Mormons and Patristics

[_Roger Morrison]

If this is a key underlying premise of your paper, then you're in trouble. People like you have this propsensity, but in general? I don't see it. You have extraplotated from your narrow circle to an entire population, most of whom are different from you. This is, of course, a common trait of the Mormon apologetic community; an inablity to recognize that they are a unique subset of a larger group; and a tendency to generalize from themselves to the rest of the larger group.

I recognize that we all base our opinions on anecdotal evidence, but we should at least be cognizant that our anecdotes are likely to be biased in some respect.

We do it on assumptions as well. I was baptized when I was 20 years old in Dallas, Texas, and the people in my ward as well as the people in my institute class from several different stakes loved hearing about and discussing how related the early Christian doctrines were to our own. then I went on a mission to South America and was exposed to hundreds of missionaries who felt the same way, as well as hundreds of members who did too. then I came back home and shipped off to BYU, where it's even more common.

Hi Mak, Congratulations on the time, energy and research represented in your "paper"! As you mentioned several times to Harmony "12 pages..."

I respectfully ask, "how many are of your own thinking, original thoughts, cutting-edge, innovative..." Like stuff that really matters...ya know what i'm sayin'? ;-)

So you've been LDS since age 20; served a mission; a BYU Student: taught GD SS classes--to what age group, in what geographic & demographic area? et al (Side bar: Joined in Texas? My Grandson served in Plano about that time?? :-)

It is encouraging that YOU are one of the few--world wide--who dig for knowledge. Don't stop. Don't limit yourself to approved studies. I've taught GD & most LDS clases for longer than you've lived. Doesn't make me smarter but it does provide experience and and perspective that can only be gained in the trenches. It appears to me that is what you are preparing to do (get into the trenches?)... you ain't there yet ;-)

Brotherly advice: Some sage--does the name matter? only in some/few cirlcles--"...cultivate good enemies..." Jesus said, "...agree with thine adversaries, lest he esteem you an enemy..." he also suggested, "...love Your enemies."

As i scanned your paper--i've read other apologetics--and read all of the responses, i was disappointed by the umbrage you seemed to take with some criticism that didn't meet your standards of gentility. Ya gotta get over that Bro. Thank EVERYONE who took the time to read AND respond... Harmony took a LOT of her time on Your behalf. Be gratefull to her.

After all's said an' done being LDS is supposed to make one more Christ-like. Not Nibley like...ya know what i'm sayin'?

Annnyyyway, good luck! I hope there's a $ in it for You too. Keep thinking...to a higher level...go where none of those in you bibliography ever went! Warm regards, Roger

Whoops...looked like i messed up here... please forgive... RM

I have changed the beginning of my paper, because it's definitely not all, but I have seen it in a majority of members of the church. I, however, take issue with your assertion that your narrow circle somehow Trump's my narrow circle. I understand that that kind of condescension is critical to the remainder of that paragraph. You couldn't glare down your snout at my apologetic tendencies if you didn't first make clear that you are utterly unencumbered by the fetters of assumption and imperfection, but you've never studied these frequencies before, you're just recalling what you've been cognizant of in Mormonism as an observer who has never thought about this issue and trying to gather and interpret that data. Of course that data is going to be horribly inaccurate, and of course you're going to draw upon assumptions and anecdotal evidence to try to substantiate your a priori guess as to what Mormons actually care about in scholarship, but I have studied this and am able to tell you with confidence that you're wrong. bold added

WOW! Mak, where have YOU studied sooooo extensively--Internationally?--to, without hesitation, call Guy's hand on this??? Are you sure you hold ALL the winning cards?? Guy seems pretty savvy to me... RM

[_Bond...James Bond]

I have changed the beginning of my paper, because it's definitely not all, but I have seen it in a majority of members of the church. I, however, take issue with your assertion that your narrow circle somehow Trump's my narrow circle. I understand that that kind of condescension is critical to the remainder of that paragraph. You couldn't glare down your snout at my apologetic tendencies if you didn't first make clear that you are utterly unencumbered by the fetters of assumption and imperfection, but you've never studied these frequencies before, you're just recalling what you've been cognizant of in Mormonism as an observer who has never thought about this issue and trying to gather and interpret that data. Of course that data is going to be horribly inaccurate, and of course you're going to draw upon assumptions and anecdotal evidence to try to substantiate your a priori guess as to what Mormons actually care about in scholarship, but I have studied this and am able to tell you with confidence that you're wrong.

(my emphasis)

I doubt this statement can be backed up. Studying ancient Greek and Hebrew probably puts you into a circle with a lot of people who study the early church, but unless you've met 6.25+ million LDS who know early church history beyond reading scriptures, I don't think this is correct. It would be almost impossible to meet and talk in depth with the number of people required to back up this statement.

[_maklelan]

I doubt this statement can be backed up. Studying ancient Greek and Hebrew probably puts you into a circle with a lot of people who study the early church, but unless you've met 6.25+ million LDS who know early church history beyond reading scriptures, I don't think this is correct. It would be almost impossible to meet and talk in depth with the number of people required to back up this statement.

But statistically speaking my measurements are more and more accurate with each additional person I meet, and the pattern has yet to change, according to my calculations.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I doubt this statement can be backed up. Studying ancient Greek and Hebrew probably puts you into a circle with a lot of people who study the early church, but unless you've met 6.25+ million LDS who know early church history beyond reading scriptures, I don't think this is correct. It would be almost impossible to meet and talk in depth with the number of people required to back up this statement.

But statistically speaking my measurements are more and more accurate with each additional person I meet, and the pattern has yet to change, according to my calculations.

What kind of sample have you met? A hundred? A few hundred? I seriously doubt if a questionaire/test on early church was given to 10,000 LDS it would yield 50%+ passing results.

[_maklelan]

Hi Mak, Congratulations on the time, energy and research represented in your "paper"! As you mentioned several times to Harmony "12 pages..."

I respectfully ask, "how many are of your own thinking, original thoughts, cutting-edge, innovative..." Like stuff that really matters...ya know what i'm sayin'? ;-)

Actually all of it is my own. I spent three months looking for a topic that hadn't been addressed before. Every time I started a paper I would inevitably dig up a published version of it from someone else. This was the first topic I came up with that had no precedence that I could find.

So you've been LDS since age 20; served a mission; a BYU Student: taught GD SS classes--to what age group, in what geographic & demographic area? et al (Side bar: Joined in Texas? My Grandson served in Plano about that time?? :-)

I was taught by Elders Brady, Bohon and Wynn. Sunday School- I taught in a singles and a family ward in Plano, a singles ward in Provo and more recently a family ward in Provo.

It is encouraging that YOU are one of the few--world wide--who dig for knowledge. Don't stop. Don't limit yourself to approved studies. I've taught GD & most LDS clases for longer than you've lived. Doesn't make me smarter but it does provide experience and and perspective that can only be gained in the trenches. It appears to me that is what you are preparing to do (get into the trenches?)... you ain't there yet ;-)

I look forward to it, but I was a branch president in South America, and I can tell you I've seen some crap.

Brotherly advice: Some sage--does the name matter? only in some/few cirlcles--"...cultivate good enemies..." Jesus said, "...agree with thine adversaries, lest he esteem you an enemy..." he also suggested, "...love Your enemies."

As i scanned your paper--i've read other apologetics--and read all of the responses, i was disappointed by the umbrage you seemed to take with some criticism that didn't meet your standards of gentility. Ya gotta get over that Bro. Thank EVERYONE who took the time to read AND respond... Harmony took a LOT of her time on Your behalf. Be gratefull to her.

I think that's good advice. Thank you.

After all's said an' done being LDS is supposed to make one more Christ-like. Not Nibley like...ya know what i'm sayin'?

Annnyyyway, good luck! I hope there's a $ in it for You too. Keep thinking...to a higher level...go where none of those in you bibliography ever went! Warm regards, Roger

I could get up to $1,400 for it on the 23rd, but there are other good papers being presented too. I'd settle for just about anything.

WOW! Mak, where have YOU studied sooooo extensively--Internationally?--to, without hesitation, call Guy's hand on this??? Are you sure you hold ALL the winning cards?? Guy seems pretty savvy to me... RM

I see nothing in his demeanor or in his arguments that betrays a level of experience or intellect that rises above average. He reacts exactly as everyone else, and he resorts to the same fallacies and patronization as everyone else. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when he actually makes an assertion with an argument to accompany it.

[_maklelan]

What kind of sample have you met? A hundred? A few hundred? I seriously doubt if a questionaire/test on early church was given to 10,000 LDS it would yield 50%+ passing results.

I'd like to see such a questionnaire happen.

[_Bond...James Bond]

What kind of sample have you met? A hundred? A few hundred? I seriously doubt if a questionaire/test on early church was given to 10,000 LDS it would yield 50%+ passing results.

I'd like to see such a questionnaire happen.

Me too. Are you still asserting the position in your paper that a majority of LDS are well grounded in ancient church knowledge or make a study of early church knowledge?

[_maklelan]

What kind of sample have you met? A hundred? A few hundred? I seriously doubt if a questionaire/test on early church was given to 10,000 LDS it would yield 50%+ passing results.

I'd like to see such a questionnaire happen.

Me too. Are you still asserting the position in your paper that a majority of LDS are well grounded in ancient church knowledge or make a study of early church knowledge?

I believe that they take an interest in the subject, and like to hear about parallels.

[_Gazelam]

Heres an interesting teaching from the pre-nicene church taken from "The world and the Prophets" by Hugh Nibley.

" Now, I would like to point to one of the most wonderful and exciting aspects of the restored gospel, and that is the great work for the dead that is so peculiar to the Church of Jesus Christ. I do not specify "of Latter-day Saints," for this work was done by the primitive Christians as well. The knowledge of that all-important work was taken away at an early time, for after the third century the fathers of the church are much perplexed whenever it is mentioned, though all admit that the earliest Christians actually did perform certain ordiances for the salvation for the dead. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the Christians of apostolic times placed great emphasis on this work, for among the very early fragments of Christian literature that have been discovered in recent years, the subject is referred to as a very special knowledge imparted by the Lord to the Apostles in secret conferences after the resurrection. This is not suprising, in view of the evidence of the Clementine homilies that the earliest Christians baptised in secret places and the constant charges of secrecy that were being brought against them - charges which they did not deny.

What was the nature of this work for the dead? The early Christians were convinced, as modern Christians are, that no man can get into heaven without baptism. Now most of those early Christians were converts to the church, and that meant that their parents in most cases and their grandparents in all cases had died without ever having heard of the baptism of salvation. Would these loved ones be forever damned? One of the first things Clement asks Peter upon being introduced to him, in the Clementine Recognitions, is, "Shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christs coming?" for he was thinking probably of his own forebears. Peters answer is very signifigant: "You force me, Clement, to make public things that are not to be discussed. But I see no objection to telling you as much as we are allowed to. Christ, who always was from the beginning, has visited the righteous of every generation (albeit secretly), and especially those who have looked forward to his coming, to whom he often apeared. Still it was not yet time for the resurrection of bodies that perished then, . . . but those who pleased him and did his will were translated to paradice, to be preserved there for the kingdom, while those who were not able to fulfill the complete law of justice, but had certain traces of carnal weakness in their nature, when their bodies died went in the spirit to be retained in good and happy places, that at the resurrection of the dead each might be empowered to receive an eternal heritage for the good he had done." This much Peter is willing to tell, but he will not divulge to the new investigator just how those who have never heard the gospel in life are to be saved.

[_Roger Morrison]

Heres an interesting teaching from the pre-nicene church taken from "The world and the Prophets" by Hugh Nibley. (I will interject in bold. RM)

" Now, I would like to point to one of the most wonderful and exciting aspects of the restored gospel, and that is the great work for the dead that is so peculiar to the Church of Jesus Christ. I do not specify "of Latter-day Saints," for this work was done by the primitive Christians as well. The knowledge of that all-important work was taken away at an early time,
If so from where N's knowledge?
for after the third century the fathers of the church are much perplexed whenever it is mentioned, though all admit that the earliest Christians actually did perform certain ordiances very open ended...anyone can perform ordinances of any style and structure... for the salvation for the dead. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the Christians of apostolic times placed great emphasis on this work, for among the very early fragments of Christian literature that have been discovered in recent years, the subject is referred to as a very special knowledge imparted by the Lord to the Apostles in secret Then how are they known... conferences after the resurrection. This is not suprising, in view of the evidence of the Clementine homilies that the earliest Christians baptised in secret places for self-preservation and the constant charges of secrecy that were being brought against them - charges which they did not deny.

What was the nature of this work for the dead? The early Christians were convinced, ... that the earth centred the universe, the world was flat and menstrating women were to be bannished until 'clean'... as modern Christians are, that no man can get into heaven without baptism. There is less certainty of this now, if not outright disbelief... Now most of those early Christians were converts to the church, and that meant that their parents in most cases and their grandparents in all cases had died without ever having heard of the baptism of salvation. An astute obsrvation... Would these loved ones be forever damned? Absolutely not by an all-powerful and LOVING "God"... One of the first things Clement asks Peter upon being introduced to him, in the Clementine Recognitions, is, "Shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christs coming?" for he was thinking probably of his own forebears. Peters answer is very signifigant: "You force me, Clement, to make public things that are not to be discussed. But I see no objection to telling you as much as we are allowed to. Christ, who always was from the beginning, has visited the righteous of every generation (albeit secretly), and especially those who have looked forward to his coming, to whom he often apeared. Still it was not yet time for the resurrection of bodies that perished then, . . . but those who pleased him and did his will were translated to paradice, to be preserved there for the kingdom, while those who were not able to fulfill the complete law of justice, but had certain traces of carnal weakness in their nature, when their bodies died went in the spirit to be retained in good and happy places, that at the resurrection of the dead each might be empowered to receive an eternal heritage for the good he had done." Is this a verbatim statement or Nibley's literary license in action? This much Peter is willing to tell, but he will not divulge to the new investigator just how those who have never heard the gospel in life are to be saved.

Much of the last few sentences seem not only childish and asinine, but they fly in the face of Jesus' parable of the workers hired at different hours of the day, yet received equal reward--much to the consternation of the first hired. Could it be he told this story because he knew the cufuffle that lay ahead??

Gaz, thanks for the above. Do you think it answers questions/concerns or creates more to wonder about? Such as: Nibley's source of this information? Beyond speculation and fabrication, as this seems to be, to me. My comments in the above are not intended in sarcasm but to point out the total irrelevancy of ritual magic bearing on reality.

Especially as "The Two New Comandments" were given long after baptism, and are intended to supersede laws, ordinances and rituals that were before his 'Love Proclaimation'. AS i see it... Warm regards, Roger