A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[asd72]

Just a note here. Only three of the eleven had a vision where an angel revealed the plates, and a heavenly event occurred. The other 8 had an opportunity of physical examination of the plates.

So were they able to read them and confirm they were accurately translated into their common tongue by Joseph? Answer NO

So Joseph was able to translate it, and then other men who could read the lanuage were found to verify the translation? Answer NO

So Joseph was the only one to confirm that it was accurately translated? Answer YES

How many witnesses does that make it? Answer ONE

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Batman1973, SteveVH, Jerusha, maltmom, Porknpie, and others (and Pepband Mom, Horatius, and others);
Hope all had a wonderful Christimas!

That would be correct.

In response to:

Batman1973 and Horatius,
Do you believe that the “angel” Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, but was really and evil spirit and not from God?
Also, there was much hay made about this comment (well the second half of this comment completely separated from the first have actually):

TOmNossor:
As I looked at all I was learning about the CoJCoLDS I was convinced that, “Joseph could not have done it, and the devil would not have done it.”
I do not remember being radically drawn to the theology just convinced that if God started a church in 1830 that was still around in 1997, I should be a member.

So with that “stage” set, I will respond to a few things.
It seems that batman1973 for whatever reason agrees with me that the CoJCoLDS was started with supernatural (name removed by moderator)ut. He and I of course disagree with the source of this supernatural (name removed by moderator)ut.

Now a number of folks made a deal about my statement that if God started a church in 1830 then I should be part of it. Of course that was disconnected from the first half of the statement “Joseph could not have done it, and the devil would not have done it.” So the issue is not that I abhor antiquity as some seem to have suggested. The issue is that I logically reasoned to the point of God’s hand in the restoration. If God was involved in the restoration AND I wanted to follow God, I should be part of His restored church.

I am more convinced that Joseph Smith (and no group of other available 1830’s individuals BTW) could have produced the BOM and the restoration without supernatural aid. However, if Catholicism is true, the devil MIGHT condemn more because “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” The Catholic Church is radically moving away from the previously most prevalent (much closer to meeting the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins) view of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” but there is still something there.

The thing about “the devil did it” that I find quite interesting is that unless we (you, me, Ostler, and Aquinas) believe we are smarter than the devil; we cannot rely on our unaided intellect to pierce the fraud. The devil was around in 600BC in Jerusalem to see the reforms and rejections of prophets and … (all documented). The devil was around as a real or pretend band of folks left Jerusalem and traveled through Nahom and Bountiful before leaving the Old World. The devil was around in MesoAmerica when Lehi (or a pretend band of folks) landed and made a life among the inhabitants there. So, all the things that I think mark the BOM as clearly not something that could have originated in the mind of some 1830’s person COULD be from the devil.
I believe that when I ask God for His will concerning my life that He does not give me a rock. If I am sincere, then He is faithful. My spiritual witness of the truth of the CoJCoLDS because the only response to “the devil did it,” and it is the PERFECT response too.

So, if it is your theory that the devil did it, then when I say that I do not think history evidence Clement’s knowledge of his papacy, you can say, “the devil obscured the historical record.” Surely the devil is not so bound by God that he cannot find men or demons to loose or destroy records from the early papacy.
But, all of my SUPPOSED learning, and all of these discussions are really not types of evidence we must bring to bear on this problem IF the theory we are exploring is “the devil did it.”
I think there are good arguments to be made here, but I generally let others make them. If you and I agree that that either the devil through supernatural aid started the CoJCoLDS or God did it, I think there are other apologists who will dialogue on these ideas. I have before, but it is not an area of interest for me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The truth TOm, is that The teachings of the Latter Day Saint denominations are clearly different from historical Christianity. They teach a foreign gospel. There’s no pre-exsistance, No three levels of heaven, no temple works, no baptism for the dead, no eternal families, no man becoming gods. I may not agree theologically with the CC on many things, but, they do have antiquity. They’ve been around since Pentecost. And, as picky as they are about Traditions, they would have kept any and all of said Mormon teachings if they were indeed taught by the ancient church.

My intellect is fallible. The fallible intellects of Aquinas, Nibley, and the E-man (a guy from my engineering school) are greater than mine. So when I say I do not agree with you and when I say I can see how the Catholic Church and Aquinas walked the path they walked; surely it doesn’t mean much. But here goes.
Barry Bickmore and Jerusha (a Catholic poster here) do not agree with you that the Restoration does not have ideas and doctrines to demonstrate that it is a restoration of ancient beliefs (Bickmore would say Christianity, Jerusha would say heretical Christianity or something).
Here is Barry Bickmore’s book:
http://www.fairlds.org/authors/bick...nt-church-joseph-smith-and-early-christianity
Here is a review of the book by a non-LDS author:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=12&num=2&id=361
Jerusha is a reluctant witness. He believes that Joseph Smith is a fraud, but he sees enough in this idea of a restoration to theorize that Joseph Smith STUDIED Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim.
What I see is the “foundational slip.” I believe that the apostles did not believe in Creation ex Nihilo. After this DEVELOPMENT or CORRUPTION entered Christianity the controversies began and the solutions to the controversies were impossible to find within the current framework. Arius and Athanasius accepted that God created everything from nothing hence “what of Christ.” Christ is God then why did he thirst and suffer and … (an idea linked to God on the other side of the Creator / Creature chasm) hence we have the two natured hypostatis. Controversies about God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom. Controversies about seeing God’s essence or only His energies (a rather HUGE East vs. West division). These IMO follow from Creation ex Nihilo and the desire to emphasize just how OTHER God is. As these generally well meaning men (often their biggest fault being their willingness to condemn and separate from their “seeing through a glass darkly”) struggled to find answers, there were none if the starting point was that God created all of us from nothing and is wholly other.
Here is a non-LDS book about the development of the idea that God created ex nihilo. The author sees the development, but thinks it is a good thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Creatio-Ex-Nihilo-Academic-Paperback/dp/056708356X

So, I agree Catholics are picky about their traditions, but there is development. "In 399, when a letter from Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, insisted that the biblical description of God was only allegorical and that the monks must not attribute to God any anthropomorphic characteristics, one Sarapion, an elderly monk of great reputation, found himself unable to pray to the new God, this God of the philosophers, at all. Falling on the ground he groaned: “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.’” Sarapion saw this development and lamented the change!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I was listening to I.H radio and something was said that make me think. A writing from our last pope, John Paul where he said “It should not matter what religion we are. As long as we really believe in Christ with all our hearts, we will be saved” This is in response to what I asked Tom and he asked me back. Now, its not church teachings but its something that touched me very deep. Lets throw out religion and focus on Christ and you get an over whelming feeling of love. Some of you may think im wrong for my thinking but we are all just human. And Merry Christmas to all of you.

Kimg901,
I have great sympathy for this view. Believing as I do that “necessary” ordinances like Baptism and … will be performed post mortally for all, I see reason to be optimistic for the salvation of anyone.
I hope and think that my draw to search for truth (and defend the truth I have found) is not a sin (but I could be wrong).
I think my church and your church (the Catholic Church) have teachings within them that give us hope for the salvation of anyone, but I also believe they teach that in SOME way our churches have a measure of truth that is greater than those possessed by other churches. I think it is most consistent to believe that the standard (and in some why most likely to be effective for …) way of salvation is through God’s church.
So I tell myself that it is important for me to find myself in God’s church AND I tell myself it is important to teach about God’s church and dispel the misinformation.
I even work with the missionaries in real life too. Though my last endeavor involved explaining the Catholic view of Baptism in a positive light to the husband of a wonderful Catholic lady and very little about why the wonderful Catholic lady should be a LDS.
Charity, TOm

 

[maltmom]

Hello Batman1973, SteveVH, Jerusha, maltmom, Porknpie, and others (and Pepband Mom, Horatius, and others);
Hope all had a wonderful Christimas!

It was wonderful, thank you. I hope your’s was as well.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dberrie…about the rise in Mormon converts, many are leaving the Mormon religion here in USA.

Africa is exceeding conversions to Christianity over Islam.
Many in Islam are becoming Christian, even to the point of endangering their own lives.
There are many converting to Christianity in China.

The world wants us to believe that Christianity is loosing.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Mormons refuse the books of the Bible approved by the Church by 100 AD.

The Protestants rejected the Catholic Bible. The Mormons have high esteem for Martin Luther. And the Mormons use the King James Version, refusing the Catholic one that was immediately following the martyrdom of the Apostles. So a reasonable person would rightly assume that those living closest to the event of Christ would have, I would imagine, most vivid memories of this life changing event of Christ’s mission completed here on earth, breaking the power of death and sin, and restoring all of creation back to the Heavenly Father.

Likewise, if the Protestants had rejected the Catholic Bible, let’s say by the time the Nicene Creed was defined, something Mormons so many years ago laughed at in their conferences, or another date, by 400 AD, new time for Mormon convictions of the beginning of the Great Apostasy…or really, whenever the disciplines for priestly celibacy were beginning to take notice by Church authorities, …

then today we would have 100’s of thousands of a many more denominations within Christianity, and may be no Mormonism necessary.

I was reading ex Mormon website, and there is a paper now out stating the Mormons are not descendents of the Lamanites any more…

The ongoing change…hmmm…some how there must be an apostasy within Mormonism with all its claims then denials!!!

 

[Stephen168]

As I looked at all I was learning about the CoJCoLDS I was convinced that, “Joseph could not have done it, and the devil would not have done it.”
I do not remember being radically drawn to the theology just convinced that if God started a church in 1830 that was still around in 1997, I should be a member.

I have since found great beauty and power in the theology. The rejection of Creation ex Nihilo (Jerusha, does Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim speak of Creation ex Nihilo?) IMO is quite powerful. The rejections of God’s impassiblity is important IMO. I am not a fan of “homoousian” in its “numeric” sense. Many things now come to mind when you say this, but I do not remember being drawn to them.

I can honestly say that where I to be a Catholic, I would need to embrace some form of hypostatic union present within Christ’s person. I would however confess with the ECF that Christ participated in my humanity so that I might participate in His divinity. I would profess that Christ is homoousian with me in His humanity and homoousian with God in His divinity.
As a LDS I recognize the pedigree of Christ is different than my pedigree as He was/is eternally divine and I am to become divine but only through the atonement Christ provided. Again in Catholicism I would embrace the different pedigree for Christ.
The Catholic position IMO requires a great deal more “backflips” and does not align as well with the position of ECF as the LDS position does. A small caveat being that pre-Nicene orthodoxy was subordinationism so when the pre-Nicene Fathers said we were to become what Christ is, they did not mean “divine in precisely the same way God the Father is divine.” In truth as a Catholic or as a LDS I would not mean divine in precisely the same way God the Father is divine (since God the Father is the fount of divinity and God the Son is not the fount of divinity).
So as the Son’s position was defined (developed ala Newman) MORE and MORE, the fact that men were to become what Christ was got left behind (some).
With all that said, as a Catholic you SHOULD acknowledge that God the Son wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, became homoousian with us, so that He, made man, might make us gods.
I personally find the rejection of deification to not be something associated with humility, but perhaps I am just too prideful to see my folly.

Joseph Smith said god was once a man and Brigham Young said this man was Adam. I don’t see how this can mean “the Father is the fount of divinity” in Mormon Church teaching. By rejecting “ex nihilo,” I don’t see how Mormonism can claim any “fount of divinity.”

 

[Stephen168]

When I said the above I should have been more specific.
I do not believe there was an apostasy where nobody followed God or sought God (or even found) God. True Christianity survived inside and outside the Catholic Church.

I like Catholics believe that sacraments require authority (we disagree on Baptism). I do not believe the Catholic or EO or Anglican or Lutheran sacraments were valid when the AUTHORITY was restored to Joseph Smith.I believe the loss of Apostolic authority is the most clear place to see why this authority was not passed on. I do not make a judgment on the local authorities, just that the Apostolic authority needed to be restored. I do not believe the apostles intended for the Bishops to have their authority. An interesting question, “Where in the ECF does it explain how the Bishop are the successors of the apostles in most respects, but that they cannot receive supernatural public revelation?” I do not know the answer.
This does not mean that God abandoned the human race EVERY. It is also true that if the restoration is what it claims all followers of God will have all ordinances performed for them so that they may choose to embrace this outward sign of an inward covenant.

Jesus Christ was the “supernatural public revelation” for Christians. Therefore there was never a requirement that the full priesthood authority contained in the Office of Bishop include it. The history of Mormon apostles makes me think Joseph Smith never believed that apostles were required for authority either. I believe the Mormon Church just claims a loss of authority and no historical examination is required. The claim is easy to support because you cannot see or touch authority, so you can claim it to be or not be anywhere they choose.

 

[Horatius]

I am more convinced that Joseph Smith (and no group of other available 1830’s individuals BTW) could have produced the BOM and the restoration without supernatural aid.

I’m puzzled by this. When I read it, it was very easy to imagine Joseph Smith writing it unaided, and very difficult to see it as an ancient text. I wonder what it is you’re seeing that I’m not (or vice versa). But I guess different people see things differently.

The Catholic Church is radically moving away from the previously most prevalent (much closer to meeting the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins) view of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” but there is still something there.

You’re mistaken. There’s no conflict between Vincent’s maxim and “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” nor is the Catholic Church moving away from the latter.

 

[Horatius]

What I see is the “foundational slip.” I believe that the apostles did not believe in Creation ex Nihilo. After this DEVELOPMENT or CORRUPTION entered Christianity the controversies began and the solutions to the controversies were impossible to find within the current framework.

This line of reasoning makes sense, IF it can be demonstrated that the Apostles believed that God created the world out of pre-existing matter, and IF it can be demonstrated that they believed this was an important doctrine, the denial of which would lead to error.

This second IF is just as important as the first. It isn’t enough simply to show that the idea of ex nihilo wasn’t there (assuming it wasn’t). You have to show that the Apostles adhered to the belief in eternally pre-existing matter as a positive doctrine that was an essential part of the faith.

So, I agree Catholics are picky about their traditions, but there is development. "In 399, when a letter from Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, insisted that the biblical description of God was only allegorical and that the monks must not attribute to God any anthropomorphic characteristics, one Sarapion, an elderly monk of great reputation, found himself unable to pray to the new God, this God of the philosophers, at all. Falling on the ground he groaned: “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.’” Sarapion saw this development and lamented the change!

Where does this story come from?

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello RebeccaJ and Kathleen (sorry I didn’t get you in my previous long list, but I also hope you had a good Christmas AND I think this next response could properly group both of you);

So, when I look at these new claims, what is important and what is necessary for salvation…the Mormon church has nothing that every Christian religion hasn’t always had. Which is Jesus Christ. This makes Smith’s claim that there are no "true"churches, completely false. The ideas of a great apostasy and priesthood authority are meaningless, if/when you say, the only important truth is salvation.

I do not think Catholics nor LDS say the only important truth is salvation. First let us agree that the current teaching of the Catholic Church is that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church,” but that this does not mean that folks who do not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church are not able to be saved. Do you agree?
Secondly, I think it not correct Catholic theology to suggest that since one can be saved while rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church that there is no consequence to rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church. This is taught by some Catholics especially after Vatican II, but I think it is a poor read of Tradition (even Tradition in light of Vatican II). Do you agree?
I actually believe that both of the above truths are the best way to read LDS thought from Joseph Smith to modern prophets. We LDS have surely had folks like Pope Pius X or Pope Gregory that IMO over emphasized just how necessary it is to be a LDS (or Catholic) to be saved in the fullness of God’s desired reward for us, but Joseph Smith was not one.
Now, you are implying that a LDS must believe it is doctrine that was restored. I believe it was, but I do not believe proper doctrine saves nor was it the central theme of the restoration (inspired teachers can restore doctrine). It was the authority to actually perform the sacraments Catholics claim they have that was restored. Together with the authority to receive supernatural public revelation for all of mankind.
You said:

Tom, to continue that thought, the logical question is, why be Catholic? I am Christian because of Jesus Christ, I am Catholic because of the Sacraments, and the communion of saints is one of the more beautiful doctrines of Catholicism.

I have said that I am a theist because I cannot deny that I have met God. I am a Christian because I recognize my need for a savior and that in meeting God I have felt the cleansing of Christ in a way that I do not think other theologies explain well. I am a LDS for two reasons. One I have a spiritual witness that it is God’s church on the earth and two, it makes the most sense of the data: history, doctrine, …
I suggest to you that the call to Catholic sacraments is predicated upon the belief that there is supernatural grace only present (primarily present or …) within the Catholic authority to carry out the sacraments. I believe that LDS have the true sacraments, including: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Extreme Unction (the pre-Vatican II name for blessing and healing the sick), and the Eucharist. LDS add a few and our reconciliation is not appropriately called sacramental (at least in all but the most serious of cased). So, it is not in my mind a huge condemnation to say that I can find most LDS teaching in non-LDS communities here or there. If God inspires all His children such is not shocking. The question is associated with where the authority is.

Finally, the “communion of the saints” is lost when it is divorced from its real meaning which is communion within the life of the Holy Trinity. Christ became what we are so that we could become what He is. We are to be part of the Holy Trinity in ways that Catholics are uncomfortable speaking about. To become gods is the proper terminology even when it is mocked by those who do not understand.
So, while I do not think the “beatific vision” is something to be mocked, I do believe it is a substitute for what the Early Church taught. They taught that we would be gods. We would be what Jesus Christ was.
**Deification and Grace **by Daniel Keating is one of the best Catholic treatments of this subject (which means that some Catholics have not forgotten completely such that they would declare deification the mark of falsity).
Finally, I do not recognize “God envy” as the problem I suffer from. But if I do, then so did St. Irenaeus, St Athanasius, Pope John Paul II, and Dr. Keating.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horatius]

Jesus Christ was the “supernatural public revelation” for Christians.

Exactly. Part of the problem is a difference in terminology. (Isn’t it always with the Mormons?) Mormons believe “revelation” means “the delivering of information or instructions.” They have no concept of the person of Christ as the fulness of revelation.

I believe the Mormon Church just claims a loss of authority and no historical examination is required. The claim is easy to support because you cannot see or touch authority, so you can claim it to be or not be anywhere they choose.

That’s exactly right. No one ever came to Mormonism by studying the Early Church. Instead, people become Mormon for other reasons, and then when they go into the early Christian writings, they find what they wanted to find.

 

[TOmNossor]

So authority becomes important because of the sacraments, but Mormons reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it therefore doesn’t have the Sacraments.

LDS do not have room to believe that the bread and water is transformed permanently into Christ’s body and blood, but there is a wonderful quote from Brigham Young where he comes very close to claiming this. At the very least, I believe we partake of Christ during the Sacrament. I have nothing negative to say about Eucharistic adoration, and this is not something a LDS would be able to do (except as a contemplative exercise in a Catholic chapel!).

At any rate, to say you have"holy envy" of the Eucharist, I suspect is more along the lines of the Mormon tendency to covet being a god, than anything. Harsh judgement perhaps, but that is what I see.

“Holy Envy” is a term that I believe should be recognized, but alas it is not.
Here is where it comes from Krister Stendahl’s three rules:

• When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
• Don’t compare your best to their worst.
• Leave room for “holy envy.” (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

I always state rule #2 as “compare best to best.”

And … I do not know why you should say I “covet being a god.” I see the Bible and the ECF teaching that we are to become gods. I do not believe we will EVER replace God or cease to worship God. Instead, we will become part of the Triune life God enjoys.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horatius]

And … I do not know why you should say I “covet being a god.” I see the Bible and the ECF teaching that we are to become gods. I do not believe we will EVER replace God or cease to worship God. Instead, we will become part of the Triune life God enjoys.

Charity, TOm

Will some of us create our own worlds and populate them with spirit children?

 

[Stephen168]

Where does this story come from?

Every year starting in the 3rd century, the Bishop at Alexandria wrote a letter announcing Lent, setting the date for Easter, and anything else he wanted to write about. The first known table of contents for the Christian bible was contained in one of these letters. There were groups of Monks near Alexandria who believed God had a body; the Anthropomorphites. In 399, The Bishop included in his letter the condemnation of the Anthropomorphites explaining why is it irrational; and the belief in the incorporeality of God held by the fathers. Clearly this monk couldn’t handle the truth.

Mormons, who are anthropomorphites, want to believe this condemnation was something new the Bishop just made up in 399. When from his letter it is clear he did not.

 

[SteveVH]

So, if it is your theory that the devil did it, then when I say that I do not think history evidence Clement’s knowledge of his papacy, you can say, “the devil obscured the historical record.” Surely the devil is not so bound by God that he cannot find men or demons to loose or destroy records from the early papacy.

But, all of my SUPPOSED learning, and all of these discussions are really not types of evidence we must bring to bear on this problem IF the theory we are exploring is “the devil did it”.

I think there are good arguments to be made here, but I generally let others make them. If you and I agree that that either the devil through supernatural aid started the CoJCoLDS or God did it, I think there are other apologists who will dialogue on these ideas. I have before, but it is not an area of interest for me.
Charity, TOm

Tom,

I don’t believe the devil did anything except plant the idea in Joseph’s head. Joseph had a reputation as a scammer before any of this happened. The devil knows our weaknesses. Nor do I think Joseph did this by himself. He had help from someone. Was Joseph visited by a supernatural being or beings? No. Did he receive the golden plates? No. Did he and others make up a good story? Absolutely.

The recent studies of the Book of Abraham prove that Joseph was not above fraudulent translations. Why would the BoM be any different?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm, you know more about Catholicism, and are more charitable about it, than pretty much any LDS I’ve met. Thank you for trying to understand Catholicism on its own terms.

You keep saying Clement didn’t know he was pope. What do you mean by “pope”? And what should he have included in the letter that would show that he knew he was a pope?

Thank you.
I mentioned earlier that other churches exhorted one another even though they were not the Church of Rome. So this letter is not uniquely from the Church of Rome.
Clement does not write as the Pope instead he writes as the Church of Rome.
It is also unlikely that Clement would have claimed to be THE Bishop of Rome when the was writing.
I also see within the letter a number of places where I would have expected the person who thought he was the head of the church to explain that he was the head of the church instead of call for someone else to stand up and take charge (like Moses).
I will try to develop this more when I get at chance, but this is what I remember.
Charity, TOm

Charity, TOm

 

[mackbrislawn]

Mike at the time he wrote the Anabaptist paper was concerned about the fact that the Anabaptists eventually worked out something that works pretty well, but only because they never had a set hierarchy-- they splintered at will, and could therefore easily abandon teachings. Mormons, however, are stuck with a rigid hierarchy, and therefore cannot easily abandon teachings that do not prove out-- which is why he has since gotten into studies of the structure of the corporate organization.

Churches that can abandon their teachings are like serpents that can abandon their skins.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi, Tom…you did not ask me…but I will weigh in:

1). The revelation goes contrary to the revelation to Paul…as he recounts in Gal 2:

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.

From this passage…a revelation will not contradict what has been revealed…or will not cause dissent or to establish one’s own religion…so the only conclusion is it is not from God.

I am not sure how familiar you are with the teachings of the CoJCoLDS.
It is the Catholic Church that claims to be unable to receive revelation from God for the leading of the world. Eastern Orthodox and numerous Protestants claim that in the Catholic Church has CHANGED the deposit of faith.
Virtually every council has folks left behind because the reject that which they see as New Revelation produced at the council when supposedly no new revelation should come. Oriental Orthodox from I think Chalcedon. “Old Catholics” who rejected Vatican I. The SSPX and SSPV groups that reject Vatican II (they differ in the SSPV reject the Papacy and are Sedavacantists the SSPX only reject Vatican II, but try to stay in communion with the Pope).
Now, it is clear that without claiming to be able to receive Revelation, the Catholic Church has done a great deal of changing or evolving.
The premise of the Restoration is that there is something wrong with ALL of Christianity. It is my position that this has less to do with doctrine and more to do with authority, but I believe “there creeds are an abomination” for precisely the reason I mentioned above that Christianity splits at each controversy. In the early church such splitting was quite ugly. Definitions were chosen for the purpose of preventing the opposing sides from being able to embrace the definition not for other purposes such as defining truth with scripture or with the previous teachings. I am much less familiar with Vatican II, but at Vatican I the controversy was ugly too (though I doubt as bad as Nicea).
So, as a LDS I would say the revelations contained in the D&C do align with God’s truth. That does not mean that there is not progress. I hope to comment on Christ as THE Revelation later, but clearly Christianity is a further revelation built upon Judaism.

2). 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.

Who ordained JS prior to him going out to establish the LDS? Following this biblical account, one has to be ordained and sent before going out preaching…or establishing one’s own religion.
3). from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Who approved JS new teachings…physically gave apostolic approval.

Well, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry (I think) claimed that John the Baptist gave them the lesser priesthood and Peter, James, and John gave them the greater priesthood.
You may doubt their claims, but I find reason to believe them. That being said, interesting that there is such a ready answer to your question. Perhaps it is because Joseph (unlike all his friends and neighbors) read the Bible in a very Catholic way.
And of course this is not Joseph’s religion. It is Christ’s religion restored through Joseph.
Charity, TOm