Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[Engineer97]

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.

Perhaps a few quotes from Clement of Rome epistle to Corinth:

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.

42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;

44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

[Robert F. Smith]

All topics that can be, and have been covered, over and over.

In many of the points, LDS confuse innovation with restoration, ie, no evidence for things lost or found, in an LDS understanding. Just assertions.

None of the points I listed are innovative, although (yes) they have been mentioned over and over in the literature (with footnotes) as restorations. All were part of the early Church. Assertions typically lack academic backing and one may feel good making them, but there is a time when a CFR is called for. Perhaps you could justify your claim of "no evidence." Which items do you claim are "innovative," or are you just making an assertion?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Engineer97]

So because you see it as plausible you choose to believe it. That makes some sense, but I don't see it as the best course of action. Lots of things make sense, rationally, but are still not true. That's why we need something more than our reasoning to get at what the truth is.

Now let's jump ahead a little and presume that both of us have God's inspiration to believe what we believe on this issue, even though we don't agree on this issue. How do you explain that? How do you know who is right? Who do you trust to know that you are right on this issue?

You probably already know what I say in response to that question, and I think I know how you would answer that too.

So now what? This is where I see both of us parting company with you on one side of the issue and me on the other side, which according to God as he has told me personally is the right side on the issue.

How do you know it is actually God? 2cor 11........¹⁴ And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

How do you know is someone other than God?

[volgadon]

How do you know it is actually God? 2cor 11........¹⁴ And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

How do you know is someone other than God?

That verse, if used as you would have it, can discount EVERYTHING, including your own convictions.

[CASteinman]

That verse, if used as you would have it, can discount EVERYTHING, including your own convictions.

I think that is, in essence, the conundrum that led Descartes to reach what for him was an epiphany -- "I think, therefore I am". The idea was, as I remember it, that he was being fooled by a malevolent master being who was playing tricks on him and that there was nothing he could trust.

[TAO]

You gotta choose to trust something. Or at least I do XD.

[Stone holm]

I think that is, in essence, the conundrum that led Descartes to reach what for him was an epiphany -- "I think, therefore I am". The idea was, as I remember it, that he was being fooled by a malevolent master being who was playing tricks on him and that there was nothing he could trust.

Yeah philsophers sometimes go off the deep end. What was it that Green said on how to tell if a person was telling the truth, "when they don't talk."

[Ahab]

Actually..this is not true...........

Acts 13:

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

None of the original apostles ordains Paul..... but the elders at Antioch...who were appointed by Cephas.

And prior to this....

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Actually it is true and you simply have a misunderstanding. Cephas/Peter was what we would refer to now as the "President of the High Priesthood", the highest ranking high priest after the order of Melchizedek. And the elders he appointed with his authority were also after that order of the high priesthood. Your misunderstanding is in thinking of Cephas/Peter and those elders as bishops, but men who are limited in their calling as "bishops" don't have the authority to do what they did.

Paul, himself, was also ordained to the office of an elder and an apostle of the high priesthood, and not simply a bishop.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think that is, in essence, the conundrum that led Descartes to reach what for him was an epiphany -- "I think, therefore I am". The idea was, as I remember it, that he was being fooled by a malevolent master being who was playing tricks on him and that there was nothing he could trust.

Alas, the correct formulation of Descartes' famous dictum is: "I believe I think, therefore, I believe I am."

[CASteinman]

Alas, the correct formulation of Descartes' famous dictum is: "I believe I think, therefore, I believe I am."

hahah. alas is right. Thanks. I shall commit that to memory.

I always thought it was a weak intellectual conclusion and you have just exposed it as worse than I knew. Intellectually I mean. There is a way that I agree with him, but "believe" is wrong. The more accurate word is "know".

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[Ahab]

How do you know it is actually God? 2cor 11........¹⁴ And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

How do you know is someone other than God?

That's the question each one of us needs to find the answer for to be sure about who we are following.

The "way" to explain how is easy. We get to know God (our Father) in the same way we get to know anyone else. Communication. Experience. Trial and error. Learning the difference between good and evil while knowing God (our Father) is good and Satan is evil while also calling himself God and promoting himself as the one we should be following. Knowing which one Jesus is like and why he points to our Father as the one we should follow, as he also follows our Father. Knowing how the Holy Ghost plays a part in all of this, too. Learning why it's not wise to rely on the understanding of men, alone, with only God as the one we rely on.

You know, stuff like that. Personal relationships. Once you know him you'll know you know him and not an imposter.

[Stone holm]

How do you know it is actually God? 2cor 11........¹⁴ And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

How do you know is someone other than God?

Gee not sure perhaps offer to shake his hand?

[mfbukowski]

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

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

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

Well I as always see things in terms of epistemological problems.

How would we approach the issue of actually knowing what the primitive church was like? Certainly we look at ancient sources and try to extrapolate the exact meanings etc, but I think that ultimately most of these questions remain unknowable from a historic perspective. So the bottom line remains a spiritual decision for me.

[Calm]

Sabbatical over or is this just a sabbatical from the sabbatical?

[Ahab]

Well I as always see things in terms of epistemological problems.

How would we approach the issue of actually knowing what the primitive church was like? Certainly we look at ancient sources and try to extrapolate the exact meanings etc, but I think that ultimately most of these questions remain unknowable from a historic perspective. So the bottom line remains a spiritual decision for me.

Once you know, spiritually, you also know their true history too, though, don't cha. The truth of what they really were is a matter of history, even though you may not be relying on history to find out what they were.

[Bart Burk]

Once you know, spiritually, you also know their true history too, though, don't cha. The truth of what they really were is a matter of history, even though you may not be relying on history to find out what they were.

I don't think you could get a master's thesis in church history, even at BYU, based on that reasoning.

[savedbygrace]

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.

Who does speak for the mormon church? It seems that whenever anything challenging is written regarding the church, the same explanation is rolled out, that they were speaking for themselves not the church, others I can think of, Apostle McConkie, Brigham Young. If the B o M actually taught those doctrines that are uniquely mormon, then it possibly could be seen in this light, but as it does not, how can it be?

[Ahab]

I don't think you could get a master's thesis in church history, even at BYU, based on that reasoning.

Uh, yeah you could. Once you know which Church is the true Church all you have to do is talk about what that Church did.

That's true history, and of the Church.

[Ahab]

Who does speak for the mormon church? It seems that whenever anything challenging is written regarding the church, the same explanation is rolled out, that they were speaking for themselves not the church, others I can think of, Apostle McConkie, Brigham Young. If the B o M actually taught those doctrines that are uniquely mormon, then it possibly could be seen in this light, but as it does not, how can it be?

Nobody speaks for the Church, as a whole, because there isn't one person in the Church who can speak for everybody.

If one member tried there would be at least one other member who would not agree with that member, so that wouldn't work.

The President of the High Priesthood in the Church speaks for God and as the President of the Church, but even he doesn't speak for every other member. That would mean we would all be in agreement, as if all of the members are of one mind and heart.

[Robert F. Smith]

Who does speak for the mormon church? It seems that whenever anything challenging is written regarding the church, the same explanation is rolled out, that they were speaking for themselves not the church, others I can think of, Apostle McConkie, Brigham Young. If the B o M actually taught those doctrines that are uniquely mormon, then it possibly could be seen in this light, but as it does not, how can it be?

Would you like to support the claim that the BofM does not teach "those doctrines that are uniquely mormon"? What are those doctrines, and who told you that the BofM does not teach them? Do you have any published sources supporting your claim?

[Bart Burk]

Would you like to support the claim that the BofM does not teach "those doctrines that are uniquely mormon"? What are those doctrines, and who told you that the BofM does not teach them? Do you have any published sources supporting your claim?

The Book of Mormon does not teach that God the Father is an exalted man.

[mfbukowski]

Sabbatical over or is this just a sabbatical from the sabbatical?

It's a Shabbat tickle.

[CASteinman]

Who does speak for the mormon church?

I believe that there are several possible answers to this question. It would depend for example, on what your agenda was and what you view the "mormon church" as being. Some people think of the "mormon church" as being "the people". In that case there would be no real spokesperson -- each person would be speaking for themselves. However, outsiders will sometimes gravitate to someone -- like Joanna Brooks -- and consider that person as speaking for the "mormon church". This is an error, but I think it happens.

Then there are people who will look at anyone with any sort of authority -- ecclesiastical, institutional or educational as being able to speak for the "mormon church". This is also in error, but it is a common view -- perhaps perpetuated by those very same ecclesiastically, institutionally, or educationally supported "authorities" from time to time. This is a bit self serving, and more importantly it is not authorized.

There is another perspective. This one is more of what I would describe as an "organizational, legalistic, corporate" view. It rests upon the concept of having actual "authority" and being formally "authorized" to speak for the Church. In my view, this is the appropriate source to look for when seeking to find someone who speaks for the Church.

In that regard there are several options:

• There is a public relations department that speaks for them.
  
• There are attorneys acting as legal counsel that speak for them.
  
• In matters of doctrine, the First Presidency, as a body or the Quorum of the 12 as a body are authorized by formal founding documents to speak for the Church to the World. In practice, Members of these two bodies will speak for the Church -- but on an informal rather than formal basis. That is to say, sometimes individual members may be corrected in statements by other members of those bodies.
  
• In addition there are official sources of doctrine that can be reviewed. These can be identified because they are labeled as "Official Organs" of the Church (this should not be confused with official organs of auxiliaries which have also existed from time to time) or they will have been actually published by the Church itself, with the imprimatur of the First Presidency or the Twelve or both.
  

I believe that if you refer to these sources you will have what you seek in the question you ask -- and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in authority in the Church to disagree with those as sources.

[CASteinman]

It seems that whenever anything challenging is written regarding the church, the same explanation is rolled out, that they were speaking for themselves not the church, others I can think of, Apostle McConkie

It may seem this way but if the challenging issues use invalid sources, it is not unreasonable to call them on it. You raise the example of Bruce McConkie -- who authored "Mormon Doctrine". This unfortunately titled book, developed by Bruce McConkie before he was an apostle, is often taken as being "authoritative". To a degree it is: It authoritatively presents the views of Bruce McConkie. This would be made obvious if people would briefly read Elder McConkies own words on this matter where he expressly rejects the idea that his book is any sort of official Church Doctrine and is-- entirely his own responsibility. For whatever reason, critics like to believe that he was accurate in all of his book except in the aspect of denying that it was actually the official doctrine of the Church.

There are reasonable standards about what constitutes Official Doctrine and if you abide by those, you will not probably find yourself getting into these kinds of problems.

However, it should be noted that even in Official Sources, errors are possible. After all, the Scriptures, which are some of the most bedrock of Official Sources, do contain errors. So it should not be surprising that there are others in less rigorous sources.

[Stone holm]

Would you like to support the claim that the BofM does not teach "those doctrines that are uniquely mormon"? What are those doctrines, and who told you that the BofM does not teach them? Do you have any published sources supporting your claim?

I have to disagree with you. Long before I met the missionaries, I read the Book of Mormon. You really don't get a sense of what is unique about Mormons from a reading of that book. You may get a testimony of that book from reading it, but you do not necessarily even get a testimony of the Church from it. No if you want to know what makes Mormons Mormon , you read the Doctrine & Covenants. And if you want to get a little more of a glimmer of what Heavenly Father is like, you read the Pearl of Great Price. But reading the Book of Mormon alone, no I don't think so. The reason the missionaries emphasize the Book of Mormon is to have you grt a testimony that indeed Joseph Smith was a prophet which then leads to the conclusion that the Church is true, but you really are clueless about what it means to be a Mormon until you read the D&C.