Last week the Pentagon published a list. Two hundred religious affiliation codes compressed to thirty-one, more than twenty of them labeled Christian, and one conspicuous entry filed separately: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Personally, I’ve read the Book of Mormon, and the history. Spent many hours researching this topic. It’s a criminal organization. Joseph Smith died in a shoot out whilst in jail, for polygamy ? I can’t remember the specifics.
I’ve studied the seventh day Adventist, they were devoted scriptural students, only to go off the deep end and start making predictions the Bible taught them not to do.
I noticed you made reference to several things/people of which I was totally ignorant with no explanation. I wasn't sure how they fit the subject. That may be totally on me but the reference landed totally flat.
Apart from the additional eight books in the canon, there does not seem to be a great deal of difference in actual doctrine between the Ethiopian and the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches on Marian devotion and many other topics. What actual differences exist that are specifically attributable to the inclusion of Enoch and Jubilees, et al in the canon? There are some differences such as the number of recognized sacraments. And the Ethiopian church agrees with the Eastern churches on the filioque and papal authority, but those differences do not seem to be rooted in the canon difference.
It sheds a lot more light on the overall story of Scripture. Not by a little, a lot.
I'm speaking from my own research and reasoning. I don't think the Ethiopian Church is right about everything, but I do believe they preserved actual Scripture.
It may give more context if they have the full canon, but if all of the necessary doctrines, beliefs, and practices are broadly the same even without those additional books, then it seems to me that their importance is a little bit exaggerated, or at least that the western “conspiracy” to suppress them is exaggerated, since they do not lead to any major doctrinal differences anyway.
My argument isn't that Enoch and Jubilees suddenly create an entirely different Christianity. It's that they shed a great deal of light on the world the biblical authors assumed their readers already understood.
The "Divine Council" is a good example. Michael Heiser spent years reconstructing that worldview from scattered references across the canon. The Ethiopian Church preserved books that discuss many of those themes directly.
To me that's significant even if the core doctrines remain recognizable.
I also don't assume the Ethiopian Church has everything figured out. No tradition does. My interest is much narrower: do these books help explain passages that otherwise generate centuries of debate? I think they do.
A book doesn't need to introduce a new doctrine to be important, it provides the missing context that makes existing doctrines easier to understand.
That makes sense. But it doesn’t necessarily make sense to me to refer to it as western conspiratorial or self-protecting suppression that has excluded these books. Separate traditions can form rather naturally just out of human quirks and tendencies (some of which are definitely a result of the fall).
If the Church one claims was free from Rome and Roman influence/corruption, ends up looking decidedly more Orthodox and Catholic than Protestant, what does that tell you about Protestant claims to better reflect the *real* Faith of the Apostles? Let alone Mormon ones?
The more one looks at the early Church and reads the earliest, post-Apostolic Church Fathers -- particularly Saints Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatious -- the more clearly Catholic (or Orthodox / Coptic / Etc) that early Church was. By which I mean the early Church was unified, hierarchical, sacramental, and liturgical, with worship focused on Holy Mass and reception of the entirely *real* (i.e., no merely symbolic) Body and Blood of Christ.
Of all the conspiracies to believe, the idea that an omnipotent and omniscient God *wanted* his faithful to believe a certain way and worship a certain way, but just couldn't quite pull it off and was ultimately thwarted in his aims, condemning EVERYBODY on earth to fifteen hundred years of error and lack of salvation... seems to be the least believable of all conspiracies.
So you think Christ was God Incarnate, but also a lousy judge of character who foolishly chose Apostles that would fail to hand down The Faith intact for even a SINGLE generation? Really?
You do realise the Reformers drew their conclusions directly from studying the Fathers, right? They were all Catholic clergy, after all. Or are you assuming that Luther drank Welch's and played guitar with a smoke machine?
Luther, as was his style, only confirmed the post-Apostolic Fathers on the few points in which they agreed with him (like the real presence), and dismissed them on the much more numerous points when they didn't -- like the primacy of The Pope, the importance of Bishops, the indivisible nature of the Catholic Church, etc. And he did this to the point of claiming that Ignatius of Antioch's letters were forgeries / spurious -- though later research has proven them authentic beyond all dispute -- because he could not refute them on these points.
There are times when I read your posts that I find no foundational starting point with which to begin my understanding of what you are attempting to convey. I read this article and scratched my head through the entire piece. It sounded incredibly intellectual and I like that but I need a starting point and in some posts I can't find it.
The essay has one foundation: every claim about history is testable against the historical record.
Joseph Smith made a specific claim, that the Christian church vanished entirely from the earth for seventeen centuries. That claim has a shape. It can be checked. When you check it, you find churches in Ethiopia, Armenia, Egypt, and Persia that were continuous, unbroken, and never answered to the institutions Smith indicted.
The rest of the essay follows from that, a universal claim was tested against the actual record, and the record doesn't support it. Mormonism is false.
This is a fair treatment of the LDS claim of the great apostasy, but what it overlooks is how early the corruption could have taken place. Had it taken place within the first century, all the Copts, Ethiopians, etc. were already under its effects, and despite their best efforts, were continuing on with an already corrupted/authority-less form.
Satan or whatever fallen angels acolytes always muddying the waters that sprang forth from the divine source. That's all these busy bodies have been trying to accomplish. Yet, for all their plans, God is the greatest planner of all. Christianity or followers of Christ, existed before the Roman Empire decided to usurp their faith, and to this day, they cannot contain the faith into an institutional command hierarchy, try as they may. Faith is personal and unless they manage to clone, chip all of us with AI and/or cybergenetics augmentations, the soul still comes from the one who breaths it into us. Nothing will ever change in regards to this one true and universal fact. The rest is just politics. Pay to Caesar what is his, etc etc dtc
Awesome. Thank you so much. As an ex-mo, this hits. Not to mention about 2/3rds of the BOM is straight from the KJV. You can't claim the Bible as your foundation and still consider it corrupted or only authoritative if "translated correctly". That's a sticky puddle of mud.
Personally, I’ve read the Book of Mormon, and the history. Spent many hours researching this topic. It’s a criminal organization. Joseph Smith died in a shoot out whilst in jail, for polygamy ? I can’t remember the specifics.
I’ve studied the seventh day Adventist, they were devoted scriptural students, only to go off the deep end and start making predictions the Bible taught them not to do.
I noticed you made reference to several things/people of which I was totally ignorant with no explanation. I wasn't sure how they fit the subject. That may be totally on me but the reference landed totally flat.
Apart from the additional eight books in the canon, there does not seem to be a great deal of difference in actual doctrine between the Ethiopian and the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches on Marian devotion and many other topics. What actual differences exist that are specifically attributable to the inclusion of Enoch and Jubilees, et al in the canon? There are some differences such as the number of recognized sacraments. And the Ethiopian church agrees with the Eastern churches on the filioque and papal authority, but those differences do not seem to be rooted in the canon difference.
It sheds a lot more light on the overall story of Scripture. Not by a little, a lot.
I'm speaking from my own research and reasoning. I don't think the Ethiopian Church is right about everything, but I do believe they preserved actual Scripture.
It may give more context if they have the full canon, but if all of the necessary doctrines, beliefs, and practices are broadly the same even without those additional books, then it seems to me that their importance is a little bit exaggerated, or at least that the western “conspiracy” to suppress them is exaggerated, since they do not lead to any major doctrinal differences anyway.
Depends on what we mean by "important."
My argument isn't that Enoch and Jubilees suddenly create an entirely different Christianity. It's that they shed a great deal of light on the world the biblical authors assumed their readers already understood.
The "Divine Council" is a good example. Michael Heiser spent years reconstructing that worldview from scattered references across the canon. The Ethiopian Church preserved books that discuss many of those themes directly.
To me that's significant even if the core doctrines remain recognizable.
I also don't assume the Ethiopian Church has everything figured out. No tradition does. My interest is much narrower: do these books help explain passages that otherwise generate centuries of debate? I think they do.
A book doesn't need to introduce a new doctrine to be important, it provides the missing context that makes existing doctrines easier to understand.
That makes sense. But it doesn’t necessarily make sense to me to refer to it as western conspiratorial or self-protecting suppression that has excluded these books. Separate traditions can form rather naturally just out of human quirks and tendencies (some of which are definitely a result of the fall).
Came here to say the same thing.
If the Church one claims was free from Rome and Roman influence/corruption, ends up looking decidedly more Orthodox and Catholic than Protestant, what does that tell you about Protestant claims to better reflect the *real* Faith of the Apostles? Let alone Mormon ones?
The more one looks at the early Church and reads the earliest, post-Apostolic Church Fathers -- particularly Saints Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatious -- the more clearly Catholic (or Orthodox / Coptic / Etc) that early Church was. By which I mean the early Church was unified, hierarchical, sacramental, and liturgical, with worship focused on Holy Mass and reception of the entirely *real* (i.e., no merely symbolic) Body and Blood of Christ.
Of all the conspiracies to believe, the idea that an omnipotent and omniscient God *wanted* his faithful to believe a certain way and worship a certain way, but just couldn't quite pull it off and was ultimately thwarted in his aims, condemning EVERYBODY on earth to fifteen hundred years of error and lack of salvation... seems to be the least believable of all conspiracies.
So you think Christ was God Incarnate, but also a lousy judge of character who foolishly chose Apostles that would fail to hand down The Faith intact for even a SINGLE generation? Really?
You do realise the Reformers drew their conclusions directly from studying the Fathers, right? They were all Catholic clergy, after all. Or are you assuming that Luther drank Welch's and played guitar with a smoke machine?
Luther, as was his style, only confirmed the post-Apostolic Fathers on the few points in which they agreed with him (like the real presence), and dismissed them on the much more numerous points when they didn't -- like the primacy of The Pope, the importance of Bishops, the indivisible nature of the Catholic Church, etc. And he did this to the point of claiming that Ignatius of Antioch's letters were forgeries / spurious -- though later research has proven them authentic beyond all dispute -- because he could not refute them on these points.
You haven't read that much of his work, have you?
In terms of primary materials, I've read his 99 Theses and some of his Mariology. What work of his do you think refutes my comments?
There are times when I read your posts that I find no foundational starting point with which to begin my understanding of what you are attempting to convey. I read this article and scratched my head through the entire piece. It sounded incredibly intellectual and I like that but I need a starting point and in some posts I can't find it.
The essay has one foundation: every claim about history is testable against the historical record.
Joseph Smith made a specific claim, that the Christian church vanished entirely from the earth for seventeen centuries. That claim has a shape. It can be checked. When you check it, you find churches in Ethiopia, Armenia, Egypt, and Persia that were continuous, unbroken, and never answered to the institutions Smith indicted.
The rest of the essay follows from that, a universal claim was tested against the actual record, and the record doesn't support it. Mormonism is false.
Thanks, that's extremely helpful and I agree 100%. If I understood that going in, it would have helped enormously.
Perhaps I should work on making my essays clearer. Thanks for the comment.
Sometimes, when I'm deep in the research I forget that not everyone has been following the same trail of breadcrumbs.
This is a fair treatment of the LDS claim of the great apostasy, but what it overlooks is how early the corruption could have taken place. Had it taken place within the first century, all the Copts, Ethiopians, etc. were already under its effects, and despite their best efforts, were continuing on with an already corrupted/authority-less form.
Satan or whatever fallen angels acolytes always muddying the waters that sprang forth from the divine source. That's all these busy bodies have been trying to accomplish. Yet, for all their plans, God is the greatest planner of all. Christianity or followers of Christ, existed before the Roman Empire decided to usurp their faith, and to this day, they cannot contain the faith into an institutional command hierarchy, try as they may. Faith is personal and unless they manage to clone, chip all of us with AI and/or cybergenetics augmentations, the soul still comes from the one who breaths it into us. Nothing will ever change in regards to this one true and universal fact. The rest is just politics. Pay to Caesar what is his, etc etc dtc
Awesome. Thank you so much. As an ex-mo, this hits. Not to mention about 2/3rds of the BOM is straight from the KJV. You can't claim the Bible as your foundation and still consider it corrupted or only authoritative if "translated correctly". That's a sticky puddle of mud.