Changes In Ordinances

[srm]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 28 2005, 09:50 AM

Ok, Cal.

Mormons used to baptise in the Temples for "health" purposes. They had to obtain a recommend, and they fully expected that this "ordinance" would restore the sick to a normal state.

This practice occured from the days of Joseph Smith untill the early 20th century, when it was done away.

IF this was a true ordinance (and I can't see how a Mormon could claim otherwise being approved by Smith, Young, Taylor, & Woodruff) then how can the Mormons change it?

That is exactly like the Roman Catholics and their inclusion of Pouring, Sprinkling, in addition to Immersion baptism.

So yes, Mormons are "changing" their ordinances. They claim it's a "legitimate development" just like the Catholics do. But for some reason, when the Catholics do it, it's apostate, when the Mormons do it, it's "continuous revelation".

How's that?

We aren't saying that it wasn't a legitmate ordinance...rather that we don't do it now in favor of another legitmate ordinance...anointing with oil.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 29 2005, 10:22 PM

All their motives needn't be driven by deceit and none of their motive need have been driven by hate. People and institutions can stray drastically from an original path quite rapidly. Corrupt motives needn't even be present as the sole or key driver. It could simply be an absence of inspiration. Without inspiration and the original possessors of the truth gone man, left to his own devices, could deviate substantially.

Hmmm - what does this description remind me of? For those of us who see the history of the LDS church in a different light then its members, Snow's statement could easily describe 19th century LDS history.

Look at the current difference, after just 170 years, between the CoC and the LDS Church. I don't have to believe that the RLDS/CoC was driven by corruption and hate (or vice versa) to get them where they are today.

Yes, the reminder of polygamy haunts the CofC to this very day. The "Fundamentalists" wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the CofC.

M.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal+Jun 29 2005, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jun 29 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 29 2005, 10:07 AM

From my own understanding an ordinance is a ritual (outward manifestation) initiating or renewing a covenant.  The intent of an ordinance is to unite the physical and spiritual commitment of a covenant.  When we speak of changing ordinances as a sign of apostasy it is indication that ether the commandments and purpose of the associated covenant to the ordinance has become heresy or the proxy representation of G-d is not authorized.  Because ordinances are symbolic, by nature, a cultural shift in symbolism can, and often does affect both the physical ordinance and the spiritual significance of the ordinance.

Part of an ordinance is the proxy representation of G-d.  Because a covenant is between man and G-d it is necessary that an authorized proxy representing G-d be present.  LDS understand the authorized proxy as an ordained priesthood holder (either by G-d or someone that is directly linked to someone ordained by G-d).  If an authorized proxy representing G-d is not present then neither the “King” nor the “kingdom” is present or represented.

LDS believe that no man can change the symbolism of an ordinance unless they hold the keys of the ordinance, as Peter did in the absence of Christ.  The LDS claim of the ordinances being changed is an indication of apostasy linked directly to the loss of keys to the ordinances.  Without the keys there can be no authorization of proxy or ordinances, the infrastructure of the Kingdom being represented is not support by G-d. 

The Traveler

So, we know there was an apostacy and therefore loss of priesthood because the ordinances changed, and the ordinances changed because there was a loss of priesthood. I smell a tautology.

Cal: I do not think you understand my point. If you had a checking account with $5,000 and I found a slick (or illegal) way to withdraw that money from your account would you think I had done something wrong? If you say yes and I was of your same mentality and following your logic I could call you a hypocrite. How dare you point a finger at someone else (me), saying I have done something wrong, when all that is doing on is the exact same thing you have done yourself? How come when you do it, you say it is okay but if I, or for that matter anyone else does the same thing that you do all of a sudden it is not okay?

The point is that if men form a committee and take it upon themselves to be proxy to G-d to further their own interests that is very different than G-d sending his authorized (legal) proxy to represent his interest, even if his proxy makes a mistake; that is different than someone else taking unauthorized authority unto themselves.

So here is the point I am trying to make – and you can disagree, no big surprise – but it is still the point I think is important. According to the early Christian era (425 AD) there was no authority to create new scripture, and no authority to change the ordinances established by the apostles. Now we know that the ordinances were changed from the time of the apostles to 425 AD; in the very period that there was no authority to change the ordinances.

Now you seem bent out of shape because the latter day Church is alive and changing with the authority to do so and you cannot see the difference because during the time when the Christian believed change was no longer to be made – and doing so was therefore, apostasy. You may not agree but I see a big difference.

The Traveler

[Jason]

Traveller,

You know, Mormons hate it when people mis-represent their beliefs, but I see this misrepresentation all too often here.

Let me (an Orthodox Catholic) explain what WE believe:

According to the early Christian era (425 AD) there was no authority to create new scripture, and no authority to change the ordinances established by the apostles.

You're incorrect. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has both the authority to alter ordinances (which it didn't) and created a Canon of the New Testament for the SOLE purpose of establishing the true from the spurios letters of the Apostles to combat heresies like the Gnostics.

The OHCA Church claims both continuing revelation, but at the same time that there will be NO new doctrine, other than that which the Apostles delivered (of which the majority is not Included in the New Testament, but was handed down orally via the Apostolic Fathers).

  Now we know that the ordinances were changed from the time of the apostles to 425 AD; in the very period that there was no authority to change the ordinances. 

No, you don't know. You claim, but have no evidence. I should know, because I've spent the last year and a half trying to find out if there are any changes in ritual.

There are none of any consequence. (For example, the Sacrament of Baptism was originally done in running water (eg Rivers) but was allowed in Fonts at a later time when Rivers were out of the question. And while I've got your attention, The Orthodox Church does not "sprinkle," ever. Baptism is done by Immersion 99% of the time, for Infants, Children, or Adults. They do allow Infusion or "pouring", but only in cases of extreme emergencies where the person is dying in minutes.)

I hope I've clarified Orthodox doctrine.

[Jason]

And what's the point of that observation? 

The point is, Snow, that we all claim authority from the Apostles. If you're Sect didn't exist until 1400 years after they were all dead, then you've got nothing to stand on. Hence the LDS claim that they Apostles, as spirits (or resurrected?) gave J. Smith the apostolic authority, because you too recognize the need for a proper claim to authority.

Protestants don't have jack. You and I both know that.

All their motives needn't be driven by deceit and none of their motive need have been driven by hate. People and institutions can stray drastically from an original path quite rapidly. Corrupt motives needn't even be present as the sole or key driver. It could simply be an absence of inspiration. Without inspiration and the original possessors of the truth gone man, left to his own devices, could deviate substantially.

Fair enough. But the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is no logical reason to suppose that the intimate disciples of the Apostles strayed from their masters teaching. In fact, the only people to make such a claim were the Gnostics, a few other heretics, Martin Luther and the Reformers, and Joseph Smith.

None of whom were actually there, whereas the disciples (aka Apostolic Fathers) have left us with quite a bit of writing to show that what they taught (in Ritual, Doctrine, and Authority), and what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches today are virtually identical in every respect.

  Look at the current difference, after just 170 years, between the CoC and the LDS Church. I don't have to believe that the RLDS/CoC was driven by corruption and hate (or vice versa) to get them where they are today.

Course, I don't think the LDS claim is any stronger than the CoC, or the Strangites, or Culterites, or Temple Lot, or.....

Are you familiar with how the New Testament came to be compiled and canonized?m While we can both probably accept that God guided the process to wind up with what we have now but on the face of it, it's a study in politics, intrigue, confusion and human shortcomings.

Im quite familiar with both councils of Carthage. While it is an interesting study, if anything it mirrors the same problems the Apostles themselves had at the first council in Jerusalem. Course, I believe that the Holy Spirit guided those Apostles just as it did later with the Apostles at Carthage!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 30 2005, 02:47 PM

And what's the point of that observation? 

The point is, Snow, that we all claim authority from the Apostles. If you're Sect didn't exist until 1400 years after they were all dead, then you've got nothing to stand on. Hence the LDS claim that they Apostles, as spirits (or resurrected?) gave J. Smith the apostolic authority, because you too recognize the need for a proper claim to authority.

Protestants don't have jack. You and I both know that.

Okay, they don't have jack but to be fair to them, they don't think that jack is required. Maybe it is out of necessity but they don't believe in the same unbroken transmission of authority as we do. I think that there position is plain wrong but they do have a rationale behind it.

All their motives needn't be driven by deceit and none of their motive need have been driven by hate. People and institutions can stray drastically from an original path quite rapidly. Corrupt motives needn't even be present as the sole or key driver. It could simply be an absence of inspiration. Without inspiration and the original possessors of the truth gone man, left to his own devices, could deviate substantially.

Fair enough. But the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is no logical reason to suppose that the intimate disciples of the Apostles strayed from their masters teaching. In fact, the only people to make such a claim were the Gnostics, a few other heretics, Martin Luther and the Reformers, and Joseph Smith.

None of whom were actually there, whereas the disciples (aka Apostolic Fathers) have left us with quite a bit of writing to show that what they taught (in Ritual, Doctrine, and Authority), and what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches today are virtually identical in every respect.

Be fair Jason, though you may not agree with the conclusions drawn from such reasoning, there are many arguments that could lead one to believe that the universal church strayed from the original teachings of the early Christian movement.

It wasn't/isn't just "the Gnostics, a few other heretics, Martin Luther and the Reformers, and Joseph Smith" that thought or think so. The entire history of the first centuries of Christianity is one of disagreement - all from within the Church, though it would be hard to define just exactly what the Church was comprised of. Take the Council of Nicea. What was it's purpose? To quell dissension from WITHIN the Church.

You are dramatically overstating the case that "Ritual, Doctrine, and Authority" as taught by the ancient Church and "Eastern Orthodox Church teaches today are virtually identical in every respect." Obviously the Trinity concept is not identical else there would have been no need for the Creeds. The rituals of the Liturgy would have been alien to the very early church. Is there good evidence that the early church praticed infant baptism? Did the early church venerate saints? Were icons integral part of the religion? I think not.

Are you familiar with how the New Testament came to be compiled and canonized?m While we can both probably accept that God guided the process to wind up with what we have now but on the face of it, it's a study in politics, intrigue, confusion and human shortcomings.

Im quite familiar with both councils of Carthage. While it is an interesting study, if anything it mirrors the same problems the Apostles themselves had at the first council in Jerusalem. Course, I believe that the Holy Spirit guided those Apostles just as it did later with the Apostles at Carthage!

I don't know what role the Councils of Cathage (there were over 20) played in the development of the NT but the canon was something that evolved and changed over centuries and centuries.

[Jason]

Okay, they don't have jack but to be fair to them, they don't think that jack is required. Maybe it is out of necessity but they don't believe in the same unbroken transmission of authority as we do. I think that there position is plain wrong but they do have a rationale behind it.

Well, to be technical, some Protestants and pseudo-protestants (baptists, JW's, etc) do believe in Apostolic authority, but they invent it out of thin air by tracing their lines through what they call the "pilgrim church". No such thing actually existed, but they like to belive it did to legitimize their existence.

Be fair Jason, though you may not agree with the conclusions drawn from such reasoning, there are many arguments that could lead one to believe that the universal church strayed from the original teachings of the early Christian movement.

Only if you believe that the organizations labed as heretical were actually orthodox. There are several books on my amazon.com wish list that deal with the earliest liturgies, prayers, rituals etc that demonstrate that the Church, in fact, did not stray at all. For example, the idea that there was ever a "simple" church service is totally unfounded. The early Christians took the Jewish synagogue services and added the Lord's Supper. That's a pretty long, drawn out prayer service, with scriptures read and the Eucharist.

It wasn't/isn't just "the Gnostics, a few other heretics, Martin Luther and the Reformers, and Joseph Smith" that thought or think so. The entire history of the first centuries of Christianity is one of disagreement - all from within the Church, though it would be hard to define just exactly what the Church was comprised of.

It's all a matter of how you want to view the early Church. If you wish to view it as a disjointed mess, that's exactly how you will see it. I have altered my view point to see it as a growing organization (not much unlike the LDS church of the first 20 years) with growing pains, but none-the-less a unifed organization under the apostles and their successors, the Bishops.

Take the Council of Nicea. What was it's purpose? To quell dissension from WITHIN the Church.

I suppose you could look at it like that. On the other hand, I would say that the purpose of 1st Nicea was to establish once and for all the teachings handed down orally from the Apostles regarding God, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Due to the massive persecutions, and until the Edict of Milan in 318, Christianity was illegal. They couldn't meet together before that with any number of Bishops without being jailed and killed. They would have established orthodoxy long before Nicea had they been able to do so without exposing themselves to Rome.

You are dramatically overstating the case that "Ritual, Doctrine, and Authority" as taught by the ancient Church and "Eastern Orthodox Church teaches today are virtually identical in every respect." Obviously the Trinity concept is not identical else there would have been no need for the Creeds.

Says you. But the Trinity is taught in the earliest liturgies including the Didache from the end of the 1st century. It was always part of the teachings of the Church, but was only known to Christians who were on the inside.

For the first few centuries of the Church, only baptised Christians were allowed into the Divine Liturgy (what you would call Sacrament meeting). Like your Temple services today, the prayers, singing, and Eucharist were reserved for only those who had taken upon themselves the covenant of Baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These were the "secrets" of early Christianity. All the teachings of the Councils were and are part of the secret Liturgical services.

Don't believe me? Try attending a divine liturgy in an Orthodox Church. It's the same one that St. John Chrysostom put together from St. Basils, who formed his upon St. James, which was based on the Didache.

The rituals of the Liturgy would have been alien to the very early church.

That's very wrong, and we can prove it. The only thing that would have been "foreign" to the christians of the first two centuries would have been the Sacerdotal robes. The liturgy would have been nearly identical. Again, they took the Jewish services, and added the Eucharist and a few extra prayers. The candles, bells, and incense were always part of the liturgy.

Nearly identical. And a far cry from your Sacrament meeting, or some other simple protestant worship service.

Snow, please do some liturgical research. You'll be very shocked, I promise.

Is there good evidence that the early church praticed infant baptism?

No. The baptism of entire households is the only possible evidence offered.

Then again, I don't believe that baptism is wrong at any age.

The only reason Joseph Smith put that in the Book of Mormon, was his lack of understanding the origins of the ordinance. For example, the idea that infants were damned without baptism originates with Augustine of Hippo. We're talking the 5th century here. The book of Mormon supposedly ended before his time, so how could it possibly address the issue that didn't exist yet? Because the Book of Mormon was written after Augustine.

Additionally, the idea that infants were damned was ONLY a doctrine of the western Latin Church. It was never accepted, and is still not accepted, as a doctrine of Orthodoxy.

Again, showing the 19th century origins of the Book of Mormon.

Did the early church venerate saints? Were icons integral part of the religion? I think not.

You think wrong. Fact: Veneration is not worship. Venerating Saints is no more worship than looking at your dead Mothers photo and asking her to pray for you. Fact: Icons, as early as the 2nd century, have played a part in the worship of the Church.

I don't know what role the Councils of Cathage (there were over 20) played in the development of the NT but the canon was something that evolved and changed over centuries and centuries.

That's an unrealistic look at the New Testament. There was never a Canon. There were only letters given to various churches in various regions. They kept these letters, and shared them with their sister churches. Some spurious letters got mixed in with the originals, and they ultimately decided to fixate which ones were authentic, and which were false.

[Snow]

Jason,

You can take any school of thought or faction or group who believed different that what ultimately became orthodoxy and label the heretical but what distinguishes orthodoxy from heresy is that orthodoxy won. The are those whose views prevailed over the views of others. If Basilides’ or Marcion’s or Tertulian’s views had prevailed, then those would have become the orthodoxy... orthodoxy belongs to the victors.

Yes, I have been to and enjoyed very much a Greek Orthodox service. Sure I understand that the liturgy itself comes from St. Basil or St. John Chysostom (I don’t know enough about it) but the whole deal was so much pomp and circumstance - I just don’t buy that the very early Christians had all that ornate ritual, the smoke and incense, the costumes, the ring kissing, the statues and icons, the chanting etc. As to the liturgy itself, since the a written record of it does not predate the mid 4th century you really can’t speak to what the very early Church did with any degree of precision.

You mention the Didakhe as evidence that the Trinity was taught anciently. The Didakhe is undated but it is certainly later than 110 CE. It’s author is unknown. It does not name any written sources. It hardly speaks authoritatively to what Christ instituted.

You rebutted my point that the early Church did not venerate Saints by saying that veneration is not worshipping and that icons date to the second century. You may be right but that doesn’t address my point that the early Church did not venerate Saints.

As to your point that veneration is not worship, is all a matter of semantics. Here’s what the thesaurus says of “venerate” worship. The definition of “worship” is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity; adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle. The thesaurus says: venerate. You may not think it veneration to be worship but others do. In fact some people think that religions with saints can be adequately defined as monotheistic; that a religion that that attributes the traits veneration that it does to Saints is better understood as polytheistic.

As to your statement “There never was a canon,” of course there is/was. Starting with Marcion there were various lists of what were considered canonical books (“a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine”). No canon means no true scripture. The eastern Churches have had a changing view of scripture or what was scripture since the beginning. I don’t know enough about all branches of eastern and orthodox churches to know if they have all settled on it or not. However, I know that they all don’t agree on what's canonical.

[Jason]

You can take any school of thought or faction or group who  believed different that what ultimately became orthodoxy and label the heretical but what distinguishes orthodoxy from heresy is that orthodoxy won. The are those whose views prevailed over the views of others. If Basilides’ or Marcion’s or Tertulian’s views had prevailed, then those would have become the orthodoxy... orthodoxy belongs to the victors.

This isn't a matter of the victor writing history. This is a matter of who studied with whom. Marcion was never a disciple of any apostle. However, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John the Beloved. Who are you going to believe Snow? Who's more likely to be right?

The answer is clear........you just don't like the answer.

Yes, I have been to and enjoyed very much a Greek Orthodox service. Sure I understand that the liturgy itself comes from St. Basil or St. John Chysostom (I don’t know enough about it) but the whole deal was so much pomp and circumstance - I just don’t buy that the very early Christians had all that ornate ritual, the smoke and incense, the costumes, the ring kissing, the statues and icons, the chanting etc.

Seriously Snow, at the very least we know that the early christians had liturgies. They varied from region to region, but the basic format was the same all over the old Roman Empire.

Whereas there is nothing in either Orthodox or Hetrodox literature that suggest any such thing as a Mormon Endowment.

Historically speaking, you don't have a single proverbial leg to stand on.

As to the liturgy itself, since the a written record of it does not predate the mid 4th century you really can’t speak to what the very early Church did with any degree of precision.

The Didache was early 2nd century. That is the first written liturgy of the Church. St. Mark's, St. James', and the Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles are all written from 2nd century to 4th century. St. Basil's liturgy is probably based on St. Marks. St. Chrysostom's liturgy is a shorter version of St. Basils. These last two were composed in the 4th century.

The latest scholarly research indicates that the liturgies were quite varied in the length and number of prayers attached, but that they all had the same core elements, which suggests that the 12 Apostles all probably taught a different liturgy as they understood it as they travelled throughout the ancient world. (see Paul F. Bradshaw's The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, Oxford University Press, 2002)

You mention the Didakhe as evidence that the Trinity was taught anciently. The Didakhe is undated but it is certainly later than 110 CE.  It’s author is unknown. It does not name any written sources. It hardly speaks authoritatively to what Christ instituted.

Yeah, something written a mere 10 years after St. John's death in Ephesus would probably be grossly distorted. And the fact that the disciples of the Apostles accepted the document means diddly squat.

Why didn't I think of that?

You rebutted my point that the early Church did not venerate Saints by saying that veneration is not worshipping and that icons date to the second century. You may be right but that doesn’t address my point that the early Church did not venerate Saints.

Frankly, I don't know if they did or not. And to be honest, neither do you. However, I can state quite confidently that if the Apostolic Fathers, whose Priesthood Authority was received from the Apostles themselves, believed it to be a true and correct practice via revelation from God, then that's more than good enough for me.

As to your point that veneration is not worship, is all a matter of semantics. Here’s what the thesaurus says of “venerate” worship. The definition of “worship” is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity; adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle. The thesaurus says: venerate. You may not think it  veneration to be worship but others do. In fact some people think that religions with saints can be adequately defined as monotheistic; that a religion  that that attributes the traits veneration that it does to Saints is better understood as polytheistic.

I believe we've been down this road before. Historically there were distinct terms in Latin for the same things (dulia or veneration due Saints, and latria or adoration due God alone), yet the english word "worship" was often used to describe both terms. Due to Protestant criticism, the Roman Catholic Church specifically has been much more careful to use the word "worship" to describe the adoration of God alone, while "veneration" has been given to the Saints.

You must also understand that the Orthodox Church ultimately believes that any veneration given to the Saints is actually given to Christ, for we only venerate the attributes of those Men and Women who resembled our Saviour Himself. In other words, we venerate Christ in the Saints.

As to your statement “There never was a canon,”  of course there is/was. Starting with Marcion there were various lists of what were considered canonical books (“a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine”). No canon means no true scripture.

A "canon" was established to ensure that only legitimate letters and gospels were passed through the Churches. Marcion's canon was so horribly mutilated (exempting the OT entirely, accepting only one of the four gospels, and removing all OT references from the letters of Paul,etc) that one can hardly call it a canon of anything. Marcion rejected the Father as well as the Son.

True Scripture can and does exist whether a "canon" exists or not. There are true scriptures outside of the New Testament accepted by Orthodoxy. The New Testament canon was just that, those approved writings from the Apostles. But the Canons of the Church extend far and beyond the New Testament, including the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and those sacred texts from the holy Elders of our own time.

You see, revelation has never ceased in the Orthodox Church. Fulfilling the Promise of Christ to a tee.

The eastern Churches have had a changing view of scripture or what was scripture since the beginning. I don’t know enough about all branches of eastern and orthodox churches to know if they have all settled on it or not. However, I know that they all don’t agree on what's canonical.

What you've poorly referenced is the fact the although the New Testament Canon is closed (not to be confused with a termination of revelation) the Old Testament is not closed officially. There are some open questions on certain texts (specifically 4 Esdras and 4 Maccabees).

Yet Im not sure what your point is here?

I hope I've cleared up a few things for you.

[srm]

If I recall polycarp claimed to have studied under John. Do you have any proof?

On the other hand...Joseph Smith studied under John too (and many others including Jesus).

[Snow]

Jason,

This isn't a matter of the victor writing history. This is a matter of who studied with whom. Marcion was never a disciple of any apostle. However, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John the Beloved. Who are you going to believe Snow? Who's more likely to be right?

The answer is clear........you just don't like the answer.

Come on Jason, stay with the argument. No one is arguing that Marcion was right and Polycarp was wrong. I think both were off base. The point is that the victors define the defeated as heretics. Had the Montanists prevailed, you and the Orthodox would be considered heretics.

Seriously Snow, at the very least we know that the early christians had liturgies. They varied from region to region, but the basic format was the same all over the old Roman Empire.

Whereas there is nothing in either Orthodox or Hetrodox literature that suggest any such thing as a Mormon Endowment.

Historically speaking, you don't have a single proverbial leg to stand on.

Lamenting that Mormonism is this or that does nothing to further your argument Jason. That’s just a dodge. I’ll grant that the liturgy has been passed down fairly intact from how it originated (your point was that it was nearly identical in every respect) but I think the liturgy you harken back to was already apostate so it doesn’t convince me of much.

The Didache was early 2nd century. That is the first written liturgy of the Church. St. Mark's, St. James', and the Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles are all written from 2nd century to 4th century. St. Basil's liturgy is probably based on St. Marks. St. Chrysostom's liturgy is a shorter version of St. Basils. These last two were composed in the 4th century.

The latest scholarly research indicates that the liturgies were quite varied in the length and number of prayers attached, but that they all had the same core elements, which suggests that the 12 Apostles all probably taught a different liturgy as they understood it as they travelled throughout the ancient world. [/b[(see Paul F. Bradshaw's The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, Oxford University Press, 2002)

That’s a giant leap of faith. One that I don’t accept.

Yeah, something written a mere 10 years after St. John's death in Ephesus would probably be grossly distorted. And the fact that the disciples of the Apostles accepted the document means diddly squat.

Why didn't I think of that? ?

Don’t mis-state the case. The Didakhe was written NO EARLIER than 80 years after the death of Christ by an unnamed author who doesn’t state his sources.

Frankly, I don't know if they did or not. And to be honest, neither do you. However, I can state quite confidently that if the Apostolic Fathers, whose Priesthood Authority was received from the Apostles themselves, believed it to be a true and correct practice via revelation from God, then that's more than good enough for me.

What evidence do you possibly have that the apostolic fathers received revelation from God that veneration or worship of mortal was fine and dandy?

You may believe it as an article of faith and I don’t fault you for it but don’t act like it is historical fact.

I believe we've been down this road before. Historically there were distinct terms in Latin for the same things (dulia or veneration due Saints, and latria or adoration due God alone), yet the english word "worship" was often used to describe both terms. Due to Protestant criticism, the Roman Catholic Church specifically has been much more careful to use the word "worship" to describe the adoration of God alone, while "veneration" has been given to the Saints.

You must also understand that the Orthodox Church ultimately believes that any veneration given to the Saints is actually given to Christ, for we only venerate the attributes of those Men and Women who resembled our Saviour Himself. In other words, we venerate Christ in the Saints.

Regardless of how you define it and whether you think your veneration equates to worship, I personally don’t by the whole system of Saints and idols and praying to Saints - even if you ultimately think that Christ is the ultimate power behind the Saints. It seems idolatrous to me.

A "canon" was established to ensure that only legitimate letters and gospels were passed through the Churches. Marcion's canon was so horribly mutilated (exempting the OT entirely, accepting only one of the four gospels, and removing all OT references from the letters of Paul,etc) that one can hardly call it a canon of anything. Marcion rejected the Father as well as the Son.

True Scripture can and does exist whether a "canon" exists or not. There are true scriptures outside of the New Testament accepted by Orthodoxy. The New Testament canon was just that, those approved writings from the Apostles. But the Canons of the Church extend far and beyond the New Testament, including the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and those sacred texts from the holy Elders of our own time.

You see, revelation has never ceased in the Orthodox Church. Fulfilling the Promise of Christ to a tee.

You seem to think that if Marcion is discredited, that means something. Of course I don’t think that Marcion got it right any more than I think Irenaeus or Clement was right. You may say, however that Marcion mutilated the canon but no less an authority than Metzger says that he had a profound and lasting influence on canon development.

What you've poorly referenced is the fact the although the New Testament Canon is closed (not to be confused with a termination of revelation) the Old Testament is not closed officially. There are some open questions on certain texts (specifically 4 Esdras and 4 Maccabees).

Yet Im not sure what your point is here?

I hope I've cleared up a few things for you.

You’re missing the point again. Sure I agree that the canon is open. All rational church have to at least philosophically accept that the canon is technically open but when I spoke of a changing and unsettled canon as well as the differing Orthodox canons, I meant that it took them near forever to settle on which ANCIENT scripture belonged in the canon. If revelation in the Orthodox Church continues as you say, why didn’t God just clear it up - oh say - 1900 years ago and tell them what belonged in the canon?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Cal@Jun 28 2005, 08:38 AM

Mormons are told that ordinances, such as baptizm, and temple rites are revealed from God as the "way" to qualify for some special blessing or reward.

Cal, your statement is not correct. We are told that ordinances such as baptism ad temple ordinances are the way in which we make covenants with God. It is the keeping of those covenants which brings blessings from God. NOT the ordinances themselves.

[Jason]

Snow,

Come on Jason, stay with the argument. No one is arguing that Marcion was right and Polycarp was wrong. I think both were off base. The point is that the victors define the defeated as heretics. Had the Montanists prevailed, you and the Orthodox would be considered heretics.

This is the argument, Snow. Polycarp was right. He was a preeminent disciple of St. John. Marcion was wrong. He wasn't a disciple of any Apostle, ever. Knowing this, even if the Marcionites had "won" numerically, they still would have been the heretics. There's no other way to see this. The truth is always right, and heresy is always wrong.

Lamenting that Mormonism is this or that does nothing to further your argument Jason. That’s just a dodge. I’ll grant that the liturgy has been passed down fairly intact from how it originated (your point was that it was nearly identical in every respect) but I think the liturgy you harken back to was already apostate so it doesn’t convince me of much.

And upon what evidence, besides Joseph Smith's first vision, do you base that belief?

You don't have to answer that. I already know that it is only upon his vision, that anyone could reach this conclusion.

Since you're not intersted in dealing with actual history, I don't suppose asking you to actually read up on the developement of the early Christian liturgy would do much good. You've made up your mind, and nothing's going to make you change course.

Lamentable, but that's ultimately your choice.

That’s a giant leap of faith. One that I don’t accept.

Only for people who don't wish to find out that it's actually fact.

Don’t mis-state the case. The Didakhe was written NO EARLIER than 80 years after the death of Christ by an unnamed author who doesn’t state his sources.

So was the bulk of the NEW TESTAMENT, but that doesn't support your position, so you conveniently omit that little bit of info, eh?

You claim that Im purposely distracting the subject by bringing up Mormon issues, but then you are doing the same thing, Snow. You spend lots of time on that which you think supports your view, and ignore, as though it didn't exist, that which does not support your view.

What evidence do you possibly have that the apostolic fathers received revelation from God that veneration or worship of mortal was fine and dandy?

The promises of Christ:

"And I say unto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock (revelation) I will build my church; and the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it. 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." (St. Matthew 16:18-19)

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (St. John 14:26)

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (St. John 16:12-13)

Regardless of how you define it and whether you think your veneration equates to worship, I personally don’t by the whole system of Saints and idols and praying to Saints - even if you ultimately think that Christ is the ultimate power behind the Saints. It seems idolatrous to me.

That's because you neither care to actually understand the practice, nor study the prayers behind the petitioning of the Saints. If I were to accuse your faith of being Idolatrous for it's Golden Idol's on the temple spires, or your baptisms for the dead on top of the back of heathen "golden calf's" how would you respond?

You'd say that I don't understand.

That's exactly your problem here, Snow. You don't understand, and you don't want to. At least be honest with me here, instead of posing as a religious bigot.

You seem to think that if Marcion is discredited, that means something. Of course I don’t think that Marcion got it right any more than I think Irenaeus or Clement was right. You may say, however that Marcion mutilated the canon but no less an authority than Metzger says that he had a profound and lasting influence on canon development.

First of all, Marcion was discredited two millenia ago. Im just giving you a history lesson. You will continue to pretend that Irenaeus and other Church Father's were wrong, because they, like the heretics of the same period, taught a vastly different Gospel than that which your church preaches. Historically speaking, there is no more reason to believe the Latter-day Saints are a restoration of the early Church than the Moonies.

Secondly, Marcion's "contribution" to the canon extends no further than to be the first person to attempt to create a body of letters that he considered authoriative. His selection process is questionable, and his end result was deplorable.

You’re missing the point again.

Then state your case more clearly, sir, and we shall both understand.

....when I spoke of a changing and unsettled canon as well as the differing Orthodox canons, I meant that it took them near forever to settle on which ANCIENT scripture belonged in the canon. If revelation in the Orthodox Church continues as you say, why didn’t God just clear it up - oh say - 1900 years ago and tell them what belonged in the canon?

Have you forgotten the fact that Christianity was both illegal and punishable by death in the Roman Empire? Do you seriously believe that the Bishops of the Church could have secretly congregated together and decided on a canon without being noticed?

Let's be realistic Snow. Until the Edict of Milan in 318, the Bishops could never have gathered together in any serious number to decide once and for all what was legitimate.

Let's not make the mistake of pretending that God always meets His servants on the mountains and carves the law out of rock. Sometimes, He let's them carve it out themselves.

[Jason]

If I recall polycarp claimed to have studied under John.  Do you have any proof?

St. Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. Though not mentioned specifically by his name, both he and his congregation are praised in the New Testament:

"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." (Revelation 2:8-10)

St. Polycarp's church is the only one of the seven that is not chastised for something.

Here's a great source:

“Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna, whom we also have seen in our youth, for he lived a long time, and to a very advanced age, when, after a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, he departed this life. He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine.” (St. Irenaeus, book 3 Against Heresies, also Eusebius Book 4, chapter 14)

And two other sources:

“Like St. Peter and St. Paul, Ignatius came to his end obscurely. Nothing is more remote from the melodramatic than the death of the saints. He left behind him, in Asia Minor, a young man, raised, perhaps by John himself, to the office of elder in the Church of Smyrna, and destined to exercise a great influence over the Christians in those countries. This young man was Polycarp. Ignatius had already noted in him remarkable steadfastness in the faith. He was planted upon the rock of apostolic teaching. The Church which he governed was one of the most flourishing in Asia Minor, and is exhibited to us in the Revelation as displaying courageous fidelity under persecution. Polycarp had been the immediate disciple of St. John, and ever cherished his sacred memory. It was the constant theme of his conversation and preaching. Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, writes: “I could point out the spot where the blessed Polycarp sat to teach. I could describe his gait, his countenance, all his habits, even the clothes he was accustomed to wear. I could repeat the discourses which he delivered to the people, and recall all that he said of his intimacy with St. John, and the narratives he used to relate about those who had seen the Lord upon earth. His memory was constantly dwelling on that which they had told him of the words, the miracles, the doctrine of Christ.’ This valuable testimony shows how eminently qualified was Polycarp, for effecting the transition from the apostolic to the following age. He delighted to be the docile, almost passive echo of the apostles. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should not have displayed much originality, though commanding such universal respect. He was the living tradition of the Church.” (Pressense, The Martyrs And Apologists, Hodder And Stoughton, London, 1870. Pp246-247. See also Eusebius Book 5, Chapter 20.)

“About this time, Polycarp flourished in Asia, an intimate disciple of the apostles who received the episcopate of the church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord. At this time, also, Papias was well-known as bishop of the church at Hierapolis, a man well-skilled in all manner of learning and well-acquainted with the Scriptures. Ignatius, also, who is celebrated by many even to this day as the successor of Peter at Antioch, was the second who obtained the episcopal office there....Of those who flourished in these times, Quadratus is said to have been distinguished for his prophetic gifts. There were many others also noted in these times who held the first rank in the apostolic succession. These, as the holy disciples of such men, built up the churches where foundations had been previously laid in every place by the apostles....As it is impossible for us to give the numbers of the individuals who became pastors or evangelists during the first immediate succession from the apostles in the churches throughout the world, we have only recorded those by name in our history, of whom we have received the traditional account as it was delivered in the various comments on the apostolic doctrine still extant....There are said to be five books of Papias, which bear the title Interpretation of Our Lord’s Declarations. Iranaeus also made mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following terms: “These things are attested by Papias, who was John’s hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works. For he has written a work in five books.’ So far Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no means asserted that he was a hearer and an eyewitness of the holy apostles but informed us that he received the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends, which he stated in the following words: ‘I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the elders, and have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testimony. For I have never, like many, delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the truth, neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are given from the Lord, to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. But if I met with anyone who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders. What was said by Andrew, Peter or Philip. What by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord; for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapters 36-37, 39.)

On the other hand...Joseph Smith studied under John too (and many others including Jesus).

I wasn't aware that Smith claimed to study under the Apostle John. What's your reference for that?

As for studying under Jesus, Smith never lived with him. A few "visits" is not the same thing as living years with someone. St. John lived with Christ for years, and St. Polycarp was tutored by St. John for years.

Not the same thing.

[Guest imahappycamper]

I guess I am somewhat confused myself as when reading Exodus regarding the washing,anointing and dressing of the priest...I see that the rite was restricted to Aaron and his sons and was not done for his daughters or Isrealites from a different tribe. (Ex 40:12)

Aarons garment was OUTER clothing and not like LDS undergarment or Temple clothing. The priest didn't wear a green apron. Washing and anointing did not precede an endowment ritual or marriage ceremony. The aaronic rituals were recorded and Isrealites KNEW what was done in the temple.

Preists in the Biblical accounts doesn't say anything about priests becoming kings. Also no oath of silence about the rites. Lastly the priests offered sacrifices for the sins of the people, prefiguring the atonement of Christ. The old Testament temple and its rites are no longer needed according to Hebrews 8:13-9:15)

I feel like the reference to the ritual of washing and anointing and dressing of the priests in the book of Exodus has been added to make the LDS ceremony seem bliblical...yet metioned above are a number of important differences...

[Guest lt]

In noticing the changes in temple ordinances over the years, the thought came to me: Isn't that what the apostacy, in part a least, was supposed to have been all about in the first place?

No its not....We all know that through the bible and the book of mormon there has been some change, It is changed to fit our day, our children, and how we do things.......

The things that are present now, were not a problem in josephs time, I believe that the prophet recieves continual revelation that fits and meets our day. What was then is not today, it cannot be compared, and we knew this when we chose to come here. Some of us knew and belived in continual revelation...and then there was those of us who had there own way of thinking. The doctrine hasn't changed in apostacy, its changed to help strengthen its people, to meet its peoples needs in our day.

[Jason]

No its not....We all know that through the bible and the book of mormon there has been some change, It is changed to fit our day, our children, and how we do things.......

The things that are present now, were not a problem in josephs time, I believe that the prophet recieves continual revelation that fits and meets our day. What was then is not today, it cannot be compared, and we knew this when we chose to come here. Some of us knew and belived in continual revelation...and then there was those of us who had there own way of thinking. The doctrine hasn't changed in apostacy, its changed to help strengthen its people, to meet its peoples needs in our day. 

Ok, then why do you reject the continuous revelation of the original Church, and accept the theory of apostasy as promulgated by Joseph Smith?

[Snow]

Hi Jason,

The conversation is getting a bit convoluted, missing the original thrust I think, but I am still enjoying your responses so I give it another reply.

This is the argument, Snow. Polycarp was right. He was a preeminent disciple of St. John. Marcion was wrong. He wasn't a disciple of any Apostle, ever. Knowing this, even if the Marcionites had "won" numerically, they still would have been the heretics. There's no other way to see this. The truth is always right, and heresy is always wrong.

That’s all a matter of faith on your part. No problem - except you act as if it is a simple mathematical truth. After all the searching you have done, I think you could be a little more sophisticated in your outlook and a little less gun-ho, absolutist. You say that Polycarp was the preeminent disciple of John... 1. John himself is silent on the matter so I’m not too impressed. 2. So what. Being a disciple don’t make you right. One of the fascinating thing about the LDS Church is that you get a real look at how religions are created and how they change and what dynamics are at play. We know first hand how far doctrine can move over the course of one or two or three generations, not just in institutions, but especially in individuals. Polycarp is at best twice removed from Christ. I am no Polycarp scholar but I generally understand that the apostacy was well underway by then. I understand you have valid reasons for believing otherwise but your position is every bit the exercise of faith as is my position.

Again, Marcion is hardly the point. But if his point of view, or any other “heretics” point of view would have prevailed in place of what you now define as orthodox, then they texts that support the alternate orthodoxy would have prevailed and been preserved and built upon and the others that disagreed would have been marginalized and denigrated and destroyed. Orthodoxy and its supporting evidential texts would have been reversed from what it is today. As I am sure you know, the victors destroyed the work of the vanquished.

Lamenting that Mormonism is this or that does nothing to further your argument Jason. That’s just a dodge. I’ll grant that the liturgy has been passed down fairly intact from how it originated (your point was that it was nearly identical in every respect) but I think the liturgy you harken back to was already apostate so it doesn’t convince me of much.

And upon what evidence, besides Joseph Smith's first vision, do you base that belief?

Upon faith - same as you. You believe that the early Universal Church was inspired while I find it to be a mystery that someone could believe that. You feel the same way about me and my beliefs.

Since you're not intersted in dealing with actual history, I don't suppose asking you to actually read up on the developement of the early Christian liturgy would do much good. You've made up your mind, and nothing's going to make you change course.

Lamentable, but that's ultimately your choice.

Don’t get all self-righteous on me Jason. I am at least as open-minded and a student of history as you, probably more so. No offense but you do seem to kinda fanatical with your new endeavors.

QUOTE] Don’t mis-state the case. The Didakhe was written NO EARLIER than 80 years after the death of Christ by an unnamed author who doesn’t state his sources.

So was the bulk of the NEW TESTAMENT, but that doesn't support your position, so you conveniently omit that little bit of info, eh?

No Jason, just the opposite. Likely 100% of the NT was written within 80 years after the death of Christ - pre 113 AD or so.

Regardless of how you define it and whether you think your veneration equates to worship, I personally don’t by the whole system of Saints and idols and praying to Saints - even if you ultimately think that Christ is the ultimate power behind the Saints. It seems idolatrous to me.

That's because you neither care to actually understand the practice, nor study the prayers behind the petitioning of the Saints. If I were to accuse your faith of being Idolatrous for it's Golden Idol's on the temple spires, or your baptisms for the dead on top of the back of heathen "golden calf's" how would you respond?

You'd say that I don't understand.

That's exactly your problem here, Snow. You don't understand, and you don't want to. At least be honest with me here, instead of posing as a religious bigot.

Religious bigot? Really Jason. I can have opinions that you are in error without being accused of bigotry. The practice seems idolatrous or idolatrous-like to me, in light of my view of the scriptures, in view of my common sense, in view of what I feel is inspiration. I accept that you have your own good reasons for believing otherwise.

BTW - your counter assertion that architectural features on temple could be seen as idolatrous is just a poor comparison. No one prays to spires or believes that spires have worked miracles.

First of all, Marcion was discredited two millenia ago. Im just giving you a history lesson. You will continue to pretend that Irenaeus and other Church Father's were wrong, because they, like the heretics of the same period, taught a vastly different Gospel than that which your church preaches. Historically speaking, there is no more reason to believe the Latter-day Saints are a restoration of the early Church than the Moonies.

Secondly, Marcion's "contribution" to the canon extends no further than to be the first person to attempt to create a body of letters that he considered authoriative. His selection process is questionable, and his end result was deplorable.

You ought not base all your arguments on Marcion. You are rebutting a point I never made. I don ‘t believe that Marcion was any more right that any other of the post-apostolic noteworthies. And... why get carried away trying to insult me by comparing Mormonismo to Moonies. I didn’t compare your faith to Scientology though I could have. I do, however, believe that Orthodoxy is one of the world’s great religion - a respectable, deep and rich tradition with much to be admired.

....when I spoke of a changing and unsettled canon as well as the differing Orthodox canons, I meant that it took them near forever to settle on which ANCIENT scripture belonged in the canon. If revelation in the Orthodox Church continues as you say, why didn’t God just clear it up - oh say - 1900 years ago and tell them what belonged in the canon?

Have you forgotten the fact that Christianity was both illegal and punishable by death in the Roman Empire? Do you seriously believe that the Bishops of the Church could have secretly congregated together and decided on a canon without being noticed?

Let's be realistic Snow. Until the Edict of Milan in 318, the Bishops could never have gathered together in any serious number to decide once and for all what was legitimate.

Let's not make the mistake of pretending that God always meets His servants on the mountains and carves the law out of rock. Sometimes, He let's them carve it out themselves.

Sure, I can accept that not all inspiration/revelation is like a lighting strike. That sounds like good Mormon thinking. What seems unreasonable is that it would takes hundreds of men meeting in committees spanning centuries to make a decision - a decision that is not settled to this day among all the Orthodox communities, some 2 millenia or so later.

[Jason]

Snow,

The conversation is getting a bit convoluted, missing the original thrust I think, but I am still enjoying your responses so I give it another reply.

Hey, Im always game for a good discussion, even if we're clearly not making much headway. I mean, let's face it, your writing style is fairly convincing, but you lack any sources for your views. I have the sources, but I don't write as well. It's too bad we're not on the same team.

That’s all a matter of faith on your part. No problem - except you act as if it is a simple mathematical truth. After all the searching you have done, I think you could be a little more sophisticated in your outlook and a little less gun-ho, absolutist. You say that Polycarp was the preeminent disciple of John... 1. John himself is silent on the matter so I’m not too impressed.

St. John (if you accept his authoriship of Revelations) spoke of Polycarp indirectly as the Bishop of Smyrna. It was one of the seven churches discussed in the early part of the book, and it is the only one that has nothing against it.

That in and of itself speaks volumes.

  2. So what. Being a disciple don’t make you right. One of the fascinating thing about the LDS Church is that you get a real look at how religions are created and how they change and what dynamics are at play. We know first hand how far doctrine can move over the course of one or two or three generations, not just in institutions, but especially in individuals. Polycarp is at best twice removed from Christ. I am no Polycarp scholar but I generally understand that the apostacy was well underway by then. I understand you have valid reasons for believing otherwise but your position is every bit the exercise of faith as is my position.

I would argue that Polycarp was the focus of a revelation from Christ to St. John. That gives him a much stronger stance than the "twice removed" you offer.

Again, Marcion is hardly the point. But if his point of view, or any other “heretics” point of view would have prevailed in place of what you now define as orthodox, then they texts that support the alternate orthodoxy would have prevailed and been preserved and built upon and the others that disagreed would have been marginalized and denigrated and destroyed. Orthodoxy and its supporting evidential texts would have been reversed from what it is today. As I am sure you know, the victors destroyed the work of the vanquished.

I understand what you're trying to say. But I don't think you've quite understood what position you're championing.

Marcion was a heretic for very obvious reasons. First of all, he taught and personally believed that the God of the Old Testament was evil. Secondly, he believed that God the Father of Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament were seperate Gods. Thirdly, while acknowledging that the God of the OT was real, he refused to allow any texts from the OT into his "canon" of scripture. He quite literally cut out any references in Paul's epistles to the OT. He was destroying the Church from every angle.

There's no possible way that Marcion could be a true successor of Christ and the Apostles.

That's my point. People like Marcion, the Gnostics, and many others were so far out there, that to even consider them as the Orthodox church is beyond reason.

On the other hand, you could make an argument for the Miaphysites (monophysites), but even they are more like the Orthodox Church than your Joseph Smith restoration.

Upon faith - same as you. You believe that the early Universal Church was inspired while I find it to be a mystery that someone could believe that. You feel the same way about me and my beliefs.

You can make the argument that belief in Christianity requires faith, and I'll concede that point. But you have yet to present any type of argument that a "universal apostasy" ever occured in the Church. I'm more than willing to concede that many apostasies did and do occur, but that the Church was ever completely wiped out is utterly preposterous.

Don’t get all self-righteous on me Jason. I am at least as open-minded and a student of history as you, probably more so. No offense but you do seem to kinda fanatical with your new endeavors.

Fanatical is an ugly word. I prefer "passionate". If you don't have passion, then what they heck are you doing it for?

No Jason, just the opposite. Likely 100% of the NT was written within 80 years after the death of Christ - pre 113 AD or so.

"Likely" is the key word there Snow. And "100%" is very unlikely.

Regardless of your sources (and I assume you do have one), it is just as likely that the Didache was part of that late 1st century or very early 2nd century literature. As for who authored it, we don't know that any more than we do who authored the book of Hebrews.

Would you like to continue going around in circles like this?

Religious bigot? Really Jason. I can have opinions that you are in error without being accused of bigotry. The practice seems idolatrous or idolatrous-like to me, in light of my view of the scriptures, in view of my common sense, in view of what I feel is inspiration. I accept that you have your own good reasons for believing otherwise.

BTW - your counter assertion that architectural features on temple could be seen as idolatrous is just a poor comparison. No one prays to spires or believes that spires have worked miracles.

Religion and bigotry have been in bed together for a long time. Im not accusing you of anything that isn't part and parcel of any given belief system. I just thought you were above it, and this is the first time I can recall my ever accusing you of it.

As for the assertion, it is common Mormon folk-lore that temple attendace in and of itself may produce miracles from visions of angelic beings to someone's health being restored. You're not talking to someone here who's been looking at Mormonism from a purely academic perspective. I've been just as involved in it's inner workings as you are now.

You ought not base all your arguments on Marcion. You are rebutting a point I never made. I don ‘t believe that Marcion was any more right that any other of the post-apostolic noteworthies. And... why get carried away trying to insult me by comparing Mormonismo to Moonies. I didn’t compare your faith to Scientology though I could have. I do, however, believe that Orthodoxy is one of the world’s great religion - a respectable, deep and rich tradition with much to be admired.

First, Marcion is the only heretic you have bothered to name thus far. That's why we're talking about him specifically. Personally, you'd have a better argument if you brought up Montanism.

Second, the comparison between Mormonism and Moonies is valid. In terms of age of existence and likely validity, they are equal. The only religion you can compare Orthodoxy too would be Roman Catholicism.

Nevertheless, I will will always concede that the moral values taught by your faith are an inspiration to the otherwise worldly systems advocated generally by our sick and decaying immoral society.

Sure, I can accept that not all inspiration/revelation is like a lighting strike. That sounds like good Mormon thinking. What seems unreasonable is that it would takes hundreds of men meeting in committees spanning centuries to make a decision - a decision that is not settled to this day among all the Orthodox communities, some 2 millenia or so later.

Think of it like your Joseph Smith Papers project. All of those articles have been around for 150+ years. Why are you just now getting around to putting them together? Many of his papers have been around for a long time. Many of his lectures are found in various works published officiallly and semi-officially.

The reason that you're just now getting around to it, is because it just now occured to someone that it would be a good idea.

As for the Canon, it really wasn't until the time of Marcion that the idea was even thought up. And it didn't really become important until the heresies became so rampant, that it was necessary to create a canon for the Orthodox Community to use in it's defense. Then (as I've already stated) it wasn't until St. Constantine that the decision was made (both for Church unity, and for the peace of the State) to get all the Bishops together and formally decide what the heck was doctrine. After the Nicene council, the various councils in Carthage formed synods to determine what was official scripture. The decisions of those local synods were accepted generally throughout the Church. (Incidentally, only the Roman Catholics have officially stamped the worldwide acceptance of those local synods via the Council of Trent in the 16th Century; while the Protestants and their offshoots (aka Mormons) have de facto accepted the decisions of those local synods through their perpetual use of those books held up as official by the Original Catholic Church.)

Frankly, if the synods of the Church were apostate (and as you theorize, they had been for centuries by this point) then Im surprised that the LDS church hasn't repudiated those councils and synods and begun the process of revising the canon of the New Testament! Perhaps you'd personally include some of the Nag Hammadi gospels? Do you believe in the Demiurge and the various Aeons which created matter, Snow?

[Winnie G]

I sorry and I don’t mean to be disrespectful but my funny bone voice in my head says

Bathing = heath. The invasion of indoor pluming?

You put it in the funny words.

Sorry

[Jason]

I sorry and I don’t mean to be disrespectful but my funny bone voice in my head says

Bathing = heath. The invasion of indoor pluming?

You put it in the funny words.

Sorry

Actually, Winnie, your church used to give full baths during the "washing" part of the washing and anointing ceremony previous to the endowment ceremony.

Yep, you were naked in a big wash basin, while those temple workers went to work scrubbing you down in the buff.

I'll bet that's one "holy ordinance" you're glad they changed!

[Winnie G]

I would have had a problem with that.

I have only one thing to say about all this.

These changes come along with the evolution of the education of the membership of the church. You have to look at the times these older ordnances of the church were done.

I’ve made it a point to learn as much as I could about the members in the early years of the church.

Members of the church had much to learn, bathing was still a issue just like the suppression of wood plow blades, they literally thought that a medal plow blade would damage the earth.

So you need to think OK what has changed in the world around me.

When I went for my endowment we were give clear instructions about being showered and sent free. Our closes were to be cleaned and so on.

Why you may ask? Most membership in that aria that visited the Temple came from four provinces, a long way to travel. There was even a outer locker room off the waiting room for those who needed to shower and change after a long drive or eight to twelve hour fairy trip, to go to the Temple.

I would like to see the floor plane in a temple in South America of Africa.

It does not take a rocket science to see how ordnances needed to evolve.

In all my years I’ve learned that things change just like the African America’s and the priesthood. I joined before that change but I know in my hart it would someday change.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jul 15 2005, 10:03 AM

I would have had a problem with that.

I have only one thing to say about all this.

These changes come along with the evolution of the education of the membership of the church. You have to look at the times these older ordnances of the church were done.

I’ve made it a point to learn as much as I could about the members in the early years of the church.

Members of the church had much to learn, bathing was still a issue just like the suppression of wood plow blades, they literally thought that a medal plow blade would damage the earth.

So you need to think OK what has changed in the world around me.

When I went for my endowment we were give clear instructions about being showered and sent free. Our closes were to be cleaned and so on.

Why you may ask? Most membership in that aria that visited the Temple came from four provinces, a long way to travel. There was even a outer locker room off the waiting room for those who needed to shower and change after a long drive or eight to twelve hour fairy trip, to go to the Temple.

I would like to see the floor plane in a temple in South America of Africa.

It does not take a rocket science to see how ordnances needed to evolve.

In all my years I’ve learned that things change just like the African America’s and the priesthood. I joined before that change but I know in my hart it would someday change.

Winnie,

How come Brigham Young down to Bruce R. McConkey didnt' think the "Priesthood for the African Americans" WOULDN'T change until the millenium, unless you think the millenium started in the late 1970's?

The problem with all these changes is that it make the Church leaders look less than inspired when they said that these ordinances and doctrines came straight from God, and especially when we claim that the need for a Restoration was based on the claim that the original chruch was lost from the earth for changing the doctrines and orginial practices. What good are doctrines and orginal practices if they are constantly changing?

It's like God has an evolving set of standards for people to get into Heaven.