The Mormon Church often contends that either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church is the True Church of Christ, i.e., the Bride of Christ (https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/bride.html). It discounts the Protestant theologies (and rightly so), because of their recent date of origins in the Renaissance era at the earliest, and the last couple years at the latest, and their "multitude of gospels/statements of Faith" embraced by the 1000s of Protestant organizations. Because of the recent origins of their beliefs, Mormons conclude that there is a virtual impossibility that "distinctive" Protestant ideas were taught by the Apostles to Christ's early Church. An analogy is the "light bulb," it was invented in the 19th century by Thomas Edison. To claim the Apostles taught "Protestant ideas" is akin to claiming the Apostles "wrote scripture by electric lights." = => It's impossible for both are recent inventions of the last few hundred years. How can something modern, be ancient? The following site details the authors and dates of origin of the protestant theologies.

Click here: The Authors and Origins of Protestant theologies 
https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/dates.html

Yet, this analogy and logic can also be used to investigate the veracity of Mormon theology. Is Mormon Theology "True or Apostolic?" Is it what the Apostles taught Christ's early Church? If Mormon theology is *not* what the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, then logic would tell us that it, (and the Protestant theologies), are mere modern inventions on the Gospel of Christ, and therefore should be rejected as such.  And likewise, if there was no "great apostasy" in the early Church as Mormons have been taught, then again Mormon theology must be false.

James E. Talmage wrote "The Great Apostasy" and published by the Mormon Church in 1909. On page 34 he reiterates one of the Great LDS Articles of Faith:

"We [the Church of today] believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church."

And Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

"We are not an institution which has broken away from the Roman Catholic [Church] or any other church. We are not part of a reformation. We declare that this is a Restoration. The teachings and organization of the Church are as they were anciently."

If this is so, then the Primitive Church must have also taught Mormon doctrines and theology if it was the same organization. Yet one must ask: "If Mormon theology is what the Apostles really taught, why can't Mormon theologians find just "one person" who believed any of the following Mormon ideas before Joseph Smith taught them 1800+ years later?"

If the Apostles really taught these Mormon ideas, why is history absolutely silent on these ideas, either before or after the alleged great apostasy until the 19th century?

The Following list of 13 Mormon doctrines begs the question:

"Why were none of these ideas taught by anyone, to anyone, before Joseph Smith in the 1830's? How did these ideas get into the Holy Bible if the Apostles did not teach them? Was Joseph Smith the first person in the history of the world to teach these ideas? And if so, how can they be 'Biblical' if the Apostles did not teach them? "

Can Mormon theology be tested for Apostolicity?  Can Protestant theology? Can Catholic theology?  Actually all 3 can for we can we read the writings of the "Students of the Apostles" and the great Christians of history to test which theology is Apostolic and which is not? The following link gives this "Test for Apostolicity" for Catholic Theology. It tells us what the Apostles taught Christ's early Church. And as we discover, everything they believed, the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church still believes. 

A Challenge to Mormon theology: Is Catholic theology Apostolic? Is it the teachings of the Apostles to Christ's infant Church? Name one doctrine the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, that is repudiated or not taught by his Church today. https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/3challenge.html

The Protestant theologies fail this test for Apostolicity because not only do most of them not teach as the Apostles taught, but most modern Protestants don't even embrace the teachings of their own Renaissance reformers. And the few that do find themselves in a situation where their own reformers face the same dilemma, they can't find a single soul who taught their novel ideas before the Renaissance era. That is why Protestantism is so easy to discount.

Can this same "Test" be applied to Mormon theology? Even if one clings to the "great apostasy" theory, (although a specific date of said apostasy has never been clearly articulated), shouldn't we find at least *some* evidence for Mormon theology in the early Church? Shouldn't we find at least "one or two" Christians who "also" taught Mormon ideas either before or after the "great apostasy"?  Shouldn't we at least find the "Students of the Apostles" teaching Mormon doctrines? Is there any support for these ideas in historic Christianity before Joseph Smith preached them in the 1830s?  If not, why would a logical person conclude that Mormon theology is the teachings of the Apostles?  Again, this is the same Quantum Leap in logic (of Protestant theology) that Protestants face when they discover, or try and convince themselves that:

a.  The Apostles taught Mormon theology to their "students" in the early Church.

b.  Yet somehow not a single soul taught these ideas *again*, to include the "Students of the Apostles", until the latter half of the second millennium.  In fact modern Protestantism doesn't even embrace the faith of their own reformers so how could the Apostles have taught these ideas 2000 years earlier?

Click here, 9 doctrines in modern Protestantism that their own reformers either repudiated or never heard of.
https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/formypastor.html

=====================================

Most Mormons will agree that the link between distinctly "Protestant ideas" and the Apostles teachings is nonexistent.  Yet the Mormon Church is asking Mormons to do this very thing!  To somehow believe that the Apostles taught Mormon ideas, yet not a single soul taught them *again*, either before or after the so called great apostasy, until Joseph Smith did in the 19th century.  Logic would tell us this is not a valid argument if there is zero evidence to support it and the premise is flawed. Mormons theologians are telling Mormons to essentially believe, that the Apostles"taught Mormon theology by electric lights." This is impossible for BOTH ideas "came to light" in the 19th century! I would challenge my Mormon friends to test their theology for Apostolicity as the Holy Bible commands.

The entire writings of your early Church Fathers, some the "Students of the Apostles", (both before and after the alleged "great apostasy") are located at the the following links: 

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ (Protestant site) The other is on a Catholic site:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ (Both sites contain the exact same information).

I ask you my LDS friend, can Mormonism find just one person who taught the following Mormon ideas before Joseph Smith invented them in the 19th century?  Just one person.  And if not, why would an educated and logical person conclude that these ideas were somehow the teachings of the Apostles, if the first we hear of them is from a man in the 19th century? I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's infant Church, no matter where it lead me and no matter what it costs me. I would pray that you desire the same.

 

13 Questions for LDS Theologians, Bishops and Layperson's: Did anyone in Christ's infant Church teach:

 

1.  That men can become as God, or like God or any derivative of this idea, or the concept of "eternal progression?" Which Apostle or student of the Apostles taught this idea?

 

2.  That "God the Father" was at one time a mere man on another planet, or that he had a "Heavenly Wife" of from which he created "Spirit Children".  Who taught these ideas even before the so called "great apostasy?" 

 

3.  That there is more than one God ("plurality of gods") or the idea of the Godhead as meaning 3 distinct gods?  Who taught these ideas before Joseph Smith in the 19th century?

 

4.  Who in Christ's infant Church taught that no one is dammed forever, or that there are 3 Kingdoms/Levels in Heaven?  Did the Students of the Apostles teach this, if so who?

 

5.  Who in Christ's infant Church taught that men and angels are interlinked or that men may become angles? Mormons believe that Moroni (from the book of Mormon) became an angel and that the Arch-angle Michael became "Adam" of the book of Genesis. Like the rest of theses ideas, this was unheard of before Joseph Smith. Why would one attribute it to the teachings of the Apostles then?

 

6.  Where is "Spirit Children" taught in the early Church?  Or is the first we hear of it from Joseph Smith in the 19th century?

 

7. Who in the early Church taught the concept (in any manner) that Jesus and Satan were brothers or half brothers or any relationship of that sort? The Apostles taught that Christ was the One God and that Satan was a fallen angel. Who taught the former before Joseph Smith?

 

8.  What Christian practiced or taught polygamy in Christ's infant Church? What Christian did this in the first 1800+ years of Christianity before Joseph Smith?

 

9.  Who in Christ's early Church taught or practiced "Sealing" of marriages for eternity? (Celestial marriages)

 

10.  The Holy Bible in 1 Cor 15 does speak of "Baptisms for the Dead," but not in the context of a "Christian practice," we read some unnamed: "they" practiced it.  If it were a Christian practice, should we not have at least "somebody" practice this either before or after the alleged "great apostasy" again? Should it not be included in the early documents on Baptism? But history is silent on this most fundamental Mormon doctrine, until Joseph Smith in the 19th century.  Why? Because it was not a Christian practice.

 

11. What early Christian in Christ's infant Church taught or advocated abstaining from alcohol or caffeine.  Or did this idea first surface in the latter half of the second millennium?  (Christ's first miracle was making wine out of water, why would he forbid it?)

 

12. And why do we read nothing in the writings of the early Church of Mormon Temple ceremonies?  Surly, these sacred ceremonies would have been practiced by "somebody" in the early Church. Yet we hear absolutely nothing about them until the 19th century. Why?

Why do all we read of, is the Apostles and their students practicing the same faith practiced in the Catholic Faith of today? The reason is because Christ's early Church was Catholic in its theology. Not Protestant or Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, but Catholic in its beliefs.

13. James Talmage in his 1909 book makes the excellent distinction between the:

a. Apostasy FROM the Church and

b. Apostasy OF the Church.

There is a difference. Men will always sin and some become Apostate. But did the Church itself become Apostate? Christ's Holy Bible calls this Church:

 

The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth"

1 Tim 3:15

 

Mr Talmage describes very well point #1. Apostasy FROM the Church as described in Holy Writ and the writing of our Church Fathers. Yet apostasy of this kind is to be expect of any religion and even happens today in all religions. There are apostate Catholics, Protestants and even apostate Latter Day Saints. So in essence, to say there is apostasy FROM the Church is to state the obvious. To examine point #2, apostasy OF the Church, he says in Chapter 2 paragraph 4:

 

"We affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church gradually drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist."

 

 

This is a bold claim. Although he is mistaken in his statement that "succession of the priesthood was broken." This is not true, for every Catholic Bishop who ordains a priests can trace his ordination back to an Apostle! An Apostle laid hands on a Bishop who laid hands on a Bishop and so on to this day. Any Catholic Bishop can can traced this laying of hands back to an Apostle.That is unparalleled in the modern world.

 

And Mr Talmage fails to make a case for #2. Apostasy OF the Church. He gives zero evidence for this claim.

1. The Holy Bible is silent on the apostasy OF the Church. It speaks often of apostasy FROM the Church., but absolutely nothing on apostasy OF the Church. Because it is never foretold and it never happened as per Christ's Words in Matt 16:16-19 to his Church. (" I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it")

2. Mr Talmage cannot find a single Christian who professes this idea prior to the Protestant separation. (Protestants professed it for obvious reasons, to justify their new theologies). He is at odds with the whole of Christianity as early as the 1st century who believed the Church., being the Bride of Christ. would never succumb to apostasy because Christ told us it wouldn't.

3. Nor can he reconcile this idea with the multitude of verses in the Holy Bible which tell us that Christ would never let this happen. Matt 16:16-19 beholds Christ's very Words promising that the "Gates of Hell" will never prevail against his Church.

"And I say that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, I give you the keys to kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loosen on earth will be loosened in Heaven." Matt 16:16-19

And in Math 18:17 Christ himself admonishes his disciples to:

"hear his Church." Why would Christ give his Church this authority and this command, if he knew it would not always teach the truth in matter of faith or morals?... he wouldn't .

 

In John 16 Christ tells us that he will send his Holy Spirit to guide the Church. in all Truth. Christ said he would send the:

 

 

Yes, we hear much about Sinners becoming apostate in the early Church. But we hear *nothing* about the Church as an institution becoming apostate until the Protestant separation in the 16th century. And then this thought was reiterated by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. The Protestant philosophers of the 16th century are the author of this idea. Before it we hear not a word of the Church that Christ started becoming Apostate. In fact all we hear is the opposite.

 

Surely if the "True Mormon Believers" in the first few centuries saw their Church become untrue to the teachings of the Apostles we would hear something of this. Yet history, as with every other Mormon doctrine, is silent until the last few hundred years. Just as history is silent on every distinctly Protestant doctrine. Did Christ not tell his Church that he would be with it until the end of the world? Since the Apostles would not live forever, this promise is to his Church:

 

"Teach them to observe all I have taught you and behold I am with you always until the end of the world" Math 28:20.

 

He didn't say:

 

"Teach them to observe all I have taught you and behold I will be with you for just a few decades. For my Bride, the Church. I personally commissioned and promised to prevail against the "Gates of Hell" will become apostate very soon."

 

Yet that is the teachings of the Mormon church. The teachings necessary to justify and validate Joseph Smith's new theology, just as the Renaissance Protestants embrace the same to justify their new theologies.

 

Either we believe the Words of Holy Writ or we don't.

 

Click here if you been taught the Catholic Church became corrupt in it's theology? Don't the Holy Scriptures tell us this is impossible? https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/gatesofhell.html

 

My friend, history utterly *silent* on Mormon theology until the 1830s, yet replete on Catholic theology to the "nth degree" in both Biblical and Extra-biblical records as early as 70AD while many Apostles still lived.  This lack of Mormon evidence for their doctrines is compounded by the lack of evidence to support Mormon "archeological claims" in early North America. Mormon archeological suffers the same lack of evidence/historical support to cause the Smithsonian to release a statement specifically denying any substantiation to the Mormon claims of archaeology. The bottom line is, if Christ's Church of the "apostolic age" was the prototype of today's Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there zero evidence of them in the from 33AD until 1830? Nothing, not one shred.

My friend, Joseph Smith wrote:

 "I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong…their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (Joseph Smith—History 1:19).  Yet he was never exposed to the fullness of the Catholic Church, he speaks of the Protestant Churches. They are not Apostolic for they all stem from the Renaissance era *at the earliest*.  Just as Mormon theology stems from Joseph Smith *at the earliest*.  He is the source of all of these ideas. 

Mormon theology is not Apostolic in any sense of the word.  If you want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, investigate the claims of the only Church that shows a historical linage to Jesus Christ, the only Church that believes as Christ's early Church taught.  Test it's claims as the Bible commands. Click here: A Challenge to Mormon theology, is Catholic theology Apostolic, is it the teachings of Christ's Apostles to his infant Church? Name one doctrine that isn't.  https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/3challenge.html
And then contrast this evidence with the historical voids of both Protestant and Mormon theologies before the last few hundreds years.

I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's infant Church, no matter where it leads me and no matter what it costs me.  I pray you feel the same way. 

God Bless you,

Daniel 

How could it be that Christ, who should have known better, would promise that his Church would not be overcome, if he knew full well a great apostasy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades? Was Christ lying? Obviously not. Was the Son of God mistaken? No. Did his divinity fail him and cause him to miscalculate things? No, again. Christ's divinity precluded such things. He was correct in what he said and we as Christians should take his Words at face value.

"I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Either we believe the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ or we don't.

Click here: Have you been taught the Catholic Church became corrupt in it's theology and that there was a "Great Apostasy?" Don't the Holy Scriptures say this is impossible? I.E., the verses not underlined in your Bible? 

https://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/gatesofhell.html