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

[BigDaddy4]

Jesus gave the apostles the keys of the kingdom of God. Why did he do that? Because he was not going to be here very long and would not be able to do the work of the ministry.

The apostles gave the local only keys to the bishop of a local area, why? Because the apostle could not be there all the time to do the baptizing, so the keys of the local area gave the bishop and elders the right to baptize and do the work of the ministry.

References are Matthew 16:18-19 and Acts 14:22-25 and Phillipians 1:1. And common sense.

You forgot one of your references to be the false gospel of your church. The "key" Jesus gave Peter was to open the door to the kingdom of heaven to the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10. The door is open and the gates of hell have not prevailed against it (including the damning lds gospel). We, the believers in Christ, are responsible for preaching the Gospel and leading people to the Kingdom. The entrance to the Kingdom is based solely on accepting Jesus Christ (the real one, not the false Christ of the lds who is only a god, not the God) as Lord and Savior. This key, this Gospel of Christ, is passed down unfettered and uninterrupted from generation to generation through the preaching of the Word. Not church membership or some special "authority".

 

[dzheremi]

And the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome would have their own ways, likely being exactly like the EO or OO do it.

As much as I'd like to be able to answer yes to this, this appears not to be the case with regard to the Catholic Copts. I just watched a video of their Christmas liturgy from their cathedral in Nasr City district of Cairo, and it is clear from that video that they receive by intinction rather than separately, as is the case in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Check it out yourself, if you're curious (it's all in Arabic, but at around 2:48:30, the patriarch Ibrahim Sidrak places a square of the consecrated bread in the communal cup):

 

[BigDaddy4]

This is a good example of what happened in the apostasy. The Corinthian saints threw out their apostle ordained bishops and replaced them with their popular choice bishops.

This group of popular choice bishops had no keys of the kingdom and so their work was not recognized by heaven. No true work of the ministry.

So a false form of religion took over the true religion. Eventually that spread over the entire church. The false front being a little more glitzy, and ceremonious, with some major whistles and bells and thrones, and empires and such, was attractive to the people. They even had Jesus as the example and taught the sermon on the mount, but the keys were missing.

Like Jesus told JS, there was a form of godliness, but they denied the power thereof. Exactly. They had a form of religion and it has stood since 120, but they did not have the power of Jesus. (the keys of the kingdom of God) So fairly early on, Jesus allowed the churches their own form as they wished, but moved into his alternative plan, and all will be fine. All will still be saved who do as Jesus commands.

And I will add that, God has had to move to his alternative plan many times throughout history. Let me give you a coupe of examples.
Enoch walked and talked with God and he built the city of Enoch. A beautiful city of love and the word of God. But not many years after Enoch, God had to change plans, and go to an alternative plan. He had to destroyed all life on the earth, move them all to the spirit world and teach the innocent there, where they would not be under the influence of the dire environment that they were on earth. They could then be baptized and receive other saving ordinances by proxy.

Another example is the children of Israel. They almost totally rejected Jesus as their God and so he rejected them. He move them to his alternative plan and allowed the false religion to move forward on earth, but when they died, they were taught the truth, and would receive all the saving ordinances by proxy.

So Gods alternative plan is a good plan that has save billions of people into his kingdom. The work of the dead is such an essential work that Jesus even said if it was not done, he would have to smite the earth with a curse:
Malachi 4:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The turning of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the father is "the work for the dead". Our hearts are turned to our forefathers who have passed away, we find their names and all we can about them, and then we do the saving ordinances for them by proxy. They turn their hearts to us and help us find them and take care of them. That is why I say it is the most spiritual work you will do because our fathers are reaching through the vail to provide us with information about them, and there are many spiritual moments when we find information that has been lost for centuries about a particular person, but then is found.

So come to understand the alternative method of salvation, you will find a rich spiritual experience.

Peter, you are a corrupter of church history. There is no truth in what you write. May some day you see the error of your ways.

 

[chevyontheriver]

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 4:1 - 3)

1 THE manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—
2 And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying:
3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 5:1 - 2)

1 THE manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said:
2 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

And where is that at all paralleled in any of the liturgical canons of the early Church? It would be almost word for word from some early Christian liturgy on record if it were to be considered at all valid. Is it Roman? Or Byzantine? Or Syriac? Any historical roots at all? Please show me.

We can use water or wine.

The use of water instead of wine makes for an invalid sacrament. But so does having having an ordination where apostolic succession was lost. Since Joseph Smith was ordained by no bishop in the apostolic succession, there is no validity there. A garden variety OO priest is validly ordained. So too a garden variety EO priest. They had actual bishops in succession from the apostles ordain them. Who ordained Joseph Smith? An invisible person nobody could see?

 

[BigDaddy4]

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 4:1 - 3)

1 THE manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—
2 And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying:
3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 5:1 - 2)

1 THE manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said:
2 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

We can use water or wine.

Or Oreo cookies and milk.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I started the other thread but I didn’t mention the ECF in my OP. So I decided to start this thread to specifically address this issue. So I ask you where are the references to the LDS Priesthoods in the writings of the ECF?

Church Fathers - Wikipedia

Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Early Church Fathers

You’ll only find Catholic priest and bishop references in any early church writings before the 16th century. You won’t find any reformed or Protestant priests mentioned either.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How soon do they believe that the church defected? Surely it endured for the first few centuries?

The idea that the entire Catholic Church “defected” is really quite preposterous when you actually take into consideration everything these brothers & sisters endured for the sake of spreading the gospel along with the shear number of who knows how many thousands of devoted servants of God spread out over thousands of miles apart and all of them agreed to preaching a false gospel with absolutely no evidence of resistance whatsoever? Yeah that sounds pretty impossible to me, not to mention Jesus specifically said this wouldn’t happen in Matthew 16:18.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I answered this question in post 371. A form of godliness was established, but it was only the form. It had not the power to do the work of the ministry. And so the Lord allowed the form to move forward, but moved to his alternative plan, once again. And it worked once again.

Our conversation would then appear to be over. We're merely talking in circles at this point with points I and others have raised being unaddressed. I would simply ask that you think on them in order to try and give more compelling answers in the future. You have no response about what the faithful followers of Christ were supposed to do in the absence of Apostles in the second century. You inveigh against them and their corruption but if God needs to provide the necessary component of an Apostle/rites in order to preserve his Church you cannot blame man for seeking to continue on what they had received.

Could you imagine being a second century Christian with your Mormon mindset. Would you not be devastated? To learn that God had fled, he no longer sent his gifts of grace and the Church community you knew and loved was doomed to failure? One wonders what the Apostles thought they were doing in establishing such a structure built on sand. Rather it was built on a foundation but God let the house slip right of off of it.

 

[He is the way]

And where is that at all paralleled in any of the liturgical canons of the early Church? It would be almost word for word from some early Christian liturgy on record if it were to be considered at all valid. Is it Roman? Or Byzantine? Or Syriac? Any historical roots at all? Please show me.

The use of water instead of wine makes for an invalid sacrament. But so does having having an ordination where apostolic succession was lost. Since Joseph Smith was ordained by no bishop in the apostolic succession, there is no validity there. A garden variety OO priest is validly ordained. So too a garden variety EO priest. They had actual bishops in succession from the apostles ordain them. Who ordained Joseph Smith? An invisible person nobody could see?

(New Testament | Luke 22:19 - 20)

19 ¶ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


The use of water does NOT invalid the sacrament
Joseph Smith was ordained by John the Baptist and afterwards by Peter James and John. Certainly angels can be seen and heard, as well as translated beings:

(New Testament | Mark 9:4)

4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As much as I'd like to be able to answer yes to this, this appears not to be the case with regard to the Catholic Copts. I just watched a video of their Christmas liturgy from their cathedral in Nasr City district of Cairo, and it is clear from that video that they receive by intinction rather than separately, as is the case in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Check it out yourself, if you're curious (it's all in Arabic, but at around 2:48:30, the patriarch Ibrahim Sidrak places a square of the consecrated bread in the communal cup):

Hard to tell. I did notice what looked like leavened bread. I'm more familiar with unleavened bread. And I know the various Catholic rites go some with one and some the other. I'm no expert on all of the ways the various rites do things.

There is a practice in the Roman rite where a small piece of the host is broken off and added to the cup. Every time, just a small piece. I'll have to look into that but it does not necessarily mean they do not receive the host and cup separately.

Thanks for the video. I know it's a Christmas liturgy, and a Christmas liturgy can be really long, but that was really long. My wife would go bonkers.

 

[chevyontheriver]

(New Testament | Luke 22:19 - 20)

19 ¶ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Those are the actual words used in Catholic liturgy at every mass. You should have been able to show from any of the extant early Christian liturgical families where the exact wording of your ceremony was found. Which liturgical family is your ceremony related to?

The use of water does NOT invalid the sacrament

Water is fine for baptism. Necessary even. Not having wine for communion does invalidate it. Ask any OO or EO and they will tell you the same thing. There is zero variance between us there. You guys varied. Crash.

Joseph Smith was ordained by John the Baptist and afterwards by Peter James and John. Certainly angels can be seen and heard, as well as translated beings:

It's rather convenient to say invisible people ordained you if you are Joseph Smith and you also have invisible plates that contain what you say is new revelation. Not buying all of that invisibility.

4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

And what new revelation did they provide? Nothing. We aren't accepting of new revelation from angels or invisible people who supposedly provide ordinations or new scriptures or any form of enlightenment. I might be a little sympathetic, only a tiny bit, if what was conveyed was consonant with the faith once delivered to the apostles. But your thing isn't that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Or Oreo cookies and milk.

Why not? Except that Jesus used bread and wine. So we do. We do argue about leavened vs unleavened bread sometimes, but there would be zero argument about never accepting Oreos. That's just not possible. Same for doing away with wine. Sure, there is very low alcohol wine called 'must' but that's still wine.

Bread and wine. No substitution allowed.

 

[He is the way]

Our conversation would then appear to be over. We're merely talking in circles at this point with points I and others have raised being unaddressed. I would simply ask that you think on them in order to try and give more compelling answers in the future. You have no response about what the faithful followers of Christ were supposed to do in the absence of Apostles in the second century. You inveigh against them and their corruption but if God needs to provide the necessary component of an Apostle/rites in order to preserve his Church you cannot blame man for seeking to continue on what they had received.

Could you imagine being a second century Christian with your Mormon mindset. Would you not be devastated? To learn that God had fled, he no longer sent his gifts of grace and the Church community you knew and loved was doomed to failure? One wonders what the Apostles thought they were doing in establishing such a structure built on sand. Rather it was built on a foundation but God let the house slip right of off of it.

You said: "you cannot blame man for seeking to continue on what they had received."

Much the same as they did between the Old and New Testaments:

".......After Malachi had ceased his prophesying and the canon of the Old Testament closed -- that is, the number of the books in the Old Testament was fulfilled and the inspired prophets ceased to speak -- God allowed a period of time for the teachings of the Old Testament to penetrate throughout the world. During this time, he rearranged the scenes of history, much as a stage crew will rearrange the stage sets after the curtain has fallen, and when the curtain rises again there is an entirely new setting. In about 435 B.C., when the prophet Malachi ceased his writing, the center of world power began to shift from the East to the West........"

From: The 400 Years between the Old and New Testaments

So why was God silent for 400 years?

 

[chevyontheriver]

You said: "you cannot blame man for seeking to continue on what they had received."

Much the same as they did between the Old and New Testaments:

".......After Malachi had ceased his prophesying and the canon of the Old Testament closed -- that is, the number of the books in the Old Testament was fulfilled and the inspired prophets ceased to speak -- God allowed a period of time for the teachings of the Old Testament to penetrate throughout the world. During this time, he rearranged the scenes of history, much as a stage crew will rearrange the stage sets after the curtain has fallen, and when the curtain rises again there is an entirely new setting. In about 435 B.C., when the prophet Malachi ceased his writing, the center of world power began to shift from the East to the West........"

From: The 400 Years between the Old and New Testaments

So why was God silent for 400 years?

You've got that truncated Protestant Bible thing going on, with missing books. Thus you come to the unhistorical opinion that God was silent a whole 400 years. But we have a COMPLETE Bible, we Orthodox and Catholics. So your post, which presumes Protestantism, misses the mark.

I call Mormons Protestant. That infuriates lots of Protestants. But you really do have a lot in common with them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You said: "you cannot blame man for seeking to continue on what they had received."

Much the same as they did between the Old and New Testaments:

".......After Malachi had ceased his prophesying and the canon of the Old Testament closed -- that is, the number of the books in the Old Testament was fulfilled and the inspired prophets ceased to speak -- God allowed a period of time for the teachings of the Old Testament to penetrate throughout the world. During this time, he rearranged the scenes of history, much as a stage crew will rearrange the stage sets after the curtain has fallen, and when the curtain rises again there is an entirely new setting. In about 435 B.C., when the prophet Malachi ceased his writing, the center of world power began to shift from the East to the West........"

From: The 400 Years between the Old and New Testaments

So why was God silent for 400 years?

If you mean why God stopped sending the Prophets, who can say? The difference between us is that I don't believe that by the time of Jesus that the Jews were in a state of utter apostasy because they ceased having Prophets. Nor do I believe the gifts of God's grace were denied to his people before Christ. God continued to provide for his people as he always does and will do.

 

[He is the way]

Those are the actual words used in Catholic liturgy at every mass. You should have been able to show from any of the extant early Christian liturgical families where the exact wording of your ceremony was found. Which liturgical family is your ceremony related to?

Water is fine for baptism. Necessary even. Not having wine for communion does invalidate it. Ask any OO or EO and they will tell you the same thing. There is zero variance between us there. You guys varied. Crash.

It's rather convenient to say invisible people ordained you if you are Joseph Smith and you also have invisible plates that contain what you say is new revelation. Not buying all of that invisibility.

And what new revelation did they provide? Nothing. We aren't accepting of new revelation from angels or invisible people who supposedly provide ordinations or new scriptures or any form of enlightenment. I might be a little sympathetic, only a tiny bit, if what was conveyed was consonant with the faith once delivered to the apostles. But your thing isn't that.

Our sacramental prayers were given to us by God.

So isn't this one of your many prayers?:

Body of Christ, save me!
Save me from my great arch-enemy,
my weak and faltering self.
Save me from all greed of money,
of power, and of praise.
Save me from thirst for pleasure,
worldly show, and midnight revelry.
Save me from betraying You, Dear Lord,
in thought, or in word, or in deed.

Amen.

Is this prayer found in the scriptures? And do you also believe that the wafer and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ? However the sacrament is to be done in remembrance of Christ's body and blood. Baptism should be done by emersion at the age of accountability.

The plates were not invisible, neither are angels:

(Book of Mormon | Preface 8 Witnesses:Heading - 1)

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES

1 BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

CHRISTIAN WHITMER
HIRAM PAGE
JACOB WHITMER
JOSEPH SMITH, SEN.
PETER WHITMER, JUN.
HYRUM SMITH
JOHN WHITMER
SAMUEL H. SMITH

 

[He is the way]

If you mean why God stopped sending the Prophets, who can say? The difference between us is that I don't believe that by the time of Jesus that the Jews were in a state of utter apostasy because they ceased having Prophets. Nor do I believe the gifts of God's grace were denied to his people before Christ. God continued to provide for his people as he always does and will do.

Do you believe that those who were born before John the Baptist were baptized? If not what do you believe will happen to them?

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, cool...more attempted entrapment questions that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Keep 'em coming, Mormons! I'm sure you'll eventually find just the right one that magically makes apostolic Christianity into Mormonism!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Our sacramental prayers were given to us by God.

If they were, you could trace them to the liturgies of the early Church.

So isn't this one of your many prayers?:

Body of Christ, save me!
Save me from my great arch-enemy,
my weak and faltering self.
Save me from all greed of money,
of power, and of praise.
Save me from thirst for pleasure,
worldly show, and midnight revelry.
Save me from betraying You, Dear Lord,
in thought, or in word, or in deed.

Amen.

Yup. But it isn't a liturgical prayer. Liturgical prayers have a historical consistency about them. The prayer you cited, well, it's good and all but it ain't liturgical. If someone wants to alter it for their own purposes, it's no big deal. In fact the prayer you cited is a variant off of this 500 year old prayer:

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O Good Jesus, hear me.
Within your wounds hide me.
Permit me not to be separated from you.
From the wicked foe, defend me.
At the hour of my death, call me
and bid me come to you
That with your saints I may praise you
For ever and ever. Amen.

Is this prayer found in the scriptures?

Nope.

And do you also believe that the wafer and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ? However the sacrament is to be done in remembrance of Christ's body and blood.

We Catholics and the OO and the EO believe in common that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Of course. That's original Christianity. That is how it was from Jesus himself at the Last Supper. It's a remembrance in the same way as the Passover meal is a remembrance, which means it re-presents the reality of Jesus. It's not just remembering something or someone from the past. That's another Protestant idea.

Baptism should be done by emersion at the age of accountability.

It's 'immersion'. And baptisms CAN be done that way, but it is allowed for children too AND by pouring or even sprinkling if there is a shortage of water.

The plates were not invisible, neither are angels:

Tell me where the plates are? How can I go see them. Are they in Salt Lake? I can go to Israel and see the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can go to the British Museum that has the Rylands Papyrus from the first century. Where are the plates?

 

[He is the way]

If they were, you could trace them to the liturgies of the early Church.

Yup. But it isn't a liturgical prayer. Liturgical prayers have a historical consistency about them. The prayer you cited, well, it's good and all but it ain't liturgical. If someone wants to alter it for their own purposes, it's no big deal. In fact the prayer you cited is a variant off of this 500 year old prayer:

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O Good Jesus, hear me.
Within your wounds hide me.
Permit me not to be separated from you.
From the wicked foe, defend me.
At the hour of my death, call me
and bid me come to you
That with your saints I may praise you
For ever and ever. Amen.

Nope.

We Catholics and the OO and the EO believe in common that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Of course. That's original Christianity. That is how it was from Jesus himself at the Last Supper. It's a remembrance in the same way as the Passover meal is a remembrance, which means it re-presents the reality of Jesus. It's not just remembering something or someone from the past. That's another Protestant idea.

It's 'immersion'. And baptisms CAN be done that way, but it is allowed for children too AND by pouring or even sprinkling if there is a shortage of water.

Tell me where the plates are? How can I go see them. Are they in Salt Lake? I can go to Israel and see the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can go to the British Museum that has the Rylands Papyrus from the first century. Where are the plates?

So your prayers are not found in the Bible but mine should be in liturgies of the early Church? Sprinkling is not baptism. Where are the original writings of the Bible? They are not in the British Museum.