Do Any Writings of the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a "Great Apostasy"

[majick275]

I think we have ECF writings that do go back that far. The didache is certainly of interest here. One would certainly expect that if Mormonism was truly the restored church of the apostles then we would see some evidence in these writings. Polycarp has left us evidence that I believe is quite substantial. We know that he received his teaching and ordination during the Apostolic age and his writings would appear to support the Catholic view of original doctrine. Ignatius and Clement of Rome also left us very telling writings from the apostolic age. Now you can try and make the case that analysis of these leans more to EO than RCC but in any case they DON’T show any evidence of Mormonism.

I thought about your proposition that it was a different dispensation and thus would have purposeful differences but I don’t see support for this in LDS scriptures or teachings of LDS prophets. There are certain fundamentals that have been taught in the LDS church to be eternal. The Temple would be one of the most significant. We simply do not see evidence of early Christians “sealing” their marriages, receiving endowments or the like. We don’t see a first presidency or quorums discussed at all. We don’t see the LDS idea of eternal progression being taught. (I understand the EO theosis angle and don’t see it as even resembling LDS version) We DO see the real presence though and I find that telling.

 

[arieh0310]

But Chris, your argument doesn’t make logical sense. One of the commonalities between Mormonism and Catholicism is authority. But the two faiths have vastly different ecclesiastical structures. My argument is that if there was a “loss of the priesthood” after the death of the last apostle (John around 90 AD) why wasn’t there anyone who took notice? In Acts we read that in one day alone 5000 people were added to the Church, by the death of the last apostle the Church was huge and all over the known world. Are you telling me that no one noticed the drastic shift in organization of the church hierarchy? Where is the outcry from the “true Christians” about the quorum of twelve, the living prophet, etc.

We have in the writtings of Clement (80 AD) and Ignatius (110 AD) a description of the priesthood and episcopacy that is identical to current Catholic Church structure and mirrors what we find in the Bible. It seems to me the only way to wipe the memory of “true Christianity” from the minds of every Christian in the world is by some supernatural power of Satan. Why would Christ allow His Bride to be defiled that way so quickly? Why would Joseph Smith possess a power to perfectly form a church that Christ Himself didn’t possess?

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn’t convince me. In fact, some LDS would say that there is a “paper trail,” such as Bickmore. But even if there wasn’t, I’m not sure that that would be so significant. I mean, when and where did this “Mormonism” exist? How big was it? When and how did it go “extinct”? It is plausible that it finished up along with the deaths of the apostales and that the only real paper trail we would have is the Bible.

By the beginning of the 2nd century there were already groups breaking off all over the place. Besides the Bible, what’s the earliest documents that talk about these “heresies”? Also, you must realize that although it was the same Church, it was in a different dispensation. I wouldn’t argue that baptisms for the dead have always been done, and I would say that this dispensation is the time to focus on it, as well as for missionary work. So, in my opinion, did it exist then? Yes; but it was nowhere near as active as it is today. There are significant details that should be taken into consideration in this matter.

Now, according to what I’ve read, I think some kind of history of LDS-looking doctrines does in fact exist. Far be it from me to argue that though. Like I said, you will need a more informed Mormon for this discussion. What I really would not like to see here is a series of lines like, “Bickmore is a dope”, “Mormon apoloegtics isn’t real”, “That’s all wrong”, etc. If you do have real problems with what certain writers have written, argue it specifically and rationally, not just childishly insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.

Chris, this in an argument from silence.

Who is childishly insulting whom? I haven’t read any insults.

Peace

 

[arieh0310]

dennisknapp:

Who is childishly insulting whom? I haven’t read any insults.

He may be talking about other threads. I have objected in the past to even entertaining Bickmore’s arguments because he isn’t a scholar but a geochemist. This hobby-scholar cherry picked ambiguous quotes from Alexandrian mystics and twisted them for his own use (BTW, the catechetical schools in Alexandria and Syria had more heresies sprung out of them than all other regions combined, kinda like the heretical priests coming out liberal seminaries)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn’t convince me. In fact, some LDS would say that there is a “paper trail,” such as Bickmore. But even if there wasn’t, I’m not sure that that would be so significant. I mean, when and where did this “Mormonism” exist? How big was it? When and how did it go “extinct”? It is plausible that it finished up along with the deaths of the apostales and that the only real paper trail we would have is the Bible.

I think the lack of any historical evidence supporting the notion that the early church was LDS in its doctrines and practices is of *huge * (i.e. terminal) significance. And the argument that the “real” early church was too small to be of significance cannot be the case, unless you are suggesting that the Apostles themselves were teaching error and apostasy? The LDS position is that the Church apostasized *after * the death of the last apostle. This suggests that up to around 80 A.D. there was no apostasy - and the early church was doctrinaly free from error. If that is so, there would be evidence of a fundamental change in doctrine, by the Apostles direct successors, beginning around 80 A.D., but the evidence does not exist, or at the very least no LDS member has presented the evidence here. Chris, if there is a “paper trail” argument then please at the very least give us a link to the website that you think offers the most compelling argument in favor of the pre-apostate early LDS Church.
Chris Jodrey:

By the beginning of the 2nd century there were already groups breaking off all over the place. Besides the Bible, what’s the earliest documents that talk about these “heresies”?

Are you suggesting that one of these “heresies” was actually the true Church with mormon beliefs and practices? If so, which “heretical” church do you claim was the true “LDS” church that followed the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles?
Chris Jodrey:

Also, you must realize that although it was the same Church, it was in a different dispensation.

I am not a dispensationalist. What exactly do you mean by this comment? Are you suggesting that different doctrines would have been applicable to the true church after the death of the Apostles? If so, what’s the justification for this “dispensational” argument?
Chris Jodrey:

I wouldn’t argue that baptisms for the dead have always been done, and I would say that this dispensation is the time to focus on it, as well as for missionary work. So, in my opinion, did it exist then? Yes; but it was nowhere near as active as it is today. There are significant details that should be taken into consideration in this matter.

OK. What about some of the other uniquely mormon doctrines. Where was the “temple” that was set up by the Apostles for the other sacred ordinances? Where is the evidence of the Apostles wearing the sacred garments? What about early letters discussing spiritual progression? “Sealing” ceremonies? Anything out there that you can point to as evidence of distinctly mormon doctrine that existed prior to the death of the last Apostle?
Chris Jodrey:

Now, according to what I’ve read, I think some kind of history of LDS-looking doctrines does in fact exist. Far be it from me to argue that though. Like I said, you will need a more informed Mormon for this discussion. What I really would not like to see here is a series of lines like, “Bickmore is a dope”, “Mormon apoloegtics isn’t real”, “That’s all wrong”, etc. If you do have real problems with what certain writers have written, argue it specifically and rationally, not just childishly insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.

Please, please, please, give me a link to a website out there that you feel offers the best historical evidence of the great apostasy. I promise to be courteous and professional in my critique of the argument, and I promise I will not engage in name calling or insults.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Hey, I just realized that everyone is paying attention to me! And just me! That makes me feel special…

Chris, are there specific works by Bickmore to which you’d point a Catholic? I don’t mean a list of everything he’s written on the early Church, but maybe what you find best and most compelling? (And is it available online? )

Fortunately, Brad, it is. It’s a book called “Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity” and is all about making connections between then and now. It also has a pretty standard section on the “Great Apostasy” (I thnk that should be in all capital scary-looking letters for some reason I don’t know).

fairlds.org/pubs/restoring/

He may be talking about other threads. I have objected in the past to even entertaining Bickmore’s arguments because he isn’t a scholar but a geochemist. This hobby-scholar cherry picked ambiguous quotes from Alexandrian mystics and twisted them for his own use (BTW, the catechetical schools in Alexandria and Syria had more heresies sprung out of them than all other regions combined, kinda like the heretical priests coming out liberal seminaries)

Yes, this is the kind of thing I was referring to. So, rather than just do this, how about some actual treatment of the content of the book (or other LDS apologetic works)? (BTW, I think that with the exception of FARMS, most LDS apologists are only so as a hobby, as they are not paid for it and so must have a day-job.)

Heretical? You mean, not Catholic? Oh, my.

The following really does belong in the Great Apostasy thread, but oh well.

My argument is that if there was a “loss of the priesthood” after the death of the last apostle (John around 90 AD) why wasn’t there anyone who took notice?

What would be the signs of the loss of priesthood? Would it me like a strong man suddenly shedding off his massive muscular physique or is it more internal? Or something he doesn’t even realize?

In Acts we read that in one day alone 5000 people were added to the Church, by the death of the last apostle the Church was huge and all over the known world. Are you telling me that no one noticed the drastic shift in organization of the church hierarchy? Where is the outcry from the “true Christians” about the quorum of twelve, the living prophet, etc.

Are you referring to Acts 2, when 3,000 were baptized? Maybe I’m forgetting something… But anyway, big changes were taking place in the Church even during Bible times. Why do you think Paul wrote so many letters? He was trying to correct the false doctrine and wrong practices that were beginning to take hold.

The “living prophet” principle has been taught clearly all throughout the Bible. Almost whenever a new prophet came around people would cast him out, make fun of him, and call him false. In fact, Jesus gave a parable about that in Mark 12. They did the same thing to Jesus, claiming to be followers of only the old prophets, like Abraham and Moses, and that they needed no more, such as Jesus. Too bad for them.

Really, so has the Quorum of Twelve, just not with that name.

I thought about your proposition that it was a different dispensation and thus would have purposeful differences but I don’t see support for this in LDS scriptures or teachings of LDS prophets.

Well, remember that the whole Elijah “turning the hearts of the…” promise didn’t even get happenned until Joseph Smith’s day. Sealings are interesting. I once had a thought. Remember Matthew 22, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that the woman who married 7 brothers will have none of them in heaven because they are to be as angels? Well, there is an obvious LDS interpretation for that, but I also one day thought to myself, “Hey! Where did these Pharisees get the notion of eternal marriage in the first place?” I figured that it must have been a confusion with them, that while the Melchizedek priesthood was around sealings were done, but that when it was taken away and they all became somewhat apostaste they stopped differentiating between the two, and so carried with them such false notions, which Jesus awesomely put down. Well, enough of that.

It was a different dispensation with slightly different aims, and I believe there are many comments in the scriptures to show it thus.

 

[arieh0310]

Chris Jodrey:

So, rather than just do this, how about some actual treatment of the content of the book (or other LDS apologetic works)

In two different threads we went round and round with patristic quotes. In the end, the LDS argument is simply a game of sematics
Chris Jodrey:

Heretical? You mean, not Catholic? Oh, my.

The following really does belong in the Great Apostasy thread, but oh well.

Before you get too smug realize that these heresies don’t in anyway resemble Mormonism. Many were denying the divinity of Christ, or denying His human nature.
Chris Jodrey:

What would be the signs of the loss of priesthood? Would it me like a strong man suddenly shedding off his massive muscular physique or is it more internal? Or something he doesn’t even realize?

You failed to see my point. Mormons claim that they are “true, original Christians” but the earliest Christian writtings were distinctly Catholic. If Mormon claims of apostacy were true then the movement from LDS to Catholic ecclesiastical structure was immediate and substantial, and yet no one noticed. Very curious
Chris Jodrey:

Are you referring to Acts 2, when 3,000 were baptized?

My bad, 3000 not 5000

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

You’re missing the point amgid. Sure, the LDS church can *argue * that the bible supports the “great apostasy” theory and point to bible passages that we Catholics would say are being taken out of context. But that’s just spinning our wheels. I’m suggesting that even assuming *arguendo * that both interpretations are supportable, there is no evidence that the early church underwent a drastic falling away from what was - in the beginning - LDS doctrine. To the contrary, if one studies the writings generated by the early church during the exact time period in which the LDS church contends the great apostasy occurred, there is no evidence showing (1) a change in doctrine (2) from LDS doctrine to “apostate” christianity. If there were such an apostasy, the church writings would be drastically different in nature, or at the very least there would be a defense of the “traditional” LDS doctrines. There is no such evidence of which I am aware.

So, regardless of what LDS members or Catholics think the bible says about a great apostasy, it is my position here that the early church writings are one valid place to look for evidence of an early and total apostasy in which the Church abandoned distinctly LDS doctrines.

I notice, amgid, that you presented *no opposing evidence * of early “pre-apostasy” church practices being distinctly LDS in nature. Can you offer an explanation for this fact, or are you simply conceding the lack of evidence? I would like to know what argument you offer in response to the one I presented? Or do you simply choose to dismiss it altogether? I, for one, would like to know if there is some historical evidence supporting the LDS idea of a great apostasy, but I have yet to see any offered.

You know better than that.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

(Quote=You are fighting a losing battle Haas. Do you enjoy being on the losing side? You will do yourself a great favor by acknowledging the truth of Mormonism, and marrying your girl friend in the Mormon temple for time and all eternity. You will get a much better deal that way.(/Quote)

Who speaks this way? Think about this. Pray about this.

The better deal is to be with God for eternity, Haas will find true love there. We share this love as Catholics. It is God first, he being our desire for heaven. His Son Christ, He being our desire in while looking to Heaven, He being our reward. I know the better deal that you speak of. It was offered in a garden and in a desert. Christ said “no”, we follow Christ.

God bless

www.catholic-rcia.com

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

In two different threads we went round and round with patristic quotes. In the end, the LDS argument is simply a game of sematics

Really? Where? I have yet to see any treatment of the context of Bickmore’s book here.

Before you get too smug realize that these heresies don’t in anyway resemble Mormonism. Many were denying the divinity of Christ, or denying His human nature.

You failed to see my point. Mormons claim that they are “true, original Christians” but the earliest Christian writtings were distinctly Catholic. If Mormon claims of apostacy were true then the movement from LDS to Catholic ecclesiastical structure was immediate and substantial, and yet no one noticed. Very curious

And this is where my smugness is useless. I would like to give you a smug answer here, but I have not read sufficiently of the pre-nicene fathers of what-now to give a good answer. Still, I am hoping that some rather more enlightened LDS can come in and explain a bit.

However, until then, Bickmore has essentially given a static response. So, I’ll go ahead and put my money on him.

To get a good start, I also found this:

It is my hope that I can offer a unique review of Bickmore’s book. I am not a Mormon, but I have been investigating the LDS Church since 1987. I also have a keen interest in Patristics, which started in 1980 with my purchase of the 38 volume Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. (My personal library has grown to more than 14,000 volumes, which includes 1,600 plus LDS-related volumes). I find it very interesting that Bickmore has organized, and put into print, many of the themes that I have seen in my personal reading of the early Church Fathers. I find it equally interesting that anti-Mormons who compare LDS doctrines with the early Church Fathers either ignore or gloss over much of the evidence.

It is a review by David Waltz (Roman Catholic) of Bickmore’s book. Now, I consider him to be a very intelligent Catholic, judging by the way he writes and the subject material he seems to have a very good handle on. Would you all say likewise, or do you consider him to be a bad Catholic for not vehemently denying anything a Mormon says? The complete review can be found here:

fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw200102.html

 

[majick275]

I don’t know anything about David Waltz. His review does not seem to show his Catholicity to be relevant to his opinion on the book. I would point out that he has no “official status” so we must take his words as no more significant than our own opinions.

That being said let’s examine some of bickmore’s book. In General he approaches from a distinctly hellenistic and gnostic bias citing many heretical sources. He appears to lean heavily on the sheperd of hermas as decribing the universal church of that time. I would certainly challenge that on the basis of the available writings of the ECFs during the same time period.

I think his conclusions about primitive church being LDS in nature are only in the areas of very general practices. The laying on of hands, baptism and the afterlife are only shown to be similar in a very generic sense that does not really show Mormon exclusivity. his findings are just as applicable to the RCC as the LDS. (especially the afterlife)

His observations on deification, the trinity, apostasy and other broad topics are all very debatable both due to the sources and his interpretation of them. They certainly don’t show anything clearly defined in those areas that is uniquely LDS.

What I find most significant is in those areas that ARE unique to the LDS church. He seems to show us that there wasn’t an Aaronic priesthood, Temple ordinances, baptisms for the dead, and the role of prophets is not shown to be what the LDS have now.

He pulls quotes out of context from “Orthodox” ECFs and even then stretches to apply them to current LDS doctrine. I find this portion of the review very important:
Bickmore lays down some very important prerequisites-first, that spiritual things cannot “be proven by human wisdom” (page 16), second, “Since we believe the post-apostolic Church had fallen away, we fully expect these documents to include views contrary to ours” (pages 16-17 footnote), third, “we also expect that the earlier we go, the more true doctrine we are likely to find” (page 17 footnote), fourth, “Given the incomplete nature of the historical record…it would be fruitless to search the extant early Christian literature for data to ‘falsify’ LDS claims” (page 17). Bickmore ends his preface on page 17 with, “Those who reject these assumptions will no doubt find the arguments presented here less than compelling, but even so I believe these arguments demonstrate conclusively that Mormonism is very similar in many respects to some very early forms of Christianity.”

The most authoratative ECFs writings are in direct contradiction to Mormon doctrine. It is only in gnostic and hellenistic heretics that we even find beliefs that can be “interpreted” as supporting LDS doctrines.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Just curious, how do you know David Waltz is Catholic? The review doesn’t say, nor does his little biographical page.

 

[arieh0310]

Brad Haas:

Just curious, how do you know David Waltz is Catholic? The review doesn’t say, nor does his little biographical page.

Elsewhere in this forum he stated that he converted in 2002. I do not believe that he was a Catholic at the time he wrote the review. Here is his profile.

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

Elsewhere in this forum he stated that he converted in 2002. I do not believe that he was a Catholic at the time he wrote the review. Here

is his profile.

He was Catholic when he wrote the review. And he is Catholic today.

Bickmore’s book is certainly directed to a Protestant audience and when David reviewed it he recognized it as such.

Majick275,

Have you read Bickmore’s book? It has been a while for me, but I remember he tries to focus on Orthodox fathers to a certain extent. I am going to put together a post (or two). There are many places to look for LDS positions on the apostasy and I am pretty certain I would rather not get into a huge discussion. I will mention a few books LDS and non-LDS can read. And link to a LDS/Catholic debate that is very good (and is also by Bickmore). Hopefully there will be enough food for thought in what I provide.

Charity, TOm

 

[Robert_in_SD]

TOmNossor:

He was Catholic when he wrote the review. And he is Catholic today.

Bickmore’s book is certainly directed to a Protestant audience and when David reviewed it he recognized it as such.

Majick275,

Have you read Bickmore’s book? It has been a while for me, but I remember he tries to focus on Orthodox fathers to a certain extent. I am going to put together a post (or two). There are many places to look for LDS positions on the apostasy and I am pretty certain I would rather not get into a huge discussion. I will mention a few books LDS and non-LDS can read. And link to a LDS/Catholic debate that is very good (and is also by Bickmore). Hopefully there will be enough food for thought in what I provide.

Charity, TOm

Thanks TOm, much appreciated. I look forward to reviewing the links you will provide.

 

[majick275]

Yes I’ve read his book. I have nothing negative to say about the man himself. I don’t even find his scholarship particularly lacking in the book. I do point out his bias going into it and how that plays out to get to his conclusions. Obviously I disagree with him on that. I think he had a purpose going into it (nothing really bad about that) and he cherry picked his sources ( I disagree with that approach) and I think he really stretched logic to make connections on even a very broad level that still don’t show a distinctly LDS church existing during the apostolic age. (Of course I don’t even think the BoM depicted early church is that close to contemporary mormonism)

 

[TOmNossor]

Someone above pointed out that with so few LDS here it would be difficult to get an extensive response to the points you make.

I will highlight some things that can be considered if you wish to look into this with greater detail, but I do not wish to engage in prolonged dialogue about this.

Here are some of my points on this board from a little over a year ago.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4383&page=1

The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not evident in the writings of the ECF until Irenaeus (and it still takes a long time to be evident in practice). There are plenty of reasons to see the authority of the Bishop of Rome as a human development resulting from political forces not divine forces. James Barker’s Apostasy of the Divine Church is an excellent book concerning these things.

While someone claimed that the authority is present in Clement, many Catholics including Cardinal Newman acknowledge that the authority of the papacy developed and was not evident in the early church (present perhaps, but not evident). The controversies and the lack of Roman leadership in their solutions point this direction too.

LDS interested in Catholicism should probably read Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. It was his Catholicity and view of the church that enabled me to believe that the Catholic Church COULD possibly be true. Most Catholics (even online Catholics) seem to talk about the church as if it has preserved Tradition in some incredibly obvious way from the Apostles to today. Few Catholics will admit that “pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism” or other scholarly (non-LDS non-JW scholars in this case RPC Hansen) opinions. Without Newman’s development ideas Catholicism can be shown to be false in the first few centuries.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

I still question if Newman’s theory of developments was not a development that violates his principles of developments, but it is clear that Catholicism does not get off the ground without Newman’s theory. Here is Orestas Brownson trying to convince me that Newman is wrong (and unbeknownst to him demonstrating that Catholicism is not true). My SSPX Catholic friend turned me on to Brownson in an attempt to argue development could not happen as it did in Vatican II. Perhaps he is right, but if so … The whole SSPX movement is making me concerned about Catholics and providing me as a LDS reasons to reject that Catholicism needs to be considered as viable.

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/newman.htm

It is interesting that this development of authority was linked to Peter as prime, but the prerogative of Peter is not claimed for the Bishop or Rome (although it is claimed for the LDS prophet).

It is interesting to note that the authority of the Bishop of Rome enjoyed early linkage to the dual apostolate of Peter and Paul (or Paul and Peter) rather than exclusively to the primacy of Peter as is done today.

It is interesting to note that the Eastern Christians who claim to have refused to develop as Catholicism has (thus in their mind preserving the more ancient traditions) does not recognize the primacy of Rome.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

On the Real Presence: I must generally agree with Tmaque, the Real Presence is the most clear read of John 6 and the early witness of the ECF. This does not mean that the ECF were universal in their witness. Justin Martyr was not orthodox in his writings. Others pointed to non-orthodox conceptions. It is the strength of other LDS positions that allow me to follow the LDS ideas on the real presence. I think we as LDS do not completely understand the extent to which Christ is real in our sacrament service, but we cannot believe that the bread and water are permanently transformed like Catholics do (this makes me sad).

On other ECF writing. I believe the Pastor of Hermas does teach apostasy. Steve Clifford ignores the strength of Hermas until his many weeks late concluding statement (long after the accepted time and final in a way that Barry couldn’t respond), but I still think he does not adequately deal with the writings. This BTW is a good LDS vs. Catholic debate and should dispel the idea that LDS do not engage Catholics. I think it on the whole is about a tie, and would like to have seen Barry hit on some other points, but I am BAISED.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html

On LDS doctrine that existed in the Early Church and was restored by Joseph Smith: Barry Bickmore’s book is good for this. Also Blake Ostler’s work on Creation ex Nihilo is excellent.

In my mind the foundational SLIP of the Early Church was when they introduced Creation ex Nihilo. A rapidly increasing number of non-LDS Biblical scholars are acknowledging that Creation ex Nihilo is either not explicitly taught in the Bible or is generally rejected by the Bible. Gerard May has also done an extensive study of Creation ex Nihilo in his book Creatio ex Nihilo. This German Protestant concludes that Creation ex Nihilo was first expressed by a Gnostic philosopher Basilides and then a few decades later expressed by Theophis of Antioch in its first Christian form. Justin Martyr explicitly and Clement of Rome generally reject creation ex nihilo before it was expressed by Theophilus.

From this foundational SLIP the Early Church did the best they could in many areas, but controversies reigned prominent for many years. Christ’s nature became problematic. What it is for men to become gods was problematic for a few centuries after Christ’s nature was nailed down in light of ex nihilo. Catholicism has still failed to define what deification is by my best reckoning. Every online participant but one I know has claimed generally that Catholic follow EO Christians, but Catholic thought and EO thought diverged in such a way that this is not a valid suggestion.

Ex Nihilo has other philosophical problems for free agency and theodocy too.

Things like supernatural public revelation, authoritative baptism, more LDS understanding of our fallen nature, and … also have support in ancient (or non-Catholic preserved EO, Syrian, and even gnostic) Christianity.

And one more thing from a recent book that is quite good as well. Apostles and Bishops existed side by side in the early church. I do not dispute that the Apostles ordained the Bishops, but I suggest that the Bishops were never intended to be what LDS call general authorities. Instead they were much closer to local bishops (there is a likely exception for the Bishops of Jerusalem in the early church, but not the early Bishop of Rome). Nibley in his recent book Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity does a great job showing this.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

The LDS position is not near so weak as folks seem to suggest. The Catholic position is not decimated by the things I list though. To be Catholic one must recognize that development occurred. If the Catholic Church had the authority to protect and define the SEED that was deposited by Christ and the Apostles, then the Apostles will find the Catholicism is the Christianity that seems true to them. If Joseph Smith had the authority to restore Christianity then the Apostles would find that Mormonism is the Christianity that seems true to them. But all evidence suggests that the original Apostles would find either Catholicism or Mormonism very different from the church they left the world with in the first century. AND I maintain that if all we had was LDS doctrine and practice and Catholic doctrine and practice and the witness that has survived of early Christianity, we could not prove who was correct.

That being said, when we recognize that the CoJCoLDS burst upon the scene without access to the documents we have today, I maintain that a powerful apologetic is created by the linkages shown. On this thread already the idea that LDS do violence to the ECF has been presented by a Catholic defender. I strenuously disagree, but I would.

Two evangelicals about 4-5 years ago published an article, Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It. It can be found here:

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

I do not think Catholics must attack Mormonism with the same fervor that Protestants must (Protestants must show that Catholicism is false and everyone else is false, Catholics can just show they are true because then there is no need for Reformations or Restorations. It is good to be Catholic!), but there are a large number of LDS books on the apostasy that directly address the Catholic Church and to which there has been little or no response. Again there is Catholic neglect and my opinion you are loosing the battle and you do not know it. I have a friend who might tell you that you are winning the battle and you do not know it, but I think from your dismissive statements you do not know the strength of the LDS position.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not evident in the writings of the ECF until Irenaeus (and it still takes a long time to be evident in practice).

These are all prior to Irenaeus:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).*