can discuss this. I've always respected you and your posts. To date all I know about the various iquisitions comes from wikipedia and my wife. My wife was raised Catholic, her entire family is Catholic I live on a boat so book space is limited and I don't do kendall yet.

Perhaps you could read this wiki article and verify it's truthfulness. Then we could have a conversation.

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

In my mind sooner or later the LDS and Catholic Church will unite under Christ. Unfortunately due to the pride of man this won't happen until Christ gets here and sorts it out.

[Questing Beast]

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).

...

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).

The "great apostasy" was healthy in my religious world view until the entire edifice of constructed religious history fell apart for me. I never questioned that the "great apostasy" ever happened. After I began to put together a religious world view that made the most sense out of what I think I know, the "great apostasy" fit squarely into the "constructed/faithful history" paradigm. I no longer accept that paradigm.

Here's what I believe happened: Jesus of Nazareth, a miraculous man if there ever was one, impressed a lot of his contemporaries, both positively and negatively. Those positively affected joined together under Jesus' main disciples, called apostles, and the religion spread in a big way. Of course, communication being what it was before modern times, all such control over the spreading "church" was feckless in the extreme. There was never any central "headquarters" that trumped the scattered "branches" of the new faith, especially when the Romans sacked Jerusalem just as the religion was getting started. With Jerusalem gone, the apostles could not gather to establish a strong central, geographical headquarters, and by natural causes for the most part, the apostles died off scattered all over the Mediterranean world. We see the fruit of their work in the many denominations of Christianity from the extreme frontiers of the eastern Roman empire to Rome itself. Today these Christian denominations adhere to their own scriptures and authorities, and have never been a part of the RCC, or the subsequent Orthodox Church which separated from the RCC finally and irrevocably in the 11th century (although nobody at the time, or after, for many centuries, knew that the split was in fact "final"). So this is the seedbed of "the great apostasy": a huge movement, chaotic and without documentation except of the most anecdotal kind. It is also a "seedbed" for historical revisionists, of which Mormons form a very prominent part. There was never a "great apostasy", and the Roman persecution of Christians has been greatly exaggerated and distorted down the centuries. I once read that the total "martyrdom" of Christians during the centuries before Christianity was made the Roman state religion, amounted to not even 30K people. If you spread that out over the roughly three hundred years, it would not even be that noticeable. Rome persecuted a lot of people, and punished/exploited everybody, not just Christians. Sure, famous martyrs died for their Christian faith. So did Jews and other religious people of all sorts. In many or most cases the religious disaffection was established as the excuse for punishment, which of course ended up in the arena as well as on the cross. Finally, the asserted/traditional end of the apostles is all hearsay, concocted by the earliest Christian apologists mostly out of whole cloth, as there is no evidence to support any of it....

Edited March 16, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

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.

I don't see that as helpful above any other approach. Studying Christian "restorationism" reveals a lot of nutty thinking establishing itself as "fact". I know of moderns who approach the entire Bible as their complete religion, despite the predominant Christian pov which says that Jesus Christ fulfilled "the law", i.e. the Law of Moses is no more required; these "restorationists" attempt to decipher what is "in the law" so that they can live ALL of it. Surely this is an extreme case of "shooting beyond the mark".

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.

Rigdon was perhaps Campbell's chief disciple. Rigdon's entire life was spent attempting to reestablish primitive Christianity. He gave up on Mormonism but not all the teachings that Joseph Smith had established. The point is that anyone attempting to "restore" primitive Christianity is going to wind up with a religion that doesn't fit in today's world. Most of what went into primitive Christianity was ignorance about the physical world, and today we just can't believe what the primitive Christians believed about the physical world.

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

That was written in the first generation "church", anticipating the imminent return of the Lord in glory. It never happened, and the original meaning of that teaching was reinterpreted to fit into the then-modern church, the Roman Church. American interpretation of that phrase, and other "restorational" phrases, is bound to be even less connected to the original intent/expectation of the authors, whoever they might actually have been....

[3DOP]

3DOP, I'll have to make this short, I'm packing to leave Costa Rica for Mexico in my sailboat. Perhaps later we can discuss this. I've always respected you and your posts. To date all I know about the various iquisitions comes from wikipedia and my wife. My wife was raised Catholic, her entire family is Catholic I live on a boat so book space is limited and I don't do kendall yet.

Perhaps you could read this wiki article and verify it's truthfulness. Then we could have a conversation.

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

In my mind sooner or later the LDS and Catholic Church will unite under Christ. Unfortunately due to the pride of man this won't happen until Christ gets here and sorts it out.

Thanks rodheadlee.

Have a great trip. God bless.

3DOP

[3DOP]

Robert F. Smith

Such re-ordinations are pro-forma and are not available to any other communion -- except by formal conversion and study at a Roman Catholic seminary, etc., as for any other Roman Catholic wanting to be a priest. The Anglican Communion has special status.

3DOP

Formal conversion, a desire to be formally united with the Roman Church is necessary for Anglicans. Nor do they receive conditional ordination, as though their Anglican ordination was possibly valid.

Robert F. Smith

Yes, as I have pointed out twice now. The changes were immense, including requiring most liturgy to be in the vernacular rather than Latin, reducing the complexity and number of sacraments, reducing the number of recognized saints, increased ecumenism, a canceling of the rift between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, etc., always with an eye on early Christianity.

3DOP

Sacramentum Concilium never required the abrogation of Latin in the liturgy, but rather insisted that "the use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (SC #36)

Reducing the sacraments? There are still seven.

No saint has been decanonized.

More later.

Robert F. Smith

I said that he is a Dominican priest -- that is Roman Catholic. Why would he be LDS?

3DOP

He joined your church about ten years ago on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

[Calm]

I said that he is a Dominican priest -- that is Roman Catholic. Why would he be LDS?

Because he converted?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/09/be-a-missionary-all-your-life?lang=eng

The conversion of Jordan Vajda, a fine young man who had been a Catholic priest, is instructive. When he was in grade school, he had Latter-day Saint friends in his class who shared with him their love of the gospel. At age 13 he found an offer from the Church for a free Book of Mormon. He sent for it, and two sister missionaries responded. They were surprised that he was only 13 and had requested the Book of Mormon. He was impressed with what they taught and what he felt, but after discussions with his family, he decided to become a priest in the Catholic Church. As he prepared to be a priest, he remained interested in The Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints.

He studied at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. He became acquainted with many who take the position we are not Christians, but he also associated with the students at the Latter-day Saint institute of religion at Berkeley. He decided to write a master’s thesis on why some people maintain that we are not Christians. This was primarily an academic pursuit. He became a priest in the Dominican order and had assignments in Arizona and then at the University of Washington. There he came in contact with our missionaries.

After being taught by them and praying sincerely, he received inspiration that he should resign as a Catholic priest and be baptized and confirmed into the Church of Jesus Christ. His letter of resignation expressed his love and appreciation for the Catholic Church and then stated:

“Why am I doing what I am doing? To put it most simply: I have found a fuller truth and goodness and beauty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After years of study and reflection, I have come to believe that the LDS Church is the only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets.

“I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, called and ordained for this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. I love the Book of Mormon; I believe it to be the word of God for us in these latter days.

“I can no longer deny my feelings, my heart, my conscience. I cannot deny the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost, which has come after much prayer and soul-searching. At this point in my life, at this moment, as I look forward to and prepare for my convert baptism, I have found a happiness greater than I ever imagined possible.” 2

This good man is active in the Church, has been to the temple, teaches the Gospel Doctrine class in his ward, and has a management position in a hospital in Seattle.

[ChristKnight]

Such re-ordinations are pro-forma and are not available to any other communion -- except by formal conversion and study at a Roman Catholic seminary, etc., as for any other Roman Catholic wanting to be a priest. The Anglican Communion has special status.

While the Anglicans certainly have a "special status" in relationship to the Catholic Church (as we can see with the relatively recent developments with the Ordinariate, it is clear that the re-ordinations are not merely a formality. The Orders are viewed as invalid by the Catholic Church (whether or not convert Anglican priests have to attend Catholic seminary in total), as we see with Apostolicae Curae. This is in contrast to the Catholic view of Eastern Orthodox Orders, regarding them as validly ordained with apostolic succession (and therefore would not have to be "re"-ordained like Anglicans).

Yes, as I have pointed out twice now.

Great. I am merely looking for substantiation of the restorationist vision of Vatican II.

The changes were immense, including requiring most liturgy to be in the vernacular rather than Latin, reducing the complexity and number of sacraments, reducing the number of recognized saints, increased ecumenism, a canceling of the rift between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, etc., always with an eye on early Christianity.

Thanks, I'm aware of the various changes of Vatican II (though would disagree with some of the characterizations given here. I've just never heard Catholics understand those changes as "restorationist", reverting back to an earlier, primitive Christianity, that's all.

Read the Nibley article, the angry response of Hans Hillerbrand, and the defense of Nibley by Robert M. Grant.

The Nibley article is required reading.

Ok thanks, will do.

I said that he is a Dominican priest -- that is Roman Catholic. Why would he be LDS?

Yes, I know that Dominicans are a Catholic religious order (I went to Georgetown, a Jesuit institution). He would be LDS because he converted (something I vaguely remembered, and was just wondering if you were aware and could confirm that).

It isn't only Vajda, other non-Mormon scholars actually understand the subject very similarly: Cf. Ernst Benz on apotheosis:

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.

*

* “Der Mensch als Imago Dei,” in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.

English version in Benz, “Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219; cf. Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Pickwick Publ./Wipf & Stock, 2006).

Thanks for that quote, very interesting.

[ChristKnight]

Here is what I see.

I say, Acts (the Bible), points to a requirement for a man to be an Apostle, and the Apostles appointed Bishops as their successors.

You say, "We don't need to follow what's in the Bible because God changed it for us. However because the Catholic Church follows what is actually IN the Bible, this is sign of an Apostasy".

But how do you see the relationship between bishops and apostles? I think what others mean by a "lesser" ordination between bishops and apostles is that bishops were and are understood to be local authorities, while apostles have general authority. It also seems from the Bible that the apostles were given the keys and the power of binding and loosing, while the bishops weren't. So the question then becomes, where do we see the bishops being given apostolic authority, the authority of the apostles, from the apostles, to be their successors? Thanks.

[ChristKnight]

Thanks to all of the replies! I'm working this weekend so I don't have much time, so I'll respond individually to more posts on Monday. I do appreciate the diversity of thoughts!

Also, just to bring it back to the main thing I've been thinking about (though I certainly do appreciate the discussion on apostasy, apostles, etc). I just pulled up Bickmore's Mormonism in the Early Jewish Christian Milieu. While I still need to read all of it, his opening paragraph hits the nail on the head of what I'm thinking about:

"If Latter-day Saints want to make a rigorous historical case for our faith, we need to demonstrate at least some probability that a group of “Former-day Saints” really existed. What evidence for such a group should we expect to find, and what evidence is there? In this paper I attempt to answer these questions, at least in part, and show a high probability for the proposition that a group of “Former-day Saints” existed within the early Jewish Christian milieu."

So as I read this paper, and look at other LDS apologetic endeavors, the question in my mind is, does this point to a singular, cohesive "group" of Former-day Saints, a Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, as the writers of these works refer to? Or do they point to a diversity of views from diverse areas within the broader Jewish-Christian spectrum?

[CV75]

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).

I think "restoring the Primtiive Church" is a shorthand way of saying that the priesthood keys for the dispensation(s) prior to ours were lost fom the earth and restored. "Church" is a great catch-all ("key" -- pun!) word to cover anything that can be done for the children of God by exercising those keys.

[saemo]

But how do you see the relationship between bishops and apostles? I think what others mean by a "lesser" ordination between bishops and apostles is that bishops were and are understood to be local authorities, while apostles have general authority. It also seems from the Bible that the apostles were given the keys and the power of binding and loosing, while the bishops weren't. So the question then becomes, where do we see the bishops being given apostolic authority, the authority of the apostles, from the apostles, to be their successors? Thanks.

ChristKnight,

Clement of Rome describes the successors to the Apostles. The practice in the Church itself, indicates apostolic authority is given to the Bishops. I think it would be interesting if you could show where the Apostles did not appoint successors and that they did not possess the authority to lead Christ's Church. Certainly, those who succeeded the Apostles did not believe the Apostles gave them something less.

At any rate, your questions more and more reflect a paradigm of one that must come from a belief that the Holy Spirit didn't guide the early Church. Interesting for one who wants to see the Spirit so badly in Mormonism but cannot see it in the faith that has been handed on, once, for all. We all seek to discern, and I see you are looking for validation of the Mormon cloak you are wearing. I have no interest in such an endeavor.

God bless you on your journey.

Edited March 16, 2013 by saemo

[3DOP]

Hi Christknight,

Assuredly, very few LDS will have the patience to labor through my analysis of how Catholics understand the Second Vatican Council. I hope it answers some of your questions. Although I try not to obviously betray my sympathies, they are probably apparent. I'll begin again with the view held by Robert F. Smith which I oppose, that the Council was conducted "with an eye on early Christianity":

Yes, as I have pointed out twice now. The changes were immense, including requiring most liturgy to be in the vernacular rather than Latin, reducing the complexity and number of sacraments, reducing the number of recognized saints, increased ecumenism, a canceling of the rift between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, etc., always with an eye on early Christianity.

First of all, I should say that there is nothing wrong with keeping "an eye on early Christianity", unless it is with a view to condemn legitimate growth in doctrines and practice that is the church's patrimony. Vatican II never makes this blunder of criticizing the Church's recent past by an appeal to the ancient past. Pope Pius XII, only fifteen years before Vatican II, had justly condemned the idea that simplification of liturgical rites is acceptable because it is a return to early Christianity: "...the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof."

The liturgical innovators who earned the pope's rebuke learned their lesson. The tactic of appealing to early Christianity was doomed to failure. But no matter, there is more one way to skin the proverbial cat. The Introduction to the document on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) begins with an appeal to change for the sake of modern man, who has different needs than his fathers.

The sacred Council has set out to impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian life of the fatihful; to adapt more closely to the needs of our age...

---SC #1

Promulgated as the first of eleven conciliar documents on Dec. 4, 1963, the first sentence introduces the theme which permeates the Council. The needs of modern man and our age must be met by new means hitherto untried by and perhaps even condemned by the Church.

ChristKnight, you have asked what Catholics think about the Council. Without completely giving away my own position, I would suggest that one might resolve those positions into three schools of thought. My point is not to show which of these I believe to be correct, but to show that Catholics do not seem to be conscious of the Council as an instrument of return to early Christianity. The first encyclical of Pope John Paul II indicates how he perceived the Council:

Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded by Paul VI...

---Redemptor Hominis, # 6

Pope John Paul II adopted both names of the recent pontificates and fully entrusting himself to God as the ultimate author of Vatican II, John Paul II was unconcerned about the possibility that something "quite unknown previously", might be problematic for the Church.

By 1988, in a statement to the bishops of Chile, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future successor of Pope John Paul II described the misgivings that he had with prevailing perceptions of the Council that disregarded the Tradition of the Church:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero...That which was previously considered most holy-the form in which the liturgy was handed down-suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can be safely prohibited.

In 2005, as pope, Benedict XVI, decreed that the Mass which had been celebrated throughout the entire Council, from Pope John's Missal of 1962, had never been abrogated, even though those who had reverent attachment to the ancient liturgy were treated as nostalgists at best by most of the world's bishops. Additionally, rather than perceiving the Council as advancing ideas that were "quite unknown previously", he acknowledged the necessity of perceiving it according to what he called the "hermeneutic of continuity." As early as 1988, again to the bishops of Chile, after admitting that the Council had been largely received as "a new start from zero", he admits that Vatican II is only plausible under one condition:

The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique tradition of the Church and her faith.

Finally, there are those who doubt whether all of the vast Vatican II literature is compatible with Catholic Tradition. There is a minority of knowledgable Catholics who take comfort in the fact that providentially, the promulgating pope of the Council Paul VI, emphatically denied on several occasions that any of the documents bore the note of infallibility:

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.

---General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966

The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council...

---the future Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Chilean Bishops, July 13, 1988.

I would summarize then the Catholic views of the Second Vatican Council into three broad camps:

1) Those who would see the Council as justifying all innovation with a disdain for the recent past, and "a new start from zero".

2) Those who would see the Council as authorizing some new innovations, but with respect for the recent past and "a hermeneutic of continuity".

3) Those who would see the Council as being somewhat misguided at times and promoting novelty, respectfully requiring demonstrations of compatibility with the Tradition of the Church in light of papal teaching on the authority of the Council.

I would say that I have presented the three points of view in order of popularity. However non-Catholics understand the Council, I don't think it is warranted to include a fourth group among the ways Catholics view the Council. There may be some very few who think it represents a move to the church of the first centuries. But I am confident that anyone who has actually read the documents will perceive little effort to look back, and maximum effort to look forward so that the Church may be prepared to relate to what is presented as almost a new kind of being, modern man in the 20th Century. Gaudium et Spes is the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World. The title says it all. It is a straight-forward admission to its belief that modern man requires modern ways of accepting faith. It is the last and longest of the conciliar documents promulgated on December 7, 1965. A footnote to the preface in my edition summarizes why I cannot admit that the Council was called or proceeded with "an eye on early Christianity".

The Constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to set forth the relation of the Church in the world and to the men of today.

What would be the point of keeping a sharp eye on early Christianity, if it is believed that we need new ways of understanding and reaching "men of today" anyway? Old methods for new men? I don't think so.

3DOP

Edited March 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[WmLaw]

But, I still maintain, that if you aren't Catholic, Orthodox or Mormon you haven't a leg doctrinally or authoritatively to stand on. No one else can rightly claim the truth and be accurate according to the Bible.

and by Mormon, you're including FLDS and RLDS as well, right?

[CASteinman]

and by Mormon, you're including FLDS and RLDS as well, right?

I wouldn't include them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 13 March 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

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.

name='Questing Beast' timestamp='1363443827' post='1209236166']I don't see that as helpful above any other approach. Studying Christian "restorationism" reveals a lot of nutty thinking establishing itself as "fact". I know of moderns who approach the entire Bible as their complete religion, despite the predominant Christian pov which says that Jesus Christ fulfilled "the law", i.e. the Law of Moses is no more required; these "restorationists" attempt to decipher what is "in the law" so that they can live ALL of it. Surely this is an extreme case of "shooting beyond the mark".

My response here was to the notion that only the LDS were restorationists. People do not understand how broad such a movement was.

Robert said:

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.

]Beast said:

Rigdon was perhaps Campbell's chief disciple. Rigdon's entire life was spent attempting to reestablish primitive Christianity. He gave up on Mormonism but not all the teachings that Joseph Smith had established. The point is that anyone attempting to "restore" primitive Christianity is going to wind up with a religion that doesn't fit in today's world. Most of what went into primitive Christianity was ignorance about the physical world, and today we just can't believe what the primitive Christians believed about the physical world.

Oliver had a similar criticism of Joseph (that he was too utopian and unrealistic), and thus left the Church for a time. Most people would similarly share your view.

Robert said:

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

]Beast said:

That was written in the first generation "church", anticipating the imminent return of the Lord in glory. It never happened, and the original meaning of that teaching was reinterpreted to fit into the then-modern church, the Roman Church. American interpretation of that phrase, and other "restorational" phrases, is bound to be even less connected to the original intent/expectation of the authors, whoever they might actually have been....

So you say, Beast, but I don't think that you have considered my citations on this (I notice that you don't deal with them), nor with Jewish tradition. Instead you give us standard boilerplate ideas on what it means.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Stone holm]

I wouldn't include them.

Neither would I especially since the RLDS particularly disliked the nickname until we became more popular, and they no longer even use Latter-Day Saints in their Church name

[Robert F. Smith]

What would be the point of keeping a sharp eye on early Christianity, if it is believed that we need new ways of understanding and reaching "men of today" anyway? Old methods for new men? I don't think so.

3DOP

Truly one can (and many have) characterized the purpose of Vatican II as aggiornamento “revitalization; a bringing up to date,” as did Pope John XXIII, http://vatican2voice.org/3butlerwrites/aggiorna.htm , but it was far more than that, and I even see it as similar in some respects to the Counter-Reformation. Deadwood needed to be removed. Items detrimental to the Sacred Deposit of the Faith needed to be cut out.

Martin Luther actually did the Roman Catholic Church a huge favor by pointing out the crucial problems which needed to be dealt with. The Counter Reformation was a good thing, but so was the Reformation itself, since both laid the essential groundwork for the Restoration of Early Christianity in Joseph Smith’s day.

In our own day, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the light which they threw on early Christianity, and the tremendous learning exhibited by Roman Catholic scholars required a reconsideration of much that had been wrongly assumed to be authentic. Some within Roman Catholicism may now want to second guess and even retrench, but the spirit of aggiornamento was to revitalize the Church by returning it to its origins. Indeed, this is what Bishop Butler himself says: “the very need for accommodating the Church to the world of today and tomorrow . . , must throw us back to our source,” i.e., “‘recovery of the initial inspiration’” (Decree on the Appropriate Renewal of the Religious Life) since “the source of the Church is the Spirit and gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, ever living in the Church he founded, but needing always to be rediscovered and relived.”

When Bishop Butler states that Pope John XXIII had hinted that the then forthcoming Vatican II Ecumenical Council would be a second Pentecost, he provides a flavor of that overall tendency. Vatican II was to decide (in Butler’s words) “what came from the gospel and what from Caesar,” and perhaps to excise the accumulated debris. Butler goes on:

For modern man, the return to Jesus of Nazareth must mean, at least among other things, the scientific, historical quest of Jesus. And this brings us to the Conciliar dialectic of scholasticism and biblical scholarship.

Or, as Hugh Nibley put it in 1967 in his book Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. (FARMS/Deseret, 1988), 11-12, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=74&chapid=909 ,

A new conception of the church, and especially of its spiritual gifts, is now running hand in hand with a new concept of the scriptures, and that in turn throws the door wide open to a new look at Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. What has brought this strange state of affairs to pass? It has been the discovery of ancient records, long forgotten by men, but brought to light in the years since Cumorah, and especially in our own generation, to make the Cumorah story appear less and less fantastic and more and more probable as the years go by and the documents accumulate. The compelling power of ancient voices speaking anew from the dust since Cumorah and especially since Qumran is today driving the whole Christian world along strange paths. "No one can deny," writes a Methodist scholar with strong Catholic leanings, "that something remarkable is going on in the formerly 'unchanging' Roman Catholic Church." Nothing less than a thorough-going revamping of doctrines and ordinances is indicated. Restoration and revelation, forbidden words but a decade or so ago, have become the watchwords of a "renewed" Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.

What is responsible for this astonishing revolution? A Protestant and a Catholic scholar, co-authoring a new book on the liturgical movement, have shown that the initial impulse and continuing pressure behind the movement has been the progressive discovery of increasingly ancient documents opening up step by step new and strange vistas of an ancient church totally unlike anything that conventional Christianity had imagined.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks to all of the replies! I'm working this weekend so I don't have much time, so I'll respond individually to more posts on Monday. I do appreciate the diversity of thoughts!

Also, just to bring it back to the main thing I've been thinking about (though I certainly do appreciate the discussion on apostasy, apostles, etc). I just pulled up Bickmore's Mormonism in the Early Jewish Christian Milieu. While I still need to read all of it, his opening paragraph hits the nail on the head of what I'm thinking about:

"If Latter-day Saints want to make a rigorous historical case for our faith, we need to demonstrate at least some probability that a group of “Former-day Saints” really existed. What evidence for such a group should we expect to find, and what evidence is there? In this paper I attempt to answer these questions, at least in part, and show a high probability for the proposition that a group of “Former-day Saints” existed within the early Jewish Christian milieu."

So as I read this paper, and look at other LDS apologetic endeavors, the question in my mind is, does this point to a singular, cohesive "group" of Former-day Saints, a Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, as the writers of these works refer to? Or do they point to a diversity of views from diverse areas within the broader Jewish-Christian spectrum?

As I have already suggested, you should be less interested in the apologetic-polemic dance than in standard scholarship on such matters. Read widely in academic books and articles which deal with early Jewish Christianity and its precursors, always keeping in mind that a basic knowledge of Judaism is required for an understanding of the New Testament. Jesus and his Aramaic-speaking followers were all Jews. The NT was written by Jews. Jewish history and traditions are assumed to be familiar to those with whom Jesus interacted.

So far, you seem not to have taken such advice to heart.

Here are some volumes which you might find useful (let me know when you need more), and I would also suggest that you regularly read current issues of Biblical Archaeology Review. After some effort, you may begin to understand the nature of the early Jewish-Christian world.

W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd ed. (London, 1955).

J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993).

J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1997)

Anthony J. Saldarini, "Rabbinic Literature and the NT," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992), V:602-604.

Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (N.Y.: Knopf, 1999).

Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Jack Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church, rev. ed. (Preinceton Univ. Press, 1992).

[Robert F. Smith]

Because he converted?

https://www.lds.org/...r-life?lang=eng

Thank you for that, calmoriah. I was completely unaware.

[CASteinman]

I simply don't see where the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints existed anciently

To what degree would you chalk this up to a combination of:

1. Not seeing it. Regardless.

2. There having been an apostasy and early records having been lost.

3. Seeing it, but only in either the Bible or the LDS perspective but not from extra-biblical non-lds perspectives.

?

My point is that the evidence is there. But if you don't want to see it you certainly won't. And even if there were zero evidence (And I don't think that is the case) of it, that would not make it untrue that there was a strong effort for a central group of determined "former day saints" -- since the time of the apostasy and the falling away was during the period that the apostles were alive and having a heck of a time pulling things together. The house was falling down around their heads. That there is evidence of the apostasy from a very early age does not mean that there is no evidence of an orthodoxy. It just gets hard for people without LDS revelation to recognize the differences.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith

Such re-ordinations are pro-forma and are not available to any other communion -- except by formal conversion and study at a Roman Catholic seminary, etc., as for any other Roman Catholic wanting to be a priest. The Anglican Communion has special status.

3DOP

Formal conversion, a desire to be formally united with the Roman Church is necessary for Anglicans. Nor do they receive conditional ordination, as though their Anglican ordination was possibly valid.

Robert F. Smith

Yes, as I have pointed out twice now. The changes were immense, including requiring most liturgy to be in the vernacular rather than Latin, reducing the complexity and number of sacraments, reducing the number of recognized saints, increased ecumenism, a canceling of the rift between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, etc., always with an eye on early Christianity.

3DOP

Sacramentum Concilium never required the abrogation of Latin in the liturgy, but rather insisted that "the use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (SC #36)

Reducing the sacraments? There are still seven.

No saint has been decanonized.

More later.

Robert F. Smith

I said that he is a Dominican priest -- that is Roman Catholic. Why would he be LDS?

3DOP

He joined your church about ten years ago on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Are you suggesting that the number of saints in the calendar has not been reduced by about 41? http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/upi/ (Pope Pdaul VI eliminating St. Christopher?!

Is it false that some Roman Catholics objected to the loss of the Latin Mass and thus welcomed the return of it under Pope Benedict? http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/07/05/how-will-the-return-of-the-latin-mass-affect-you.htm. Was that all nonsense?

[3DOP]

Thanks for the clarifications.

Are you suggesting that the number of saints in the calendar has not been reduced by about 41? http://www.stnichola....org/pages/upi/ (Pope Pdaul VI eliminating St. Christopher?!

Is it false that some Roman Catholics objected to the loss of the Latin Mass and thus welcomed the return of it under Pope Benedict? http://catholicism.a...-affect-you.htm. Was that all nonsense?

I am suggesting that many changes attributed to Vatican II were never authorized by Vatican II. But truly, the perception of Vatican II can in some respects be more important than the words. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have perceptions of what Vatican II authorized, and usually it is all out of proportion. The documents are not usually as "bad" as Traditionalists think, nor as "good" as the liberals think.

I wish I could say more...time for work. Later perhaps.

Edited March 18, 2013 by 3DOP

[Questing Beast]

...

... I don't think that you have considered my citations on this (I notice that you don't deal with them), nor with Jewish tradition. Instead you give us standard boilerplate ideas on what it means.

Sorry, I lost the "thread" of the discussion. What citations? But the context seems to be that differing opinions on it will render citations also in a context that does not agree. I take religious history to be manipulated and manipulative. How anyone expects to get to the "original religion" by reading the Bible or any apocryphal texts is inconceivable to me. And why should it be necessary? The original texts in their context were for "them". We have our own modern concerns and world view, both empirical and religious....

[Stone holm]

Sorry, I lost the "thread" of the discussion. What citations? But the context seems to be that differing opinions on it will render citations also in a context that does not agree. I take religious history to be manipulated and manipulative. How anyone expects to get to the "original religion" by reading the Bible or any apocryphal texts is inconceivable to me. And why should it be necessary? The original texts in their context were for "them". We have our own modern concerns and world view, both empirical and religious....

But we all love our authority to be as ancient as possible, it gives it more 'gravitas' so to speak. If you can for example trace the subordination of women back to Mother Eve, then who is anyone else to say differently, and if you can find some kind of hook for a doctrinal change in something that Joseph Smith, Jr. said as opposed to something David O. McKay said, well you are going to value what Joseph Smith, Jr. said over what David O. McKay said. The only problem with this type of thinking, which is perfectly natural, is you get people going back and plucking out comments made by Ezra Taft Benson before he was the President and during the Cold War and throwing them up like they had been written by the finger of God. But what they hey, whatever floats your boat right?