An exercise for Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeFide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DeFide

Guest
Well, it’s not just for our Mormon friends, but:
  1. Pick a date for the “Great Apostasy” when the early Christians all fell away from the true faith (contrary to Christ’s promise).
  2. Look at the Christian writings before that date and see if the “true faith” corresponds to the Mormon faith.
Happy hunting.👋
 
Well, we don’t have to look too far. There’s compelling evidence that LDS Temple practices are remarkably similar to early Christian esoteric teachings that were given to the disciples privately and kept secret from the world.

Here are a few resources for your study.

*Restoring the Ancient Church * by Barry Roberts Bickmore
*The Eucharistic Words of Jesus * by Professor Joachim Jeremias

I’ve read the first book and it’s excellent. I’ve also read parts of the second and it’s also very good.

A few other interesting quotes I found here: mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/01/mormon-temples-and-secrecy.html

In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd.But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric.
(Against Celsus, 1:7, in ANF 4:399, as cited by Bickmore, p. 296. )

Whoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded as the less transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and pure. The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, “Let him whose soul is conscious of no evil come.” But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.” Therefore in the comparison which he institutes between the procedure of the initiators into the Grecian mysteries, and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus, he does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries.
(Against Celsus, 3:60, in ANF 4:488, as cited by Bickmore, p. 296.)

A quote from the blog link above:

*There is much of value in the above quote from Origen. We learn that the Christians did have initiation ceremonies involving sacred mysteries taught privately by Christ to the disciples, and that those receiving these mysteries had to live high standards of personal worthiness and do so for a long time. This is remarkably similar to LDS practices. The temple is viewed as a sacred place with knowledge reserved for the pure. Temple recommends require interviews with two priesthood leaders, such as a bishop and a stake president, who determine if the candidate has been living high standards and keeping basic commandments of the Gospel. New converts must wait at least one year prior to being able to receive their Endowment in the temple, and extensive preparation is expected on the part of candidates.

Say, how do anti-Mormons explain the remarkable parallels between early Christian esoteric practices and the modern LDS approach? It’s a question worth asking.

By the way, some knowledge of these mysteries persisted into the third and fourth centuries. Even Athanasius spoke of the need to maintain a tradition of secrecy for some aspects of Christianity:
We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended.
(Defense Against the Arians 1:11, in NPNF Series 2, 4:106, as cited by Bickmore, p. 300.)
This sounds like the LDS approach today as well.

The word “mysteries” in early Christian writings can refer to ordinances, not just teachings. As used in Greek, it normally referred to the practices of the Greek “mystery religions” that included ceremonies and teachings. As used it the New Testament, it can carry this nuance of rites as well as knowledge* (see G.G. Stroumsa, Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, p. 133, as cited by Bickmore, p. 300).
 
40.png
Casen:
Well, we don’t have to look too far. There’s compelling evidence that LDS Temple practices are remarkably similar to early Christian esoteric teachings that were given to the disciples privately and kept secret from the world.
So if these teachings were given privately to the disciples and kept secret, how can you find evidence for them? And remember, none of us non-LDS will accept LDS texts as evidence.
 
RE: And remember, none of us non-LDS will accept LDS texts as evidence.

Celsus was a Greek writer in the second century that criticized Christianity. His work was lost but Origen, a third century theologian, responded to Celsus in a book called Against Celsus, and is the source for the quotes I listed. Bickmore is indeed LDS I believe but he is merely quoting Origen, among others, in his book and provides footnotes for all quotes.

RE: So if these teachings were given privately to the disciples and kept secret, how can you find evidence for them?

Simple, because not everyone can keep a secret and some early Christian authorities made reference to these teachings in letters and other writings. Read the books I quoted and you will understand. There is quite a bit of evidence that early Christians had practices similar to those performed in modern LDS temples including baptisms for the dead. Of course 1 Cor 15:29 mentions baptism for the dead also so it’s even in the Bible.

Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, a prominent non-LDS scholar found in the book, Understanding Paul:

Cheesman: Is the scripture found in 1 Corinthians 15:29 translated properly as found in the King James Translation?
Goodspeed: Basically, yes.
Cheesman: *Do you believe that baptism for the dead was practiced in Paul’s time? *
Goodspeed: Definitely, yes.
Cheesman: Does the church to which you belong practice it today?
Goodspeed: No.
Cheesman: Do you think it should be practiced today?
Goodspeed: This is the reason why we do not practice it today. We do not know enough about it. If we did, we would practice it.
Cheesman: May I quote you as a result of this interview?
Goodspeed: *Yes. *
 
RE: Casen, what date did you pick for step 1?

Apostasy doesn’t happen overnight but rather happens slowly over time so picking a magic date is difficult but I would say that by AD 570 the Great Apostasy was in full swing.

By then Pope Gregory the Great had blessed Phocas, a cruel dictator that had murdered some of his own family, absolving him of his evils. Gregory had also invented the crusade and practice of “converting” by force. He popularized doctrines such as relic worship and made the doctrine of purgatory official. And “Papal absolutism” came from the foundation of his administration. So I think that’s a fair date to pick. But I could be swayed to choose a different date if you prefer.
 
40.png
Casen:
RE: Casen, what date did you pick for step 1?

Apostasy doesn’t happen overnight but rather happens slowly over time so picking a magic date is difficult but I would say that by AD 570 the Great Apostasy was in full swing.

.
Before AD 570 (just on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist):

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
 
40.png
Casen:
Well, we don’t have to look too far. There’s compelling evidence that LDS Temple practices are remarkably similar to early Christian esoteric teachings that were given to the disciples privately and kept secret from the world.
Please explain what in Origen’s writings is “compelling evidence that LDS Temple practices are remarkably similar to early Christian esoteric teachings”. Nowhere does Origen say what exactly these “doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples” really are. So, how can you say they are similar to LDS Temple practices when there is no mention of anything specific? Does Origen even mention Temples in this discussion?

I find it interesting that LDS apologists pick a smidgen from an ECF here and another smidgen from a different ECF there and so on, then say it’s evidence that the early Church was LDS. Nowhere however, can they find any ECF that doesn’t repudiate at least some part of LDS doctrine.

With that approach I could claim that early LDS leaders were really Catholic in their beliefs. For instance, I could zero in on the 1830 version of the BOM where Joseph Smith translated that Mary is the “Mother of God” and ignore everything else Joseph Smith taught. This is just one example, but it could be done with every LDS prophet.

They do the same with doctrine in general. Another example: There is undeniable evidence that infant baptism was approved of and practiced from the beginning, but very little evidence that baptism for the dead was ever anything taught by Church leaders or approved of. But, which is accepted by LDS? Which “evidence” is focused on?
 
Tmaque, I must admit that I’m having trouble decrypting your post. The challenge was to pick a date for the apostasy and look at Christian writings before and see if the “true faith” corresponds to LDS teachings. I did that; presented some evidence as it related to LDS temple practices and included reputable sources.

I pointed out that there is evidence early Christians practiced Baptism for the Dead, something practiced in LDS temples. To this you had no response.

I pointed out that there were “mysteries, ceremonies and teachings” held secret for only worth members in the early Christian church, as in the LDS church.

If you had studied the reference material I noted you would know that Hippolytus of Rome (AD 200) said:

But if there is any other matter which ought to be told, let the bishop impart it secretly to those who are communicated. He shall not tell this to any but the faithful and only after they have first been communicated. This is the white stone of which John said that there is a new name written upon it which no man knows except him who receives.

This is very similar to what happens in the LDS endowment.

Also quoted in the books I referenced is a letter from Theodore clement of Alexandria (AD 200) where he refers to the “Secret Gospel of Mark”. He says, “And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God."

This indicates that the ritual included a symbolic clothing in linen garments. Also Clement states that the mysteries are taught “only after certain purifications and previous instruction.” Again, this sounds very much like the LDS endowment. And in Clement’s Exhortation to the Heathen there are passages where the mysteries are said to be presented in the form of “dramas of truth” and the initiate is introduced by the teacher into the presence of the Father. Again, this is very similar to LDS practices.

Rather than changing the subject to infant baptism how about responding to what I’ve written?
 
40.png
Casen:
I pointed out that there is evidence early Christians practiced Baptism for the Dead, something practiced in LDS temples. To this you had no response.
Can you give us some of this evidence? From non-LDS sources.
40.png
Casen:
I pointed out that there were “mysteries, ceremonies and teachings” held secret for only worth members in the early Christian church, as in the LDS church.
Can you tell us what these secrets are?

All in all, interesting information.

But most of my Mormon friends say that the Great Apostasy happened when the last Apostle had died. If you say 570, that doesn’t really seem to work in your favor.
 
RE: *Can you give us some of this evidence? From non-LDS sources. *

I already did. Start with 1 Cor 15:29 and see my earlier post. Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed is not LDS. What is your interpretation of that scripture?

RE: But most of my Mormon friends say that the Great Apostasy happened when the last Apostle had died. If you say 570, that doesn’t really seem to work in your favor.

As I stated earlier the Great Apostasy happened slowly, as the Church of Jesus Christ moved away from the pure teachings of Christ in key areas and Priesthood Authority was lost. As I stated earlier you could make a case for moving the date up. I picked AD 570 to be conservative since IMHO the apostasy was in full swing by then, but perhaps it was much earlier.

Anyway, you can’t pick a specific day for Church apostasy because it’s a progression, sometimes slow and sometimes fast, like a cancer. As an LDS missionary I served in a small town in South America and heard it preached from the pulpit by an LDS church leader that chewing gum was against the Word of Wisdom and forbidden by God. This obviously isn’t official doctrine but the point is that without good central controls all churches are subject to apostasy over time. You end up with different groups in remote areas preaching different doctrines. Eventually a church authority visits the rogue group and reins them in if possible or the group separates into a new sect. Look at the Protestant churches arguing over whether people are saved by grace or works, and over baptism and whether or not it is really necessary to be saved. The issue of homosexuality is another hot topic that is sure to create even more Christian divisions and sects.

Why didn’t the Jews accept Christ when he arrived? Well, the pure church had been corrupted by the Pharisees and Sadducees; yes an apostasy had occurred. If it hadn’t occurred the Jews would have universally embraced Jesus as the Messiah (of course some did).

Apostasy is always a problem for any church. The Old Testament is comprised of one story after another of Israel being brought back in line over and over again by God and his prophets.

(Matthew 23:37)
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

And the New Testament, from Acts on is basically about the Apostles going from city to city, writing epistle after epistle clarifying doctrine and trying to keep the saints in line. And of course the apostles understood this and predicted it:

NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

(2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 3)
 
40.png
Casen:
I already did. Start with 1 Cor 15:29 and see my earlier post. Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed is not LDS. What is your interpretation of that scripture?
  1. “for” means “because of”.
    OR
  2. Paul was talking about a bad practice.
Either way, vicarious baptism has never been practiced by orthodox Catholics.

The only place I can find your Goodspeed quote is LDS pages. Furthermore, Goodspeed isn’t even a Catholic scholar. I’ve looked around and I can find no other evidence of this practice that doens’t come from an LDS source.
40.png
Casen:
As I stated earlier the Great Apostasy happened slowly, as the Church of Jesus Christ moved away from the pure teachings of Christ in key areas and Priesthood Authority was lost.
Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that he would build on a rock.

According to your view, Christ founded TWO churches, both of which failed (in the Americas and in Israel) and then had to found a third church (LDS) which somehow WON’T fail? How does that work?
40.png
Casen:
As I stated earlier you could make a case for moving the date up. I picked AD 570 to be conservative since IMHO the apostasy was in full swing by then, but perhaps it was much earlier.
You would have to proove that the teachings of the Church by that time were wildly different from the teachings of the Apostles… as wildly different as Christianity is from Mormonism. This Catholic Church (which so vehemently attacks Gnosticism, Manichaenism, Docetism, Sabellianism and a whole host of Isms, some blatant, some very very very subtle) somehow lets an entire apostasy (a total Great Apostasy, at that) slip by, uncommented on?
40.png
Casen:
Anyway, you can’t pick a specific day for Church apostasy because it’s a progression, sometimes slow and sometimes fast, like a cancer. As an LDS missionary I served in a small town in South America and heard it preached from the pulpit by an LDS church leader that chewing gum was against the Word of Wisdom and forbidden by God.
So what guarantee can you give us that LDS isn’t in the midst of an Apostasy, or isn’t in-fact totally apostate already… or, from-the-start, for that matter?
40.png
Casen:
This obviously isn’t official doctrine but the point is that without good central controls all churches are subject to apostasy over time.
Central control is the Catholic Church’s middle name.
40.png
Casen:
Why didn’t the Jews accept Christ when he arrived? Well, the pure church had been corrupted by the Pharisees and Sadducees; yes an apostasy had occurred. If it hadn’t occurred the Jews would have universally embraced Jesus as the Messiah (of course some did).
No, bad logic. Christ is to be accepted per person. The Jews could be fully in accord with their own teachings and still fail to recognize the Messiah. SOME of the Jews didn’t accept Christ because some of the Jews were hard hearted, this is true of all people everywhere at all times: the tares are mixed in with the wheat.

Furthermore, the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses, they were hypocrites, but not apostates. The Sadducees were the apostates/heretics.

All in all you are a skilled anti-Catholic apologist, but you can’t defend the LDS faith on your own principles.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
So if these teachings were given privately to the disciples and kept secret, how can you find evidence for them? And remember, none of us non-LDS will accept LDS texts as evidence.
Were they kept so secret that even the Church is Christ’s time was unaware of these teachings?
 
You might need to adjust your date to 110 A.D., casen, and see what Ignatius of Antioch had to say then about the Church, episcopal authority, the nature of Jesus, and most especially the Eucharist: defensorveritatis.net/ignatius.html

(that site is still in its infancy; check the blog for updates if you’re interested)
 
bengeorge said: All in all you are a skilled anti-Catholic apologist, but you can’t defend the LDS faith on your own principles.

I was writing a response to your post but when I read your statement above decided to drop it and not take this any further. My intent in posting here wasn’t to bash the Catholic Church but just to defend my own and dispel falsehoods about the LDS church that get posted here sometimes. The original challenge on this thread was to pick a date for the apostasy and post some evidence that the “true faith” corresponds to the LDS faith. I tried to do that but it’s getting too combative and it appears to you and perhaps others that I’m an “anti-Catholic” which couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality there is much that I love about the Catholic Church and I think it has an extremely strong and logical position in claiming to be the Church of Christ, built upon a rock. I can respect that position. I’ve attended mass on several occasions and felt the spirit there, I love Catholic art and architecture, and the great cathedrals with the mystery and reverence I feel when entering them. I believe Pope John Paul was a force for good in the world and anticipate Pope Benedict will be also.

Naturally, since I’m LDS I believe in my church, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the Great Apostasy DID indeed occur and that a RESTORATION was necessary. But if I lost my faith in the LDS church I’d probably have to choose Catholicism because I really don’t see any other option within Christianity. LDS claim RESTORATION and Catholics claim APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Both are defensible and logical positions and there is evidence in the Bible and elsewhere to support each position.

Here’s a quote from LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 3

Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.”

That’s why I find the topic of Apostasy so interesting and I agree Catholics have a much stronger position than Protestants.

Anyway, even though I’m not backing away from my position I don’t want to be seen as anti-catholic and for that reason I’ll restrict my posts to clarifying LDS doctrine when questions arise or incorrect information is posted and try to avoid being combative, even when baited.
 
40.png
Casen:
bengeorge said: All in all you are a skilled anti-Catholic apologist, but you can’t defend the LDS faith on your own principles.

I was writing a response to your post but when I read your statement above decided to drop it and not take this any further. My intent in posting here wasn’t to bash the Catholic Church but just to defend my own and dispel falsehoods about the LDS church that get posted here sometimes.
Ah, I am sorry… I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. By “anti-Catholic” I simply meant that your apologetical skills seem directed against the Catholic Church. I didn’t mean to say that you dislike Catholics or that you are attacking the Church in an unfair way; I don’t at all think you are bashing the Church. I should have been more clear.

It’s like your quote said: Either you are right, and I am wrong, or I am wrong and you are right. My apologetics are “anti-Mormon” only in that I argue against the claims of the LDS. Some of my very closest friends are Mormons.

I look forward to reading your replies to our posts. You are by far the most well read Mormon apologist I’ve seen on these boards.
 
I liked that quote the first time I read, but then I realized something - there is indeed enormous strength for the Catholic position, and Protestants and other schismatics do not indeed have a leg to stand on. The thing is, if the Catholic Church isn’t true, that doesn’t automatically make the LDS church true.

The LDS church could be a false restoration. Perhaps the restoration came along already or hasn’t come along yet. Or the LDS church could be a failed restoration, a restored Church that failed immediately after its founders’ deaths, as it happened the first time (if the Great Apostasy actually did happen). Anyway, that’s just a tangential $0.02.
 
RE: The LDS church could be a false restoration. Perhaps the restoration came along already or hasn’t come along yet. Or the LDS church could be a failed restoration, a restored Church that failed immediately after its founders’ deaths, as it happened the first time (if the Great Apostasy actually did happen).

I don’t disagree with you. I think the point of the quote is that IF the Great Apostasy did indeed occur then a restoration was (or is) necessary (could be LDS church or something else). But there aren’t too many churches that even claim to be a “restoration church” so the LDS don’t have too much competition unless you are looking for a restoration still to come. And if the apostasy did not occur then the Catholic Church is the logical “true church”. Either way the Protestants are out in the cold…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top