Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[Marie5890]

LW,

Hope whatever Holy Week liturgies you have been able to participate in have been fruitful.

God Bless.

 

[TOmNossor]

I have read through the comments on this thread and will try to make a brief response.

First, I am hoping I can find Faith and Certitude at the local Newman Center. If I cannot, I might buy it oh my! I am interested in what reading Father Dubay’s thesis would say in response to my concern about the love of an impassible God.

“A group of Former Day Saints.” It is clear that Barry pulls from many places when he shows that many “uniquely” Mormon things have some precedent in the early church. There is much more about the Trinity to be found before Nicea than there is to be found concerning “Jesus and Satan being brother” (Lactantius in what appears to be a very speculative theological discussion). But, LDS have much more to say on the Trinity than they do on Jesus and Satan being brothers too. And try as they might, Catholics do not find a fully fleshed out doctrine of the Trinity for a VERY long time (not even at Nicea in 325).
If it was Barry’s purpose to show that a group of former day saints taught what LDS teach, then he failed. I think of his endeavors as showing that LDS thought existed within the melee of early Christianity by faithful folks who were likely consider sufficiently orthodox to sit next to you in the pews. If God “restored” the CoJCoLDS, then I must believe things like Ecumenical Councils focused on excluding the heretics are not God’s way. Barker’s picture of the efforts to exclude Arians from communion is IMO both accurate and damning.

I don’t think there is any informed Catholic that would claim that the role of the episcopate, including that of the Bishop of Rome specifically, has developed over time (perhaps similarly to how the Church structure of the LDS Church has evolved as well).

I am not sure if you meant to say what you said. If you did, then I would say that Father Sullivan and Robert Eno are informed Catholics who claim the role of episcopate and the role of the Bishop of Rome developed over time. If you did not, then I have definitely seen Catholics who have been unwilling to admit such developments as Nibley and Sullivan agree are in the data. I am sure I can find many places were Catholics (here) have claimed that 1st Clement is clearly a demonstration of papal exercise by Pope Clement. Sullivan uses 1st Clement to show that the Roman Church was likely not lead by a single Bishop in the 1st and early 2nd century.

Concerning Sullivan’s thought, I never intended to imply that Sullivan was supportive of a LDS interpretation of the data, merely that he deals with the data and argues for a development.

I do not have a lot to say about the real presence. I think it is a beautiful doctrine. It is not universally espoused by all writers in the early church, but it is close. The action least consistent with what LDS can (Brigham Young had some wonderful words on this IMO) believe about the Sacrament is the practice of Eucharistic Adoration. The early church like LDS would deliver the Eucharist to the sick, but to my understanding they didn’t worship it the same way Catholics do today. I do not have too much to say about all of this. I have been to Eucharistic Adoration (though not for 5+ years). I think it is wonderful devotional practice and I cannot fathom God condemns it even if the Real Presence is not actually maintained in the Eucharist (or created in the Eucharist if proper authority is necessary or ???).

Concerning the KFD and a God above God. Here is a discussion. newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/05/the-father-has-a-father/253/

Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

A group of Former Day Saints.” It is clear that Barry pulls from many places when he shows that many “uniquely” Mormon things have some precedent in the early church. There is much more about the Trinity to be found before Nicea than there is to be found concerning “Jesus and Satan being brother” (Lactantius in what appears to be a very speculative theological discussion). But, LDS have much more to say on the Trinity than they do on Jesus and Satan being brothers too. And try as they might, Catholics do not find a fully fleshed out doctrine of the Trinity for a VERY long time (not even at Nicea in 325).
If it was Barry’s purpose to show that a group of former day saints taught what LDS teach, then he failed. I think of his endeavors as showing that LDS thought existed within the melee of early Christianity by faithful folks who were likely consider sufficiently orthodox to sit next to you in the pews.

I think the relevant thing is that Bickmore set out to show a group of “Former Day Saints”, yet almost immediately states that we can’t point to a cohesive group. I found that amusing. And I think that all LDS apologists that set out to prove the restoration of a “primitive Church” end up showing that they aren’t showing that “Church”, but a diversity of opinions, texts, etc. So yes, I agree that he failed. I also think that many of the things that he claims as restoring are not actually LDS parallels, since they are taken out of there theological contexts. This happens many times with writings on theosis/deification, for example.

I also think this happens quite frequently with writings about the restoration of temple ordinances. Everything referenced has nothing to do with a “temple” as LDS understand it, and the various practices referenced, such as chrismation of various body parts in reference to Initiatory temple ordinances, are still practiced to this day, and don’t really approximate those LDS practices, beyond reference to specific body parts (noting that especially today, washing and anointing are done symbolically). See this for example (which of course continues the theme of reference to Gnostic practices and scriptures as evidences for LDS).

If God “restored” the CoJCoLDS, then I must believe things like Ecumenical Councils focused on excluding the heretics are not God’s way. Barker’s picture of the efforts to exclude Arians from communion is IMO both accurate and damning.

Well of course if God restored the CoJCoLDS, then the Ecumenical Councils had no authority. What do you mean by Barker’s picture? I have the book but it would be helpful if you pointed out specifically what you’re referring to.

I am not sure if you meant to say what you said. If you did, then I would say that Father Sullivan and Robert Eno are informed Catholics who claim the role of episcopate and the role of the Bishop of Rome developed over time. If you did not, then I have definitely seen Catholics who have been unwilling to admit such developments as Nibley and Sullivan agree are in the data. I am sure I can find many places were Catholics (here) have claimed that 1st Clement is clearly a demonstration of papal exercise by Pope Clement. Sullivan uses 1st Clement to show that the Roman Church was likely not lead by a single Bishop in the 1st and early 2nd century.

Concerning Sullivan’s thought, I never intended to imply that Sullivan was supportive of a LDS interpretation of the data, merely that he deals with the data and argues for a development.

Right, I meant to say that I don’t think that there is any informed Catholic that would deny that the role of the episcopate has developed over time. Your response to that doesn’t really engage that point, since I specifically mention informed Catholics. I’m sure you can find many Catholics that would argue that the episcopate has been the same since Jesus Christ established His Church, just like how I could find many LDS that like to claim that the same organization of the Church that we have today is found anciently, when that certainly isn’t the case (starting right from the top with the First Presidency in addition to a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

 

[LivingWaters7]

I do not have a lot to say about the real presence. I think it is a beautiful doctrine. It is not universally espoused by all writers in the early church, but it is close. The action least consistent with what LDS can (Brigham Young had some wonderful words on this IMO) believe about the Sacrament is the practice of Eucharistic Adoration. The early church like LDS would deliver the Eucharist to the sick, but to my understanding they didn’t worship it the same way Catholics do today. I do not have too much to say about all of this. I have been to Eucharistic Adoration (though not for 5+ years). I think it is wonderful devotional practice and I cannot fathom God condemns it even if the Real Presence is not actually maintained in the Eucharist (or created in the Eucharist if proper authority is necessary or ???).

Yes, I agree that the Real Presence is a beautiful doctrine. The more I read about Jewish practices related to the Passover and the Temple, specifically the Bread of the Presence, the more I find that it is completely consistent with the prefiguring found in Old Testament Jewish practices (it seems like the go-to book on this is Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist).

I don’t think there are any ECFs that denied the Real Presence, or taught a symbolic interpretation as LDS understand the Sacrament. I’d be interested in any you have found. As far as Eucharistic Adoration, well, that of course is a separate issue, and it does make sense within the Catholic understanding of God the Son really being present. That is a devotional practice that doesn’t need to be found practiced in the ancient Church (the Eastern Catholic churches, in full communion with Rome, don’t have Eucharistic Adoration, for example, at least not outside of the Divine Liturgy). Catholics also take the Eucharist to the sick as well (I see this all the time in the hospital where I work).

If there is no Real Presence, then I think it would be safe to call Eucharistic Adoration idolatry, wouldn’t it (I mean no offense to Catholics).

 

[LivingWaters7]

Concerning the KFD and a God above God. Here is a discussion. newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/05/the-father-has-a-father/253/

Ok, I’ll read it later. I’m familiar with Ostler’s arguments for why it doesn’t make sense to believe that there is a God above God the Father (I believe he talks about it in his Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods), and that it is consistent with the KFD and the standard works to believe that God the Father is the Most High God. It seems like that blog poster disagrees with Ostler’s rationalizations, and I’ve found that most LDS apologists that engage his work do as well. And, quite simply, LDS prophets and apostles besides Joseph Smith have talked about the infinite regress of Gods, that the Father progressed to Godhood, that we have to do the same as the Father did, etc. Quite frankly, such a notion is one that I have never entertained (I always put it up on the mental shelf), and it certainly is not consistent with anything taught in ancient Judaism or Christianity, and causes a host of issues (one that I just thought about was that this means that there are/were humans on a planet somewhere else, who presumably also had a Savior besides Jesus Christ, so Christ’s atonement isn’t universal for all everywhere throughout time).

 

[zaffiroborant]

I also think this happens quite frequently with writings about the restoration of temple ordinances. Everything referenced has nothing to do with a “temple” as LDS understand it, and the various practices referenced, such as chrismation of various body parts in reference to Initiatory temple ordinances, are still practiced to this day, and don’t really approximate those LDS practices, beyond reference to specific body parts (noting that especially today, washing and anointing are done symbolically). See this for example (which of course continues the theme of reference to Gnostic practices and scriptures as evidences for LDS).

.

Will LDS discuss this initiatory ordinance with non members?

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Tom for your openness to reading Fr Dubay’s book. I read it after my ‘tribulation’ in the Church, where…oh I don’t want to talk about it. But it brought forward a dissenting spirit by someone who could never be satisfied. I don’t imply that about you.

I read the book, and it helps one see the certainty of faith that we have in God.

I also think of God being loving at the River Jordan, and the Heavenly Father’s voice saying over Christ and the Holy Spirit, ‘This is My beloved Son of Whom I am well pleased.’

There are parts in ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’ by then Cardinal Ratzinger, who speaks of the offering of Christ coming to us through the ages in the Cosmos, all of creation anticipating Him. C. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict also is reaffirming the need for the liturgy to truly be present to people today.

The liturgy, the Mass, is the encounter point, the place where we come before the altar, and Christ witnesses to us from the throne from heaven, the place where we are divinized.

I read somewhere that the Mass, the Daily Sacrifice is what connects all the parts of the Word of God and brings it all into the concrete, incarnated into this world, God, present among us. That is the loving presence of God.

JPII says the closest God could come to fallen humanity is by becoming one of us in Christ, True Man.

If I could think of others…with your broadness of thought, yes, I would look at the understanding of Christ that is of the Cosmos, always there, in Spirit, and then coming to the meeting point between man and God…the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I love the great feast of the Incarnation, March 25, this past week.

There is alot to think about in regards to the Incarnation.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Will LDS discuss this initiatory ordinance with non members?

Generally no. At least not specifics. What LDS apologists will do is present a similar practice found anciently, and allow those familiar with both to draw their own conclusions. A popular example of this can be found here-Temple Study-Cyril of Jerusalem on Washings and Anointings . Barry Bickmore also references Cyril of Jerusalem in his book, as do many other LDS, as does Tvedtnes in the article I linked to in my post to Tom.

What I think most LDS would be comfortable with saying is that the Initiatory, also known as the Washing and Anointing ordinances, is done preparatory to the Endowment (i.e., you are washed and anointed before you participate in the Endowment). It is done symbolically (meaning, while LDS apologists will point out ancient Chrismation ceremonies that involved physically anointing various body parts, the LDS washing and anointing does not involve that specifically (at least, not today), though reference is made to them). Various blessings are pronounced upon you, blessings for now, as well as for eternity. After this, you are authorized to wear the Garments, and receive a New Name.

Most LDS don’t really do proxy Initiatories, for whatever reason. Most will do Endowment sessions. I’ve done proxy Initiatories once. I find it a beautiful ordinance, and one that clearly does have parallels to Catholic/Orthodox practices (I think I remember someone wondering if Joseph Smith had experience with perhaps a Methodist practice similar to this), and I believe was introduced prior to his introduction to Masonry (and I don’t believe there is a Masonic parallel ritual). I also find the reference to Exodus 40:12-13 within the ordinance itself interesting, as I think it helps LDS think that what they are doing in temples today was done anciently (which is essentially what is said in the introduction to the Initiatory):

Exodus 40:12-13

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

 

[EdmundPaul]

Thanks for the quotes. I think you misunderstood me though. When I said, as quoted by you “There are books and articles with references to things like “the Ancient Church”, the “Early Christian Church”, etc., yet I don’t see such an organization existing.”, I was referring to LDS apologetic works that reference restoring “the Ancient Church” or “the Early Christian Church”, yet, I don’t see such an organization, a unified, cohesive Church, that has those unique LDS beliefs and practices that are being claimed to be restored. Instead, I see LDS authors pulling here a little, there a little, sometimes out of context from the understanding of the individual being quoted. I do agree with you that it is clear that Christ established a Church, and that ancient history does point to an organized Church.

For an example of what I’m talking about, see this article:

Mormonism in the Early Jewish Christian Milieu by Barry Bickmore. The intro to the article touches on the exact issue that I have with LDS apologetics, and to which I have yet to receive a coherent LDS response to (hoping Tom or any other LDS poster would respond):

"Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid recently posed a challenging question for Latter-day Saints. That is, if Mormonism is essentially a “restoration” of primitive Christianity, where can we find historical evidence for some ancient Christian group that “was identical to the Mormon Church of today”? He goes on, “We have records of many controversies that raged in the early days of the ChurchÖ, and there just is no evidence-none at all-that Mormonism existed prior to the 1830s.”1 Whether Mr. Madrid is adequately informed about LDS claims and the state of the evidence concerning them, is beside the point. If Latter-day Saints want to make a rigorous historical case for our faith, we need to demonstrate at least some probability that a group of “Former-day Saints” really existed. What evidence for such a group should we expect to find, and what evidence is there? In this paper I attempt to answer these questions, at least in part, and show a high probability for the proposition that a group of “Former-day Saints” existed within the early Jewish Christian milieu."

The funny thing is, his paper doesn’t show a “group of ‘Former-day Saints’” at all, And I think he realizes that there is no actual evidence for this, as he can only show "a high probability.

Anyway, I’m definitely curious to see how LDS that employ these apologetics view this. I know that I used to reference material like this to show that Joseph Smith didn’t just make stuff up, but that unique LDS beliefs are found anciently.

my father would have said “There is nothing new under the sun”
Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

[zaffiroborant]

Generally no. At least not specifics. What LDS apologists will do is present a similar practice found anciently, and allow those familiar with both to draw their own conclusions. A popular example of this can be found here-Temple Study-Cyril of Jerusalem on Washings and Anointings . Barry Bickmore also references Cyril of Jerusalem in his book, as do many other LDS, as does Tvedtnes in the article I linked to in my post to Tom.

What I think most LDS would be comfortable with saying is that the Initiatory, also known as the Washing and Anointing ordinances, is done preparatory to the Endowment (i.e., you are washed and anointed before you participate in the Endowment). It is done symbolically (meaning, while LDS apologists will point out ancient Chrismation ceremonies that involved physically anointing various body parts, the LDS washing and anointing does not involve that specifically (at least, not today), though reference is made to them). Various blessings are pronounced upon you, blessings for now, as well as for eternity. After this, you are authorized to wear the Garments, and receive a New Name.

Most LDS don’t really do proxy Initiatories, for whatever reason. Most will do Endowment sessions. I’ve done proxy Initiatories once. I find it a beautiful ordinance, and one that clearly does have parallels to Catholic/Orthodox practices (I think I remember someone wondering if Joseph Smith had experience with perhaps a Methodist practice similar to this), and I believe was introduced prior to his introduction to Masonry (and I don’t believe there is a Masonic parallel ritual). I also find the reference to Exodus 40:12-13 within the ordinance itself interesting, as I think it helps LDS think that what they are doing in temples today was done anciently (which is essentially what is said in the introduction to the Initiatory):

Exodus 40:12-13

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

When did you do the initiatories, because I find the pre-2005 method horrifying and I can say I know a number of women who would feel the same in light of shared experience. Not to mention most folks I know would find the pre-2005 method shocking, it’s just not what you do in church.
As to the similarities with current temple activities and ancient ones as long as LDS are unwilling to discuss them they carry as much weight as a priest who says “I know who killed Kennedy and where Hoffa’s body is, I heard it in confession but I can’t really say because, well you know the seal of the confessional and all”.

 

[LivingWaters7]

When did you do the initiatories, because I find the pre-2005 method horrifying and I can say I know a number of women who would feel the same in light of shared experience. Not to mention most folks I know would find the pre-2005 method shocking, it’s just not what you do in church.
As to the similarities with current temple activities and ancient ones as long as LDS are unwilling to discuss them they carry as much weight as a priest who says “I know who killed Kennedy and where Hoffa’s body is, I heard it in confession but I can’t really say because, well you know the seal of the confessional and all”.

I was endowed after 2005, however I am aware of the changes in the washing and anointing ordinance (I alluded to that when I said “while LDS apologists will point out ancient Chrismation ceremonies that involved physically anointing various body parts, the LDS washing and anointing does not involve that specifically (at least, not today)”).

If I may offer my opinion: the way the Initiatory was performed prior to 2005 is not too shocking to me. I can certainly understand those that were disturbed and shocked by it, especially when we look at these things with our 21st century eyes. Now, I’m certainly not commenting on whether the LDS temple rituals are of ancient origin (I think it’s clear that much of it finds origin within Freemasonry, as many LDS apologists freely admit). However, I think that many times our modern understandings and viewpoints can color how we look at religious practices that many times may not reflect modern notions. This also reminds me of how, if I remember correctly, baptisms in early Christianity were performed nude, and therefore deaconesses were tasked with assisting female converts with baptism, and even performed various sacramental functions, such as specific anointings (in addition to those performed by the bishop and/or priest). Because anointing involved the whole body, a deacon would anoint the forehead of the female convert, while a deaconess would complete the anointing, so that women would not be seen by men. A deaconess would also accompany the woman out of the waters (this all comes from Baptism in the Early Church-History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson.). The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Deaconesses also has some interesting info on this function:

"There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind. The universal prevalence of baptism by immersion and the anointing of the whole body which preceded it, rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function. "

Somewhat similarly, in Mormon temples, women perform the Washing and Anointing ordinances presumably including those parts that were uncomfortable and/or shocking pre-2005.

Why do I bring all of this up? Well, I just wanted to point out that there certainly is a similarity between the Mormon practice that various women apparently found shocking (the anointing of body parts, and presumably specific areas that are or are nearby “private” areas), and baptismal anointings performed anciently, hence why deaconesses were apparently charged with performing the anointings on the body, while the male priests and bishops anointed the head/forehead, specifically because of modesty. Such practices, of nude baptisms and anointings over the body by another individual, presumably while nude (I haven’t heavily researched this), are certainly alarming and/or shocking to our modern minds, and, I personally am not alarmed by either situation, but that’s just me. I assume part of the reason why the ordinance is now a symbolic washing and anointing (still involving water and oil, but not as was done before. I’m trying not to be too explicit so that I don’t drive away any other LDS that feel like participating in the thread) is because of this issue of modesty and comfort (and presumably why baptisms are no longer practiced in the nude). And of course, this is not a commentary on the validity of the Mormon practice (nor do I find that because the ancient Christians anointed various body parts, this is proof of LDS practices, as some apologists would claim).

 

[kimg901]

Its funny that the practices of washing and anointing was brought up. As I posted on another thread about my god-daughter being a mormon (She is 17 years older than I, sounds funny huh? ) and going through their practices she said now that she looks back on it it was very weird and uncomfortable. The areas close to private parts and 2 private parts themselves were washed, not by woman, but by older men. This is not the only similar story told to me by a mormon woman.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Its funny that the practices of washing and anointing was brought up. As I posted on another thread about my god-daughter being a mormon (She is 17 years older than I, sounds funny huh? ) and going through their practices she said now that she looks back on it it was very weird and uncomfortable. The areas close to private parts and 2 private parts themselves were washed, not by woman, but by older men. This is not the only similar story told to me by a mormon woman.

That is interesting. Looking through various ex-Mormon sites with individuals recounting their washing and anointing experience pre-2005, as well as various historical accounts (apparently there were bathtubs in the SLC temple), including some from the Kirtland temple days, it seems that the washing and anointing has always been done by men for men and by women for women). I haven’t found any accounts or histories documenting or recounting a change from men washing and anointing women, to women doing the ordinance for women. Women also similarly administer to women later on in the Endowment.

Anyway, to try and tie this all back to the OP, I think it’s clear that in ancient Christianity, a washing and anointing was certainly practiced. Anointing of various body parts was done, and still is done. The difference is, there doesn’t seem to have been a separate “washing and anointing ordinance”, part of an initiation, as done in LDS temples, but that this was part of the sacrament of Baptism, as well as Chrismation (Confirmation).

 

[LivingWaters7]

Oh also, just thought of this:

It is very interesting to me that various ordinances in the LDS faith have been changed in form. For example, as we have seen, the Washing and Anointing ordinance used to be an actual washing (there were bathtubs in the Salt Lake Temple) and anointing of various body parts. Now, the washing and anointing are only symbolic. This is a very big change in an ordinance!

Why do I bring this up? Well, LDS frequently state that one of the issues related to the Great Apostasy was the changing of ordinances, such as baptism. They claim that baptism was performed by immersion, then that was changed to allow for pouring and/or sprinkling to be valid forms of baptism. The original was changed, therefore this is a sign of apostasy. But then, we have exactly the same thing with the Initiatory temple ordinance! The form is changed to a large degree.

Now, a LDS response would be that the Initiatory change in the ordinance was a result of revelation (though of course no revelation is given, it is just assumed). But, why couldn’t the early evolution in the form of baptism to also allow for pouring in addition to immersion have been the result of guidance from God? :juggle:

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW7, LDS apologists can take any ancient belief and tell you how Mormonism restored something from it. I don’t see that as evidence for anything.

Christian, Gnostic, Egyptian, Coptic, Mayan, Aztec, Jewish, etc.

I agree. Even Hopi Indians apparently!

 

[kimg901]

That is interesting. Looking through various ex-Mormon sites with individuals recounting their washing and anointing experience pre-2005, as well as various historical accounts (apparently there were bathtubs in the SLC temple), including some from the Kirtland temple days, it seems that the washing and anointing has always been done by men for men and by women for women). I haven’t found any accounts or histories documenting or recounting a change from men washing and anointing women, to women doing the ordinance for women. Women also similarly administer to women later on in the Endowment.

Anyway, to try and tie this all back to the OP, I think it’s clear that in ancient Christianity, a washing and anointing was certainly practiced. Anointing of various body parts was done, and still is done. The difference is, there doesn’t seem to have been a separate “washing and anointing ordinance”, part of an initiation, as done in LDS temples, but that this was part of the sacrament of Baptism, as well as Chrismation (Confirmation).

I truly believe my god-daughter but she may hold some grievence against the church, I dont know. My other friend (friends wife) I kind of believe it, but of course I wasnt there so…

 

[KathleenGee]

In early Christianity, the Church had use of the women deaconesses who cared for the women being prepared for the rite of initiation.

They would be led out in the night, with candlelight, and not only would they be baptized but also anointed totally with balsam oil, the fragrance remaining with them for several days. In these cases, the Christian women assisted in these more elaborate rites.

Today such is not practiced, and people can chose to be baptized either by anointing or by immersion but fully clothed before the assembly.

 

[lynnettejane]

Oh also, just thought of this:

It is very interesting to me that various ordinances in the LDS faith have been changed in form. For example, as we have seen, the Washing and Anointing ordinance used to be an actual washing (there were bathtubs in the Salt Lake Temple) and anointing of various body parts. Now, the washing and anointing are only symbolic. This is a very big change in an ordinance!

Why do I bring this up? Well, LDS frequently state that one of the issues related to the Great Apostasy was the changing of ordinances, such as baptism. They claim that baptism was performed by immersion, then that was changed to allow for pouring and/or sprinkling to be valid forms of baptism. The original was changed, therefore this is a sign of apostasy. But then, we have exactly the same thing with the Initiatory temple ordinance! The form is changed to a large degree.

Now, a LDS response would be that the Initiatory change in the ordinance was a result of revelation (though of course no revelation is given, it is just assumed). But, why couldn’t the early evolution in the form of baptism to also allow for pouring in addition to immersion have been the result of guidance from God? :juggle:

Interesting paper by Curtis R Porritt, the Apostate LDS Church in which he discusses many of the changes from the original to the present LDS church. He is mormon and seems to believe in the church but is clearly of the belief that it is in an appostate state. It can be found by googling his name or at ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2010/29/the-apostasy-of-the-lds-church/
He isn’t a church apologist I don’t think, but someone who does see error although he does try to justify why God should change things. Sort of an insiders view, it makes you wonder how many more LDS feel the same. One conclusion these things can lead one to though is, that the real LDS are the fundamentalists.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not have a lot to say about the real presence. I think it is a beautiful doctrine. It is not universally espoused by all writers in the early church, but it is close.

I don’t think there are any ECFs that denied the Real Presence, or taught a symbolic interpretation as LDS understand the Sacrament. I’d be interested in any you have found.

Excellent point. It seems he is arguing from silence.

 

[TOmNossor]

Well of course if God restored the CoJCoLDS, then the Ecumenical Councils had no authority. What do you mean by Barker’s picture? I have the book but it would be helpful if you pointed out specifically what you’re referring to.

I read Barkers books as the course of study for 1952-1954 in the church manuals (and no, I am not that old). I have friend who read both and suggested they were quite similar. Nicea, I specifically remember, and the other councils were about excluding the heretics from communion. Proposals of Bible passed passages were satisfactory to some of the folks that the “orthodox” knew were heretics and this resulted in their rejection. I do not believe the CoJCoLDS has perfectly followed Joseph Smith’s directions on this, but I do believe there is significantly less of this in the CoJCoLDS. I also believe that sustaining leaders who receive revelation to guide the church is a more solid foundation than the scholastic arguments and politicking that we see at Nicea. Certainly there have been times when folks thought the leaders didn’t received the revelation they claimed (ending Polygamy or ending the Priesthood ban), but I see little reason to reject the idea of inspired leadership in those decisions.

Right, I meant to say that I don’t think that there is any informed Catholic that would deny that the role of the episcopate has developed over time. Your response to that doesn’t really engage that point, since I specifically mention informed

Catholics. I’m sure you can find many Catholics that would argue that the episcopate has been the same since Jesus Christ established His Church, just like how I could find many LDS that like to claim that the same organization of the Church that we have today is found anciently, when that certainly isn’t the case (starting right from the top with the First Presidency in addition to a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).
Well, just to add a little more to your thought process. Newman’s theory was met with great resistance. Many INFORMED Catholics thought it quite appalling. Where I Catholic I would need to decide if the SSPX apologetics against development and Vatican II are solid pre-Newman Cathoilc teaching. Or the Orestas Bronson responses to Newman (supposedly at the request of Catholic Bishops) were more solidly Catholic than Newman. I am convinced Newman is absolutely necessary, but is his development theory sufficiently Catholic to be the salvation of Tradition in light of changing teachings evidence in history?

You made some comments on deification and on God always being God. As you know I embrace Ostler’s thought on God always being God, but I also think Catholic deification is not faithful to the witness of the ECF.
No pre-Athanasius ECF expressed any limitation on the FINAL state of deified man. Combine this with the less solid, but I believe well argued (see non-LDS scholar Gerard May’s book I expect you have heard of) view that Creation ex Nihilo was a post Biblical doctrine, I think the ECF support LDS thoughts on deification better than modern Catholic thoughts. I very much recommend Deification and Grace by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating. He argues for a limited deification only be making the ECF twist words they could never belief would be properly understood.

I believe that Christ was subordinate to God the Father pre-Nicea (and post Nicea for a while). As the church came to realize Christ’s divinity they stripped the teaching that Christ became what we are so we could become what He is of its real meaning. Christ became homoousian with mankind completely and totally. But we are not really to become gods?

cont…