We have a LONG way to go in that regard.

I probably have a different concept altogether. I believe we have all missed the boat where the message of Jesus is concerned. We are all doing a lot of salvation theology but if we really go through the synoptic gospels, we find what Jesus called the gospel was The Kingdom of God on earth. He attempted to change his society for the better working with the marginalized and that really should be our goal too if we really are followers of Jesus.

I think church is impostant because it helps to keep us focused on mission but we should be out in the world a good deal of the time trying to bring peace and justice to our own families, friends and communities. that’s where our influence really can be felt.

I believe Orthodox Christianity won the culture battle way back in 400 or so CE But I don’t really believe Orthodox Christianity is the brand the very early church espoused.

I have two copies of this book because they keep forgetting they’ve already given it to me. Another book they really like is ‘The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down’, also by Bercot.

My criticism of this book would be that it seems to promote a persecution complex. Having overcome my own Mormon persecution complex, I try to warn my cousins of their Hutterite persecution complex.

2¢,
D. Moore

Only in the Book of Mormon and in D&C do we get Jesus specifically creating a church organization, with ritual ordinances, membership roles, excommunication policies for heretics and unrepentant individuals, offices with authority and stewardship, etc. The thing is, at least for me, having read the BoM so many times as a youth, way more than any other book of scripture, it was hard for me to read the NT without bringing to my reading the doctrinal worldview of the BoM and modern LDS church with it. I read the NT through BoM and D&C-colored glasses, if you will. It was only after stepping back and trying to consciously contemplate what the NT was actually saying without imposing my preconceived assumptions and perspectives that I began to understand that there are multiple interpretations of what is written, compounded of course by the impossibility of knowing whether what we have recorded is an accurate depiction of events (the Gospels being written decades after the events described therein, and after an ecclesiastical organization had already been created).

And so for me Jesus’ message distills down to core principles of faith, hope, and love, with repentance and baptism by water and the spirit as the only definitive product created by Jesus, and spread through his witnesses (apostles) and followers (disciples). So loose was the message that it inevitably and quickly got interpreted, applied, and expanded by diverse schools of thought, only one of which survived into the 3rd century after acceptance by Roman leaders and vigorous suppression of alternate Christian perspectives. I can respect that Bercot uses the assumption that a majority of sources would be closest to being correct, but any statistician would reject such reasoning if it tried to be used to extrapolate outside the data range (IOW, ECFs in 2nd-3rd centuries’ opinions being used to represent the views of 1st century Christians), especially when the dataset doesn’t include alternate viewpoints that were sought out and destroyed as heretical over the course of 1800 years.

“was there EVER a Church of Jesus Christ that was unified in its beliefs and practices?’

What a great point. What is very unclear is whether the Apostles had the whole picture themselves. If you look to the evolution of the LDS church, it has been line up on line. Do we suppose that Jesus taught the apostles everything about His Gospel and kingdom or they were supposed to use on-going revelation to build up the church itself. After their deaths, can we say with any certainty, that the proper church organization and authority continued? probably not. Catholics would say yes, almost every other Christian group would say not.

It almost seems like Apostasy was inevitable.

Except, note that the Acts wasn’t Jesus setting up *anything*. It was about members of the organizational hierarchy trying to develop a church. It was guesstimation based on what Jesus *had* been saying when he was alive. This guesstimation continued with the Pre-Nicene Fathers, the Nicene Council, etc., And oops, guessing gets stuff incorrect.

Although I do see using the Anti-Nicene Fathers as a point of usefulness in discerning the Earliest “orthodox” teachings, I also think they are too vague as a source of positive identifications. Most Mormons who care about the Apostasy have concluded that the Bible itself attests to an Apostasy happening right out of the foundational gate. Criticisms about Mormon apologists using the Anti-Nicene Fathers as proof text to Mormon teachings because of belief in early Apostacy is well founded. Of course, the point of the Mormon use (unlike David W. Bercot) is to show the diversity of orthodoxy rather than define orthodoxy for the Early Christian Church.

The ultimate difference between almost all Restoration movements and Mormonism is the belief in constant Revelation that really ends up Revisionism. Joseph Smith didn’t seek to just restore the forms and orthodoxy of Christianity, but the very authority and spiritual manifestations present in the Early Christian Church. In fact, as some like Bloom have concluded, Mormonism became a “pre-Christian” Christianity. He wanted to find the gate keeper rather than the gate of orthodoxy.

Matthew: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
Mark: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Luke: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.
John: Feed my sheep.

To me, none of these charges speak of the organization of a church as much as the spreading of a message.

Your comment above brings me back to a question I posed earlier: when you consider the vast differences between what the Early Christians believed, it makes one wonder: was there EVER a Church of Jesus Christ that was unified in its beliefs and practices? And if the Church isn’t unified in its beliefs and practices, or if it is at one point but then apostatizes within a few decades, why bother establishing a “Church” at all? And if God was capable of establishing a Church in these Latter-days that would not be taken from the Earth until the Second Coming, why not establish an indestructible Church like that in the days of Christ?

Perhaps this is why we have some scriptures advocate a “minimalist” theology where “the Gospel” just comes down to a belief that Jesus was born, atoned for our sins, and was resurrected. If that is “the Gospel,” and believers in that Gospel are your “Church,” then that Gospel and Church have survived for millennia.

Of course, this says more about Mormonism than about the Early Christian Fathers or the Apostasy.

I think that’s something you can safely assume. Borrowing from Decartes a bit: “I value my own understanding of the world, therefore I know my own understanding has value to me (even if it may not be true).”

I think we have these discussions because it scares us to admit to such ignorance.

Within reason, if I need such a trump card played on me, you should play it. I think it is one of the most humbling things we can have to be confronted with such a thing, which makes us have to preface all we say and do with, “I think…” or “I believe…” and appendix everything with “…but it could be incorrect”

And as you say (referring back to me, haha, i’m so self-serving), we *can* discern value for ourselves at the least (at least, if I can’t assume THIS isn’t true without asking how I know, then I need to become emo and write bad poetry or sometehing…)

yes, I believe so. This necessitates faith (or at the least, pride), although I’m not sure if it’s the same as our religious understanding of it. In fact, I lean to think it’s not.

Andrew, that’s exactly why I say we have two-fold ignorance. We don’t know, and we don’t even know if we can’t know. So, we could very well be mistaken on our not knowing. We could have known all along.

Generally, most of us simply do not conclude that we fail to discern truths because truths are indiscernible. This is just too shocking and depressing. It’s better to say, “We don’t know why the Big Bang happened because we just lack the tools to know why for sure” than to say, “We don’t know why the Big Bang happened because it is impossible to know such things.” Not only that, the latter claim is something we *also* don’t know, so to say it so cavalier is very proud indeed. Sometimes, we find even first-level ignorance too shocking and depressing. For example, some people wouldn’t even admit, “We don’t know why…” They would say things like, “We know why the Big Bang happened. It happened because of (insert some hypothesis.” Even if that hypothesis happens to be God. In this case, they have a cavalier outlook about knowledge, when perhaps they don’t know (they just believe) and perhaps their belief-knowledge isn’t sound. (Or, perhaps it IS. This is the problem — we can’t even say for sure if faith->belief->knowledge is sound or not.)

Am I being too confusing?

Taken with Mormon believers and non-believers, I think you present half the picture, at best. SOME non-believers say the objective truth is “indiscernible,” while others say the objective truth is known (namely: Mormonism is false). On the other hand, SOME believers say the truth is discernible (through the Spirit, among other things), and some believers do not [e.g., the Spirit doesn't manifest to all...or you have to wait...or it only discerns some things, etc., etc., etc.,](…although I might note that here you’re getting into some really really REALLY funky liberal/heterodox positions). This is all first level ignorance. But your question brings us to SECOND level ignorance. How can the non-believer know enough to know truth is indiscernible? How can the believer know enough to know truth is discernible?

And here is the problem. none of these guys even has the comfort of saying that know this. For all we know, the non-believer COULD be right, but he won’t know if he’s right. The believer COULD be right, but he also won’t know if he’s right. (and check out that last sentence — you could add yet another level of ignorance there…how can I say “he won’t know if he’s right?”)

For example, in a nation under rule by Rome at the height of its power, pacifism, just war, or Christian realism all pretty much dictate the same behavior. So noting that early Christians never fought, but would fight three centuries later tells us nothing but that the circumstances changed and the ethics required reanalysis. It doesn’t say that pacifism is universally right, and just war apostasy.

(In fact, if Constantine had been the son of the Eastern Emperor instead of the Emperor of Western Europe, maybe its the forms of the Eastern church that triumph.)

With the Book of Mormon viewed historically as MesoAmerica, we would have a different “privileged frame of reference” in regard to Jesus’ teachings being seen directly, but a different set of cultural blindspots to deal with. And we have 19th-21st Century insights from our other sources. And we have the testimonies and insights throughout the intervening centuries.

Sometimes the value of multiple witnesses is NOT just how they agree, but how the disagree and therefore tell a bigger truth than any witness alone could.