Restoration Of The Primitive Church

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm fine accepting the idea that restoration referrs to the gospel with all its attendant doctrines and principles. The challenge comes when I look at the Church's accepted definitions of restore and restoration. Presently and historically those words generally describe a very specific restoration of, lets say, ordinances. Well, if we look at the first century there is no evidence of exact replicas of our modern ordinances. Then I have to start redefining restore to mean "kind of" restore and then on to "kind of in a way" restored. I could accept that the ideas communicated by the endowment are eternal and Joseph restored those by placing them within a modern framework.

I don't think that we can expect "exact replicas" of anything. The sacramental prayer, for example, need only contain certain basic information to be effective in a post-Resurrection context -- the original context being the Jewish Passover, which begins next Tuesday, in the midst of Holy Week, and in the midst of a variety of set liturgies.

Reminds me of an LDS esoteric prayer which I cannot utter here, but which was changed from Hebrew to English (reminds me of Vatican II allowing the Mass to be heard in the vernacular) so that people could understand it. I understand it just fine in Hebrew, but most people don't know Hebrew. So, it was changed, and in the changing the English verbiage used is not an "exact replica" of the ancient mode.

Although Mormon apologists seem to disagree with me, I can't find an organization or institution with a unified priesthood and system of government. That being the case I don't know what Joseph was restoring by way of a church/institution/organization. Joseph's church in the 1830's resembled in structure and councils other churches of the time more than it did anything from the first century. The first century Christian evangelizing seems to be more charismatic than institutional.

In the sacred grove, the Lord's critique of modern christianity did not reject everything, but specifically focussed on denial of the power of God rather than on the "form of godliness" which you rightly recognize in the churches of Joseph Smith's day (JS-H 1:19). Why not copy the Methodist Sunday School system? Until some years ago the LDS Church had Sunday School Superintendents (just like the Methodists), more recently changing them to Sunday School Presidents. Such name changes are of no importance. I listed the substantive principles and doctrines for you above.

For the actual structure of early Christianity, you may want to consult the following:

James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Chrisian Communities (Cambridge Univ., 1992).

Eric M. Meyers, "Synagogue," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (Doubleday, 1992), VI:251-260.

James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Crossroad, 1990).

Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1984).

W. F. Albright said that “we discover that the institution of overseers or superintendents (episkopoi, our bishops) in Timothy and Titus, as well as in the earliest extra-biblical Christian literature, is virtually identical with the Essene institution of mebaqqerim . . .” (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed. [1957], 23).

Finally, they all thought Jesus was going to be right back! I can't really articulate why or where this fits into the problem but I have a hunch it's important.

That is certainly a theoretical construct which a great many scholars support, but it could as easily have been a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant, and since he didn't return immediately, raises other questions.

Just thoughts I'm batting around.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CASteinman]

That wasn't my point. The point is the idea of the Melchizedek Priesthood was not lost in some apostasy. We can have a disagreement about authority. In fact, this makes the LDS claim that the Melchizedek Priesthood was part of the early church more plausible regardless of what you believe about Catholicism. Most Protestants would limit the Melchizedek Priesthood to Christ alone. If you read the entire article you might find some other interesting tidbits.

I appreciated your post. I got the same thing out of it that you did. I think that we can (and often do) get a great deal of supportive information by looking to the Catholic Church's doctrines and beliefs -- especially those that are more ancient in basis.

And your point about Catholic vs Protestant views suggests added value to this knowledge.

[Bart Burk]

I appreciated your post. I got the same thing out of it that you did. I think that we can (and often do) get a great deal of supportive information by looking to the Catholic Church's doctrines and beliefs -- especially those that are more ancient in basis.

And your point about Catholic vs Protestant views suggests added value to this knowledge.

Today was the first time I read that Catholic priests are ordained after the order of Melchezidek. I always thought Catholics had the Protestant understanding until I read the article I posted. Since reading this I have confirmed it through a number of other sites. It makes perfect sense when I consider the role of the priest in the mass.

[CASteinman]

Today was the first time I read that Catholic priests are ordained after the order of Melchezidek. I always thought Catholics had the Protestant understanding until I read the article I posted. Since reading this I have confirmed it through a number of other sites. It makes perfect sense when I consider the role of the priest in the mass.

Thanks. I neglected to mention that I had not heard of that before and I am glad I did learn it.

[Lamanite]

I don't think that we can expect "exact replicas" of anything. The sacramental prayer, for example, need only contain certain basic information to be effective in a post-Resurrection context -- the original context being the Jewish Passover, which begins next Tuesday, in the midst of Holy Week, and in the midst of a variety of set liturgies.

Reminds me of an LDS esoteric prayer which I cannot utter here, but which was changed from Hebrew to English (reminds me of Vatican II allowing the Mass to be heard in the vernacular) so that people could understand it. I understand it just fine in Hebrew, but most people don't know Hebrew. So, it was changed, and in the changing the English verbiage used is not an "exact replica" of the ancient mode.

In the sacred grove, the Lord's critique of modern christianity did not reject everything, but specifically focussed on denial of the power of God rather than on the "form of godliness" which you rightly recognize in the churches of Joseph Smith's day (JS-H 1:19). Why not copy the Methodist Sunday School system? Until some years ago the LDS Church had Sunday School Superintendents (just like the Methodists), more recently changing them to Sunday School Presidents. Such name changes are of no importance. I listed the substantive principles and doctrines for you above.

For the actual structure of early Christianity, you may want to consult the following:

James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Chrisian Communities (Cambridge Univ., 1992).

Eric M. Meyers, "Synagogue," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (Doubleday, 1992), VI:251-260.

James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Crossroad, 1990).

Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1984).

W. F. Albright said that “we discover that the institution of overseers or superintendents (episkopoi, our bishops) in Timothy and Titus, as well as in the earliest extra-biblical Christian literature, is virtually identical with the Essene institution of mebaqqerim . . .” (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed. [1957], 23).

That is certainly a theoretical construct which a great many scholars support, but it could as easily have been a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant, and since he didn't return immediately, raises other questions.

Thank you for the well reasoned and balanced reply. The tone of your response was appreciated. (I hate being abused for raising certain types of questions.) I know I don't "technically" need to ask, but would you mind if I cut and pasted some of your response to post on my FB page? I just want to subject these ideas to scrutiny other than my own. What I'm saying is, I think your onto something, do you mind if I try and tear it apart? I can do it anonymously or give your handle.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

Thank you for the well reasoned and balanced reply. The tone of your response was appreciated. (I hate being abused for raising certain types of questions.) I know I don't "technically" need to ask, but would you mind if I cut and pasted some of your response to post on my FB page? I just want to subject these ideas to scrutiny other than my own. What I'm saying is, I think your onto something, do you mind if I try and tear it apart? I can do it anonymously or give your handle.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Yes, you may cut and paste to your heart's content, and you may use my handle, but I may as well add some items I gave to another person inquiring about this same subject on another thread on this board. It provides sources on the nature of early Jewish-Christianity:

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. (Princeton Univ. Press, 1992).

Edited March 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Lamanite]

Robert- Now to match your reading list to my public library's current catalog.

[CV75]

CV75- I wouldn't describe it or define it simply because right now I don't think a church or organization existed. However, I've labored through the corpus of GC from 1851-present and the use of the words restore and restoration seem to imply that a literal Church (institution) and ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles were restored exactly as they were in the first century. At least that's my understanding but I could be wrong.

If what you read states that the restored Church in 1830 was a carbon copy of the last non-apostate Church organization (including six members), meaning that this 04/06/1830 restoration subsequently evolved into something else (for better or worse), then I think we need to allow for a misunderstanding on someone's part, and that the understanding and intended testimony was that the salient elements of what existed as a Church were restored, or in other words, access to the actual aims or results of the "ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles" was restored so that the aims are again accessible to people in the mortal Earth. And in many cases it can be shown that actual "ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles" were also restored.

[Ahab]

That's something you really can't prove even if you believe it. It's a matter of faith that you have in your personal spiritual experience.

All things we know are things we know by faith from personal spiritual experiences, but that doesn't mean what we know can not be proved. Think about it. How could it be proved that the Catholic church isn't and never was the same Church as the true Church of Christ? Don't you know how to do that? Don't you know what the true Church of Christ is, and was, and always will be? It's not like something we're automatically born into. There is only one way to get in, and those who don't get in that way aren't in. What does it take for anyone to become a member of the true Church of Christ, in any dispensation?

I do think it should be interesting to LDS that the most ancient of churches that is still around claims to have the Melchizedek Priesthood as well.

Claims to have the true priesthood are irrelevant. What matters is whether or not people really have that and what that authorizes those people to do. Do you know how to tell how has that and what those people are authorized to do? Do you know the offices of the Melchizedek priesthood and how they all function together? Do you know the difference between the way the Catholic church is set up and the way the true Church of Christ is set up. Do you know who set each one up? Can't you see the contrast? What makes you think any Church that deviates from the way the Church is and should be is or ever could have been the true Church?

The LDS idea of the Melchizedek Priesthood is not as far-fetched as some Protestants would claim.

Of course it's not. It is what it is, regardless of whether or not people know what it is.

[Ahab]

If what you read states that the restored Church in 1830 was a carbon copy of the last non-apostate Church organization (including six members), meaning that this 04/06/1830 restoration subsequently evolved into something else (for better or worse), then I think we need to allow for a misunderstanding on someone's part, and that the understanding and intended testimony was that the salient elements of what existed as a Church were restored, or in other words, access to the actual aims or results of the "ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles" was restored so that the aims are again accessible to people in the mortal Earth. And in many cases it can be shown that actual "ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles" were also restored.

The power of God to continue and govern the Church among mortals is what was restored, aka the priesthood of God. That's what we need to gain access to the kingdom of God. Without that, or with only an apostate version of that, we can't get in.

[volgadon]

Even the liturgy was the same at the beginning, and (as Eric Werner has shown) continues even to this day to have close similarities.

I remember you recommending this to me the other day. Once I'm moved into my new place I plan on getting a copy.

[Rivers]

I had no idea Catholics have a tradition of priests being ordained after the order of Melchezedic. I thought that was an exclusively Mormon idea. Very very interesting indeed.

[ChristKnight]

I had no idea Catholics have a tradition of priests being ordained after the order of Melchezedic. I thought that was an exclusively Mormon idea. Very very interesting indeed.

Yes, that's definitely interesting. Though clearly there is a difference between Catholics and LDS in understanding the offices within that order of Melchizedek, as well as its scope.

I found this quote from the article interesting:

What becomes important for today is that the priesthood in which Catholic Priests share, and by extension that all the baptized share in as well, goes back not just to the Sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple, but back to the very foundations of creation by God. Melchizedek is identified as “a priest forever” in Psalm 110, his priesthood continues on into the ages. The Catholic Priest, in the place of Christ the Head, also shares in this eternal priesthood, continually offering a sacrifice of bread and wine before God in Heaven.

[CV75]

The power of God to continue and govern the Church among mortals is what was restored, aka the priesthood of God. That's what we need to gain access to the kingdom of God. Without that, or with only an apostate version of that, we can't get in.

Why didn't you bold the "And in many cases it can be shown that actual "ordinances, priesthood offices, doctrines, and principles" were also restored." part of my post as well?

[Engineer97]

Hey guys, just need some help fleshing this subject out.

Sixth Article of Faith-

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church"

As best as I can determine the idea of Joseph restoring the Primitive Church directly refers to a Church the Savior established/organized in the first century. But when I look at historical records for the first century (for which there are very few) I can't find anything remotely resembling what Joseph organized in 1830-

In fairness, throughout Mormon discourse there are mentions of Old Testament elements to the restoration, just not as prevalent or frequent.

Any thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

The Priest Debate...by CA apologist Akin...I found this very informative..........http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.htm

. The Old Testament History: Kingdom of Priests

So it isn't just the Church which is a kingdom of priests. Israel was a kingdom of priests, too. This came home to me in a very forceful way a few years ago when a history of Old Testament Israel was released by Baker Book House. The book is called, Kingdom of Priests, and the author is an Old Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. So even mainstream Evangelicals, like the folks at Baker Book House and Dallas Theological Seminary, recognize that Israel was a kingdom of priests.

4. Exodus 19:21-22: Ministerial priests

But that did not stop Israel from having a special, ministerial priesthood. In fact, if you keep reading in Exodus 19, when you get down to verse 21 & 22, you will find God telling Moses to warn the people and the priests not to come onto the holy mountain, lest the Lord break out against them. So even in the very same chapter God is calling the whole nation a kingdom of priests, there is still a separate, ministerial priesthood.

b. 2 Tim 1:6

We find the same pattern in 2 Timothy 1:6, when Paul urges his protégé to fulfill his ministry and says: "I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands."

c. 1 Tim 4:14

He spoke of the same thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul explains how he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you."

Other translators render this "which was given you . . . with the laying on of hands for the presbytery" or "in order to become a member of the presbytery."

d. 1 Tim. 5:19-22: Pass it on!

This gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands in ordination, was something Paul instructed Timothy to pass on in the future. Part of his duty as a bishop-evangelist was to ordain elders in different congregations. He tells Timothy he must exercise this ministry carefully, lest he ordain a priest unworthy of the office. In 1 Timothy 5:19-22 he tells the young evangelist: "Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. . . . Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure."

Paul tells Timothy not to lay hands on an elder too quickly; don't ordain him until he has been tested and shown to be of excellent character. Otherwise Timothy will share in his sins.

[Engineer97]

I had no idea Catholics have a tradition of priests being ordained after the order of Melchezedic. I thought that was an exclusively Mormon idea. Very very interesting indeed.

It started with Moses, when he was told ot lay hands on or ordain Joshua to succeed him, in Numbers 27, and is what is done to Paul in Acts 13...and this matter of ordaining continues to this day on the Catholc and Orthodox Churches.

[Engineer97]

Well, yeah, because the Catholic church isn't and never has been the same Church as the earlier Church of Christ.

Just don't confuse the Catholic church with the true Church of Christ, because it never has been the same Church.

Okay...is the LDS a carbon copy of this early church? As far as I can tell, the earliest Christians were looked at derisively as cannibals for they believed they ate Christ literally....and they were looked at derision for their belief in relics by the pagans around them.

[MormonMason]

Okay...is the LDS a carbon copy of this early church? As far as I can tell, the earliest Christians were looked at derisively as cannibals for they believed they ate Christ literally....and they were looked at derision for their belief in relics by the pagans around them.

That is because of the 2nd Century aberrations that became the norm over time. The apostasy was well underway before the middle of the first century. At least one mass exodus occurred while Christ was on earth during his ministry. Another was taking place at the time of the writing of 1 John. These latter individuals became the antichrists that John and the Church were expecting in their day that proved to them it was "the last hour."

It was at this time that increasing numbers of local leaders and members of their congregations actually were causing conflicts with the Apostles, as is evidenced by John's encounter with one such who was sending representatives of the Apostles away and refusing them entry into the congregation, as well as Paul's frequent correctives in his epistles. The author of 2 Timothy 1:15 (NAB, Official Catholic Bible) also has Paul recount that:

You know that everyone in Asia deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

It was the time of the grievous and ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15-20; Acts 20:29).

The Greek itself of the passages discussing what Mormons call "Sacrament," or what would later be called Eucharist, show that no literal transubstantiation was understood to occur but that the bread and wine were representative of the flesh and blood of Christ and not transformed into such. Latin, of course, lost that distinction by virtue of the fact that it lacks an "interpretive eimi" that Greek possesses, and when Latin became the dominant language of the Mass and of scripture, it became an easy and permanent transition into such a belief as transubstantiation. But that was not the original sense of the passages. Mormons are closer to the original view than are Roman Catholics, so this one was a bad example to attempt to use in such a polemic as yours above.

[Bart Burk]

That is because of the 2nd Century aberrations that became the norm over time. The apostasy was well underway before the middle of the first century. At least one mass exodus occurred while Christ was on earth during his ministry. Another was taking place at the time of the writing of 1 John. These latter individuals became the antichrists that John and the Church were expecting in their day that proved to them it was "the last hour."

It was at this time that increasing numbers of local leaders and members of their congregations actually were causing conflicts with the Apostles, as is evidenced by John's encounter with one such who was sending representatives of the Apostles away and refusing them entry into the congregation, as well as Paul's frequent correctives in his epistles. The author of 2 Timothy 1:15 (NAB, Official Catholic Bible) also has Paul recount that:

It was the time of the grievous and ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15-20; Acts 20:29).

The Greek itself of the passages discussing what Mormons call "Sacrament," or what would later be called Eucharist, show that no literal transubstantiation was understood to occur but that the bread and wine were representative of the flesh and blood of Christ and not transformed into such. Latin, of course, lost that distinction by virtue of the fact that it lacks an "interpretive eimi" that Greek possesses, and when Latin became the dominant language of the Mass and of scripture, it became an easy and permanent transition into such a belief as transubstantiation. But that was not the original sense of the passages. Mormons are closer to the original view than are Roman Catholics, so this one was a bad example to attempt to use in such a polemic as yours above.

Then how do you explain that the Eastern churches, who use Greek, believe essentially the same thing as the Western churches with regards to the Eucharist?

[saemo]

Yes, that's definitely interesting. Though clearly there is a difference between Catholics and LDS in understanding the offices within that order of Melchizedek, as well as its scope.

I found this quote from the article interesting:

The sacrifice of the Son is made present to the faithful by a priest who is acting in the Person of Christ. That is why there is an altar.

[ChristKnight]

Then how do you explain that the Eastern churches, who use Greek, believe essentially the same thing as the Western churches with regards to the Eucharist?

Well just to be specific, not all of the most ancient Churches in the East use Greek. But yes, it is indeed interesting that all of the most ancient Churches, whether Roman, Jerusalem, Antiochian, Greece, Constantinople/Istanbul, Alexandrian/Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Assyrian Church, Ethiopian, Malankara Syrian, etc, believe in the Real Presence (Transubstantiation is more of a philosophical explanation of it), and that it isn't just the "Roman Catholics" and their Latin.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The problem with this Article of Faith is that its language is grounded in early 19th century polemic. That is, the argument went that Catholicism corrupted the primitive church. Protestants would argue that they represented a return to that church. Later, the restorationist movement would make the same claims of Protestant religion, and this is where the use of it in the Article of Faith comes in. It is suggesting that the Mormon faith has embraced the ideals of the earliest Christianity, as opposed to the later Christianities. I am not sure it has much meaning beyond that - since we can hardly objectify history in this way, and since Mormonism isn't all that similar to a "primitive church". We often get just a bit creative when making the comparison. Now, certainly, we do have apostles, and prophets, and so on.

Ben M.

[Damien the Leper]

I think that this book

http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0934893640

Would help you a lot.

Do not buy it for $66. It can be had for less.

If I recall correctly it contains charts with organizational comparisons.

I would also suggest that what was restored in 1830 was not the full vision. I don't believe you can assume that we have anywhere near the full vision of the Church until AFTER D&C 107 was brought forward.

Awesome book, CASteinman! I recommend it for everyone. Unfortunately, I can't read mine until after Easter. I gave of all animal product and NT studies for Lent.

[CASteinman]

Awesome book, CASteinman! I recommend it for everyone. Unfortunately, I can't read mine until after Easter. I gave of all animal product and NT studies for Lent.

Thank you.

I have both that one and the Book of Mormon one. There were two things that stood out for me:

1. The Two Ways

2. The Organization of the Church

Neither of those are exactly as we teach today. But at the same time, neither is incompatible. I sort of knew this before I got them, but that book made these things more clear to me.

I think, as a result of those books, I have come to value the teachings of the "Two Ways" as "old wisdom" (but valid) even while I recognize the degrees of Glory, and appreciate the quality of mercy that God has for us all.

I am glad you have taken Lent seriously though I don't understand giving up studies. I never was Catholic -- but I thought you were supposed to give up something bad?

Animal products I do sort of understand. One day we shall live in a peaceful place and not eat meat, I suppose. But here in this world it is different. Some people would like to practice and I don't blame them.

[Damien the Leper]

I am glad you have taken Lent seriously though I don't understand giving up studies. I never was Catholic -- but I thought you were supposed to give up something bad?

Animal products I do sort of understand. One day we shall live in a peaceful place and not eat meat, I suppose. But here in this world it is different. Some people would like to practice and I don't blame them.

When Lent started, I was an Episcopalian. Unfortunately, that ended about a week later when my baptism was revoked by the Diocese Bishop.

If you saw how much NT studies was interfering with my Jewish studies for school...you'd tell me to give it up for 40 days as well. I think some of my grades suffered a little because of NT. How dare scripture be so damn appealing to me! This is where God and I going to fight in the next life. Homosexuality isn't my sin/weakness...scripture and religion are.