Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[LivingWaters7]

Concerning Doctrines:
I think Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is an essential from an informed Catholic perspective. I still wonder if Orestas Bronson (and a group of Catholic Bishops contemporary with Newman) and the Newman detractors (many of whom are modern Catholics who deny the validity of Vatican II) are correct that Newman’s theory is a repudiation of Catholic Tradition, but I have not made a solid decision on this. Newman is absolutely necessary to the understanding of modern Catholic dogmas in light of ancient teachings.

Thanks, I’ve heard about Newman’s development of doctrine viewpoint, but never read this essay.

Barry Bickmore’s book Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity
The whole book here:
fairlds.org/authors/bickm…y-christianity
A review written by a non-LDS (David recommended Sullivan and Newman to me).
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ…2&num=2&id=361

Yes, I own Bickmore’s bookm (hardcopy). I’m not really impressed by it, and it is one of the things that causes me to not be impressed by LDS apologetics in general, at least as it relates to proving the LDS faith as being a true restoration. The very title of the book shows the issue at hand: where is this “ancient Church” that is being restored? I don’t see a Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints anciently that is restored (again, even with allowing for latter day revelation of various doctrines and practices that weren’t known anciently). Instead, Bickmore, and others, relies on various divergent sources, whether from orthodox writers, gnostic writings, Greek mystery religions, etc. It’s hilarious to me that he titles his book “Restoring the Ancient Church”, yet, right in the Forward, he has “There was no unified “Church” that existed during the period following the Ascension of Christ.” ! Also, I think that many of the things that are allegedly restored by the LDS faith were never lost in the first place. Things like deification/theosis, mysteries/esoteric rites, prayer circles (I’ve witnessed many of these in Catholic Masses, whether its priests surrounding the altar, or the priest calling up the children and their parents to surround the altar during the prayer of the Our Father), spiritual gifts, etc are all found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Now, that doesn’t mean that I don’t agree that there are parallels for various LDS doctrines and parallels anciently. The problem is that these parallels do not point to an “Ancient Church”, a unified, cohesive entity, that had these doctrines and practices, and is being restored. And, many of the things claimed to be restored were never lost.

And his book was particularly weak on its treatment on the Eucharist/Sacrament. This is one area that I simply don’t find the LDS symbolic understanding anciently. While Bickmore and others will cite various ECFs in support of LDS temple ordinances, deification, etc., there is no ECF support for the belief in a symbolic Eucharist. It was interesting that he cited the gnostic Acts of Thomas in support of the use of water in the Sacrament/Eucharist, though, when he claims that Mygdonia brought Thomas bread and wine for the Sacrament, he refused it, I don’t see that anywhere in the Acts of Thomas.

I see the ECFs as supporting the belief in the Real Presence from the beginning, and this belief is found in diverse locations, whether Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Syria, Ethiopia, etc. It also finds strong support in Jewish practices, including the Bread of the Presence in the temple (for more on that, you may be interested in Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre, PhD, and you can view a video presentation of his on the same topic here).

For me, at least at this time, I find the strongest support for LDS claims in a restoration in the claim of having living apostles and prophets. It is clear to me that God has always had prophets amongst His people, even during the New Testament, as Jesus sent prophets to the people (Matt 23:34, Luke 11:49), and there were prophets post-Resurrection (Acts 11:25-30, Acts 13:1). Even the Didache talks about how to receive prophets. But at the same time, I see Catholics believing in people receiving messages and revelations from Heavenly entities (whether God, Mary, angels, etc), who could be termed prophets and prophetesses…

 

[truthseeker32]

An interesting question to think about: Were the twelve apostles called apostles before they had priesthood authority? If they were, then this suggests that the term “apostle” does not necessarily indicate priesthood authority. The Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote a good response to Bickmore’s work that can be read here:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/03/dialogue-with-mormon-apologist-on.html

For me, at least at this time, I find the strongest support for LDS claims in a restoration in the claim of having living apostles and prophets. It is clear to me that God has always had prophets amongst His people, even during the New Testament, as Jesus sent prophets to the people (Matt 23:34, Luke 11:49), and there were prophets post-Resurrection (Acts 11:25-30, Acts 13:1). Even the Didache talks about how to receive prophets. But at the same time, I see Catholics believing in people receiving messages and revelations from Heavenly entities (whether God, Mary, angels, etc), who could be termed prophets and prophetesses…

Can you think of any Old or New Testament prophets that fit the LDS church’s view of a prophet? Further, if no further public revelation is necessary, why would a prophet for the masses be necessary?

 

[lax16]

Yes I agree with you. For me, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the belief that God the Father is embodied. That never was problematic for me, and I think it’s one of those things that just “makes sense” to most people when they think about or imagine God.

Hi LivingWaters - I can see that one might have differing ideas about God. However, the Jewish people have always believed that God is incorporeal. They are forbidden to portray God in a human form.
This ancient teaching should not be dismissed for other teachings that make sense - they should at least be considered, wouldn’t you agree?

The problem for me is the belief that God the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Now, some LDS apologists will claim that the King Follett Discourse, which talks about God once being a man, says that the Father did this “the same as Jesus Christ”, which means that, just like how Christ was God that descended to earth and became a man, lived a sinless life, etc, the same could apply to the Father in the understanding of Him once being a man. I don’t agree with that understanding because the KFD also talks about how Joseph Smith would “refute the idea” that God was always God, and many LDS prophets and apostles have talked about how the Father progressed, that we have to do the same as He did, etc. As I’ve told a few non-LDS friends lately, “I like my God to have always been God, and didn’t have to progress to being God”.

Yes, I agree, this is hard to believe. I also think that the BoM portrays God in a traditional way until JS began having revelations that contradicted it.

As for Judaism, well, you have to remember that LDS believe in dispensations. LDS believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught to Adam, and that prophets from that day have taught the Gospel (I think there are ECFs that talk about how the Gospel was known to OT prophets). After they taught the Gospel, there would be periods of apostasy, followed by restoration with the calling of a new prophet. So, LDS apologists would say that Judaism is not in its pure form, and has gone through various changes. I think that such a view is true in a sense (and various non-LDS scholars say as much), however I think that LDS misappropriate certain facts. For example, yes, ancient Israelites did believe in multiple gods, or a Council of Gods if you will. However, the Old Testament is all about the One True God calling the people back to the worship of Him, through the prophets. Also, the Divine Council is understood in traditional Christianity as involving God and the angels, not other deities. For more on this, see “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82” by Michael Heiser (PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages).

Thank you for this explanation. I have never heard this before.
Where did the LDS come up with this explanation?

This just seems so strange to me. Early Christianity was very Jewish, not Greek, in its traditions and rituals (and of course, still is today).
Christians died brutal deaths defending the faith against any heresy. Specifically, what error crept in?
I would assume that there was some cultural blending among the groups - but then we would still see those similarities today.
There is nothing similar about the beliefs and customs of Greeks and Jews that I am aware of (except good food and celebrations )

Also, I think LDS apologists would also claim that, apparently like traditional Christianity, Judaism has been Hellenized, and has accepted various philosophical propositions in the place of direct revelation from God on those topics. They view Greek philosophy and its usage in Judeo-Christianity very negatively. Many LDS apologetic works on the apostasy focus on the alleged replacement of Divine revelation with philosophy, philosophers replacing prophets, at least in that view of history.

Again, it would only matter if error had crept into religious teachings of Judaism and Christianity, and I see no proof of it.

 

[Stephen168]

LDS believe that various angelic messengers, such as John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the 1800s, and restored the power and authority of God’s priesthood, which is divided into two orders, the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The “keys” of the priesthood were given, which allows for the direction of the priesthood of God on earth, binding and loosing, etc. The keys of sealing are believed to have been restored by Elijah as well.

And even if there was such a thing; no human would qualify for the Melchizedek priesthood.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always.* There is no actual Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.*

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was a superior priesthood than the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-14 If the Levitical priesthood was good enough, there would be no need for another priest as prophesied by King David. A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law. They were abolished because the law did not bring man into close communication with God.

Hebrews 7:20-25 Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest like Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26-28 There is no need to offer sacrifices daily like the Levitical priesthood. Christ offered himself one time for all people sins forever.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant.*** This food we call Eucharist.***

 

[andrewstx]

To be really honest, I can’t for the life of me understand how anything let alone a church that never existed can be considered “restored”.

There is no historic record of anything remotely close to the LDS church having existed before Joseph Smith and later B. Young and the following Presidents invented it.

There was no doctrine about baptism for the dead, no just one “sacrament” that is only symbolic and to renew covenents . There was no doctrine about marriage “for time and eternity”. No one thought that “Heavenly Father” was a mere human male who worked his way up to being A God. There were no sealings or top secret Masonic temple ordinances.

Not to be uncharitable but it seems to me the fathers of Mormonism invented all of the specific LDS doctrines from whole cloth.

A confession I was raised in a Protestant fundamental sect that also taught the “apostacy-restoration” dichotomy. They too said that the true church “apostasized” it’s self out of existence and was only brought back into existence until they had “restored” it back into being. They consign all others but the members of their not insignificant sect to hell. They too have unusual doctrines, but not as different as the Mormon doctrines.

I did not agree with them and I do not agree with the LDS.

 

[SteveVH]

LDS believe that various angelic messengers, such as John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the 1800s, and restored the power and authority of God’s priesthood, which is divided into two orders, the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood.

One problem, right off the bat, is that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John were not angels, they were human beings. Jospeh Smith had a very childish view of the heavens.

There was no unified “Church” that existed during the period following the Ascension of Christ. The organization that Christ established through His apostles was scattered geographically and culturally. Independent communities struggled to hold the line on maintaining purity in their doctrine amidst social, religious and cultural pressure from within to compromise.

This is the biggest myth of all and the same is believed by many of the non-liturgical Protestants. There was no organized thing called the Church. It was just a bunch “Christians” running around, meeting here and there with no real direction.

Scripture itself shows us that when there were issues, they were brought before Peter and the Apostles (see Councils of Jerusalem - Acts). The writings of the early Church Fathers also establish evidence for a well organized Church. I have always thought that Joseph Smith was preying on the ignorance of the common man during his time. Did he not think that someone would eventually find him out? But for a more modern author to make this claim in inexcusable. The Catholic Church can easily establish 2000 years of historicity, 2000 years of Apostolic succession and 2000 years of consistent doctrine. No other Church on the planet can make this claim (EO excepted) and to deny it historically is shoddy scholarship, at best.

In short, during the decades after the Ascension of Christ, the fledgling Christian Church was deeply troubled. Given the almost impossible nature of the task nature of the task of maintaining these Churches considering the sheer geographical distance between them as well as the lack of a unified and central leadership, it is no small wonder that Paul struggled so intensely to keep the various branches on track, and to nurture them along the straight and narrow way. Eventually, as Christ prophesied, the flock was not spared. The wolves entered, and little of the original was left unchanged.

As you say, what original? It’s hard to have an original Church and at the same time claim that there was no original Church.

;There are books and articles with references to things like “the Ancient Ch10525884]urch”, the “Early Christian Church”, etc., yet I don’t see such an organization existing.

Here are some quotes, starting in the 2nd century, that may help you discern that a very organized Church was present very early on:

*“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).*

Clement of Alexandria:

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).

There are many more. Does this sound like a Church that was just started as these men wrote, or are they speaking of what they considered an already “ancient” Church?

How do believing LDS here view this? How do Catholics/Orthodox see this presentation of early Christianity from the Forward of the book, which seems to be a common LDS understanding of ancient Christianity?

Other than completely ignoring history I think they did just fine.

 

[gazelam]

The problem for me is the belief that God the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Now, some LDS apologists will claim that the King Follett Discourse, which talks about God once being a man, says that the Father did this “the same as Jesus Christ”, which means that, just like how Christ was God that descended to earth and became a man, lived a sinless life, etc, the same could apply to the Father in the understanding of Him once being a man. I don’t agree with that understanding because the KFD also talks about how Joseph Smith would “refute the idea” that God was always God, and many LDS prophets and apostles have talked about how the Father progressed, that we have to do the same as He did, etc. As I’ve told a few non-LDS friends lately, “I like my God to have always been God, and didn’t have to progress to being God”.

LW7,
Here’s a link to timesandseasons.org (left of center, ivory-towerish LDS blog site) of a recent post that somewhat addresses this issue. timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/my-problem-with-the-couplet/ I hope this help. Good luck in your continued search.

 

[jediliz]

1. the early church NEVER taught that Jesus and Satan were brothers. Or has the mormon church stopped teaching that?
2. the early Church NEVER taught that God ** physically** conceived Jesus with Mary through natural means. Or has the mormon church stopped teaching that as well?
3. the early church **never **told people they could become “gods” of their own planet. Or that there are several “levels” in Heaven. Or has the mormon church stopped that?
4. the early church had never heard of the land that would eventually become known as North America, so how could Jesus have visited the land? Jesus ascended into Heaven 40 days after His Resurrection. He did not take a detour to North America.
5. Early christians died for their belief in the True Presence (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarcisius) Do mornons believe in the true presence?

Do I need to say anything more?

 

[zaffiroborant]

LW7,
Here’s a link to timesandseasons.org (left of center, ivory-towerish LDS blog site) of a recent post that somewhat addresses this issue. timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/my-problem-with-the-couplet/ I hope this help. Good luck in your continued search.

It’s not the couplet it’s Joseph Smith’s own words, “God himself was once as we are now”.

 

[aspirant]

Barry Bickmore:

There was no unified “Church” that existed during the period following the Ascension of Christ. The organization that Christ established through His apostles was scattered geographically and culturally. Independent communities struggled to hold the line on maintaining purity in their doctrine amidst social, religious and cultural pressure from within to compromise.

As the apostasy progressed, these scattered communities and “branches” of the Church were left for ever-increasing periods of time without authoritative leadership. As a result, certain opportunistic individuals purposefully waited in the proverbial “shadows” until they could step forward to craft Church doctrine after their own agendas, unfettered and unchallenged by any central apostolic authority.

In short, during the decades after the Ascension of Christ, the fledgling Christian Church was deeply troubled. Given the almost impossible nature of the task nature of the task of maintaining these Churches considering the sheer geographical distance between them as well as the lack of a unified and central leadership, it is no small wonder that Paul struggled so intensely to keep the various branches on track, and to nurture them along the straight and narrow way. Eventually, as Christ prophesied, the flock was not spared. The wolves entered, and little of the original was left unchanged.

Among the many doctrines that made their way into and out of the early Church, many remnants remind us of the truths that we now hold sacred as part of the Restored Gospel. Many do not, as can be expected. It is the former to which we direct our attention in this work.

This is tangential, so please forgive me…

I’ve heard and seen a variety of accounts of this “apostasy” from LDS sources, but what I’ve never really been able to understand is this:

If one really believes such apostasy happened before, and that Jesus had to restore his church, why shouldn’t one think apostasy is happening-- or has already happened-- again post-Restoration?

 

[Aramis]

They’ve certainly restored a part of the ancient playing field - the Arian heresy.
And incorporated some parts of other heresies pruned from the church in the 4th and 5th centuries.

 

[TexanKnight]

It’s not the couplet it’s Joseph Smith’s own words, “God himself was once as we are now”.

I find it sad and humorous to watch the mental gymnastics Mormons must do to overcome that old doctrine.

 

[SpeSalvi]

This is tangential, so please forgive me…

I’ve heard and seen a variety of accounts of this “apostasy” from LDS sources, but what I’ve never really been able to understand is this:

If one really believes such apostasy happened before, and that Jesus had to restore his church, why shouldn’t one think apostasy is happening-- or has already happened-- again post-Restoration?

That was one of the key elements that led me out of. Mormonism. Before I was ready to believe that Joseph Smith had made it all up, I was convinced that Brigham Young had led the church astray and another apostasy must have happened. I couldn’t understand how someone that was the mouthpiece of the lord could say some of the things he said.
This Easter will be my “2nd birthday” in the Church. Christ said to look to the fruit that the tree bears and I couldn’t align myself with a tree that bore the fruit of racism and murder again. Of course the modern church is different, but when you have your origins there one must wonder what could happen if times got rough…

 

[LivingWaters7]

This is tangential, so please forgive me…

I’ve heard and seen a variety of accounts of this “apostasy” from LDS sources, but what I’ve never really been able to understand is this:

If one really believes such apostasy happened before, and that Jesus had to restore his church, why shouldn’t one think apostasy is happening-- or has already happened-- again post-Restoration?

LDS believe that latter day revelation has been given that the Church would never again apostatize (D&C 138:44).

**
"We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy by keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following Church leaders, partaking of the sacrament, and constantly strengthening our testimonies through daily scripture study, prayer, and service."**

LDS.org, Topics: Apostasy

If only such a promise was given the first time! Wait…

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW7,
Here’s a link to timesandseasons.org (left of center, ivory-towerish LDS blog site) of a recent post that somewhat addresses this issue. timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/my-problem-with-the-couplet/ I hope this help. Good luck in your continued search.

Thanks. Yes, the couplet certainly is interesting (and is taught in the current Lorenzo Snow manual, as I’m sure you know). However, I’m really interested in Joseph’s KFD, where he talks about the Father having once been a man, that he “refute” the idea that God has always been God, that we have got to learn how to be Gods, the same as other Gods have done before, etc. This notion of the progression of the Father to Godhood has of course been repeated and taught by other prophets and apostles after Joseph Smith. While it isn’t found in the Standard Works, I don’t think we are a Standard Works-only Church, as we also accept the inspired words of the prophets and apostles in General Conference, for example (this new video inviting people to watch the upcoming General Conference implies as much). So, it certainly is difficult to discount such statements as “opinion” or “not in the Standard Works”, etc.

 

[LivingWaters7]

An interesting question to think about: Were the twelve apostles called apostles before they had priesthood authority? If they were, then this suggests that the term “apostle” does not necessarily indicate priesthood authority.

Interesting indeed. Could you provide the relevant scriptures?

The Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote a good response to Bickmore’s work that can be read here:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/03/dialogue-with-mormon-apologist-on.html

Yes, I still need to read that! So much to read…

Can you think of any Old or New Testament prophets that fit the LDS church’s view of a prophet? Further, if no further public revelation is necessary, why would a prophet for the masses be necessary?

Well, if I remember correctly, prophets in the OT and NT were not given prophetic authority and power by another man through laying on of hands. I think that LDS emphasize that prophets call people to repentance and teach the Gospel (the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says the word comes from Greek prophetes, which means inspired teacher). But if that’s all prophets do, then every church in Christianity has prophets, and it wasn’t lost. LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay says this about this issue-“Modern prophets and apostles are like the prophets and apostles of ancient times: they were called by God, ordained and authorized by God, given the power to teach inspired messages from Christ, and appointed to lead the Church of Christ.” But were ancient prophets ordained prophets?

It is interesting that all of the extravagant revelations, with Heavenly messengers, translations of ancient texts, etc are all but done now. If you read LDS forums like Mormon Dialogue and Discussion on that issue (yes, I’ve searched that forum for threads on prophets ), they say things like “what more do we need”, “we don’t really need more revealed”, etc, which all sound like things Catholics say (while allowing for private revelation and prophets and prophetesses in that sense)!

 

[Marie5890]

LDS believe that latter day revelation has been given that the Church would never again apostatize (D&C 138:44).

"We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy by keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following Church leaders, partaking of the sacrament, and constantly strengthening our testimonies through daily scripture study, prayer, and service."

LDS.org, Topics: Apostasy

If only such a promise was given the first time! Wait….

I love your sense of humor.

(bold is mine)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Unfortunately, such is not the case. There was no unified “Church” that existed during the period following the Ascension of Christ. The organization that Christ established through His apostles was scattered geographically and culturally. Independent communities struggled to hold the line on maintaining purity in their doctrine amidst social, religious and cultural pressure from within to compromise.

LW7, the Catholic view (universal church, not just Latin rite) see in the NT the same organization as today. In the NT, there are references to various churches, Revelations provides a good example, with an address to seven churches.

Ephesus (Metropolis of Ephesus)
Smyrna (Metropolis of Smyrna)
Pergamon (Metropolis of Pergamon)
Thyatira
Sardis (See of Sardis)
Philadelphia (Metropolis of Philadelphia)
and Laodicea, near Denizli (see Laodicean Church)

These were ecclesial territories, or what we call today diocese in the west and metropolis in the east. The NT calls them “churches”, and we still reference diocese and metropolis in the same manner today. As an example, the church in Salt Lake is an ecclesial territory. The person who has authority for this territory is the Bishop of Salt Lake.

The Apostles were commissioned to go forth and teach all nations and peoples. Thus, the various churches were established by the Apostles and they ordained their successors to lead them. So, to claim the existence of churches spread throughout the known world of the time is evidence of apostasy just isn’t logical. It would be like claiming the LDS church is in apostasy because it is has stakes spread across a wide geography.

Our diocese are in fact independent communities, but also in communion with each other. Both physically and in Christ, and most importantly in the Eucharist which we call Communion. Our Bishops are in communion with each other, leading the Church as they have always done. We, the laity, are in communion with them and to each other. Along with the Blessed Mary Virgin, all the Apostles, Angels and Saints, we constitute the communion of saints. The communion of saints is a central doctrine to Catholicism (east and west), and always has been. To deny the communion of the faithful is denying a reality, and ignoring what doesn’t support a “great apostasy” out of convenience.

 

[Marie5890]

LW7, the Catholic view (universal church, not just Latin rite) see in the NT the same organization as today. In the NT, there are references to various churches, Revelations provides a good example, with an address to seven churches.

Ephesus (Metropolis of Ephesus)
Smyrna (Metropolis of Smyrna)
Pergamon (Metropolis of Pergamon)
Thyatira
Sardis (See of Sardis)
Philadelphia (Metropolis of Philadelphia)
and Laodicea, near Denizli (see Laodicean Church)

These were ecclesial territories, or what we call today diocese in the west and metropolis in the east. The NT calls them “churches”, and we still reference diocese and metropolis in the same manner today. As an example, the church in Salt Lake is an ecclesial territory. The person who has authority for this territory is the Bishop of Salt Lake.

The Apostles were commissioned to go forth and teach all nations and peoples. Thus, the various churches were established by the Apostles and they ordained their successors to lead them. So, to claim the existence of churches spread throughout the known world of the time is evidence of apostasy just isn’t logical. It would be like claiming the LDS church is in apostasy because it is has stakes spread across a wide geography.

Our diocese are in fact independent communities, but also in communion with each other. Both physically and in Christ, and most importantly in the Eucharist which we call Communion. Our Bishops are in communion with each other, leading the Church as they have always done. We, the laity, are in communion with them and to each other. Along with the Blessed Mary Virgin, all the Apostles, Angels and Saints, we constitute the communion of saints. The communion of saints is a central doctrine to Catholicism (east and west), and always has been. To deny the communion of the faithful is denying a reality, and ignoring what doesn’t support a “great apostasy” out of convenience.

Rebecca, curious here. Do you know how the word “diocese” came into being ? Does it come from some Latin word?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, curious here. Do you know how the word “diocese” came into being ? Does it come from some Latin word?

From here:

diocese (n.)
from Late Latin diocesis “a governor’s jurisdiction,” later, “a bishop’s jurisdiction,” from Greek dioikesis “government, administration; province,” originally “economy, housekeeping,” from dioikein “control, govern, administer, manage a house,” from dia- “thoroughly” (see dia-) + oikos “house” (see villa).