The Didache

[Shelly200]

In light of the LDS church believing it is a restoration of the church of the earliest Christians, I was wondering if the LDS church ever studies or makes mention of the Didache.

And if so, what deos the church say about it in relation to their teachings?

[livy111us]

I would say that it is very similar to what the Lord stated about the Apocrypha in D/C 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the aApocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are ainterpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be atranslated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him aunderstand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

Personally, I love the Didache and other early Christian writings. But do not rely on them for any foundational belief, but use them to supplement already existing beliefs.

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual - Section 91 - The Apocrypha

[rameumptom]

I've read the Didache, and it is a very wonderful tome. That said, I do use it as I would the Apocrypha, as per D&C 91.

[Shelly200]

I don't wonder so much if the LDS church uses it the same way they would the Apocrypha- as in, the Apocrypha, to some, are inspired books of the Bible- but more along the lines of seeing how the Apostolic Church was in doctrine and practice compared to the LDS church, which claims to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church.

Wouldn't the Didache, then, need to be completely consistant with the doctrines and practices of the LDS church? -- is my question.

[rameumptom]

Shelly, good question. We believe that truth can be found in many places. If we are filled with the Spirit and use it judiciously in our search for truth, we can find it in the Apocrypha, Didache, etc. The Spirit leads us to the great truths and insights in such books.

In my studies, I often compare the scriptures with other writings, such as the non-Biblical texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It allows me to gain many insights that I would not have had otherwise.

[Shelly200]

Rameumptom- I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it really answered my final question. It's not just that the LDS church can find truth in different places, but that the LDS church claims to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church -- and all other churches are not practicing the true form of Christianity as seen when the Apostles were still living and teaching. So, if the Apostles were still alive during the writing of the Didache, and the Didache describes the way Christianity was practiced during that time, then wouldn't the LDS church need to look just like the Christianity described in the Didache to be a true restoration of the Apostolic Church?

[rameumptom]

We do not claim we are exactly like the primitive church in every way. We believe in modern revelation that can give us new direction. However, there are some things we believe that need to be in the Church of Christ: apostles, prophets, continuing revelation, priesthood authority, etc.

Many churches have some of these qualities, but not all.

[Guest]

then wouldn't the LDS church need to look just like the Christianity described in the Didache to be a true restoration of the Apostolic Church?

No. Because you are jumping to the conclusion that the didache was, in its entirety, a.) divinely inspired, b.) translated correctly. The LDS Church doesn't make that conclusion and God did not give instructions for any modern prophet to review it for its inclusion in canon.

[Shelly200]

anatess- I do not believe the Didache was divinely inspired, and never made such a claim. However, having studied ancient Greek myself, and knowing how very short the Didache is, I *would* bet that it's translated correctly. As far as I know there are extremely few, if any anymore, churches that include the Didache in their canon. I'm not referring to it as being Scripture.

However, it is still a writing that describes the early church. Just because it was not to be included in the Scriptures does not mean that it is false. It is an explanation of the way the Apostolic Church, and the church immediately following, conducted themselves. Besides the writings in the New Testament it is the oldest writing we have that explains the practices of the Church, as far as I know.

So, while it isn't included in Scripture, it can still give us a good and accurate description of the way the early Church was. I was simply wondering what the LDS church thought about it, since they say they are the restored church, and so the Didache should (I would think) look extremely similar to the modern LDS church.

rameumptom gives me a good explanation when he says that continuing revelation can... "trump" old in a way (he says "give us a new direction") (example being plural marriage?), and so the modern LDS church will not look exactly like the original Apostolic Church.

This idea is slightly disconcerting to me, because I've heard numerous LDS say that their church is the same as the Apostles' church, and only when the Apostles died did the church change to become apostate. So I always took it to mean that the LDS church believes that the restoration of the church would look *exactly like* the Apostolic Church.

I guess the answer is simply to leave it at modern revelation and that's it?

But thanks for both of y'all's responses. :)

[Jason_J]

This idea is slightly disconcerting to me, because I've heard numerous LDS say that their church is the same as the Apostles' church, and only when the Apostles died did the church change to become apostate. So I always took it to mean that the LDS church believes that the restoration of the church would look *exactly like* the Apostolic Church.

Well we do believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the same as the Apostles'/Christ's Church, however we don't believe that that means that it has to look "exactly like" the primitive Church. What it means is that we have the same priesthood authority and power as the ancient Church, that we have apostles, prophets, bishops, elders, deacons, teachers, high priests, etc. just like the ancient Church, that we are guided by revelation, just like the ancient Church, that we perform the ordinances of the ancient Church (baptism by immersion after faith and repentance, confirmation, administering to the sick, ordination by laying on of hands, etc), and that we have restored many beliefs held by the ancient Church (and the ancient Jews). In addition, we also believe that revelation provides further insights into doctrine that may not have been held by the ancient Church, so we do not expect a 1:1 correspondence between the ancient Church and the restored Church.

[Guest]

anatess- I do not believe the Didache was divinely inspired, and never made such a claim. However, having studied ancient Greek myself, and knowing how very short the Didache is, I *would* bet that it's translated correctly. As far as I know there are extremely few, if any anymore, churches that include the Didache in their canon. I'm not referring to it as being Scripture.

Shelly, I didn't make myself clear, I apologize. I didn't mean that YOU believe it is divinely inspired. I meant that you believe that the LDS believe that it is divinely inspired. Make sense? Also, translation doesn't just mean it is "word by word" properly translated but also - intent/meaning/context. And in addition, I didn't mean to say that the didache isn't properly translated nor divinely inspired. All I'm saying is that the LDS Church doesn't claim one way or the other as no modern revelation was given to the prophets to review it.

Edited January 5, 2012 by anatess

[zenbones]

You'd also be assuming that it was written during the time that the Apostles were alive.

[TheMightyQuinn]

This idea is slightly disconcerting to me, because I've heard numerous LDS say that their church is the same as the Apostles' church, and only when the Apostles died did the church change to become apostate. So I always took it to mean that the LDS church believes that the restoration of the church would look *exactly like* the Apostolic Church.

When were the apostles killed? When was the Didache written?

From my understanding the Didache was written around the turn of the century which would have been after the death of all the apostles. So one could say that the Didache probably describes the post-apostolic Church.

...only when the Apostles died did the church change to become apostate.

I don't think this is true, as apostasy had been present in the Church from the beginning--just read the epistles. When the Apostles died, the proper authority to perform ordinances and to guide the Church was lost.

[Shelly200]

Shelly, I didn't make myself clear, I apologize. I didn't mean that YOU believe it is divinely inspired. I meant that you believe that the LDS believe that it is divinely inspired. Make sense? Also, translation doesn't just mean it is "word by word" properly translated but also - intent/meaning/context. And in addition, I didn't mean to say that the didache isn't properly translated nor divinely inspired. All I'm saying is that the LDS Church doesn't claim one way or the other as no modern revelation was given to the prophets to review it.

I don't think I was explaining myself very well either; I knew the LDS church didn't think the Didache was divinely inspired, because then it would be in the Scriptures, wouldn't it? (Although, to that point, anything the modern prophets say concerning doctrine is considered divinely inspired, isn't it? And this does not get added to Scripture.)

I was simply wondering if the Didache was ever looked on as an accurate description of the early Church, and if that had any bearing on the idea of the LDS church being a restoration of that church.

[jayanna]

I think that the current church, which is the same church as the Apolistic (sp) church has to have revelation to guide it that are current for the challenges of the times that we are facing. Peter changed the Sabbath day to Sunday, for example, and new apostles were called when the then council of the twelve were no longer twelve. In our day we need certain changes to meet our needs. The church, like the Sabbath was/is created to help us, not the other way around, so as our numbers grow (14 million I think) and our trials change (God raising up a people through plural marriage for a time, as well as meet the temporal/spiritual needs of the adult members) the prophets and aposltes are here to guide us through.

As far as the Didache is concerned, no it is not included, as far as I know, in the church's cirriculum of study in the church educational system. It is not considered scripture. I don't believe it is discounted altogether, we can recieve learning and wisdom out of the best of books.

What I feel that a lot of people don't understand, not necessarily speaking to the OP, is that our church does not look at the New Testament, or even the Book of Mormon, trying to glean from the scriptures clues and interpretations to guide how the church should be organized and operated. It is through direct, continual, and present day communication, through the Holy Ghost that decisions on organization, lines of authority, and operating procedures are given from Jesus Christ. He leads the church now, as well as He did in New Testament times. This special gift of communication is not just given to church leaders in some far away town, but is given to each individual member, through this gift we are able to hear the counsel from our leaders and can recieve an answering confirmation from the Holy Ghost ourselves. The church is not organized or led by anyone's 'best guess', it is by a living Christ. Any similarities to the church as it was organized in New Testament times exist because it was given from the same source. The differences would, I think, come from meeting different needs of the people who are members of the church at this time, both on this side of the veil and beyond.

Great Question!

Edited January 5, 2012 by jayanna

[Shelly200]

When were the apostles killed? When was the Didache written?

I believe the Apostle John was the last Apostle to die; his death is believed to have been around the year 100. I think it is generally believed that he died between 100 and 115 AD. The Didache was written in the mid- to late first century. Meaning that it was written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. So it was written during the time of the Apostles.

From my understanding the Didache was written around the turn of the century which would have been after the death of all the apostles. So one could say that the Didache probably describes the post-apostolic Church.

Not if my above statement is correct... which I believe it is. If I'm wrong, I'd love to see the sources dating the Didache and/or the Apostles' deaths at other times.

I don't think this is true, as apostasy had been present in the Church from the beginning--just read the epistles. When the Apostles died, the proper authority to perform ordinances and to guide the Church was lost.

So... I'm confused. Are you saying that the church has *always* been apostate? Did it fall into apostasy the moment Christ died?

[Shelly200]

Jayanna- Thanks for your response.

I guess many non-LDS are confused when LDS claim to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church because we take that to mean that the two churches should look the same. What I have come to understand, instead, is that the LDS church means that they are the same as the Apostolic Church in relation to having current apostles, revelation, etc. Is this a correct assumption?

When I was interested in learning about other forms of Christianity in my own journey out of the Southern Baptist church, I wanted to join a church that would most correlate to the Church of Apostolic times. Therefore, I looked into the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; and in my research was led to believe them both (though obviously moreso in Catholicism, obviouslu) to be the most similar to the early church. So, hearing many LDS say that the LDS church is "the same as" the Apostolic Church, I am simply wondering more about this concept; i.e. *how* the LDS church is the same as the early church. Catholics are often told that if they were transported back in time we would fit right in with the early Church -- there would, of course, be differences, but none so many or drastic that we couldn't understand and follow along.

... so I'm simply interested in the LDS view of the early Church.

As to continuing revelation- you bring up an often-mentioned concept about the LDS church that I just now had a thought about. Many people (including LDS) make harsh comments against Catholicism because it has been "changed" over the centuries, or dogmas have been "added." It seems to me like the LDS church would have no qualms over this idea, for the very reason that they believe in modern revelation, and God being able to change/critique/edit/add doctrine or practices at any time through His prophets (like your example of plural marriage). The Catholic Church doesn't believe in a similar concept (and also doesn't believe it has added or changed any True dogma), but is accused of it all the time. And it just seems to me like this cannot be a negative against Catholicism from an LDS standpoint.

Thanks for your response!

[rameumptom]

Shelly, the seeds of apostasy were being sewn even in the days of the apostles. Paul warned about apostates in his days, saying that after his death "grievous wolves" would enter in among the flock and tear them to pieces. John warned about the anti-Christ who was already in the world.

So, while the whole church was not in apostasy, the beginnings were there as apostates began gaining power over areas that had not been visited for long periods of time by apostles.

[jayanna]

Jayanna- Thanks for your response.

I guess many non-LDS are confused when LDS claim to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church because we take that to mean that the two churches should look the same. What I have come to understand, instead, is that the LDS church means that they are the same as the Apostolic Church in relation to having current apostles, revelation, etc. Is this a correct assumption?

... so I'm simply interested in the LDS view of the early Church.

As to continuing revelation- you bring up an often-mentioned concept about the LDS church that I just now had a thought about. Many people (including LDS) make harsh comments against Catholicism because it has been "changed" over the centuries, or dogmas have been "added." It seems to me like the LDS church would have no qualms over this idea, for the very reason that they believe in modern revelation, and God being able to change/critique/edit/add doctrine or practices at any time through His prophets (like your example of plural marriage). The Catholic Church doesn't believe in a similar concept (and also doesn't believe it has added or changed any True dogma), but is accused of it all the time. And it just seems to me like this cannot be a negative against Catholicism from an LDS standpoint.

Thanks for your response!

The early church we actually refer to as the "Early" Church and we are the Latter-Day Church, same church, different times. We do believe it to be restored, with prophets, apostles, a seventy which you can find in the NT, bishops, etc. We also have the priesthood of Aaron, and Melchizedec priesthood which you can find in Hebrews of the King James Bible. It is mostly quite a bit like it. We have two types of offerings, one of tithes and one for the poor as described in the NT, we have fasting, etc.

Some of the differences are due to size and demands of the times we are in such as the church educational system, primary, a plethora of womens callings (in an organization called the Relief Society). The organization is changed in some ways to greater meet the needs of the members, for example recently an activities leadership calling was done away with in the ward organization due to a need to place that responsibility on the ward council. The gospel itself has not changed, nor the purpose of the church.

I would not know if the Catholic church changes any dogma, and am not particularly concerned if it is changed. I don't think I have ever made a harsh comment about the Catholic church concerning the change in dogma. I don't know why I would be bothered by it. It would seem strange to me as well to read it coming from a Latter-Day saint.

Of course we believe in modern revelation, God is not dead, Christ lives. The purpose of sending the Holy Ghost on the day of pentacost was to give the church leaders a means of communication from their Heavenly Father on how and what to do concerning the leading of the sheep. He did not leave them helpless then, and He does not do that now.

Here is an excellent talk somewhat about what you are asking about apostles and the early church compared to present day if you would like to read something more official than my lil ole opinon on a forum: ?And He Gave Some, Apostles? - Liahona Sept. 2001 - liahona

[Shelly200]

Shelly, the seeds of apostasy were being sewn even in the days of the apostles. Paul warned about apostates in his days, saying that after his death "grievous wolves" would enter in among the flock and tear them to pieces. John warned about the anti-Christ who was already in the world.

So, while the whole church was not in apostasy, the beginnings were there as apostates began gaining power over areas that had not been visited for long periods of time by apostles.

So modern LDS doctrines such as eternal marriage, plurality of gods, non-Trinitarian Godhead, the Fall as a good, etc. ... were these doctrines believed to have been held by early church members? Or did these doctrines get established with Joseph Smith?

In other words, is the modern LDS church similar to the early church through organization, leadership, and revelation only? Or did the early church believe also in all or some of the modern LDS doctrines? Which doctrines that are found only in the LDS church are believed to have also been taught in the early church?

[TheMightyQuinn]

I believe the Apostle John was the last Apostle to die; his death is believed to have been around the year 100. I think it is generally believed that he died between 100 and 115 AD. The Didache was written in the mid- to late first century. Meaning that it was written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. So it was written during the time of the Apostles.

So the Didache was written when 11 Apostles were dead and the remaining Apostle was banished. I assume then that John didn't have much influence over the churches. Did John have control over the churches while banished?

[Traveler]

So modern LDS doctrines such as eternal marriage, plurality of gods, non-Trinitarian Godhead, the Fall as a good, etc. ... were these doctrines believed to have been held by early church members? Or did these doctrines get established with Joseph Smith?

In other words, is the modern LDS church similar to the early church through organization, leadership, and revelation only? Or did the early church believe also in all or some of the modern LDS doctrines? Which doctrines that are found only in the LDS church are believed to have also been taught in the early church?

Just a couple of notes: The ancient Church was also a restoration of sorts through Jesus Christ and the Apostles. But as stated by Christ just prior to his returned to heaven in Acts 1:6 there would be another time of restoration. In the Last days there will be another time of restoration and gathering. We believe we are currently in the last day which is the time when all things will be restored to prepare for Jesus to return in power and glory.

It makes sense that there must be things changed to prepare for the Christ and the establishment of his kingdom. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the restoration is not measured by a single event – except that it is begun. The Restoration is many events that will only be completed when Jesus returns to complete the restoration which cannot be complete until he returns and thus his kingdom is restored in its fullness.

The Traveler

[Shelly200]

So the Didache was written when 11 Apostles were dead and the remaining Apostle was banished. I assume then that John didn't have much influence over the churches. Did John have control over the churches while banished?

I simply named John, since he was the latest surviving Apostle, and most LDS tell me that the Church didn't go into apostasy until the death of the last Apostle.

However, most of the Apostles actually lived into the mid to late 1st century:St. Peter died probably in the 60s or 70s; St. Andrew in the mid to late 1st century; St. Philip around 80; St. Thomas in the 70s... so if the Didache was written in 60AD, or 70AD, or 75AD, then it would be, in my opinion, an accurate description of the early Church led by the Apostles.

Although, if you want to think of it in your way... 10-12 men? Did they have complete control over the entire Christian world while they were alive? Probably not completely and utterly in and of themselves. So then how can you trust anything that was said or done by anyone other than Christ?

To me, the reasonable explanation is that the Apostles preached and gave Authority to others while they were living. And then these men preached and passed on the Authority too. And so on. So that the Truth could continue down the line... even without the Apostles being alive. The LDS church holds the same belief today; Apostles continue on from Joseph Smith to today, giving their authority to the next group.

[Guest]

I simply named John, since he was the latest surviving Apostle, and most LDS tell me that the Church didn't go into apostasy until the death of the last Apostle.

However, most of the Apostles actually lived into the mid to late 1st century:St. Peter died probably in the 60s or 70s; St. Andrew in the mid to late 1st century; St. Philip around 80; St. Thomas in the 70s... so if the Didache was written in 60AD, or 70AD, or 75AD, then it would be, in my opinion, an accurate description of the early Church led by the Apostles.

Although, if you want to think of it in your way... 10-12 men? Did they have complete control over the entire Christian world while they were alive? Probably not completely and utterly in and of themselves. So then how can you trust anything that was said or done by anyone other than Christ?

To me, the reasonable explanation is that the Apostles preached and gave Authority to others while they were living. And then these men preached and passed on the Authority too. And so on. So that the Truth could continue down the line... even without the Apostles being alive. The LDS church holds the same belief today; Apostles continue on from Joseph Smith to today, giving their authority to the next group.

Shelly, there's a big difference between Authority and Truth. You can teach Truth without Authority. Make sense?

Priesthood Authority is not the only means by which truth exists. The Holy Spirit as part of the Godhead manifests truth and the Great Apostasy did not stop Him from doing so. But, Priesthood Authority is the only way by which one can act in God's name, receive revelation for the Church, and perform His ordinances. So that, although truth continues to exist in the Catholic Church (and all other religions for that matter), the apostate state of the church also allowed some truths to be lost and untruths to enter. The start of the Great Apostasy (when Priesthood Authority was not on earth anymore) is not a specific time, like AD 100 or whatever. It is a period of time sometime between the death of all the Apostles (the last person we know who held Apostolic Authority) to the confirmation of the Priesthood Keys to Joseph Smith by John the Baptist in 1829. But, apostasies were already present within the church during the time of the Apostles, so we don't know (and I guess we didn't need to know) if the Didache was apostate or not since it is not clear who wrote it. We do know that there are stuff in the Didache that we believe is true (since it is present in the restored doctrine) but, there are stuff that are not the same as the organization of the church today as well - whether that is because it is not true, or that God deemed the organization not relevant to the restored Church, we don't know.

So, if I were to make a comparison... Jews do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, hence they reject the New Testament. Catholics do not believe the apostasy prophesied in 2 Thesalonians 2 has occured, hence they reject the Restoration. LDS believe both prophesies has been fulfilled and we are now in the restoration period that needs to happen before the 2nd coming of Christ.

Hope this makes sense.

Edited January 6, 2012 by anatess

[Shelly200]

anatess- What you said makes sense, yes. I guess the problem is that different Mormons give different answers to some of the same questions, so it can confuse those of us who are looking for a more official answer; i.e.-I've heard about three different answers multiple times on when the apostasy ocurred. (The lds.org website lists the apostasy as happening in the 300s??)

So my basic understanding, from what you are saying, is that it wasn't Truth that left the Earth, but the priesthood? And *this* is what the apostasy was about? The disappearance of Christ's priests? Okay. If that's the correct LDS teaching, then I can understand that.

For me this raises another question. Why does the LDS church think that the priesthood left the Earth? Was it only because the Apostles died, and they were the only ones with that authority? And so that same authority that the apostles had was given back to Joseph Smith? And then Smith passed that authority downto today?

If that is correct, then I have to wonder why the priesthood left in the first place. If Joseph Smith had the priesthood, and had the power to confer it to others down the line; and the Apostles had the priesthood... why did the Apostles not have the authority to confer that priesthood down to others?

As a Catholic, Apostolic Succession is extremely important, and makes sense.

In the LDS mindset, priesthood authority is extremely important as well. However, the Apostles had that priesthood authority, but not the power to continue it?

This is the part that confuses me the most...