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

chevyontheriver said:

So you don't accept anything from the ECF? Is that Mormon policy, or just yours?

Click to expand...

LDS Apologeticists have quoted the Fathers. They also quote other documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

chevyontheriver said:

Since you did not specify which of the early Church Fathers you thought were "speaking perverse things to lead the disciples away" am I accurate in assuming you would mean ALL of the early Church Fathers in that?

Click to expand...

IF the LDS do not trust the Fathers, there is no reason to trust the Bible nor LDS Scriptures.

He is the way said:

I have read enough about them to know that Paul was right about them.

Click to expand...

Examples please, use only primary sources with links, so we can read them for ourselves.

Thanks friend,
daniel

chevyontheriver said:

So your position is that once the apostles all died there was no way to consecrate a valid bishop, when the validly consecrated bishops died there were no more bishops, and that was that. Jesus created a Church with a two generation shelf life. Is that your position?

Click to expand...

I am laughing at LDS Position, not yours.

Peter1000 said:

If you can show me the church that has the "keys to the kingdom of God", then I will be open to changing my position. But if you can't, then I have a great position to stand on.

Click to expand...

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Irenaeus, c. AD 185
This next quote is an argument by Irenaeus against the gnostics, who argued that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of Jesus Christ. I am including the quote only because the "key of David" is mentioned. Roman Catholic apologists argue that this key of David is the same as the keys of the Kingdom given by Jesus to Peter (e.g., Dr. Scott Hahn on the Papacy).

But in all things nothing has been kept back [from Jesus], and for this reason the same person is the Judge of the living and the dead, "having the key of David. He shall open, and no man shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open." [Rev. 3:7]. For no one was able, either in heaven or in earth, or under the earth, to open the book of the Father, or to behold him, with the exception of the Lamb who was slain, and who redeemed us with his own blood, receiving power over all things from the same God who made all things by the Word, and adorned them by Wisdom, when the "Word was made flesh" [Jn. 1:14], that even as the Word of God had the sovereignty in the heavens, so also might he have the sovereignty in earth. (Against Heresies, IV:20:2).

Tertullian, AD 190-210
What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that [the apostles] were ignorant of anything? The Lord ordained them to be teachers. He watched over them ... in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society. When they were alone, he used to expound all things which were obscure to them, telling them that ot them it was given to know those mysteries [Matt. 13:11] that it was not permitted for the people to understand. Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built" and who also obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and one earth? [Matt. 16:18-19]. Again, was anything concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on his breast [Jn. 21:20]and to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as traitor [Jn. 13:25-26], and whom he commended to Mary as a son in his own stead? [Jn. 19:26]. (Prescription Against Heretics 22)

For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him. ("Scorpiace" 10)

Keys of the Kingdom - Quotes

Peter1000 said:

Hoarded is an unfortunate word used here. A better word would be protected. But if Rome recongized the OO's priesthood as the same as its own, that tells you how much value they took in the keys of the kingdom of God. Not much, since the OO broke away from them, and formed their own church, with their own special orthodoxy, and created their own pope, and would not, and may not commune with each other with the sacrament of the Lords supper.
They may be friendly on the outside but their schism is far from being healed.

Click to expand...

First let me clarify a few things for you. The 'OO' refers to Oriental Orthodox, who are distinct from the 'EO' referring to the Eastern Orthodox. The Orthodox of both sorts are in schism but neither have changed doctrines to any degree, especially not in regard to the priesthood, nor have they abandoned apostolic succession. A schism is were old men act stubbornly. Though this schism has lasted a long time it is essentially temporary. Thus no reason to claim that they, because they still have valid bishops, and unchanged doctrine, are outsiders. They maintain all seven sacraments.

One of the concrete parts of the presence of the keys is the ability to absolve sins in confession. I think you might have preferred if we Catholics refused to accept the validity of Orthodox confessions. Old fashioned Christianity is not like that. We are stubborn, but there is nonetheless a sense of collegiality that the Catholics hold to with our closely separated brothers in Christ. With most Protestants we share baptism. With the Orthodox all the sacraments. With the LDS, nothing. We don't share a priesthood because we have totally different concepts of God, of who the eternal Son of the Father is, and of priesthood. There is no common ground sacramentally nor theologically.

Yes, we agree on this. However the long term effect of this position is to send the MP into darkness and make it as if it were nothing. They succeeded in doing just that. The average protestant, which makes up about 1/4 if Christians, know very little about MP.

Click to expand...

Which is their choice, having chosen different doctrines and having chosen to do away with apostolic succession. They maintain the sacrament of baptism and some fidelity to the Bible.

We agree here too, except that their mention of the MP superficial.

Click to expand...

It is not a mere mention, but is part of the canon of the mass.

Just mentioning it is good, but this canon gives us no explanation of the the MP is or how it functions in the church. So OK they mention it. Not much help.

Click to expand...

The canon of the mass does not 'explain' things, just like the creed does not 'explain; but states. The canon is the very center of the mass, and Melchizedek is right there. Catholics understand their priests to be of the order of Melchizedek because that is the order of the priesthood of Jesus.

Martin Luther called Rome, the home of satan, and the pope was satan incarnated. So if Rome once held the keys to the kingdom of heaven, they lost those keys over hundreds of years of apostacy and wickedness.
No man can hold the MP and use it unworthily, or amen to his MP. It is a foregone conclusion that Rome became a decadent place that brought about its fall, and its reputation as the home of satan.

Click to expand...

Martin Luther was a coarse man, and his say-so does not make anything so. And furthermore, Catholics have been trying to destroy the Catholic Church for almost 2000 years and have failed miserably though not through lack of trying. So your claim that the Catholic Church has self-destructed because Martin Luther said nasty things about it is ... well ... humorous. Especially since you have so little in common with Luther other than rejecting the Catholic Church.

Daniel Marsh said:

Examples please, use only primary sources with links, so we can read them for ourselves.

Thanks friend,
daniel

Click to expand...

Paul wrote:
(New Testament | Acts 20:29 - 31)

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

"The authorship of the Letter to the Church of Corinth (I Clement), the most important 1st-century document other than the New Testament, has been traditionally ascribed to him. Still extant, it was written to settle a controversy among the Corinthians against their church leaders and reveals that Clement considered himself empowered to intervene"

From: Saint Clement I | pope

"In the fourth century, the battle for the Trinity intensified in the midst of christological and pneumatological errors. In the early fourth century, a presbyter from Alexandria named Arius (256–336) asserted that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Emphasizing the oneness of God, Arius declared that the Son was a created being. “At the will of God, he was created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father” (Arius, Letter to Alexander; NPNF2 4:458). Though Arius granted that the Son was unique, he nonetheless maintained that he was a created being. Arius leaned upon Proverbs 8:22-31 and Colossians 1:15 for supposed biblical support of the Son’s status as a creature. These were the same passages a century earlier that Origen chose in order highlight the unique status of Christ, yet not as a created being. Arius also pointed to various passages such as John 14:28 and Mark 13:32 to show that the Son was lesser than the Father."

From: Trinitarianism in the Early Church - The Gospel Coalition

"Orthodoxy is thus self-sustaining. Sources that contradict it are simply edited out. Inconvenient gospels are omitted from the canon of the Bible, and labelled apocryphal. Inconvenient early Christian writers are labelled heretics. Inconvenient ecumenical councils are discovered not to have been infallible ecumenical councils after all, merely fraudulent shams promoted by heretics. Inconvenient bishops of Rome have their names removed retrospectively from the list of infallible popes. Despite this selectivity, coherence is still difficult to come by. The gospels contradict each other. Infallible Christian emperors contradict each other. The Church Fathers contradict each other. Ecumenical councils contradict each other. Infallible popes contradict each other, and of course each of the five possible sources (gospels, emperors, Fathers, councils and popes) also contradict each of the other four on numerous points."

From: Bad News About Christianity - No Reliable Church Authorities

More at:

CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book VII (Eusebius)

The Fallibility of the Early Church Fathers: Why Christians Should Look to the Bible Alone for Doctrine

Library Guides: Church Fathers & Other Early Christian Literature: Early Theological Divergence & Schism

Peter1000 said:

The Church of Jesus Christ has many articles and manuels and history regarding the MP, tons more than any Christian church. We claim Peter gave his keys to JS and Oliver Cowdry by the laying on of hands. JS was instructed by the Lord himself as to how the MP functions in a church and we believe that heaven recognizes our keys and recognizes our authority and power to baptise and do all that is needed to get a person ready for Jesus Christ to save them in the kingdom of heaven.

Click to expand...

Just because the LDS talks about Melchizedek doesn't make it that the LDS has an authentic Mechizedek priesthood. For that you would have to have bishops ordained by bishops in succession ordained by apostles who were ordained by Jesus. There is no short cut around that. But you guys don't have that. You have a 1700 year gap instead. So you can speak all you want about Melchizedek, write manuals about Melchizedek, have legends about Melchizedek, claim Peter gave keys to Joseph Smith, and that Jesus Christ himself explained it all to treasure hunter and some missing plates in a language nobody else has ever heard of.

Thing is, mentioning Melchizedek a lot doesn't mean you have Melchizedek right.The guys who got Melchizedek right have it right because they have held the Melchizedek priesthood for almost 2000 years now with no interruption.

It takes the MP for someone to be saved.

Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't. What it takes for someone to be saved is faith and baptism. And for a valid baptism only three things are necessary, water, the Trinitarian words of baptism, and the intent of the guy baptizing to do what the Church does when baptizing. And thus a Catholic priest could validly baptize, so could a Baptist minister, a Jewish doctor, my neighbor, and so could I. No requirement for a priest of the order of Melchizedek for baptism. But not everything that claims to be baptism really is acceptable. For example, the LDS baptism, because it is done without the intent of being a Christian Trinitarian baptism, is no baptism at all. Someone from the LDS, to become Catholic, would need to be baptized.

LDS interpretation of the Church Fathers is one of a viewpoint in hindsight. They cannot look at the Fathers for what they said themselves or did in of themselves and their own context, because if they did that the LDS view of history simply crumbles. So there's a strict scrutiny which is applied to the sources in order to make them fit into an LDS narrative.

They take the apostasy as a given and start from this primary assumption. The Church fell. When? No definitive answer but we see as early as Ignatius and the Ante-Nicene period a complete disregard for what the LDS claim as important markers of the Church. IE, living Apostles. The Church Fathers, who as far as I can tell didn't consider living Apostles to be necessary to preserve the faith.

They will look through the Church Fathers for any reference that seems to resemble their own religion. There's one reference they are fond of making to a Priest who had to be convinced that God was spirit and not a man. They claim this as evidence of an original belief in the materiality of the Gods. In general, I haven't seen Mormons take seriously the Fathers of the Church in of themselves.

How can they? Much like how we read the book of Mormon, with a highly critical eye, they read the Church Fathers and historic Christian literature with a similar lens. Augustine for the Mormon is not an admirable figure or a good theological thinker, he is a corruptor of the true Christian faith, like all the Fathers who built error upon error in a never ending cascade of corruption. We must remember, Mormons consider our creeds and beliefs to be abominations, on the level of witchcraft or homosexuality.

When it comes to my own reading of the Fathers, it's changed over time. When I was much more zealous and enthusiastic I would read very uncritically, often just searching for references to quote mine. I can now read the Fathers with a less passionate lens and get what they were trying to convey. Some of their excesses and some of the pearls of their wisdom.

Mormons go way too far in their critical reading of Church history, because it seems to me they have to. Can it really be, after all, that there was no one worthy of being made an Apostle until Joseph Smith? I've been struck by the Mormons who have seemed to imply this, though I can't recall if they've directly said it. To me it's one of the chief flaws of Mormonism that they cannot explain why God would allow the world's greatest false religion to flourish? To proclaim abominations about God (as if he were all-powerful, all knowing and eternal. To deny the Father's own humanity. Till Mormons can come up with a satisfactory answer to this problem, I know at least I have no reason to even consider Mormonism when compared to Christianity.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

LDS interpretation of the Church Fathers is one of a viewpoint in hindsight. They cannot look at the Fathers for what they said themselves or did in of themselves and their own context, because if they did that the LDS view of history simply crumbles. So there's a strict scrutiny which is applied to the sources in order to make them fit into an LDS narrative.

They take the apostasy as a given and start from this primary assumption. The Church fell. When? No definitive answer but we see as early as Ignatius and the Ante-Nicene period a complete disregard for what the LDS claim as important markers of the Church. IE, living Apostles. The Church Fathers, who as far as I can tell didn't consider living Apostles to be necessary to preserve the faith.

They will look through the Church Fathers for any reference that seems to resemble their own religion. There's one reference they are fond of making to a Priest who had to be convinced that God was spirit and not a man. They claim this as evidence of an original belief in the materiality of the Gods. In general, I haven't seen Mormons take seriously the Fathers of the Church in of themselves.

How can they? Much like how we read the book of Mormon, with a highly critical eye, they read the Church Fathers and historic Christian literature with a similar lens. Augustine for the Mormon is not an admirable figure or a good theological thinker, he is a corruptor of the true Christian faith, like all the Fathers who built error upon error in a never ending cascade of corruption. We must remember, Mormons consider our creeds and beliefs to be abominations, on the level of witchcraft or homosexuality.

When it comes to my own reading of the Fathers, it's changed over time. When I was much more zealous and enthusiastic I would read very uncritically, often just searching for references to quote mine. I can now read the Fathers with a less passionate lens and get what they were trying to convey. Some of their excesses and some of the pearls of their wisdom.

Mormons go way too far in their critical reading of Church history, because it seems to me they have to. Can it really be, after all, that there was no one worthy of being made an Apostle until Joseph Smith? I've been struck by the Mormons who have seemed to imply this, though I can't recall if they've directly said it. To me it's one of the chief flaws of Mormonism that they cannot explain why God would allow the world's greatest false religion to flourish? To proclaim abominations about God (as if he were all-powerful, all knowing and eternal. To deny the Father's own humanity. Till Mormons can come up with a satisfactory answer to this problem, I know at least I have no reason to even consider Mormonism when compared to Christianity.

Click to expand...

You want to know why God would allow the world's greatest false religion to flourish. I could answer to this by looking at what happened during the life of Jesus Christ. The traditions of the people had cast out the pure LOVE of Christ. Their hearts were far from God, so far that they even killed the most innocent person that ever lived. I believe God allowed this for two reasons. First for the atonement making it possible for God's children to return home to Him after the fall. Second for His children to come to their senses and turn from their evil ways and learn the way of pure LOVE which Jesus taught. God does allow His children to sin. He allows them to turn away from Him and their fellow men. He allows them to go astray and fall into all manner of contention over trivial maters that have little or nothing to do with the LOVE we should have for one another. That is why Jesus said:

(New Testament | Matthew 5:37)

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The people didn't listen and contentions grew. Nor did they listen to His advice about LOVE:

(New Testament | John 14:15 - 17)

15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

(New Testament | 1 John 3:21 - 24)

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Even now people have NOT learned the pure LOVE of God.

He is the way said:

You want to know why God would allow the world's greatest false religion to flourish. I could answer to this by looking at what happened during the life of Jesus Christ. The traditions of the people had cast out the pure LOVE of Christ. Their hearts were far from God, so far that they even killed the most innocent person that ever lived. I believe God allowed this for two reasons. First for the atonement making it possible for God's children to return home to Him after the fall. Second for His children to come to their senses and turn from their evil ways and learn the way of pure LOVE which Jesus taught. God does allow His children to sin. He allows them to turn away from Him and their fellow men. He allows them to go astray and fall into all manner of contention over trivial maters that have little or nothing to do with the LOVE we should have for one another. That is why Jesus said:

Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before many times and it's always the same answer. You say God allowed men to follow men rather than God, but Christians didn't have a choice since God didn't provide any Prophets. Your next response is then to suggest that no one was worthy of being a Prophet and then I ask how that can possibly be when even the Prophets themselves were sinners in the Old Testament. God can make use of anyone and Mormons have no reasonable explanation as to why God should have not given Christians another Prophet to follow.

You say Christians lacked a love of Jesus? When I look at Christian history I don't see a lack of love for Jesus. I see Martyrs. I see all manner of people willing to give up their lives for the sake of Christ. Then again, there is no convincing you that Christians actually loved for and cared about Jesus. Because any interpretation of the Fathers I might give you will give a negative gloss. Ignatius of Antioch? Probably conceited. Joan of Arc? Probably delusional and a warmonger to boot. The list could go on.

So again, it's not that your God simply allowed us to go astray. There was no choice but that Christians and the world go astray. Mormons demand this by their insistence of the need for Prophets and God's singular failure to provide a Prophet or Apostle is his responsibility not ours.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

We've had this discussion before many times and it's always the same answer. You say God allowed men to follow men rather than God, but Christians didn't have a choice since God didn't provide any Prophets. Your next response is then to suggest that no one was worthy of being a Prophet and then I ask how that can possibly be when even the Prophets themselves were sinners in the Old Testament. God can make use of anyone and Mormons have no reasonable explanation as to why God should have not given Christians another Prophet to follow.

You say Christians lacked a love of Jesus? When I look at Christian history I don't see a lack of love for Jesus. I see Martyrs. I see all manner of people willing to give up their lives for the sake of Christ. Then again, there is no convincing you that Christians actually loved for and cared about Jesus. Because any interpretation of the Fathers I might give you will give a negative gloss. Ignatius of Antioch? Probably conceited. Joan of Arc? Probably delusional and a warmonger to boot. The list could go on.

So again, it's not that your God simply allowed us to go astray. There was no choice but that Christians and the world go astray. Mormons demand this by their insistence of the need for Prophets and God's singular failure to provide a Prophet or Apostle is his responsibility not ours.

Click to expand...

You said: "Mormons demand this by their insistence of the need for Prophets and God's singular failure to provide a Prophet or Apostle is his responsibility not ours."

God did provide us with prophets in these latter days. They teach us the importance of the gospel and keeping the commandments as being the principals that we are taught in the Bible:

(New Testament | 1 John 3:21 - 24)
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Unfortunately contentions and dissentions arose after Christ ascended into heaven:

(New Testament | 2 Timothy 2:22 - 26)

22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I pray that LOVE will abound and that we may have an attitude of gratitude:

He is the way said:

You said: "Mormons demand this by their insistence of the need for Prophets and God's singular failure to provide a Prophet or Apostle is his responsibility not ours."

God did provide us with prophets in these latter days. They teach us the importance of the gospel and keeping the commandments as being the principals that we are taught in the Bible:



(New Testament | 1 John 3:21 - 24)
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of left just repeating myself. God didn't provide a prophet despite the obvious need for one in order to prevent corruption and dissension that you accuse Christians of. There was literally no way for us, according to the logic of Mormonism for us to not have become corrupted and have our faith become the abomination you accuse it of being. This is despite the presence of devoted and devout people all throughout Church history.

I'm willing to admit men are fallible. I'm willing to admit that men are sinners. What I'm not willing to do is blame those people doing their best when God isn't providing his part of the deal. God could have chosen any random sinner and made him a Prophet or his anointed, like he did with David. God could have taken any random simpleton and made him his chosen, like he did with Abraham (as much as Abraham is our Father in the faith he was not a particularly intelligent person). No such action is beyond the power of God, yet Mormons in order to make sure heavenly Father can't be blamed have to indict all of Christian history. There was not one worthy until Joseph Smith of being a Prophet, not one. This despite countless examples of God choosing sinful and flawed men to accomplish his will.

To say that it's because we fell away and that we became sinful is a cop out and circular reasoning. That's part of my frustration with these sorts of discussions, Mormons simply end up repeating the doctrine ad-nauseum. Why did the Apostasy happen? Because the Church fell into disbelief. Why did the Church fell into disbelief? Because there were no Apostles. Why were there no Apostles? Because the Church fell into apostasy. ???

You can quote mine the bible all you like. It doesn't actually prove anything on this subject and I remain unconvinced of Mormon exegesis so it does nothing for me.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

LDS interpretation of the Church Fathers is one of a viewpoint in hindsight. They cannot look at the Fathers for what they said themselves or did in of themselves and their own context, because if they did that the LDS view of history simply crumbles. So there's a strict scrutiny which is applied to the sources in order to make them fit into an LDS narrative.

Click to expand...

We look at the 2nd century church with what the apostles said was going to happen in the bible. Not with what the ECF say. They, in many way became part of the problem, such as the leaders in bishops in Asia (2 Timothy 1:15) and the bishops of Corinth (1 Corinthians 3:2), and Diotrephes, the leading man in his church who rejects John the apostle and does not want him around anymore (3 John 1:9-10, and Paul telling the elders in Ephesus that after he departs many among this stalwart group would become grevious wolves that would not spare the flock.
(Acts 20:17 & 28-30).

They take the apostasy as a given and start from this primary assumption. The Church fell. When? No definitive answer but we see as early as Ignatius and the Ante-Nicene period a complete disregard for what the LDS claim as important markers of the Church. IE, living Apostles. The Church Fathers, who as far as I can tell didn't consider living Apostles to be necessary to preserve the faith.

Click to expand...

As Paul states in Acts 20:28-30, not long after he departs.

By the time the apostles were all killed, many branches of the church would not accept them anyway. John had this problem with Diotrephes, who threatened members of his church that if they let John into their homes, they would be driven from the church. How many Diotrephes types of bishops were there even before all the apostles had died.

We do read of many in the 2nd generation that were faithful and even were martyrs for Jesus, but how many were Diotrephes type, who rejected living apostles because they obviously got in their way of power.

They will look through the Church Fathers for any reference that seems to resemble their own religion. There's one reference they are fond of making to a Priest who had to be convinced that God was spirit and not a man. They claim this as evidence of an original belief in the materiality of the Gods. In general, I haven't seen Mormons take seriously the Fathers of the Church in of themselves.

Click to expand...

We can only take them seriously up to the end of the 2nd generation, because after this the priesthood and keys were missing.

How can they? Much like how we read the book of Mormon, with a highly critical eye, they read the Church Fathers and historic Christian literature with a similar lens. Augustine for the Mormon is not an admirable figure or a good theological thinker, he is a corruptor of the true Christian faith, like all the Fathers who built error upon error in a never ending cascade of corruption. We must remember, Mormons consider our creeds and beliefs to be abominations, on the level of witchcraft or homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Augustine was a good man, but he was also wrong on so many levels. He mixed his Zoraster with Greek philosophy with Jesus's words and came up with lots of doctrines that were false.

We say nothing of your creeds to be like witchcraft or homosexuality. Who came up this this lie.
We just say your creeds present God in a light that is not true. It is one of the signs of the apostasy.

Mormons go way too far in their critical reading of Church history, because it seems to me they have to. Can it really be, after all, that there was no one worthy of being made an Apostle until Joseph Smith? I've been struck by the Mormons who have seemed to imply this, though I can't recall if they've directly said it. To me it's one of the chief flaws of Mormonism that they cannot explain why God would allow the world's greatest false religion to flourish? To proclaim abominations about God (as if he were all-powerful, all knowing and eternal. To deny the Father's own humanity. Till Mormons can come up with a satisfactory answer to this problem, I know at least I have no reason to even consider Mormonism when compared to Christianity.

Click to expand...

There were many people who were worthy of being an apostle, and Jesus brought in many apostles after the original 12, but eventually the writing was on the wall. The world was rejecting them and killing them, and even many in the church was rejecting them. So eventually God said, OK, you reject my apostles, I will reject you. And he did.

He allowed the Christian church to meander down through history, preaching this and that and all manner of doctrines, and even denying the power of God on this earth represented in the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the Melchizedek priesthood. Except for the Catholic church, who has demonstrated repeatedly that they were not worthy to hold those keys or true priesthood.


Jesus allowed it because he had a alternative to this church, whereby all men and women down through the centuries would have the opportunity to hear the true gospel, without the threat of being disenfranchised or persecuted, or killed, and receive all the saving ordinances needed to be saved in the kingdom of God.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I'm kind of left just repeating myself. God didn't provide a prophet despite the obvious need for one in order to prevent corruption and dissension that you accuse Christians of. There was literally no way for us, according to the logic of Mormonism for us to not have become corrupted and have our faith become the abomination you accuse it of being. This is despite the presence of devoted and devout people all throughout Church history.

I'm willing to admit men are fallible. I'm willing to admit that men are sinners. What I'm not willing to do is blame those people doing their best when God isn't providing his part of the deal. God could have chosen any random sinner and made him a Prophet or his anointed, like he did with David. God could have taken any random simpleton and made him his chosen, like he did with Abraham (as much as Abraham is our Father in the faith he was not a particularly intelligent person). No such action is beyond the power of God, yet Mormons in order to make sure heavenly Father can't be blamed have to indict all of Christian history. There was not one worthy until Joseph Smith of being a Prophet, not one. This despite countless examples of God choosing sinful and flawed men to accomplish his will.

To say that it's because we fell away and that we became sinful is a cop out and circular reasoning. That's part of my frustration with these sorts of discussions, Mormons simply end up repeating the doctrine ad-nauseum. Why did the Apostasy happen? Because the Church fell into disbelief. Why did the Church fell into disbelief? Because there were no Apostles. Why were there no Apostles? Because the Church fell into apostasy. ???

You can quote mine the bible all you like. It doesn't actually prove anything on this subject and I remain unconvinced of Mormon exegesis so it does nothing for me.

Click to expand...

To know there was an apostasy, just look at how many Christian churches there are today.

IOW from 1 church we now have thousands, all teaching different doctrines and not being willing to reconcile with their fellow Christians. And when there is a chance of reconciliation, it falls apart in the morass of multitudinous doctrines whereby men are carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
Just like Paul said would happen if the apostles were not among us:
Ephesians 4:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

Notice what happens if we do not have living apostles:
1) no perfecting of the saints (this is even taught today as a false doctrine)
2) no true work of the ministry (why, because no keys or MP)
3) no edifying of the body of Christ (a good part of truth is lost, so we cannot edify/give true saving informtion to our congregations/or body of Christ.)
4) we cannot come into a unity of the faith
5) we cannot come to a full knowledge of the Son of God
6) we cannot come to an undertanding what a perfect man Jesus was, or understand the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (we cannot know or understand Christ)
7) we will henceforth be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

This is exactly what happened when the living apostles were taken from an unbelieving, killing, wicked world, by God, Jesus's Father, who said even after only 130 years, this is enough, I will use an alternative method to save my children.

chevyontheriver said:

Just because the LDS talks about Melchizedek doesn't make it that the LDS has an authentic Mechizedek priesthood. For that you would have to have bishops ordained by bishops in succession ordained by apostles who were ordained by Jesus. There is no short cut around that. But you guys don't have that. You have a 1700 year gap instead. So you can speak all you want about Melchizedek, write manuals about Melchizedek, have legends about Melchizedek, claim Peter gave keys to Joseph Smith, and that Jesus Christ himself explained it all to treasure hunter and some missing plates in a language nobody else has ever heard of.

Click to expand...

You don't start with bishops, then apostles, then Jesus. You start with Jesus, then apostles, ordained by Jesus, then bishops, ordained by apostles.
JS was ordained by apostles who were ordained by Jesus. It is a very strong position. I realize you must believe that Peter, James, and John came to the prophet JS and ordained him and Oliver Cowdrey, but if it did happen, it is a very strong position. One that is stronger than any other church has with regards to keys and MP, even stronger than the Catholic church who only has a second place position. And only second place, because they at one time did hold the keys and the MP, but have long ago laid them aside for the glories of this world. All other Christian churches who broke from the Catholic, are not in the running because they cared more for their own power and money than for the true keys and the MP which the Catholic church once held.

Martin Luther recognized this conundrum because he was a Catholic priest. He decided, with tremendous anxiety to give up his MP and break from the Catholic, so he could start his own church. He reconciled this conundrum by saying, men do not need the MP to access God, and so for hundreds of years, the reformers have taught their peope that the MP is not necessary to be saved. They were wrong then, they are wrong today. But God has an alternative course for Martins blunder, and for all the protestant people to be saved.

Actually, it doesn't. What it takes for someone to be saved is faith and baptism. And for a valid baptism only three things are necessary, water, the Trinitarian words of baptism, and the intent of the guy baptizing to do what the Church does when baptizing. And thus a Catholic priest could validly baptize, so could a Baptist minister, a Jewish doctor, my neighbor, and so could I. No requirement for a priest of the order of Melchizedek for baptism. But not everything that claims to be baptism really is acceptable. For example, the LDS baptism, because it is done without the intent of being a Christian Trinitarian baptism, is no baptism at all. Someone from the LDS, to become Catholic, would need to be baptized.

Click to expand...

When Jesus went to be baptized, he went to the only person that was authorized to baptize in the name of the Lord. That was John the Baptist. By the time Jesus left this world, there were only 12 people that had the authority to baptize, that was the 11 apostles, soon to be 12.

That is the whole reason for the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The person or persons who held these keys, could baptize, and that baptism was recognized by heaven. Someone that came around baptizing without those keys had no right to baptize and his baptisms were not recognized by heaven, either in the time of the apostles or now.
Let me say this again. Without the keys, anyone out there preaching and baptizing is doing it on their own power, but heaven does not recongize their work. So a person baptized by this man is not really baptized. But for that faithful person, God does have an aternative course for them to be saved. All is not lost.

You sound just like Martin Harris when you say no requirement for a priest of the order of Melchizedek for baptism. He was wrong.

Acts 8:37-38 King James Version (KJV)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The eunuch answered Philip: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then Philip, having the keys to baptize, baptized him.

Notice what the eunuch did not say: I believe in the Christian Trinitarian baptism, then Philip baptized him. Didn't say what you think is necessary for a truthful baptism. Who do I believe. You or the bible?

When I was baptized, I confessed the at I believe that Jesus was the son of God, and I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Any problems with this, biblically? The person that baptized me held the keys (of which you do not think is necessary any way), I confessed Jesus is the Son of God and I was baptized just like Jesus by immersion with the proper prayer given me during that baptism. Tell me what you think of my baptism.

chevyontheriver said:

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.

Click to expand...

Who do you think taught Adam about God? It was Jesus. IOW, the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than people and their beliefs about Jesus. Adam was certainly a Christian, believing that Jesus was the Son of God.

Is that a monumental concept to you?

If Adam was a Christian, so was Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, etc., etc., etc.

Why were they all Christians. Simply because they believed in Jesus and that he was the Son of God. Jesus taught all of them, appearted unto all of them and they believed. Yes, his church was a little different over the years, as per circumstances.

Who do you think gave Moses the Law of Moses, Jesus. They were literally Christians, but why was the Law of Moses different than the Law of Christ given to the people at the time of Christ?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I'm kind of left just repeating myself. God didn't provide a prophet despite the obvious need for one in order to prevent corruption and dissension that you accuse Christians of. There was literally no way for us, according to the logic of Mormonism for us to not have become corrupted and have our faith become the abomination you accuse it of being. This is despite the presence of devoted and devout people all throughout Church history.

I'm willing to admit men are fallible. I'm willing to admit that men are sinners. What I'm not willing to do is blame those people doing their best when God isn't providing his part of the deal. God could have chosen any random sinner and made him a Prophet or his anointed, like he did with David. God could have taken any random simpleton and made him his chosen, like he did with Abraham (as much as Abraham is our Father in the faith he was not a particularly intelligent person). No such action is beyond the power of God, yet Mormons in order to make sure heavenly Father can't be blamed have to indict all of Christian history. There was not one worthy until Joseph Smith of being a Prophet, not one. This despite countless examples of God choosing sinful and flawed men to accomplish his will.

To say that it's because we fell away and that we became sinful is a cop out and circular reasoning. That's part of my frustration with these sorts of discussions, Mormons simply end up repeating the doctrine ad-nauseum. Why did the Apostasy happen? Because the Church fell into disbelief. Why did the Church fell into disbelief? Because there were no Apostles. Why were there no Apostles? Because the Church fell into apostasy. ???

You can quote mine the bible all you like. It doesn't actually prove anything on this subject and I remain unconvinced of Mormon exegesis so it does nothing for me.

Click to expand...

Abraham was a great prophet because he was a righteous person:

(Old Testament | Genesis 26:5)

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

That being said not all of the prophets were righteous and God let them know that they weren't. Many of the prophets did what was right and God dealt with the ones who didn't. Prophets were needed for Christ's church:

(Old Testament | Amos 3:7)

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 13)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

It is not good to make light of what a prophet says:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 7:19 - 20)

19 And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the LORD should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.
20 And so it fell out unto him: for the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died.

He is the way said:

Abraham was a great prophet because he was a righteous person:

(Old Testament | Genesis 26:5)

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

That being said not all of the prophets were righteous and God let them know that they weren't. Many of the prophets did what was right and God dealt with the ones who didn't. Prophets were needed for Christ's church:

(Old Testament | Amos 3:7)

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 13)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

It is not good to make light of what a prophet says:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 7:19 - 20)

19 And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the LORD should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.
20 And so it fell out unto him: for the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died.

Click to expand...

I didn't deny Abraham's righteousness. Only said that he was a simpleton and based on some of Abraham's bad decisions its not an unreasonable thing to say. But if we're to believe that God doesn't choose sinners to be his annointed he would not have chosen David who killed a man after cucking him.

My point is that God can use literally anyone to accomplish his will and be his instrument.

Peter1000 said:

To know there was an apostasy, just look at how many Christian churches there are today.

IOW from 1 church we now have thousands, all teaching different doctrines and not being willing to reconcile with their fellow Christians. And when there is a chance of reconciliation, it falls apart in the morass of multitudinous doctrines whereby men are carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
Just like Paul said would happen if the apostles were not among us:
Ephesians 4:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

Notice what happens if we do not have living apostles:
1) no perfecting of the saints (this is even taught today as a false doctrine)
2) no true work of the ministry (why, because no keys or MP)
3) no edifying of the body of Christ (a good part of truth is lost, so we cannot edify/give true saving informtion to our congregations/or body of Christ.)
4) we cannot come into a unity of the faith
5) we cannot come to a full knowledge of the Son of God
6) we cannot come to an undertanding what a perfect man Jesus was, or understand the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (we cannot know or understand Christ)
7) we will henceforth be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

This is exactly what happened when the living apostles were taken from an unbelieving, killing, wicked world, by God, Jesus's Father, who said even after only 130 years, this is enough, I will use an alternative method to save my children.

Click to expand...

In your previous post you said that God saw the writing on the wall and left the Church to it's own devices. That men were going to apostasize and abandon truth. My question for you is why hasn't God done this with the Mormon Church?