Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Gervin]

Is there a good LDS resource that provides some kind of scriptural or historical description / study of the pre=apostasy NT Church?

[teddyaware]

Is there a good LDS resource that provides some kind of scriptural or historical description / study of the pre=apostasy NT Church?

Search the web for a book titled 'The Great Apostasy,' by Apostle James E. Talmage.

[Calm]

Search the web for a book titled 'The Great Apostasy,' by Apostle James E. Talmage.

While he was a great writer and scholar, I believe he relied on sources that would be considered out of date at this time. I'd look for articles from the Maxwell Institute and Interpreter for something more current with biblical and historical scholarship.

It is an excellent source to understand how LDS often view the apostasy though, especially traditionally.

Edited July 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[MDalby]

Scott Petersen Where have all the Prophets Gone is a good book. Also The inevitable Apostasy by Tad Callister

[Robert F. Smith]

Is there a good LDS resource that provides some kind of scriptural or historical description / study of the pre=apostasy NT Church?

In addition to the sources mentioned, insights into the 1st century Christian church are available in Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (FARMS/Deseret, 2005). Unfortunately, not available online.

I personally found the best overall look at early Christianity, from the world's best experts (only one author is LDS), contained in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006). However, it carries a very high standard of scholarship, and may be tough for a beginner to understand.

[Bart Burk]

I would be more inclined to say that LDS doctrine adds to our understanding of the Bible. It is impossible to get all of your doctrine from the Bible. I don't know of any church that does. If they did they would all be in agreement.

[cdowis]

In addition to the sources mentioned, insights into the 1st century Christian church are available in Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (FARMS/Deseret, 2005). Unfortunately, not available online.

Nibley's The World and the Prophets, one of my favorites. Has great insights, and has influenced my understanding of the Apostacy.

http://maxwellinstit...ooks/?bookid=54

See especially the first chapter http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=54&chapid=486

Edited July 27, 2013 by cdowis

[urroner]

I guess that's one way to look at it - Apostles, though hand-picked by Christ to spread the Gospel, were failures at keeping an organization intact.

Or perhaps Christ picked them because he was less concerned about establishing an organization than spreading the Gospels. History seems to better support this position, I believe.

Gervin, when I read this, I really had small chuckle. Are you saying indirectly that because Christ personally hand-picked the Apostles, they, as mortals, were able to keep a organization intact.

Maybe you're not saying that, but let me point out something, why would anybody believe that especially also understanding God, as an omnipotent, infallible being, wasn't able to keep a mere two mortals, Adam and Eve, in line and doing what He commanded them not to do.

Now, in view that God couldn't keep two mortals in line, why would anybody think that 12 fallible humans could keep a group of several thousand on the strait and narrow path, especially in the context that communications in those days were very difficult and many of the new converts, after the gospel was taken to the Gentiles, were coming from a completely different culture and, maybe even a very different belief system. Also, was the doctrine of the church pretty solid, well-defined, and well-communicated and understood soon after the resurrection of Christ and if not, how long did it take?

The opening lines from Bart D. Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" :

"Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three hundred years - whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies - have never been replicated.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the realm of theology. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said that he was a man, but not God; others claimed that he was God but not a man; others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that Christ's death had brought about the salvation of the world; others claimed that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he had never even died.

Few of these variant theologies went uncontested, and the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every level.

<snip>

The classical understanding of the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy met a devastating challenge in 1934 with the publication of Walter Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, possibly the most significant book on early Christianity written in modern times. Bauer argued that the early Christian church in fact did not comprise a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing heretical minorities. Instead, early Christianity embodied a number of divergent forms, no one of which represented the clear and powerful majority of believers against all others. In some regions, what was later to be termed 'heresy' was in fact the original and only form of Christianity. In other regions, views later deemed heretical coexisted with views that would come to be embraced by the church as a whole, with most believers not drawing hard and fast lines in demarcation between the competing views. To this extent, 'orthodoxy,' in the sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere, did not exist in the second and third centuries. Nor was 'heresy' secondarily derived from an original teaching through an infusion of Jewish ideas or pagan philosophy. Beliefs that were, at later times, embraced as orthodoxy and condemned as heresy were in fact competing interpretations of Christianity, one of which eventually (but not initially) acquired domination because of singular historical and social forces. Only when one social group had exerted itself sufficiently over the rest of Christendom did a 'majority' opinion emerge; only then did the 'right belief' represent the view of the Christian church at large.

So, let's suppose that the NT Apostles were able to, in some inexplicable or undemonstrative way, keep the church intact while they were alive, what happened so that some time during the second century, Christians believed all sorts of different things, many of which were very contradictory.

My belief that the NT apostles weren't able keep the church intact is very easy to demonstrate by reading most of the Pauline epistles and then there is the book Revelation at the back of the Bible where St. John is chiding so many churches for not teaching the gospel.

Also, when it come to whether the early apostles being failures or not, even if they weren't able to keep intact the church, they weren't failures. Is God going to judge them as failures because of what other people did or by what they did?

Peter may have failed to walk on water like he wanted, but Peter wasn't a failure.

[urroner]

Another fine article/book chapter on the Apostasy: Introduction: What Went Wrong for the Early Christians? from the book Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy http://maxwellinstit...d=42&chapid=201

In the Old Testament, apostasy or rebellion against God consisted specifically in the breaking of covenants that men had made with Jehovah. The Lord warned Moses, "'You are going to rest with your fathers, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them'" (Deuteronomy 31:16 NIV). The Greek word used here is apostasion, meaning "little rebellion" or "little apostasy," and specifically indicates divorce, or breaking of the marriage covenant. The Lord repeatedly likened his covenant with Israel to the covenant of marriage, and apostasy from that covenant was likened to adultery. We might expect, therefore, that the demise of the early Christian church was also a result of internal developments—breaking of covenants—and not something imposed from the outside.

[urroner]

I would be more inclined to say that LDS doctrine adds to our understanding of the Bible. It is impossible to get all of your doctrine from the Bible. I don't know of any church that does. If they did they would all be in agreement.

Bart, it's not just a matter of getting all one's doctrine from the Bible, it's also a matter of interpreting what is in the Bible, provided that all the different versions of the Bible don't differ in their presentation of the gospel.

[cdowis]

"The issue is not an inerrant Bible, but an inerrant interpretation of the Bible."

[Gervin]

So much to read, so little time to drink.

I'd be ok to just read what some secularist says - someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight, so to say, and has looked at the first c. CE Christians with some dispassion. Probably not Wayne Meeks.

[Gervin]

Gervin, when I read this, I really had small chuckle. Are you saying indirectly that because Christ personally hand-picked the Apostles, they, as mortals, were able to keep a organization intact.

Maybe you're not saying that, but let me point out something, why would anybody believe that especially also understanding God, as an omnipotent, infallible being, wasn't able to keep a mere two mortals, Adam and Eve, in line and doing what He commanded them not to do.

Now, in view that God couldn't keep two mortals in line, why would anybody think that 12 fallible humans could keep a group of several thousand on the strait and narrow path, especially in the context that communications in those days were very difficult and many of the new converts, after the gospel was taken to the Gentiles, were coming from a completely different culture and, maybe even a very different belief system. Also, was the doctrine of the church pretty solid, well-defined, and well-communicated and understood soon after the resurrection of Christ and if not, how long did it take?

The opening lines from Bart D. Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" :

So, let's suppose that the NT Apostles were able to, in some inexplicable or undemonstrative way, keep the church intact while they were alive, what happened so that some time during the second century, Christians believed all sorts of different things, many of which were very contradictory.

My belief that the NT apostles weren't able keep the church intact is very easy to demonstrate by reading most of the Pauline epistles and then there is the book Revelation at the back of the Bible where St. John is chiding so many churches for not teaching the gospel.

Also, when it come to whether the early apostles being failures or not, even if they weren't able to keep intact the church, they weren't failures. Is God going to judge them as failures because of what other people did or by what they did?

Peter may have failed to walk on water like he wanted, but Peter wasn't a failure.

You lost me at "Gervin,"

[urroner]

You lost me at "Gervin,"

How did I lose you?

[Gervin]

How did I lose you?

You never had me to lose. Reminds me of an apostasy story.

[urroner]

You never had me to lose. Reminds me of an apostasy story.

First you said I lost you, then you said I never had you to lose. Is that the apostasy story you were reminded of?

[MDalby]

I'd be ok to just read what some secularist says - someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight, so to say, and has looked at the first c. CE Christians with some dispassion. Probably not Wayne Meeks.

Martin Luther explained why he wanted to reform the church when he stated, "I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it"

(Tyler, John Murray. Martin Luther, a Biographical Study (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964).)

It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian. . . . From this time they almost totally ceased. . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathans. . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form Left."

(Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7 (London: Wesleyan Conference, 1872).)

Williams also said, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."

(Edward Underhill, "Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty", cited in William F. Anderson, "Apostasy or Succession, Which?," 238–239.)

Dr. Harry Emerson Fos****, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

"A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian."

(Fos**** cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.)

• Will Durant, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated [new] life in the theology and liturgy of the Church."

(Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 3: Caesar and Christ, (1944), 595.)

[Gervin]

Martin Luther explained why he wanted to reform the church when he stated, "I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it"

(Tyler, John Murray. Martin Luther, a Biographical Study (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964).)

"those" being the church organizational leaders, correct? Luther calls out a specific group but doesn't make a global comment about the rest (the vast majority) of the folks whose faith was learned and practiced on a whole different plane. When man made rules collide with a God-man relationship, man made rules should lose every time.

It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian. . . . From this time they almost totally ceased. . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathans. . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form Left."

(Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7 (London: Wesleyan Conference, 1872).)

I found and read the sermon. I think the first response fits here but I would add that Wesley was speaking as one who was gifted with the Word; if he wants to make a case for the Word using history he should be clear and precise in his sermon, and not just use it as some introductory rhetoric. I notice in this case that these thoughts, given first, weren't what the sermon was about.

Williams also said, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."

(Edward Underhill, "Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty", cited in William F. Anderson, "Apostasy or Succession, Which?," 238–239.)

who is williams?

Dr. Harry Emerson Fos****, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

"A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian."

(Fos**** cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.)

I'm sorry but this made me laugh. "If Jesus should come back to now" sounds like the title of some hymn I might have heard at Wednesday night prayer meeting in Winston County, Mississippi ca. early 60's.

I think the portrayal of Jesus is idiotic or worse.

What's the takeaway? Preaching institutional brokenness goes back to year 1. The LDS church is not immune from cries of the same. Fixing it, if can be fixed, comes from the top down or by groundswell and both can make legitimate claims of spiritual guidance. If I have one mental picture of the early church it is community and that is liberating.

-------------

[Jim Stiles]

...

Dr. Harry Emerson Fos****, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

"A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian."

(Fos**** cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.)

...

 

What Harry Emerson Fos**** regarded as the mythologies of Christianity most real Christians regard as the supernatural essence of Christianity.  Fos****'s most famous sermon "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" was probably the most famous defense of theological modernity in the 1920s.  Evangelical Christians (i.e. people like me) regarded the sermon as rank apostasy.  The following web page contains a transcript of the sermon:

 

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/

 

Basically, Fos**** was an atheist or an agnostic who still wanted the middle class respectability that came with being called a Christian.  Quote him at your peril.

[Jim Stiles]

"those" being the church organizational leaders, correct? Luther calls out a specific group but doesn't make a global comment about the rest (the vast majority) of the folks whose faith was learned and practiced on a whole different plane. When man made rules collide with a God-man relationship, man made rules should lose every time.

I found and read the sermon. I think the first response fits here but I would add that Wesley was speaking as one who was gifted with the Word; if he wants to make a case for the Word using history he should be clear and precise in his sermon, and not just use it as some introductory rhetoric. I notice in this case that these thoughts, given first, weren't what the sermon was about.

who is williams?

I'm sorry but this made me laugh. "If Jesus should come back to now" sounds like the title of some hymn I might have heard at Wednesday night prayer meeting in Winston County, Mississippi ca. early 60's.

I think the portrayal of Jesus is idiotic or worse.

What's the takeaway? Preaching institutional brokenness goes back to year 1. The LDS church is not immune from cries of the same. Fixing it, if can be fixed, comes from the top down or by groundswell and both can make legitimate claims of spiritual guidance. If I have one mental picture of the early church it is community and that is liberating.

-------------

 

I believe that the reference is to Roger Williams, Baptist and founder of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation.

 

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

[Jim Stiles]

The following video from a LCMS pastor describes exactly what I think of theological liberalism:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6rHcTc1MyY

[SamIam]

In any way? A very brave statement indeed, BC. Is your assurance here based on sheer faith alone, or is it based on your having come to grips with a plethora of such claimed contradictions?

 

One of the most profound quotes by Joseph Smith, that I am sure most have heard at one time or another is the statement "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (HC 6:248) Years ago this was a confusing paradox but now it has become the foundation of the most important understandings I have.  

[telnetd]

I’d be interested to know how a Bible-only believer interprets Ezekiel 37:15-17. What is the Stick of Joseph, if not The Book of Mormon:

 

 

The stick of Joseph is a reference to the northern kingdom.

 

"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For

Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another

stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the

house of Israel his companions". (verse 16).  "And the sticks whereon

thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes" (verse 20).

 

Ezekiel did not write any of the Book of Mormon.  The two sticks are two

nations which will be reunited in Israel, not America (verse 20-22).

 

Gail

[Calm]

Ezekiel did not write any of the Book of Mormon. 

No one made that claim.

 

Prophecies can be fulfilled in more than one way.  For example the child, Hezekiah and Jesus….

Edited December 27, 2014 by calmoriah