The Great Apostasy Debate

[oat_soda]

what’s interesting is that if it wasn’t for joe smith, we would never know that a great apostasy happened and that jews sailed across the pacific in 600 b.c. and populated the americas. we also wouldn’t know that the ancestors of Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo were these same jews. and most importantly, we would never know that the “white” inhabitants of the new world were all destroyed in a great battle.

How could we ever know that a small band of migrating Israelites populated the Americas with millions of people, generated an iron-age culture, built many buildings, and fought massive wars with thousands of casualties.

we owe a great deal of thanks to dear joe smith for giving us his testimony which we could never know based on our scientific, archelogical, linguistic, and historical evidence.

 

[TOmNossor]

BYU-BOY:
A question for you TOm. Much of the debate is centered around “The Fathers”. Didn’t the Apostasy begin when there was no Quorum of the Apostles? Without Apostles to ordain new apostles the priesthood authority was lost, right? So these “Fathers” that are being referenced are really the Fathers of the Catholic church and not early Christianity.

Thank you for the nice words.

I think we should acknowledge that the apostles ordained Bishops. It seems to me that those Bishops who sat at the feet of the apostles would be unlikely to walk away from the teachings of the apostles and intentionally pervert the gospel. I see nothing that indicates Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp must be said to support Catholic ideas in opposition to LDS ideas. Some of the thing they (Ignatius and Polycarp) wrote about do not fit well for a LDS or a Catholic like they both seemed overly eager to die for their faith (I link this to the apostasy). I think many passages from Clement and Ignatius indicate that they had no concept of the primacy of Rome, and nothing indicates that there is anything more than great respect for the Roman Church. And I think that some things while not unexplainable point to Catholic ideas, like the real presence in Ignatius’ writings (although his words are no stronger than John 6).

My idea is that local authority was validly passed for a period of time (until Baptism without authority resulted in everyone either being baptized by a heretic or ordained by someone baptized by a heritic), but global controversies were not solvable with this local authority.

I do not think there is enough similarities with the modern Catholic Church or the modern LDS church in the writings of the ECF to definitively assign them to either church. Most of the earliest fathers wrote things that the modern Catholic would call heretical (and would be little problem within the CoJCoLDS). Barry Bickmore postulates and shows with some success, that over time greater and greater departure form LDS beliefs can be seen in the Early Church. The closer to the apostles you go the more LDS beliefs you can find and you can trace in many instances when these beliefs are declared heretical. In my mind Creation ex Nihilo was a very early change (Clement of Rome seemed to support it and Justin Martyr explicitly supported it) and from this grew a number of controversies and a number of other departures from the way LDS see apostolic tradition.

If you would like to see what I think happened in one long post here is an old version of it (post #66). I have some additional ideas and back off of at least one thing, but this is fairly close to what I still think on this matter.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm63.showMessageRange?topicID=370.topic&start=41&stop=55

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2004_06_15_Reynolds.htm

This talk addresses a number of misperceptions of past LDS apologists and introduces that idea that LDS ordinances as two-way covenants are integral to the continuation of the church. That Catholic sacraments as opportunities to receive grace do not live up to the covenantal nature necessary. (After Vatican II there are strong parallels for 6 and a solid parallel for the 7th of the 7 Catholic sacraments). I am not sure how I feel about suggesting Catholic sacraments are one-way, but it is interesting.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

In regards to this:
http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2004_06_15_Reynolds.htm

In it this quote:

“Studying the apostasy can help us to understand and appreciate the Restoration even more”

An essay like this could be written on America and come to the same conclusion. Hitler could write the same letter concerning the Jews. I could write this letter about Hitler. I could write about each member of my own family in the same light. I could write about myself in this light as well. It goes from this could have happened to it did happen as if to wash the brain of an eight year old child. I am sure that you Tom could write better with the learning that you have been engaged in and have embraced. I would not hold on to tight.

This transition is very clear in this writing when you find a peaceful place to read it and stay in the light of the Spirit. What it does is point out illusive weeds without acknowledging the good grain. It is a typical form of writing. This kind of writing is not of Christ. This kind of writings can start wars, it can break up families, and separate those who have both weeds and good grain within each one of themselves. Although it has been toned down compared to earlier writings against the Apostolic Church. It has been toned down for a reason. It works a bit better if it is a bit dimmer in its hatred. But even in the shadows, the light will still penetrate.

This writing assumes that there was a pure time in Christianity. When for just a short time is was perfectly LDS. Where people were righteous and life was blissful before the LDS ordinances were removed It ignores the fact that life for the Apostles was never this way in any shape or form, except the peace they found in Our Savior through forgiving others, even themselves in all that they did, in all that they failed to do. .

This writing gives no specifics about this Apostasy and then very quickly leads one to another book, another so called testimony of Christ where the truth be told…

Here is some truth Tom

“Studying the apostasy can help us to understand and appreciate the Restoration even more”

The Apostasy would be us, all of us in this life. The Apostles were dealing with such a people “us - them”. The restoration is Christ and what He has done for us. It happed once for all in Him. He is the restoration of all things, not a Church, not a more pure kind of people as there is none. It is Christ that saves us within Him, His Church, His Cross.

You need to re-read this “Why Suffering”
Excerpt
"The revelation of Jesus is that God is found in both the so-called good and the so-called bad. Most Christians worldwide haven’t gotten this message yet. It is too shocking. It is too disappointing. In the Incarnation, in the entering of human flesh, Jesus reveals that God is found in the actual–not in the idealized, the “pure, good, worthy.”

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Why_suffering.html

 

[Tmaque]

BYU-BOY:

The common LDS understanding of the Apostasy in regards to RC and all other Christian denominations is that the authority has been lost. It makes it hard for us to believe that the RC hasn’t apostistized when there are no prophets and apostles found within the modern RC structure. I would be open to an explanation of why these obvious biblical references are not found today. Thanks.

BYU-BOY

Hi BYU, welcome back! I have a question.

Do you believe the restored church(LDS) was setup exactly the way the original Christian church was, or the way the original Christian church would have been had it not apostasized? I’m asking because as a modern Mormon, you certainly must think it’s ok for doctrines on faith and morals, and ordinances(sacraments to you Catholics) to significantly evolve and/or change as it has done in Mormonism over the last 174 years.

So, to be clear, do you believe that the restored church looked like the ancient (infant) church and evolved into what it is today? Or, do you believe the restored church looked like what the ancient Christian church would have looked like when it matured(adult), and simply continued to evolve into it’s present form?

 

[Tmaque]

In another respones to this:

byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2004_06_15_Reynolds.htm

Read this quote:

“He (Hugh Nibley)located the apostasy in the later decades of the very first century, from which almost no writings survived. Using a stage metaphor, he calls it the years “when the lights went out.” And when they came back on at the end of the century, he said, the furniture had all been moved around. But because there are no surviving documents from this period, we don’t know how that happened.”

So because there are no writings from the time period(not actually true), no one can know what happened but we can’t trust the people that were actually there??? The same people that the apostles themselves had hand-picked and ordained?? That makes no sense to me.

Believe it or not, It did make sense to me at one time but I can see the truth now.
The entire restoration is circular logic. Joseph Smith had a vision from God restoring the Church so there must have been an apostasy. What evidence is there of an apostasy? Well after “the lights went out”, we find “the furniture had all been moved around” and it didn’t match Joseph’s Smiths room decorating layout. So this proves there really was an apostasy. And how do we know Joseph Smiths room layout was correct, well it must be correct 'cause he had a vision from God! Wow! Now it all makes sense.

Mormons today believe that it is impossible that God will ever let the LDS church go astray. That’s interesting isn’t it? The church Jesus Christ set up and promised would last forever, went into apostasy within 100 years but Joseph Smith’s church, why THAT church is incorruptible, perfect, and will never die. Doctrines and ordinances change like traffic lights but it’s God that is doing the changing, it’s God’s divine plan!

 

[TOmNossor]

repeat

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:
“Studying the apostasy can help us to understand and appreciate the Restoration even more”

An essay like this could be written on America and come to the same conclusion. Hitler could write the same letter concerning the Jews. I could write this letter about Hitler. I could write about each member of my own family in the same light. I could write about myself in this light as well. It goes from this could have happened to it did happen as if to wash the brain of an eight year old child. I am sure that you Tom could write better with the learning that you have been engaged in and have embraced. I would not hold on to tight.

Catholic-RCIA,

In your mind you have an opinion concerning Joseph Smith. Your opinion is derived upon various aspects of his life that you believe to be both true and indicative of him not being a prophet. I think it is wonderful that you do not always feel the need to highlight negative things about the early CoJCoLDS (although you do do this on occasion).

The fact of the matter is that there are many wonderful things about the life of Joseph Smith. There are many good Christian folks who saw in this man Christ’s love. The BOM has many wonderful truths. Many of these are not disputed by Christians and are actually clear presentations of Christian truths many search for many years to find. That you do not need to demonstrate the flaws of Joseph Smith is true, but it does not stop you from occasionally walking this path. That the CoJCoLDS has a certain burden to show an apostasy is however true.

When I look to the history of the Catholic Church is see the warts, but I consciously do not concern myself with them. I think if you did read Noel Reynolds article you will find that he has called LDS away from some of the apologetics that focus upon the “great and abominableness.” Unless you are a mind reader I do not think you can necessarily demand that the author is trying to suggest that as LDS study history they will see the warts and know that the Catholic Church is not God’s church.

What I personally concern myself with are questions like the following.

Did early church and the first popes have any idea that the Bishop or Rome was at the head of the church?

Did the authority of the pope develop into an authority that is/was identical to the authority of Peter? If not, did anyone explain what was going on here or only continue to point to Peter as the foundation neglecting to mention the developing authority was different? And if the Catholic Church is true why does God lead his church in a fundamentally different way than he did during the Old and New Testament (the absence of supernatural public revelation).

Was there a time when authoritative Baptism was the rule and later this was abolished? Could this lead to the loss of even the lesser authority?

Do LDS doctrines find a place in the Early Church? Can we see instances where the church developed away from truths that Joseph Smith restored? Is there any good explanation for Joseph Smith’s ability to restore these doctrines?

Unlike what most non-LDS Christians think was the modern understanding of the Bible something that was readily arrived at or was it heavily contested? (A side note that I continue to suggest is that much of the controversy developed from the adoption of creation ex nihilo. Does this explain much of the heavily contested doctrines of the early church?)

What about Catholic Christians; does history witness a proto-Catholic Church as most Catholics think? (Remember Oat Soda’s Clement test). Would Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp recognize today’s Catholic Church as the faithful development of the church they belonged too?

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Catholic-RCIA,

In your mind you have an opinion concerning Joseph Smith. Your opinion is derived upon various aspects of his life that you believe to be both true and indicative of him not being a prophet. I think it is wonderful that you do not always feel the need to highlight negative things about the early CoJCoLDS (although you do do this on occasion).

The fact of the matter is that there are many wonderful things about the life of Joseph Smith. There are many good Christian folks who saw in this man Christ’s love. The BOM has many wonderful truths. Many of these are not disputed by Christians and are actually clear presentations of Christian truths many search for many years to find. That you do not need to demonstrate the flaws of Joseph Smith is true, but it does not stop you from occasionally walking this path. That the CoJCoLDS has a certain burden to show an apostasy is however true.

When I look to the history of the Catholic Church is see the warts, but I consciously do not concern myself with them. I think if you did read Noel Reynolds article you will find that he has called LDS away from some of the apologetics that focus upon the “great and abominableness.” Unless you are a mind reader I do not think you can necessarily demand that the author is trying to suggest that as LDS study history they will see the warts and know that the Catholic Church is not God’s church.

What I personally concern myself with are questions like the following.

Did early church and the first popes have any idea that the Bishop or Rome was at the head of the church?

Did the authority of the pope develop into an authority that is/was identical to the authority of Peter? If not, did anyone explain what was going on here or only continue to point to Peter as the foundation neglecting to mention the developing authority was different? And if the Catholic Church is true why does God lead his church in a fundamentally different way than he did during the Old and New Testament (the absence of supernatural public revelation).

Was there a time when authoritative Baptism was the rule and later this was abolished? Could this lead to the loss of even the lesser authority?

Do LDS doctrines find a place in the Early Church? Can we see instances where the church developed away from truths that Joseph Smith restored? Is there any good explanation for Joseph Smith’s ability to restore these doctrines?

Unlike what most non-LDS Christians think was the modern understanding of the Bible something that was readily arrived at or was it heavily contested? (A side note that I continue to suggest is that much of the controversy developed from the adoption of creation ex nihilo. Does this explain much of the heavily contested doctrines of the early church?)

What about Catholic Christians; does history witness a proto-Catholic Church as most Catholics think? (Remember Oat Soda’s Clement test). Would Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp recognize today’s Catholic Church as the faithful development of the church they belonged too?

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Towards understanding what Noel Reynolds meant let’s turn to his essay.

The scriptures of the Restoration make it clear that ordinances such as baptism, priesthood ordination, and marriage are all based in covenants between men and God. The person receiving the ordinance has made certain covenants with God, and God in turn makes promises to the person. The ordinance is a public witness of these covenants. What we have not previously realized is that when the second-century Christians redefined these ordinances as sacraments

, they simultaneously abandoned their covenantal understanding of the ordinances. There were significant efforts in the Protestant Reformation to restore those covenantal understandings to the ordinances, but these all failed. Reinvented as sacraments, the ordinances were understood in traditional Christianity as the means by which God could bless a person with an infusion of divine grace, through the mediation of the priest. Once the covenantal understanding was lost, it made sense to bless everyone possible. So why would we deny baptism to infants if the recipient no longer was expected to be making a meaningful covenant in connection with that ordinance? A similar analysis applies to Christian sacraments such as last rites. This helps us understand what Nephi meant when he explained the apostasy by saying that “many of the covenants of the Lord have they taken away” (1 Nephi 13:26).

In the absence of mind reading ability, I think he probably meant the above truth when he said, “Studying the apostasy can help us to understand and appreciate the Restoration even more”

From your post I inferred (perhaps it is I who am a poor mind reader, but when one mentions Hitler…) that you were suggesting that the above statement had to do with the fact that all histories have there warts. If I am correct in understanding you, why do you think Noel Reynolds meant this and not what I think he suggested he saw?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“He (Hugh Nibley)located the apostasy in the later decades of the very first century, from which almost no writings survived. Using a stage metaphor, he calls it the years “when the lights went out.” And when they came back on at the end of the century, he said, the furniture had all been moved around. But because there are no surviving documents from this period, we don’t know how that happened.”

So because there are no writings from the time period(not actually true), no one can know what happened but we can’t trust the people that were actually there??? The same people that the apostles themselves had hand-picked and ordained?? That makes no sense to me.

I personally have not used the statement, “when the lights went out,” because it is very complex to show why this MIGHT make sense. From my memory I will outline some things. Hugh Nibley from a very young age has been able to read 6-8 ancient languages. He has studied extensively. In his plethora of writings he frames the early church, both before Christ and during Christ’s time in a very LDS way. To do this he draws from many of the same texts that Margaret Barker (a renowned Old Testament scholar) is now using to actually do a very similar thing. Nibley from this (and Margaret Barker too) frames the foundations of Christianity in a form of Judaism that is not evident in today’s Bible. They both also draw from Early Christian writings to some degree too. Some of the changes that entered the Christian and Jewish Churches entered during this time. One of these is my favorite Creation ex Nihilo.

Anyway, as I understand Nibley, he is suggesting that from his study it is clear that the New Testament describes a very LDS church. From this we see 2nd century folks introducing Creation ex Nihilo and other ideas.

Tmaque:

The entire restoration is circular logic. Joseph Smith had a vision from God restoring the Church so there must have been an apostasy. What evidence is there of an apostasy? Well after “the lights went out”, we find “the furniture had all been moved around” and it didn’t match Joseph’s Smiths room decorating layout. So this proves there really was an apostasy. And how do we know Joseph Smiths room layout was correct, well it must be correct 'cause he had a vision from God! Wow! Now it all makes sense.

If Nibley was really saying this, I think you would be somewhat correct it is rather circular. In a non-circular way we could say that Joseph Smith had a vision and we know this to be true. When we look for the apostasy in history we see this time when there is not much said. This exactly corresponds to the departure of the last Apostles. Emerging from this time is a church that does not look as LDS as we might like, but before this time there was little evidence of non-LDS-ness. This becomes a plausible time for the apostasy.

Our position is much stronger IMO than the above and I do not think the above is even Nibley’s point, but the above is not circular. If you really want to you can read what I put together on the other link I mentioned before Reynold’s essay.

Tmaque:

Mormons today believe that it is impossible that God will ever let the LDS church go astray. That’s interesting isn’t it? The church Jesus Christ set up and promised would last forever, went into apostasy within 100 years but Joseph Smith’s church, why THAT church is incorruptible, perfect, and will never die. Doctrines and ordinances change like traffic lights but it’s God that is doing the changing, it’s God’s divine plan!

I see huge development in the Catholic Church, but it is you who maintain this is all in accordance with tradition. At least development in the CoJCoLDS is in complete accord with the gospel as the majority of LDS understand it can be.

I can show again that Matthew 16:18 points to the restoration if you would like.

However, I for one do not think LDS can get complacent concerning our “last dispensation” belief. I believe if you re-read Noel Reynolds’ essay you can detect some caution that he extends to the current church less we begin to take our covenants lightly. Anyway, I try to stay close to God so that I might be in a position to not find myself separated from His church regardless of what path those around me walk.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

I thought I had retired from this thread, but now that I am waiting for some Coptic Christian responses here are some more words.

To demand that there is no such thing as Gnostic Christians is to speak from a conclusion not to develop a position. Gnosticism also developed over time. It did/does have roots in pre-Christian beliefs, but so did the Early Christian (orthodox) Church.
Tom, thank you for taking the time to review and respond to my comments.
Ok, I’ll give some substance. Lets look at a fundamental of religion and one reason that you as a Mormon would accept gnostic thinmking as Christian. How does man recieve revelation from God? Gnostics claim that ‘true’ gnosis is found within man and when man discovers himself he discovers God. Christ taught that man is lost and it’s impossible for him to find himself. Man must find God externally in order to see the image he was created in. Christ is the visible image of the Father. Mormon’s view revelation from God similar to gnostics in that what has already been made visible is corrupt in the Mormon mind and God is found within the human heart where God is fully revealing his Word for this modern age.
These two ways of seeing God and man in relationship are in direct opposition.

I do not understand what you are pointing to here. LDS are heretics according to Catholics. Most pre-Nicene Saints wrote words that would have them declared heretics in today’s Catholic Church

What I meant was if the Chruch then looked like the Mormon Church now the heretics then would be indistinguishable. My point being that the implications would become a labyrinth of change something like the butterfly effect.

**
**
I think there was local and universal authority in the early church, I just do not believe that the universal authority was extended past(or must past) the first century. Catholics and LDS agree the Bible speaks of a church with authority, we just do not agree on whether the Bishop of Rome still possesses that authority
Newman suggests that the authority developed. “Love dispenses with laws,” but as conflicts entered into the church the latent authority developed. I agree that the authority developed, I just disagree that it developed from a valid seed that was planted by the Apostles.

Charity, TOmThe understanding and application of authority developed. God’s authority is like Him Always was, is, always will be. That is the Truth about the Authority that Christ recieved from the Father and handed down to the Apostles. The Eternal Authority of the Father entered time and it’s not easily debated into obscurity on that foundation even if it is vague at some point in history or that the Church’s understanding and application of it developed.

Mormon theology has yet to really address the eternal nature of God. The Mormon cosmology has yet to dvelope the panoramic view that would include the ‘always was’ being of God. At least in my corner of the Universe it’s an unbeknownst to Mormons.

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

If Nibley was really saying this, I think you would be somewhat correct it is rather circular. In a non-circular way we could say that Joseph Smith had a vision and we know this to be true.

Tom this is confusing. circular in a non-circulat way?

When we look for the apostasy in history we see this time when there is not much said. This exactly corresponds to the departure of the last Apostles. Emerging from this time is a church that does not look as LDS as we might like, but before this time there was little evidence of non-LDS-ness. This becomes a plausible time for the apostasy.

Tom, this isn’t a discovery or a mystery, it’s the result of someone claiming that what they reveal is God’s word and as sacred as when the Apostles spoke. If there was a period of silence it would make sense. Hard act to follow.

**We say the Canon closed. The Church progressed into it’s next state of conscious awareness and could even be said to have gone through seperation anxieties just like an infant when their developement of consciousness progresses. Joseph Smith constructed an organization in imitation of the first stage of developement and now Mormons claim that The early Church was really Mormon. Easy to understand since Mormonism is about the same age now as the Church then. **

** Remember the gnostic notion that the Truth is corrupt as it is made visible in the physical world, is a necessary assumption in order to believe what Mormon’s believe.**

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

I can show again that Matthew 16:18 points to the restoration if you would like.

Read this first. Then give us your take:

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

 

[catholic-rcia]

Dear Tom

“the absence of supernatural public revelation”

I myself am a testimony that it is not absent. It is very much alive in my life. It is the revelation of my Christ, the restoration of me.

“Was there a time when authoritative Baptism was the rule and later this was abolished? Could this lead to the loss of even the lesser authority?”

I am the thief on the cross so I can answer this, I am Catholic. If a soldier lies dying on the battlefield and turns to Christ would he deny him a Baptism because a Priest is not near, nor water? Christ is Christ, he is who he is. He is my hope always.

“Is there any good explanation for Joseph Smith’s ability to restore these doctrines?”

Yes, Christ already did. He restores us from our fallen nature. Joseph Smith is me, I cannot restore what Christ restored already.

“Would Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp recognize today’s Catholic Church as the faithful development of the church they belonged too?”

Oh yes they would. Not only that, when I attend Mass they are there, they are me and I them. How do I know this? “Revelation.” We are a church of the living. The Mass extends to all without time or place. It is a daily Miracle. We are the body of Christ.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Studying the apostasy can help us to understand and appreciate the Restoration even more”

“In this you say, studying the fall of another can help us to understand and appreciate the fact that we did not fall as they —this does not work for this fallen sinners soul, no…

Studying my fallen nature, my own apostacy, original sin can help me appreciate the Cross of Christ even more, the restoration.

This is my Catholic Studies and it serves Christ well. He brings his lost sheep hope, he brings His lost sheep Home. I am more than happy to be upon His back. I am a sinner, he alone is my savior. I do not have to study anothers fall. No, what need would I have of that?

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

Tom, thank you for taking the time to review and respond to my comments.

Your welcome. Thank you for your comments.

Benadam:

I’ll give some substance. Lets look at a fundamental of religion and one reason that you as a Mormon would accept gnostic thinmking as Christian. How does man recieve revelation from God? Gnostics claim that ‘true’ gnosis is found within man and when man discovers himself he discovers God. Christ taught that man is lost and it’s impossible for him to find himself. Man must find God externally in order to see the image he was created in. Christ is the visible image of the Father. Mormon’s view revelation from God similar to gnostics in that what has already been made visible is corrupt in the Mormon mind and God is found within the human heart where God is fully revealing his Word for this modern age.

These two ways of seeing God and man in relationship are in direct opposition.

I believe that Gnostic beliefs developed farther away from the original teachings of the apostles than did what most Christians call orthodox beliefs.

I do not embrace demiurges and a number of things and I feel no need to do so.

All I did in this thread is point out that there are some parallels between some Gnostic ceremonies and LDS temple ceremonies.

I will go farther and suggest that Gnostics believed that there were hidden truths that were gradually revealed to the initiate (perhaps through symbolism). This is very consistent with the messages within the temple. As a faithful LDS I have asked questions of the temple presidency inside the temple. For the most part I do not receive answers because the symbolism is to reveal itself as I return, learn, and grow.

Gnostics also pointed to the importance of the “gnosis” or knowledge. I believe there is truth in the words of Joseph Smith (paraphrase), “We are saved no faster than we gain knowledge.”

Most clearly, the CoJCoLDS would not suggest that the knowledge we seek is actually sourced within ourselves. In fact, LDS in many instances have distanced themselves from mysticism. Part of this I think is an error, but part of this I think is a result of the mystics over emphasis upon the truths within themselves.

Where exactly do you get that LDS search for God knowledge that is within them?

Benadam:
What I meant was if the Chruch then looked like the Mormon Church now the heretics then would be indistinguishable. My point being that the implications would become a labyrinth of change something like the butterfly effect.

I still do not think I am confident that I understand what you are saying.

I see two possibilities. You think the CoJCoLDS changes so quickly that it would be impossible to define heretics. I would generally disagree with this.

Or, you think that the CoJCoLDS emphasizes orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy and therefore looking at beliefs would be difficult. I think there is some truth to this, but we could still look for some of the practices (such as the temple ceremony)

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

The understanding and application of authority developed. God’s authority is like Him Always was, is, always will be. That is the Truth about the Authority that Christ recieved from the Father and handed down to the Apostles. The Eternal Authority of the Father entered time and it’s not easily debated into obscurity on that foundation even if it is vague at some point in history or that the Church’s understanding and application of it developed.

Mormon theology has yet to really address the eternal nature of God. The Mormon cosmology has yet to dvelope the panoramic view that would include the ‘always was’ being of God. At least in my corner of the Universe it’s an unbeknownst to Mormons.

All Christians believed that there was valid authority among the Jews. Most Christians suggest that Ciaphus had some authority. Ciaphus continued (in his mind and in the mind of most Jews) pass his authority to successors until about 70AD. We all must acknowledge that God’s authority does not necessarily continue as the prevailing religion thinks it has or should.

Yes, God’s authority is eternal. The question is who has it today the Pope or the Prophet. I do not strictly think it would be problematic if God’s authority was totally absent from the earth during the apostasy, but was present in heaven. This is not necessarily the case though because LDS believe that John and the 3 Nephites continued a non-public ministry.

I think Blake Ostler deals with aspects of God’s eternal nature in this essay.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom this is confusing. circular in a non-circulat way?

“The lights went out, and when they came back on someone had moved the furniture,” is not circular. To argue that Joseph Smith restored the original gospel and that we know this to be true because when the lights went on the gospel was not as Joseph Smith restored is circular. I suggested Nibley didn’t say this.

To argue that the absence of writing at the end of the apostles and that the New Testament does not present any LDS problems, so this is likely when the apostasy occurred; is somewhat weak but is also not circular.

I suggested what I think Nibley was really saying. Margaret Barker is having a large impact upon LDS apologetics and she cannot be easily dismissed IMO. I have also presented my ideas.

We say the Canon closed. The Church progressed into it’s next state of conscious awareness and could even be said to have gone through seperation anxieties just like an infant when their developement of consciousness progresses. Joseph Smith constructed an organization in imitation of the first stage of developement and now Mormons claim that The early Church was really Mormon. Easy to understand since Mormonism is about the same age now as the Church then. /

QUOTE]

I am not sure how the many restored doctrines I point to are explained by the age of the organizations.

Remember, most of the documents that we use to understand the early church were not available in 1830-1840. And certainly there is no evidence that Joseph Smith studied his way to a restoration of the early church. It appears quite miraculous.

Remember the gnostic notion that the Truth is corrupt as it is made visible in the physical world, is a necessary assumption in order to believe what Mormon’s believe.

LDS do not have the disdain for the physical world that Gnostics do/did.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

“The lights went out, and when they came back on someone had moved the furniture,” is not circular. To argue that Joseph Smith restored the original gospel and that we know this to be true because when the lights went on the gospel was not as Joseph Smith restored is circular. I suggested Nibley didn’t say this.

The lights didn’t got out. The light got as bright as it was gonna get and stayed on . Remember Christ saying it is to be put up high for all to see? The furniture being rearranged, well now that the light isn’t the show it was put on it’s stand to light the way as a stable beacon for the coming generartions. The chairs placed around it were put in rows for the worship of stable comunities.

To argue that the absence of writing at the end of the apostles and that the New Testament does not present any LDS problems, so this is likely when the apostasy occurred; is somewhat weak but is also not circular.

everything you claim denies the eternal nature of Christ , Truth, and His relationship with us. Eternal realities are the immovable movers, and first causes, they are not subject to changes apart from their source making the change known. You talk about the shift from Moses to Jesus but note that Jesus never said Moses lost, or ever was to lose the ‘eternal’ authority of God, in fact Jesus said Moses will in that authority judge the jews who keep the law. There is no way to debate into obscurity the placement or the authority of God. It’s like his gifts, he won’t take it away once given.

There is an apostacy and like all prophecies they describe foundational events that have already been, that echo throughout history as they work out the end in time, and finally complete themselves in God’s time. The Apostacy begun while the Apostles were here, as Paul said it isa working in secret and will be revealed when the Man of Sin shows himself openly.
I suggested what I think Nibley was really saying. Margaret Barker is having a large impact upon LDS apologetics and she cannot be easily dismissed IMO. I have also presented my ideas.

Thank you Tom,
I maintain a respect for the dignified manner in which you present your ideas and it’s a treasure to find someone willing to sincerely exchange them irregardless of what the idea means,where or how the idea sprang forth.

I live a few miles from the Temple in Mesa Az, so, I am familiar with Mormons and the faith. If I seem a bit too familiar, it’s because I grew up Catholic with alot of Mormon friends and it was sometimes a very hot subject that would end with " wanna go to the baseball field and hit a few?"

LDS do not have the disdain for the physical world that Gnostics do/did.

Wait, I didn’t say you did. I said that you believed the physical world lacks the ability to offer incorrupt Truth . That is gnostic thinking that denies Christ’s victory of corruption IMHO.

 

[Benadam]

Dear Tom,

I just lost a lengthy response and I’ve got obligations to attend to. I hope to rewrite it for you parousal later.