I don't know whether to be insulted or just amused. I am far better educated about Christianity over the ages than you realize.
In the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.
As this belief had not been challenged prior to this, there was no need to define Mary as theotokos.... once a heresy attacked the faith, the Church, GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, defined this dogma as a matter of teaching the faith.
Uh... okay, so I believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. (Of course, that leaves me wondering about the phrase, "Hail, Mary, mother of God," but that's a topic best saved for another time.) So now, maybe you could explain what heresy prompted the doctrine that Mary (supposedly unlike the rest of humanity) was born without sin. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus considered His mother to be different in that respect from other women. And why the teaching about Mary's ascension into Heaven? Was that doctrine also proposed as a means to combat heresy? What was the original doctrine? I'm not aware of any early writings that described her death as any more unique than her conception.
... but AGAIN not provided any proof that this is a BAD thing.
I don't even know what to say to this. If the Church established as doctrine something that had not been mentioned as part of the teachings of the Apostolic era -- and at the same time rejected the idea that revelation from God was continuing -- I'd say that it was indeed a "bad thing."
You continue to miss the point... if all we need is a restoration of "historical Christianity" why do we need to know about Golden Plates or the BOM? If what is needed is a "restoration" , then what purpose does adding NON-historical information serve?
I guess I do. Please excuse my stupidity.
As you undoubtedly know, we believe
The Book of Mormon to be "another testament of Jesus Christ." Your question is akin to asking, "If we have Matthew, why do we need John? If we have Luke, what need is there for Mark?" What is there to object to in yet another witness to the divinity and saving power of Jesus Christ? And if certain doctrines evolved over time, as we believe they did through that [dreaded word] "apostasy," it would make perfect sense to trust a second ancient document describing Christ's visit to his "other sheep," particularly since the original document was translated only once. As to why we need to know about the plates on which this document was recorded, we don't. We don't need to know about them any more than we need to know about the ancient papyrus that may have been used to record the biblical texts on.
Oh vey.... do I really need to waste my time defending this?
No. If you believe it to be a waste of your time, please feel free to not answer.
Off topic.... I'm sure James or Ted will agree with me that no matter if you believe in the Primacy of Peter or not, you can be darn sure that my Orthodox brothers don't believe the early Church fell into apostacy.
I'm sure they will, just as the LDS posters will agree with me. And given the fact that the number of posters who voted "yes," believing that there was an apostasy within the ancient Church exceeds the number of Latter-day Saints on this forum, apparently there are others who also agree with us. They just don't believe that the truth has been restored.
And please continue to do so.... but please understand the difference in questioning the authority of the early Church and actually being able to give evidence of apostasy.
Who's questioning the authority of the early Church? I'm questioning the authority of the present-day Church. And I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if the second-century Church fell into apostasy, the present day Church no longer has the authority it claims. If the Church is the same to say as it was in Jesus' time, then an apostasy never took place. You may try to separate these two issues if you wish, but I see them as intrinsically connected.
Kathryn