Doctrines Embraced by the CoJCoLDS and Previously Believed by the Early Church ... Using the ECF and Patristic Scolars

[TOmNossor]

In another thread a sincere request was made by @AlphaSquirrel to provide ECF quotes that support the CoJCoLDS.
I started responding to this in a PM, but two posters have claimed I am dishonest in my claimed beliefs and/or I cannot provide anything from the ECF. Another poster has asked the I openly provide what I claim is evidence.
This thread is about LDS doctrines that @TOmNossor and @gazelam (and @NeuroTypical if he would like to contribute) find in the ECF. If other posters who consider themselves LDS want to introduce beliefs they embrace and find in the ECF, please do it in another thread. AND if you are a former-LDS, a non-LDS scholar of all things LDS, a Catholic on this board, or anyone else; please start your own thread about what you think LDS should believe or do believe or cannot find in the ECF. This thread is not about that either. As always, everyone can comment on the evidence and conclusions offered, but for this purpose the doctrines discussed are the doctrines chosen by the 2 or 3 LDS posters I mentioned above not what someone else wishes was LDS doctrine.
I am a LDS. I find within the Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) many reasons to be a member. I embrace a set of beliefs that has largely been documented in the book series Exploring Mormon Thought by Blake Ostler. Blake is a LDS and his book is celebrated within LDS circles. When I look to the ECF with the theology that Blake outlines, I see much evidence that the early Christian Church was more like the CoJCoLDS than it is like the MODERN Catholic Church. I find the amount of LDS teaching I discover in the ECF to be BEYOND the amount one would find by coincidence. I conclude that this is evidence that the source of teaching for the Early Church and the source of teaching for the CoJCoLDS are the same.
It should be noted that if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, SOME LDS teaching will not be found in the ECF. God told Joseph Smith that SOME of the things revealed would not be a restoration of previously believed things, but would be things not revealed in previous “dispensations.”
There is a “judgment” required of this evidence. It does not prove the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church. It does not prove the Catholic Church is not God’s Church. By my judgment it well supports the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. By my judgment it does damage to the truth claims of the Catholic Church. I have read Newman’s theory and will reference it latter.
Charity, TOm

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think you’re doing some picking here, you’re only finding things that you want to agree with your theology.

 

[huck]

The Lack of Infant Baptism in the Early Church (Part 1)

Hello gazelam,
You do know that the BOM condemns both the baptism of Infants and little children right.
“Moroni 8:5”: 5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

“Moroni 8:14”: 14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity, for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

 

[TOmNossor]

I think you’re doing some picking here, you’re only finding things that you want to agree with your theology.

I agree completely.

That being said, I offer two additional pieces of information.

1. The doctrines I pick I believe will complete an interweaving narrative that not only supports the "unique" theology that came through God to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but reinforce one another in ways that seem beyond Joseph Smith.
2. I already said, "There is a “judgment” required of this evidence." I have not included everything Bickmore does for a few reasons. One, this would be too long. Two, some of his connections are not large important things. This potentially makes them existing by chance more likely. One response to the doctrines presented here would be that it is all coincidence. I would disagree with this response, but there is very little science involved in adjudicating what is and is not coincidence.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I think you’re doing some picking here, you’re only finding things that you want to agree with your theology.

Yes, the early church did not enter the world fully formed with consensus on every possible issue. We will see the Mormons quote an early church father or two who lived before consensus. Every time we see Tom write the words changed or developed in all capital letters it probably means consensus. In the same vain we will see quotes from “scholars” who agree, or are made to seem to agree, with the Mormon view. These “scholars” and early church fathers will be presented as if they hold the dominate view on the subject.

A couple of observations:

While the thread title suggests we will be hearing a case for unique Mormon beliefs held by the early church, both Mormon posters, so far, have presented their views as anti-Catholic. Their goal is not to prove why the early church was Mormon, but to show why it was not Catholic. Which is the reason for ‘poisoning the well’ against Cardinal John Henry Newman.

It seems the purpose of starting a new thread was so the Mormons could control which non-Catholic, or perceived non-Catholic, beliefs could be discussed.

 

[Dovekin]

One response to the doctrines presented here would be that it is all coincidence.

Another response would be we see what we want to see. You see a primitive Christianity before it was “infiltrated” by Greek philosophical ideas, because that describes your faith. I see a primitive Christianity that was reaching out to people, using the language and ideas they understood to evangelize them.

This is the central issue for the discussion you are proposing imo. “At first, Christianity did not appeal to Greek philosophy to explain its doctrines… by the end of the second century the Father was evidently identified with “the One” of the philosophers.” This is from the pages by Bickerstaff you pointed to. You apparently think this was a “fundamental slip,” while I count it part of an ordinary “development of doctrine.”

But look at the quote from St Justin you posted. At the end of it, he says Plato and other philosophers agree with Christians on [matter existing before Creation]. Ignoring the issue in brackets, this shows an agreement the “Father was evidently identified with “the One” of the philosophers,” pushing the date of that back to mid 2nd century.

If we look now at Acts 17:28-29, we can push the date back even further:

For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination.

Here St Paul is setting the stage for St Justin et al. By quoting a Greek philosopher and a poet, he identifies the Father he preaches with the One of the philosophers.

The period of primitive Christianity when “Christianity did not appeal to Greek philosophy to explain its doctrines” has shrunk to practically nothing. Before St Paul, there is no documentation. We can say almost anything. Or we can say the Church has always sought to express the gospel in the ideas and language of other people, so they can come to faith in the One God and Father of us all.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Can people please stop referring it as a church of Jesus Christ? That blasphemes our Lords name. Thanks.
It is the Mormon “church” even though it is not a church.

The name of my church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. The Vatican doesn’t have a problem addressing my church by it’s formal name. Do you figure the Vatican is blaspheming in that link?

 

[Chris-Wa1]

One of the best posts I have ever read explaining so clearly what a ridiculous fraud the Mormon religion is from beginning to end. I don’t know how some of these LDS posters can’t see it, but Mormonism is unravelling in real time right before our eyes, not because of cultural pressures or bad conduct by members, but because the very pillars and foundations on which their religion stands are so easily shown to be utterly false.

The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, polygamy/polyandry, eternal marriage, modern temples, secret ceremonies, continuing revelation, etc.–all of it is nonsense and it’s all crumbling.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

I disagree with your request. The only way to expose the absurdity of Mormonism is to not censor these posts so that they can be openly refuted.

 

[lilypadrees]

@Chris-Wa1, like you, I disagree with Mr Nosser’s request. It infuriates me reading his words that even those who consider themselves members of the church he belongs to must start their own threads as well as former members of his church and Catholics doing the same to discuss the beliefs his church holds. Why are we not all able to contribute our findings to this thread?

These threads are for discussion. I do not agree with @Genesis1989t’s request that any post mentioning Mormonism should be deleted. After all, this is Non-Catholic Religions forum. We can all be respectful of one another’s beliefs even in disagreement.

Why start a thread if there is no desire for discussion? Shouldn’t the person who asked the question that inspired Mr Nosser to start this thread in all fairness, have the complete truth? I say he should.

 

[lilypadrees]

This entire thread should be deleted.
Rule 6 states Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.

Joseph Smith’s claim to see apparitions have not been approved by the Church and are harmful to Catholics as going contrary to the Faith.

@camoderator I urge you to please delete all posts regarding Mormonism since it all involves belief in a claim of private revelation that had never nor will ever be approved by the Church. This goes against the forum rules.

Unless I’m mistaken, the unapproved/private revelations not to be discussed refer only to the Catholic Church not other religions. Every thread and post mentioning the Mormon church or any other that wasn’t Catholic would have to be deleted as well if they mentioned anyone’s private visions or revelations.

 

[Fauken]

Catholic Answers is first and foremost a Catholic apologetics website. They cannot hope to do apologetics if one of their target audiences (non-Catholics) cannot make their claims here. However, the Catholic in the title is not for show. They are allowed by the Church (I can’t remember how this was done) to have Catholic in the name. They can’t call themselves Catholic while simultaneously allowing things that are not Catholic to be promoted as Catholic. Do you see the difference? Mormons coming on here defending Joseph Smith ties into Catholic Answer’s apologetics mission. The Mormons are not promoting Mormon teaching as Catholic, but Mormon. Promoting Medjugorje as a legitimate apparition clashes with saying they’re Catholic when Medjugorje has not been approved by the Church.

 

[Fauken]

Citing the Church Fathers while saying the Church fell away after the Apostles died is not only insulting to the Church but to these many times martyrs themselves.

When they’re told constantly that the early Church did not believe the things they believe to be true, what did you expect them to do? Why is it surprising that they would then try to cite those same Church Fathers as supportive proof of their beliefs? You do know that they believe that the Great Apostasy happened some time in the early Church? Of course they would try to find ECF quotes then that reflect what they think existed back then.

 

[Fauken]

There was no apostasy. It is made up. Funny how their New Testament is the same as ours even though an apostasy church made it

I know there is no apostasy. Nor did I say there was.

 

[CzechMan]

Their New Testament is not the same. It has footnotes from the so-called inspired Joseph Smith translation. I know it is in footnotes, but they consider those changes to be inspired.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Actually my post was strictly in reference to Genesis’ post, not about Tom’s. I don’t really have a problem with somebody starting a thread asking others to keep it to the topic at hand, although I agree in this case that Tom is being too restrictive. I do not agree with Genesis’ request that all Mormon posts be deleted. That wouldn’t accomplish anything and would actually make Catholic Answers look more like LDS leadership who routinely try to censor members by excommunicating them when they say too much. That of course won’t happen, because Catholic Answers does not fear honest, open discussion like Mormon leaders do.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That of course won’t happen, because Catholic Answers does not fear honest, open discussion like Mormon leaders do.

You have nothing to fear when you’re speaking truth. ^^

 

[lilypadrees]

@Chris-Wa1, yes. I edited my post above when I saw I’d misread.

 

[CzechMan]

You are right about that, they have the same set of 27 books of the New Testament.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Scroll up. These guys from Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists are not here to dialogue. There here copy pasting stuff from their website to try to suck us into their 19th century America apocalyptic second great awakening stuff. They are not here for any good intentions.

That seems, well, a bit unrighteously judgmental. Maybe just a bit.

Here’s what I had to say about why I came to CAF:

How to be a good guest Non-Catholic Religions

So, I’m active on lots of different forums. Some of them are run by mormons, and I’m right at home. Some of them are debate boards, and we go at each other tooth and nail. Some, like this place, are run by a faith different than mine, and I conduct myself as a guest. That means your place, your rules. I’m here for two reasons. First, to learn more about my Catholic neighbor and his fascinating, engaging faith. I post mostly here, but I read threads all over CAF, and have learned a lot. S…

Confession from a Mormon Non-Catholic Religions

I spent the night thinking about this thread. Multiple people have given their experiences of getting strange looks or receiving poor treatment from Mormons who notice their cross or crucifix. One poster, who chose to be best man at his LDS friend’s wedding reception, even mentioned an LDS bishop going down the line shaking everyone’s hands, took one look at his crucifix, and moved past him without a handshake to the next person in line. I find these stories to be evidence that some of us mor…

I guess you get to assume and claim that I’m not telling the truth, that I’m here to “suck you into my 19th century apocalyptic second great awakening stuff”. Not here to dialogue. Not here for any good intentions. I mean, you don’t even know me - I don’t understand how you’d know these things. But you do you, I guess.