LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[dzheremi]

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was not approved by the prophet and the apostles. Brigham Young tried to stop it from happening. Blacks were NOT tortured, killed or denied membership. Capital punishment (blood atonement, though slightly different) has always been carried out by the government. Capital punishment is a form of theocracy. Slavery is justified in the Bible. This is from the article you posted:

"Mormon scripture simultaneously denounces both slavery and abolitionism in general, teaching that it was not right for men to be in bondage to each other."

That being said Joseph Smith didn't have anyone tortured or killed, nor did he kill anyone. Neither did Brigham Young torture or kill anyone. Here is how Joseph Smith treated Blacks:

On one occasion, when mayor of the city of Nauvoo, it became his (Joseph Smith's) duty to fine a black man for violating the city ordinance, with regard to selling liquor. The black man plead for mercy: said that his object in doing so, was to raise money to send for his family. The mayor would not shrink from his duty and he fined him $75.00 but, if he would not be guilty of doing so again, he would make him a present of a horse, to assist him. Which he accepted.

That is why I believe the article is skewed. The things you listed here is nothing compared to the many thousands who were tortured and killed by the early leaders.

I don't care about your defenses of these things, and was not inviting you to make them reply. Yare missing the point, which is that Catholics have their own answers to complaints about the inquisitions, or the crusades, or whatever issue you can throw at them, and by these explanations they can say that they don't think it is accurate to present their historical bad deeds as you do. In other words, they can answer in much the same way that you do here: that's not 'official', that's inaccurate, that's biased, etc. It's not necessarily very convincing to non-members just like it's not convincing when you do it here, but they can still do it. So maybe, just maybe, pointing to historical bad behavior on the part of members of a religion is not in itself a very good way to criticize that religion. "Catholics were bad, therefore they're evidence of the apostasy" or whatever only works if you agree with the underlying assumption that bad behavior is itself evidence of apostasy, and if you do you can't be Mormon either, as Mormons have also behaved badly!

But like clockwork, the reply is always that's it's different when we do it! Oh, okay. Sure.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry. This is a tangent. Can anyone find anything in the early Church Fathers relating to the LDS claims for their priesthood? Has anyone else read the early Church Fathers?

Would it surprise you to read that yes, I have, and no, there's nothing of the LDS fake priesthoods in them? There are things, of course, that Mormons might point to and claim are talking about this or that in Mormonism (i.e., no differently than how they've tried to use the holy words of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic to prove the 'patristic' nature of their idea of men becoming gods, by -- as you might guess -- selective quotation and a complete lack of knowledge of actual the points that HH was making or responding to), but that doesn't mean anything, since anyone can claim anything.

At least in so far as I've been trying to basically force them upon the Mormons here for years now (because what better witness could there possibly be to the falsehood of Mormonism's foundational 'great apostasy' idea than to show how we have a through-line of believers who we can point to who teach the same things that we continue to teach today, so there was either no great apostasy or it occurred so early as to implicate Jesus Himself -- and I pray that He forgives me because Mormonism forces me to type heretical garbage like this which I absolutely don't believe -- as being essentially an incompetent messiah who wasn't able to even pass on His teachings properly to His own disciples, or purposely chose incompetents himself for some reason?), it seems that Mormons do not read the fathers at all, and consider them in themselves to be proof that Mormonism's reimagining of Christian history to be one of more or less immediate corruption (since they taught things like worship of the Holy Trinity, which Mormonism of course does not believe in, or contradict 'orthodox' Mormonism in this or that other ways). I remember the now-gone Mormon poster Jane_Doe once responding to me that the more I quote the ECF, the more she becomes convinced of the great apostasy. I'm not sure how common that sentiment is (it seems that they would have to know the ECF in the first place in order to write that, and it seems that most do not), but there you have it. Oops? (But not really.)

 

[chevyontheriver]

Would it surprise you to read that yes, I have, and no, there's nothing of the LDS fake priesthoods in them? There are things, of course, that Mormons might point to and claim are talking about this or that in Mormonism (i.e., no differently than how they've tried to use the holy words of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic to prove the 'patristic' nature of their idea of men becoming gods, by -- as you might guess -- selective quotation and a complete lack of knowledge of actual the points that HH was making or responding to), but that doesn't mean anything, since anyone can claim anything.

At least in so far as I've been trying to basically force them upon the Mormons here for years now (because what better witness could there possibly be to the falsehood of Mormonism's foundational 'great apostasy' idea than to show how we have a through-line of believers who we can point to who teach the same things that we continue to teach today, so there was either no great apostasy or it occurred so early as to implicate Jesus Himself -- and I pray that He forgives me because Mormonism forces me to type heretical garbage like this which I absolutely don't believe -- as being essentially an incompetent messiah who wasn't able to even pass on His teachings properly to His own disciples, or purposely chose incompetents himself for some reason?), it seems that Mormons do not read the fathers at all, and consider them in themselves to be proof that Mormonism's reimagining of Christian history to be one of more or less immediate corruption (since they taught things like worship of the Holy Trinity, which Mormonism of course does not believe in, or contradict 'orthodox' Mormonism in this or that other ways). I remember the now-gone Mormon poster Jane_Doe once responding to me that the more I quote the ECF, the more she becomes convinced of the great apostasy. I'm not sure how common that sentiment is (it seems that they would have to know the ECF in the first place in order to write that, and it seems that most do not), but there you have it. Oops? (But not really.)

They don't know much about the ECF, don't want to know, and are content with whatever story about the ECF they have heard. Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, who said the ECF believed just like he did. He even invited people to read the ECF to see that it was so. And many did, and there was an exodus from Swaggartism to churches in line with the ECF. Catholics are still reaping that harvest, and I expect the various Orthodox are as well.

 

[Albion]

So they made her a slave? Did she stop being a slave at the Emancipation Proclamation? I kind of doubt it.

Colorado just removed slavery from their constitution a few years ago and Nebraska just removed slavery from their constitution this year.

?? The point here escapes me. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, and Colorado and Nebraska haven't had slaves, the wording of their constitutions not withstanding. So is the claim that the LDS' earlier attitudes towards blacks amounted to some sort of de facto slavery?

 

[mmksparbud]

They don't know much about the ECF, don't want to know, and are content with whatever story about the ECF they have heard. Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, who said the ECF believed just like he did. He even invited people to read the ECF to see that it was so. And many did, and there was an exodus from Swaggartism to churches in line with the ECF. Catholics are still reaping that harvest, and I expect the various Orthodox are as well.

That is true of most Protestants. We have nothing to do with ECF. I never was even aware of them. Once, when I first came on this website, I had not learned to check for what forum the thread was on and I accidently got on a Catholic site---the ECF came up and I was like---Huh?--who they? All I could blindly say was--What do I care what a bunch of old Italian men long dead have to say?! Needless to say I was non too politely told where to go. I had not tried to be disrespectful, just didn't know any better. However, I still do not follow the ECF, they have nothing to do with my believes. Nor do they matter to most Protestants. So I have refrained from participating in this thread. That said---0if the priesthood concept is between LDS and RCC, then the RCC would have to be win due to the fact they were certainly 1st. But I do not have a bone in this fight since I don't believe in any priesthood. So I bow out just wanted to point out that Protestants just don't have the ECF background.

 

[chevyontheriver]

?? The point here escapes me. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, and Colorado and Nebraska haven't had slaves, the wording of their constitutions not withstanding. So is the claim that the LDS' earlier attitudes towards blacks amounted to some sort of de facto slavery?

This was about Jane Elizabeth Manning James. Sorry that I confused you about the Emancipation Proclamation and how it didn't actually undo slavery in any states. The point about Colorado and Nebraska was that slavery was allowed in their state constitutions until a short time ago. That Utah would have allowed Jane Elizabeth Manning James to be a slave as well, long after the Civil War. It was a tangent. Again, sorry to confuse you. Mormon slavery is tangential to this whole thread, except that the bad behavior of some Catholics has been raised by Mormons as proof of the 'great apostasy, while bad behavior by some Mormons was taken as no big deal by them but a big deal to some other posters.

 

[Albion]

That Utah would have allowed Jane Elizabeth Manning James to be a slave as well, long after the Civil War.

Thanks, but is it your contention that she was literally held as a slave?

I don't know one way or the other, and the Emancipation Proclamation and other legalities wouldn't necessarily clear anything up, nor do I think the denial of the priesthood to blacks until recent years would either, but was there evidence of her being treated as a slave, do you think ?

 

[He is the way]

Oh, so you think Old Testament prophets had the priesthood and then no one did for the silent years between Old and New? Did Jesus redstore it when he was 12 or later on? Why wasn't he baptized at age 8? Did they have deacons, teachers, apostles, and seventies in the Old Testament? There were no seventies even in the New Testament. Seventy was a number, not a priesthood office.

There was priesthood on the earth between the Old and New testaments. There were still high priests during the time Jesus was on the earth.

(New Testament | John 11:49 - 52)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

People are baptized at older ages, but why are babies baptized now? Children are saved in Christ and need no baptism. There may have been Deacons and teachers during Old Testament times even though they are not mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does NOT contain everything that happened during it's time period. Seventy is indeed a number and is also used as an office of the priesthood.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is true of most Protestants. We have nothing to do with ECF. I never was even aware of them. Once, when I first came on this website, I had not learned to check for what forum the thread was on and I accidently got on a Catholic site---the ECF came up and I was like---Huh?--who they? All I could blindly say was--What do I care what a bunch of old Italian men long dead have to say?! Needless to say I was non too politely told where to go. I had not tried to be disrespectful, just didn't know any better. However, I still do not follow the ECF, they have nothing to do with my believes. Nor do they matter to most Protestants. So I have refrained from participating in this thread. That said---0if the priesthood concept is between LDS and RCC, then the RCC would have to be win due to the fact they were certainly 1st. But I do not have a bone in this fight since I don't believe in any priesthood. So I bow out just wanted to point out that Protestants just don't have the ECF background.

They were not a bunch of old Italian men. They were Egyptians and Greeks and Syrians and folks from all over the place whose common thread was that they were from the first and second centuries and were Christian leaders. That you don't know much about them is not your fault, but now that you do know about them you may have to contend with them. The LDS does not, so far as this thread goes, have a handle on them.

As to priesthoods, the LDS makes claims to a continued Aaronic priesthood. No other Christians do. Being a Cohen means nothing for Christians. It's ancient history, put to bed when Jesus became our priest. And they also claim the priesthood of Melchizedek, the priesthood Jesus Christ had. Catholics also claim that one. Either the Mormons have it, OR the Catholics have it, OR nobody has it as many Protestants might contend. But if the Mormons are right then the Catholics are wrong, and if the Catholics are right the Mormons are wrong. One LDS poster here claims that the Church was not founded by Jesus Christ but wen't back to Adam. That's how they claim that an Aaronic priesthood still exists. The rest of us see the birthday of the Church at Pentecost.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks, but is it your contention that she was literally held as a slave?

I don't know one way or the other, and the Emancipation Proclamation and other legalities wouldn't necessarily clear anything up, nor do I think the denial of the priesthood to blacks until recent years would either, but was there evidence of her being treated as a slave, do you think ?

A 'slave', a 'servant'? My old Latin teacher said when you see 'servus' you translate it as 'slave'. Now perhaps she thought of herself as a servant and they thought of her as a servant. I don't know. I wasn't there. I just don't like to soften such a thing with pleasant language. Were the folks who didn't volunteer their services in the antebellum South just servants? Or slaves? Does it make a huge difference?

Church President Joseph F. Smith spoke at her funeral.[5] There, he declared that she would receive all her temple blessings in the eternities and become a white and beautiful person. Maybe she is allowed these days to be black and beautiful.

 

[dzheremi]

That is true of most Protestants. We have nothing to do with ECF. I never was even aware of them. Once, when I first came on this website, I had not learned to check for what forum the thread was on and I accidently got on a Catholic site---the ECF came up and I was like---Huh?--who they? All I could blindly say was--What do I care what a bunch of old Italian men long dead have to say?! Needless to say I was non too politely told where to go. I had not tried to be disrespectful, just didn't know any better. However, I still do not follow the ECF, they have nothing to do with my believes. Nor do they matter to most Protestants. So I have refrained from participating in this thread. That said---0if the priesthood concept is between LDS and RCC, then the RCC would have to be win due to the fact they were certainly 1st. But I do not have a bone in this fight since I don't believe in any priesthood. So I bow out just wanted to point out that Protestants just don't have the ECF background.

While what you write is no doubt true about the majority of Protestants today, as Protestantism has spread out in a myriad of forms over the globe, it may be instructive to see the views of a figure from the beginning of the Reformation like Martin Luther concerning what was left to us all by the ECF. For instance, did you know that Luther affirmed St. Mary, the mother of Jesus, as 'Theotokos', a Christological title which was defended against the claims to the contrary of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431? A chief opponent of the Nestorians in that dispute at the council was HH St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was the Patriarch of the Egyptian Church from 412 to 444, and notably not an old Italian man. This is the same Cyril of Alexandria who I have quoted many, many times on this particular subforum to show how the early Church does not agree with Mormonism on whatever subject we're talking about. (And not just him, of course, but he's definitely in there.) The point is not "Hey, everyone has to listen to this guy cos he's old and was a patriarch of my particular church", but rather "here's evidence of what the early Church actually believed, instead of what Mormons claim that the early Church actually believed." I have a feeling that is obvious to you by now, but just so that it's out there...

So even though most Protestants today don't really have a taste for the ECF, they might be surprised or even edified by reading them, as many of the fathers of their own traditions did, and some still do (notably traditional Lutherans and Anglicans, but also others like some Presbyterians and Methodists; this is how you can get great books on how modern Protestantism has essentially evolved away in certain aspects from its roots that were at least partially shaped by the understandings found in the ECF, like Against the Protestant Gnostics by Presbyterian pastor Philip J. Lee, or The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity has Reshaped our Understanding of Early Christianity by the Reformed and Baptist pair of scholars Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger).

 

[Albion]

Chevy, I didn't know anything about this woman, but I've never been impressed by the usual Mormon exoneration of Brigham Young in the Mountain Meadows incident, and for some reason the mention of her caught my eye when I saw those posts. Thanks for indulging my questions.

 

[He is the way]

Pot calling kettle black. Oh my. Bad Catholics. Good Mormons.

Until you own your own history you have no basis to complain about the history of others. When you own your own history then you can say things about the history of others. But you will be more understanding and less excited to launch into self-righteousness.

The LDS claim of a total apostasy of the Church is convenient. But it does not grapple with history as it really was, neither Catholic history, nor Mormom history.

You don't believe in the apostasy or that there are any reason for it, but I have shown a possible reason for the apostasy and I might have struck a nerve. I am aware of the history of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints and to be quite honest it does not compare to the atrocities committed by the leaders of the Catholic Church. I realize that that is all in the past and things are different now. Hopefully we can look to the future without any contention and practice Christ's teachings.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You don't believe in the apostasy

I don't believe in 'the apostasy' as a singular event. Just no history for it. There have been many little apostasies, and many recoveries from apostasies. Like the apostasy that lead to the formation of the Donatists, the holier than thou folks who would not recognize the return from apostasy of some North African Christians who were not strong enough to chose martyrdom.

...or that there are any reason for it, but I have shown a possible reason for the apostasy and I might have struck a nerve.

Paul predicts trouble and even a partial apostasy. Not a surprise. There have been several small apostasies over the years.. One was the whole Gnostic thing, as some Christians got a bit too tied up in circulating Gnostic myths and ended up Gnostic themselves. Another was the Arian apostasy, which almost took over the Church. Thing is, your 'great apostasy' just doesn't have evidence behind it. Partial apostasies do. Of which there were many in the historical record.

I am aware of the history of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints and to be quite honest it does not compare to the atrocities committed by the leaders of the Catholic Church.

For such a young church, and as small as it is, you have a comparable record. Sorry. If you can claim a 'great apostasy' then those Mormons who have left the LDS to form 'reorganized' Mormon groups can claim that the LDS went apostate too, for the same reasons.

I realize that that is all in the past and things are different now. Hopefully we can look to the future without any contention and practice Christ's teachings.

I'm sorry to raise a bit of politics here, but that sounds an awful lot like Joe Biden now asking for Republicans to play nice after decades of the same Joe Biden being a rather rabid attack dog going all the way back to when he borked Judge Bork. Maybe we can get along better than Joe Biden and the Republicans ever will, but that will ONLY be possible when we can look at history in a little more neutral way. Speaking of atrocities and then asking to get along - doesn't that seem a little off? Get over the 'great apostasy' thing and maybe there is room to talk. And I remind you that the OP was about the ECF and the various priesthoods the Mormons claim to have. I have already encouraged you to read a bit of the ECF, which you have already admitted a relative ignorance of.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There was priesthood on the earth between the Old and New testaments. There were still high priests during the time Jesus was on the earth.

There was a continuing priesthood up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Many priests did become Christian, but many priests refused to become Christian. This, in itself, is evidence that Jesus formed his Church which was born at Pentecost. Had it been a simple continuation of the earlier religion of the Israelites I would have expected that there would not be two parallel and independent authorities from 33 AD to 70 AD.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Perhaps the "great apostasy" is Mormonism itself??

 

[BigDaddy4]

Mormons claim that "priesthood authority" must be passed on through the laying on of hands by one with said authority. Mormon history tells us that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist. This is problematic because there is no evidence that John the Baptist had such authority. Even though his father was a priest, Scripture tells us John was living in the wilderness preaching repentance, not serving in the temple as his father did.

Even if John the Baptist did have such authority, Joseph and Oliver were not Jewish, nor Levites. Therefore, according to Scripture, they could not be Aaronic priests. Nowadays, Mormon Aaronic Priesthood holders can be as young as 11 years old. That is not supported by Scripture, Jewish tradition, ECF's, or any other source.

Mormonism is more of a distortion than "restoration" to the early church.

 

[mmksparbud]

Mormons claim that "priesthood authority" must be passed on through the laying on of hands by one with said authority. Mormon history tells us that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist. This is problematic because there is no evidence that John the Baptist had such authority. Even though his father was a priest, Scripture tells us John was living in the wilderness preaching repentance, not serving in the temple as his father did.

Even if John the Baptist did have such authority, Joseph and Oliver were not Jewish, nor Levites. Therefore, according to Scripture, they could not be Aaronic priests. Nowadays, Mormon Aaronic Priesthood holders can be as young as 11 years old. That is not supported by Scripture, Jewish tradition, ECF's, or any other source.

Mormonism is more of a distortion than "restoration" to the early church.

John was not a priest. They are trained from young, but the can not become a priest until ---can't remember---25 or 30. John was 6 months older than Jesus--so John was never a priest, at the baptism of Jesus, Jesus was about 30. John as you pointed out, he did not live at the temple as Samuel did to train, he livd out in the wilderness. John had no Aaronic authority before he died. There is no history of priest being 8 years old as Mormons practice. They would have been laughed at. If there ever was a child thst could have been a priest at 8, it would have been Jesus, He was conversing with the priests at 12. Yet even Jesus waited unti8l 30 to start His ministry. and He did not become High Priest until after the crucifixion---33 1/2. LDS have nothing to stand on to back up their theory.

 

[He is the way]

There was a continuing priesthood up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Many priests did become Christian, but many priests refused to become Christian. This, in itself, is evidence that Jesus formed his Church which was born at Pentecost. Had it been a simple continuation of the earlier religion of the Israelites I would have expected that there would not be two parallel and independent authorities from 33 AD to 70 AD.

You do have a point, but the Jews are still God's chosen people and they will be gathered and know that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[He is the way]

Mormons claim that "priesthood authority" must be passed on through the laying on of hands by one with said authority. Mormon history tells us that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist. This is problematic because there is no evidence that John the Baptist had such authority. Even though his father was a priest, Scripture tells us John was living in the wilderness preaching repentance, not serving in the temple as his father did.

Even if John the Baptist did have such authority, Joseph and Oliver were not Jewish, nor Levites. Therefore, according to Scripture, they could not be Aaronic priests. Nowadays, Mormon Aaronic Priesthood holders can be as young as 11 years old. That is not supported by Scripture, Jewish tradition, ECF's, or any other source.

Mormonism is more of a distortion than "restoration" to the early church.

There is no doubt that the church has changed since Jesus Christ's time.