Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

After weeks of dealing with Old Nasty Skeptics, it's time to lighten up a bit and deal with some folks of a more polite and more intellectual caliber. I'll say it outright: LDS apologists have more manners and more intelligence in the tip of their pinkie than Farrell Till has in his entire body and the collective bodies of his disciples. Now that's hard.

At any rate, we planned eons ago to take a closer look at Barry Bickmore's Restoring the Ancient Church (hereafter RAC) and now seems as good a time as any. Some issues in RAC are beyond our scope (i.e., internal Mormon apologetics issues) and these we will politely decline to address. Much of the material we have already addressed in The Mormon Defenders, so this will be a look mainly at material that was unaddressed by TMD.

Chapter 1 of RAC briefly sets the stage with a summary of methods and affirming Joseph Smith as a prophet of restoration, and contains no arguments as such. We move then to Chapter 2 where the arguing begins in earnest.

RAC Chapter 2 is entitled "Apostasy and Restoration." The first section, subtitled "The Apostasy -- A History," begins by trying to provide a Biblical and historical basis for the supposition that an apostasy occurred. We have already briefly addressed this matter in the Conclusion to my book The Mormon Defenders and in somewhat more detail in this article written for a co-worker website. The failing of Bickmore and several LDS apologists is, first, in their appeal to Biblical predictions of apostasy that either have a known referent (i.e., the Galatian deviancy of Gal. 1:6-8) or else offer no specific indication that the content of the apostasy would correlate with Mormon claims of apostasy. Second, Bickmore also appeals to non-Biblical writings of the church (letters of Clement, Ignatius, etc) that speak of refusal to recognize authority, but which nevertheless do not specify how church members are "rebelling". In other words, there is no warning or indication of an apostasy that would have caused a loss that Mormonism claims to be the "restoration" for. It is therefore presumptive for Bickmore to claim that "Paul spoke of this apostasy" or speaks of "an apostasy already underway" as though there were an apostasy identifiable as one that Mormonism is the "solution" for. Bickmore's admission that the NT gives neither "many specifics" nor a "timetable of the rebellion," is as much as admitting that the "clues" have to be massaged into helping the Mormon position. (Appeals to the occurrence of apostasy in OT times are even less relevant! While they do establish that men do indeed turn away from God, it is of no relevance unless it is demonstrated that they turned in a specific direction from something that looks like Mormonism and to something that does not.)

Other citations by Bickmore are rather carelessly misapplied to begin with. 2 Tim. 1:15, "that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me," is no indication of apostasy in action but of personal disloyalty by former of Paul's friends. (The word used is indeed apostrepho, but this word means any turning away: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Matt. 5:42) 2 Thess. 2:3 refers to a falling away, but by the eschatological timetable offered by Paul this falling away would have had to occur before 70 AD. This last point is of particular relevance for those who maintain a preterist eschatology, as we do. By this reckoning references to the "last time" (1 John 2:18) do indeed refer to the Lord's return in 70, and Bickmore's attempt to read the "last time" in terms of it being "because the Antichrist had come and the Church was about to be taken away from the earth" [29] suffers a serious setback. Notably, his insistence that 2 Thess. 2:1-4, referring to the "son of perdition" sitting in the Temple and claiming to be God, is "difficult to imagine...if the Church was to remain" fails on the preterist interpretation that sees this "son of perdition" as the Roman general Titus razing the Jewish Temple and erecting Roman standards in the courtyard. That this is followed by the millennial reign of Christ in preterist thinking even more deeply injures the Mormon position.

Bickmore also fallaciously deduces from single letters of Clement and Ignatius to particular churches that "rejection of approved authority was widespread" and that there was a "general problem in this area at the time..." [33] In effect Bickmore is trying to build a mountain out of a molehill every bit as much as he does with the NT. What Bickmore calls a "stern rebuke" from Clement does not even name names or light a match. Nor does it say why the Corinthians rejected the persons in question, or why they have strife -- there is no indication that it had anything to do with doctrinal issues; indeed, if some matter of doctrine were at issue (as opposed to a matter of clashing personalities, for example, which is the most natural reading), one wonders why Clement said nothing about it or offered a doctrinal correction. Clement offers no hint of "rejection of approved authority" in a way that helps Bickmore's case. Bickmore cites (but does not quote) Chapter 7 of Ignatius' letter to the Trallians as an example of problems with authority. Really? "He that is within the sanctuary is clean; but he that is without the sanctuary is not clean, that is, he that doeth aught without the bishop and presbytery and deacons, this man is not clean in his conscience." That's all that is said. Isn't this rather overblown to say that this shows a "general problem" with respecting authority? No more so than it does today in any church -- whether mainstream or LDS, and I doubt if that means that any of us are on the way to further apostasy for our fellowships as a whole. What about Ignatius' Ephesians 2, which Bickmore also cites but does not quote? "May I have joy of you always, if so be I am worthy of it. It is therefore meet for you in every way to glorify Jesus Christ who glorified you; that being perfectly joined together in one submission, submitting yourselves to your bishop and presbytery, ye may be sanctified in all things." There is nothing here but a simple exhortation to remain a unified body -- a quite necessary exhortation in the face of the numerous social pressures the early church was under, and in light of the collectivist nature of ancient society. This exhortation had nothing to do with any sort of particular rebellion, much less with a doctrinal apostasy. The closest we get to that is Smyrneans 8: "[But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it." Doctrinal apostasy? No, more like simple procedural violations. There is nothing here to support Bickmore's case.

Perhaps Bickmore's greatest abuse of Ignatius is his cite of Romans 9: "Remember in your prayers the church which is in Syria, which hath God for its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop -- He and your love." Bickmore takes this as evidence that "the Church was in the process of shutting down at the time, and the true 'succession' was about to end..." Excuse me, but the example of ONE fellowship is a marker for the ENTIRE church? And how do we assume that the vacancy was permanent? There were no other ranking persons who could come and help fill the vacancy left by Ignatius? Not one word cited by Bickmore from any of these documents mentions specific doctrinal issues -- that they speak generally of "schisms" does not in any way aid the Mormon case.

Bickmore's next section is titled "Directions of Apostasy." There is nothing to argue with as such here; Bickmore summarizes some of the variations that emerged in the second century (Jewish Christianity; Gnosticism; etc). What is missing is any evidence that any one of these variations were in any sense similar to Mormonism, and beyond that was the one variant that represented the authentic and original faith. Merely quoting Davies as saying that Mormonism "re-Judaized" Christianity would make for a nice thesis statement, but standing alone and undeveloped accomplishes nothing. It especially accomplishes nothing if Bickmore tells us that this "Jewish Christianity" was actually one of the deviants from the norm. Bickmore in fact admits that "none of the various branches of post-Apostolic Christianity had 'the fullness of the Gospel.'" So we are putting the cart before the horse again.

Bickmore follows with the normal LDS apologetic suggestions of causes for the apostasy. The main "devil" of course is interchange with Greek philosophical ideas, with the normal citation of Edwin Hatch's work -- which, as we noted in The Mormon Defenders, made no effort to discern whether any of the Greek philosophical imports in any significant sense deviated from the "pure" New Testament church message. If anything, we showed that Greek philosophy would have produced ideas that ended up being pronounced heretical -- such as Arianism.

The next section is titled "The Effect of the Apostasy." Bickmore embarks upon an explanation of some of what he supposes the church lost on the way to apostasy. It is in this section that I find a couple of the chapter's most outrageous gaffes. One of these is a cite of Mark 16:17-18, which has been conclusively shown to not be from the original ending of Mark. Admittedly this does not affect Bickmore's primary point, that the church once had spiritual gifts which (other than claims by Pentecostal/Charismatic believers) are apparently no longer active in the church, and which he takes as a sign of apostasy. Looking at whether indeed the gifts are gone is beside our present scope, but we have a question which Bickmore does not address. If the loss of the gifts was a sign of apostasy, then wouldn't a sign of restoration -- as supposedly the Mormon church represents -- be therefore accompanied by a restoration of the gifts as well? Bickmore does not address this question; perhaps he would say "no" and have good reason. But otherwise, we would ask whether members of the LDS church are today healing, speaking in tongues, working miracles, or discerning spirits -- in ways that have been verified where the mainstream versions have not.

A small section follows on the canon of Scripture. Our own view of the matter is found here, which Bickmore would find to be less stringent than he might expect. However, we would issue the same challenge to Bickmore as we would others: If there is some document out that needs to be in, or vice versa, state your case for why. It is not enough to merely object that the canon was closed and assume it was done without or regardless of divine approval. Otherwise we may simply counter (to use Bickmore's example) that the Montanist heresy was God's way of getting the church to close the canon. Beyond that Bickmore's arguments about the canon are little more sophisticated than Golding's claim that the church managed the documents "as they pleased."

There is then a short section on textual criticism. The treatment here is far from adequate and our item here, though mostly addressed to skeptical complaints, nevertheless offers a corrective. Among Bickmore's cites are the claims we addressed in TMD about an alleged cite missing from Jeremiah (the Dead Sea Scrolls show no evidence of such a passage, and they predate Christianity) and a rather simplistic application of a quote by Origen, which does not say anything about the extent of the transmission errors, how they may have affected any particular doctrine, or whether these changes were passing the scrutiny of authority. This is still Bickmore appealing to evidence that is far from specific enough to help him. Finally Bickmore calls in Bart Ehrman's findings. We dealt with Ehrman in the essay linked above, but would add that of all the doctrinal corruptions Ehrman found any real proof for, none were against anything that would have been favorable to a Mormon understanding of the NT. Guilt by association does not establish the matter.

A section follows on the supposed need for prophets to interpret scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 is offered: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." Bickmore takes this to mean that prophets are to interpret scripture, but that is not what the text says. The following verse sets the context: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Peter's point is that the source of prophecy is not men, not that only certified prophets can interpret Scripture. A cite from the very late Clementine Recognitions comes closer to saying what Bickmore requires, but its very lateness discredits it as a worthwhile source to apply to the Apostolic Church. Finally an appeal to Matthew 16:17 is useless, for it only refers to the specific revelation of Jesus' divinity to Peter and does not in any sense indicate thereby that any or all prophecy requires a prophet for interpretation.

A cite from Ignatius' letter to Philadelphia is offered next, and Bickmore reads it as saying that Ignatius "rebuked those who naively assumed that if any truth was to be had they could just read it out of the scriptures..." The passage says no such thing; it says:

Do ye nothing in a spirit of factiousness but after the teaching of Christ. For I heard certain persons saying, If I find it not in the charters, I believe it not in the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written, they answered me That is the question. But as for me, my charter is Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter is His cross and His death and His resurrection, and faith through Him; wherein I desire to be justified through your prayers.

Far from being a rebuke to those who thought they could find truth in the scriptures on their own, and assuredly not referring such people to prophets for interpretation, this is a response by Ignatius to those who took the OT (here, "charters") as a superior authority over the Gospel message, to which Ignaitus replies that the historical reality of Christ's death and resurrection trumps all, as it indeed does. It was the ultimate vindication of Christ by the Father.

Bickmore next appeals to Papias' comment that he sought out living voices to tell him about things rather than searching in books. Like many critics Bickmore badly misapprehends the point of this passage. It does not support a preference of prophets over text, but of oral transmission from any source as preferable to text. As we reported elsewhere: Lentz [Lent.OLHG, 77]offers a reason why oral tradition was preserved even after the advent of written versions: "The ancients often called the written word into question because it did not have the authority of an honest man's character to support its credibility." In other words, you can't ask a piece of paper questions to be sure that it is telling the truth!

Up next is a quote from Irenaeus who "insisted that one could not interpret the Scriptures correctly without the aid of elders who had passed down the unwritten tradition from the Apostles..." This is perfectly sensible in terms of normal information transmission processes but provides no support for the idea that one needed a person with special prophetic authority to interpret the Scriptures correctly. Finally Justin Martyr is quoted as saying that "neither by nature nor by human conception is it possible for men to know things great and divine" but by a gift from above. This does not say anything about an ability to interpret the writings of Scripture. Once again Bickmore is merely trying to massage out of the texts what he needs to make his case.

The final section of the chapter is titled, "The Necessity of a Restoration." Here Bickmore misapplies several Biblical verses:

• 1 Cor. 1:23, which speaks of the Gospel being foolishness to Greeks, is used to support the idea that apostasy occurred through the importation of Greek philosophical ideas. At best this is a stretch of the imagination. Paul is referring to the "foolishness" of the message of the cross, in light of the Greco-Roman belief in the inability of the divine to interact with the material. That was indeed a tenet of Greek philosophy, but it does not help Bickmore's case here, for the only school of thought within Christianity to enact this particular tenet of Greek philosophy was docetism, and that school of thought failed miserably. There is no support here for a broader idea of Greek philosophical influence to the point of distortion of the Gospel message.
• Acts 3:20-1 is cited: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..." Bickmore deduces that "all things" is a reference to "the pure gospel teaching" and reads this in light of the LDS restoration of the Gospel. 1 Peter 4:7 which speaks of the "end" of "all things" is taken as further confirmation, as is 2 Peter 1:3, which says that we have been given "all things" through divine power.

  Bickmore interestingly undercuts himself as before when he says, "...unless Peter was greatly mistaken about the timing of the Lord's second advent" then "all things" could only mean loss of the pure gospel message. Once again the preterist understanding refutes his views, including his view of 2 Peter 3:8. Peter was right about the second advent, which took place in 70 AD. Furthermore it is arbitrary to claim that "all things" must refer to the Gospel message. Luke uses the phrase in ways that could not possibly refer to the Gospel message (Luke 10:22, 11:41, 14:17, 21:22; Acts 2:44, 10:33, etc.). It is a generalized term rather than one impregnated with specific meaning. The specific word used here, moreover, is a variation of a word that refers to "restoration" in the sense of healing. Note as well that Matthew uses parallel phraseology suggesting that the restoration is something done with reference to the actions of the historical John the Baptist:

  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. (Matt. 17:11-12)

  Bickmore tries to explain this passage away as having future connotations by the phrase "truly shall first come". But that ignores the content of Jesus' next statement that Elijah has already come. The premise of a multiple fulfillment via appearances to Joseph Smith (and with reference to Rev. 14:6) merely begs the question of interpretation. The "shall" is an answer to the disciples' question, "Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?" Jesus affirms the validity of the question and then answers it.

  Witherington [Acts commentary, 187] argues rather that the "restoration" is that of Israel (cf. Acts 1:6), which is reconstituted in the "new Israel" that is the Christian church -- whose status as the new people of God was substantially confirmed in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple. There is no cause here for seeing any reference to the "gospel message."

The chapter closes with an appendix on Matt. 16:18 which we conceptually answered in The Mormon Defenders chapter on postmortem salvation, and another appendix on monasticism we see no reason to take issue with.

Chapter 2 of RAC is one that we covered considerably (whether directly or conceptually) in The Mormon Defenders Chapters 1-3 and 8. The reader will also find relevant material here, here, here, here, and here.

Here are some comments otherwise:

• We find quite it problematic and telling that Bickmore resorts to reasoning as: "Naturally, since a different view finally prevailed, many of the early sources that taught [X doctrines] were lost"; "scribes succeeded in changing the texts," "[X doctrine] was part of the secret tradition," "perhaps this knowledge was lost," etc. This is telling, because it admits a weakness in the actual case and admits that the data, as it stands, does not support Bickmore's view. Problematic, because Bickmore unwittingly opens a methodological door for certain parties he probably does not know about and would not care to meet, but which we have. The appeal to squashed sources, changed texts, and secret traditions is a very popular one among "pagan copycat" advocates like Acharya S, or oddball revisionists like the Roman Piso theorists, as well as among less radical theorists with respect to the Gospel of Thomas. If this appeal by Bickmore is allowed, then he has seriously undercut any effort to respond to these other theorists. He would be better off being more cautious in such assertions, or better yet, not making them at all.
• Bickmore makes use of a thesis by Margaret Barker that the "angel of Yahweh" in the OT was a "second God" of Israel. I have had some discussion of late with one of my Mormon correspondents on this subject, and at a later date we hope to have a closer look at Barker herself. But in the preliminary I would note that there would be nothing problematic with the "angel of Yahweh" being a separate person within mainstream Trinitarianism. An angel was a messenger. The description would not say anything "pro" or "con" with respect to the ontological relationship between the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh himself. But see here.

Chapter 4 of RAC is covered substantially by Chapters 4-7 of The Mormon Defenders; readers may also wish to consult our item on original sin and our series on TULIP. Some accessory comments: