Pierz, you believe that the Church decomposed with Constantine. This is a presupposition you have which I believe clouds your judgment on this matter. Had you been a Christian during the fourth century, you would have honored him as someone who allowed the Church to come out of the shadows to live openly their Christian Faith. You would not have been a Mormon, because Mormonism would not exist for another 14 centuries. Which leads me to the next point.
Ancient witnesses do play a major role in historical research to discern the origin of thought and traditions. If we want to learn the spirit of the American Revolution, we look to learn from the witnesses of that era and the historians immediately after, in the writings which they wrote. Otherwise, we might completely misrepresent certain facts through revisionism, just as the liberals do today.
I have demonstrated to you that the mention of Christ's birth being on December 25th comes from a Christian Saint who lived in the second century. That may not be early enough for you, but for a historian and seeker of truth, it certainly is. It demonstrates that this was the "latest" when this claim was made. It does not mean it was necessarily the first time this was believed, but simply the first time we find it written in historical writings. So while the canonized Scriptures do not include this detail, I may still gain insight into the historical truths.
You state that early doesn't mean authority, but God grants authority. You are absolutely correct! The authority does not come from the time frame (for the Gnostics were early too, even while the Apostles still lived!), but the authority comes from God, and God has established this earthy authority for the Church through the holy mystery of ordination in the ecclesiological heirarchy started by the Apostles and developed by those they passed this charisma and authority to. And it was an authority given to them by God through the Holy Spirit, for it was the Holy Spirit which was transferred and passed down in this holy sacrament initiated by the Apostles. As a Mormon, I think you can appreciate this. This apostolic succession is the authority the Church has, according to the apostolic faith and the grace of authority passed down through the laying of the hands.
Perhaps as a Mormon you do not accept this authority, which may also explain why you do not accept something which is older to be of much value. If you did, how could you explain the Mormon faith, which started with an 18th century unordained Protestant outside the historical Church? How do you expect me to accept any authority of your Mormon faith? Where is the Aposotlic succession through time and through the centuries? I know where it is, and I can show you. Show me that to be the case in Mormonism, and then 'we'll be on our way' as you said to me. But instead, there are claims of fantastic visitation and hidden manuscripts, none of which were ever prophecized or mentioned in 1800 years of Christian teachings and thought, which hold no historical truth or validity. And when they are systematically challenged and proven wrong, like some of the historical claims of Mormonism, the tenants are altered or redefined. As an Orthodox Christian, I can trace my Bishop through a line going all the way back to the Apostles. Can a Mormon do the same? No. So perhaps that is why you do not value the writings of the Church Fathers because they demonstrate that a Church has indeed survived and endured with the grace of God. But instead, to believe the claims of Joseph Smith, you must ignore wholesale 1800 years of the Holy Spirit working in the Church.
For you, what a second century Christian had to say may not mean much, but for me, and for many Mormons coming to the Orthodox Church, it means a lot, since we can accept and acknowledge that they know much more about the Christian Faith and the teachings and practices commanded by the Apostles than someone much much later, both due to the time and distance involved, and by the presence of an ordained Church which was started by the Apostles and where the Holy Spirit never left or abandoned it, just as Christ promised.
I had a long post in response, but it got deleted. So here are the kernels:
Mormonism is nothing but the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullest. In this it is not new, Adam himself originally had the full gospel. It only appears new to those not accustomed to noticing the pattern of apostasy and restoration in the scriptures.
That there was an apostasy of the church Jesus Christ founded can be seen in multiple ways. One is the absence of Apostles and Prophets, which we are told are foundational parts of the church (Eph 2) meant to endure until mankind's complete unity in faith and perfection (Eph. 4). Any church claiming apostolic succession or authority without actually having Apostles and Prophets is proclaiming a contradiction. Bishops are not apostles, as we see in the scriptures where the Apostles exercise authority over the bishops. Anyone having apostolic authority would be an Apostle. Any church claiming apostolic succession would have Apostles and Prophets guiding it, not patriarchs or bishops.
That the early Apostles foresaw the coming Apostasy, the loss of the fullness of the gospel, and prophesied of it is Biblical:
https://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/sperry-symposium-classics/new-testament-prophecies-apostasy
Likewise, the Book of Mormon was predicted in the Bible as well. Just a few examples here:
http://angelmessage.org/care/bm.pdf
Joseph Smith's authority didn't come from tradition, but revelation. When the font of your knowledge is God Himself, then you don't have to depend on the old arguments of others to guide you. Joseph's authority came through angelic ministration, which you so casually denigrate. Joseph Smith was ordained to the Priesthood of Aaron/Levitical Priesthood by the resurrected John the Baptist, which can be read about here
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.66-67?lang=eng and later to the higher Melchizedek Priesthood and the Holy Apostleship by Peter, James, and John, as mentioned here
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.12?lang=eng#11.
The point? Every worthy adult male is ordained to the Priesthood and each of us, from lowly deacon to Apostle and Prophet, can trace our priesthood authority directly back to Jesus Christ Himself. This is what I care about- authority, founded on God's priesthood order and the power it brings, namely revelation. I find it sad you mock heavenly visitations as every time the priesthood has been held in its fullness on the Earth, God has communicated with His people through heavenly visions and angelic visitations. That it no longer happens in yours is a sign of your lacking not a cause for the mocking of mine.
You do not have to abandon your admiration of the faith of Christians during the Apostasy. History testifies to the building Restoration, which gives their sacrifice deep meaning all its own.
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/06/preparing-for-the-restoration?lang=eng
And of course I don't expect you to believe me, or Joseph Smith. As the prophet Moroni taught, it is the Holy Spirit that converts the sincere heart, not any man.
"3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." from Moroni 10.
As for your Christmas argument, it is flawed. My your own admission, the earliest Christians celebrated Easter, not Christmas. Your source, being 200 years out from the event, is bad source. It is not primary account. It'd be like quoting high school student about the life of Pocahontas. It isn't trustworthy, nor is it relevant. No one is dismissing the idea that Christans, by 300AD, has started assigning DEC 25 as Christ's birthday. But that doesn't prove that it was, not does it counter the arguments that it was made so to counter paganism or was influenced by paganism, especially in light of the Biblical text which all suggests that it probably was not the dead of winter in historical context.
