A question for the Latter-day Saints (Mormons) here:

[xixxvmcm85]

Who was the first “Prophet” for the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints?

Namely, who succeeded Jesus as prophet after he ascended to heaven?

I figure that instead of nitpicking at when an alleged apostasy occurred, it may be more conducive to discussion if we track the Mormon version of Apostolic Succession and thus determine a rough estimate.

Thanks.

 

[reff]

I am a former Momon, I start my RCIA next month. The Mormons believe that after there was an apostasy, they called the dark ages, where there were no prophets on earth, and that the church itself fell away, until Joseph Smith came along and restored Christ’s Church. They do not believe in Apostolic Succession. That’s why the Catholic Church seemed to make more since to me, it’s just a fact that Pope Benedict is a direct successor of St. Peter, how can anyone deny that?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I am a former Momon, I start my RCIA next month. The Mormons believe that after there was an apostasy, they called the dark ages, where there were no prophets on earth, and that the church itself fell away, until Joseph Smith came along and restored Christ’s Church. They do not believe in Apostolic Succession. That’s why the Catholic Church seemed to make more since to me, it’s just a fact that Pope Benedict is a direct successor of St. Peter, how can anyone deny that?

Hey! I’m a former LDS and start RCIA soon too!

Trust me, having returned from my mission but a few years ago I know all about the supposed apostasy. What I want to know specifically is who individual Mormons think was the very first “Prophet” or “First President” once Jesus left. After all, this is integral for the Mormon belief in “priesthood authority” (as they see it).

If we can slowly piece together who was supposed to be the subsequent First President on and on until finally there’s a break in the chain, then we’ll have a rough date for the “apostasy” and thus a framework for discussion with the LDS about this.

 

[BartBurk]

Hey! I’m a former LDS and start RCIA soon too!

Trust me, having returned from my mission but a few years ago I know all about the supposed apostasy. What I want to know specifically is who individual Mormons think was the very first “Prophet” or “First President” once Jesus left. After all, this is integral for the Mormon belief in “priesthood authority” (as they see it).

If we can slowly piece together who was supposed to be the subsequent First President on and on until finally there’s a break in the chain, then we’ll have a rough date for the “apostasy” and thus a framework for discussion with the LDS about this.

My understanding is they believe Peter, James and John were the first “First Presidency” with Peter as head. Peter, James and John were the apostles who they claim appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Most Mormons believe that after the apostles died the church ceased to remain upon the earth. They do not believe that John died. I have never questioned this before, but it seems to me that if John remained alive with apostolic authority that he could have called new apostles. Apparently, they believe the church became so wicked within 60 years of the death of Jesus that it couldn’t be saved.

I guess if I were going to invent a church in the 1900s that it would have been easy to convince a lot of Protestants that a restoration of the church was needed. Unfortunately, in the 1960s it became pretty easy to convince a lot of Catholics that such a restoration was needed and the Mormons did a pretty good job of it.

 

[why_me]

My understanding is they believe Peter, James and John were the first “First Presidency” with Peter as head. Peter, James and John were the apostles who they claim appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Most Mormons believe that after the apostles died the church ceased to remain upon the earth. They do not believe that John died. I have never questioned this before, but it seems to me that if John remained alive with apostolic authority that he could have called new apostles. Apparently, they believe the church became so wicked within 60 years of the death of Jesus that it couldn’t be saved.

I guess if I were going to invent a church in the 1900s that it would have been easy to convince a lot of Protestants that a restoration of the church was needed. Unfortunately, in the 1960s it became pretty easy to convince a lot of Catholics that such a restoration was needed and the Mormons did a pretty good job of it.

You gave a decent response to the question asked. I have no idea why former mormons would not know this. The dark ages were a result of apostacy but not necessarily the start.

When catholic history is researched one can read many dark things happening in the church. Of course, humans are not perfect and so, what was happening in the early history has no effect on me. But certainly in order for a reformation to be successful, there must be a basis for that reformation. And when one reads the corruption within protestantism, one can assume the need for a restoration.

Christianity has a far from peaceful history.

 

[why_me]

You gave a decent response to the question asked. The dark ages were a result of apostacy but not necessarily the start.

When catholic history is researched one can read many dark things happening in the church. Of course, humans are not perfect and so, what was happening in the early history has no effect on me. But certainly in order for a reformation to be successful, there must be a basis for that reformation. And when one reads the corruption within protestantism, one can assume the need for a restoration.

Christianity has a far from peaceful history.

 

[BartBurk]

You gave a decent response to the question asked. I have no idea why former mormons would not know this. The dark ages were a result of apostacy but not necessarily the start.

When catholic history is researched one can read many dark things happening in the church. Of course, humans are not perfect and so, what was happening in the early history has no effect on me. But certainly in order for a reformation to be successful, there must be a basis for that reformation. And when one reads the corruption within protestantism, one can assume the need for a restoration.

Christianity has a far from peaceful history.

I was obviously wrong in the first response since I should have said 19th century, not 1900s! The Catholic Church’s history doesn’t bother me because I believe in God’s grace – he promised to remain with the apostles until the end of time, not until the end of the first century. He stayed with the Church even when the humans messed up. When I looked at the evidence, it became clear to me at least that what the Catholic Church teaches in the 21st century is the same thing the church was teaching in the First century. Somehow God has protected humans from messing up His message even when the humans were messing up. Even the Mormon Church hasn’t messed up the basic message of the good news of Christ’s atonement, resurrection and eventual return.

So there is always hope in every generation. God doesn’t ever abandon humanity completely.

 

[BDawg]

Who was the first “Prophet” for the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints?

Namely, who succeeded Jesus as prophet after he ascended to heaven?

I figure that instead of nitpicking at when an alleged apostasy occurred, it may be more conducive to discussion if we track the Mormon version of Apostolic Succession and thus determine a rough estimate.

Thanks.

Hi xixx…whatever ,

Like Bart said, it was Peter. You might be interested in reading this debate between a Mormon and a Catholic ex-Mormon about the issue you brought up. It covers the question of whether Peter passed his keys of authority down to the bishops, what happened to John, and any number of other related topics.

You might also be interested in reading a book by Father Francis Sullivan, S.J., called From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. It is obviously written from a Catholic perspective, and tries to support the idea that we should have a papacy. However, you might be surprised at just how thin the evidence is. Most Catholics are pretty naive about just how much evidence there is supporting the existence of an early Papacy. (Most Mormons are pretty naive about similar issues, so I don’t mean that as a harsh criticism.)

 

[mntbike]

I am a former Momon, I start my RCIA next month. The Mormons believe that after there was an apostasy, they called the dark ages, where there were no prophets on earth, and that the church itself fell away, until Joseph Smith came along and restored Christ’s Church. They do not believe in Apostolic Succession. That’s why the Catholic Church seemed to make more since to me, it’s just a fact that Pope Benedict is a direct successor of St. Peter, how can anyone deny that?

How could anyone belive in such silly things that Mormons do. They really belive this huh? Oh and good luck with RCIA its a great time. I helped a couple of people through RCIA.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Ok then, so St. Peter is the common ground for Catholics and Mormons.

This means the Catholic church has made your guy’s work pretty easy for you. The Church has a line of Apostolic Succession that goes all the way back to Peter. There should be no reason why you can’t demonstrate who was the last “valid Pope/Prophet” and who was the first product of an apostasy.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hi xixx…whatever ,

Like Bart said, it was Peter. You might be interested in reading this debate between a Mormon and a Catholic ex-Mormon about the issue you brought up. It covers the question of whether Peter passed his keys of authority down to the bishops, what happened to John, and any number of other related topics.

You might also be interested in reading a book by Father Francis Sullivan, S.J., called From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. It is obviously written from a Catholic perspective, and tries to support the idea that we should have a papacy. However, you might be surprised at just how thin the evidence is. Most Catholics are pretty naive about just how much evidence there is supporting the existence of an early Papacy. (Most Mormons are pretty naive about similar issues, so I don’t mean that as a harsh criticism.)

Thanks BDawg!

I’ve read the debate a few years ago, and quite frankly your guy’s apologist did a pretty shoddy job, filled with non sequiturs.

I’m eager to read the book you advised and will do so promptly.

Thanks again!

 

[cazayoux]

Apparently, they believe the church became so wicked within 60 years of the death of Jesus that it couldn’t be saved.

… and yet they completely believe that the New Testament (defined in the 4th century) in their KJV Bibles is the Word of God.
If they think that all authority was gone from Earth in the 4th century how do they know that their NT has the right books? Why not include some of the others that were debated? Why not exclude some of the NT that was debated?

michel

 

[RebeccaJ]

… and yet they completely believe that the New Testament (defined in the 4th century) in their KJV Bibles is the Word of God.
If they think that all authority was gone from Earth in the 4th century how do they know that their NT has the right books? Why not include some of the others that were debated? Why not exclude some of the NT that was debated?

michel

or a better modern translation, or the Joseph Smith “translation” (ie, on the fly rewrite).

 

[xixxvmcm85]

… and yet they completely believe that the New Testament (defined in the 4th century) in their KJV Bibles is the Word of God.
If they think that all authority was gone from Earth in the 4th century how do they know that their NT has the right books? Why not include some of the others that were debated? Why not exclude some of the NT that was debated?

michel

Yes, but this is exactly why we need to define a time for the apostasy.

Since there is no concensus in the LDS fold, one can say

Mormon: “I believe the apostasy was in the 2nd century”
Catholic: “But the Bible was canonized by the Catholic church in the 4th, and you guys use that canon”
Mormon: “OK, I was wrong, maybe it was the 4th or 5th century”
Catholic: “Ok… here are documents from those centuries (plenty) demonstrating that the church held distinctively Catholic doctrine, not LDS doctrine”
Mormon: “OK, maybe it was the 2nd century and the Catholic church just lucked out in implimenting the correct books, OR the Holy Ghost guided the Catholic church in that ONE task knowing that the LDS would eventually use it”

As you see, almost every one dodges the question

SO we must first set down a framework, and I propose doing so with a different approach.

Let’s follow the “Mormon apostolic succession” (though they would never use that terminology, more like “Succession of the First Presidency”) and determine where the “break” occurred. Then from here we can appeal to history and see what that pre-apostasy church believed, practiced, taught, and implimented.

 

[cazayoux]

Mormon: “OK, I was wrong, maybe it was the 4th or 5th century”

I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that all Mormons believe that the Church was definitely in apostasy by the time Constantine ‘hijacked’ it early in the 4th century… which is STILL before the NT canon was set.

michel

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that all Mormons believe that the Church was definitely in apostasy by the time Constantine ‘hijacked’ it early in the 4th century… which is STILL before the NT canon was set.

michel

Not necessarily. Most just believe this is evidence that apostasy was slowly creeping in.

There seems to be two types of apostasy. Note that both apostasies are the result of the loss of priesthood authority, not necessarily the perceived “evilness” of individual members.

1. Apostasy of individuals: The loss of priesthood authority, overtime to “lesser” branches of the priesthood. This would be the apostasy of numbers of Bishops (Catholic equivalent of a Parish Priest), Stake Presidents (Catholic equivalent of a Bishop), etc.
2. Ultimate and Final Apostasy: The loss of priesthood authority at the highest level (which would thus trickle down to the church at large). This would involve the apostasy of the “Prophet” (somewhat of a Catholic equivalent to the Pope).

Analyzing the first type of apostasy is not only extremely difficult, but usually fruitless. Proving that certain people apostatized doesn’t do much for either side of the debate (especially since this kind of apostasy is gradual).

The second type is the kind I’m trying to address here. If we can p(name removed by moderator)oint a specific individual who sat in the chair of Peter (who according to the LDS was never meant to sit there, or who was invalidly ordained to that position) we would then have something to work with.

 

[RAR]

There seems to be two types of apostasy. Note that both apostasies are the result of the loss of priesthood authority, not necessarily the perceived “evilness” of individual members.

I just wanted to point out that the LDS definition of apostasy is not the traditional definition, which does not deal with the terminology of “the loss of priesthood authority,” but is more accurately a reference to a willful and deliberate turning away of individual persons from a faith or movement.

The idea that there was a “loss of priesthood authority,” or the “keys” necessary for apostolic succession for Catholics, is an addition (or a clarification) to the general concept of apostasy, which is more simply defined.

RAR

 

[grandfather]

… and yet they completely believe that the New Testament (defined in the 4th century) in their KJV Bibles is the Word of God.
If they think that all authority was gone from Earth in the 4th century how do they know that their NT has the right books? Why not include some of the others that were debated? Why not exclude some of the NT that was debated?

michel

This is off topic, but I wondered about this and maybe someone can give a quick answer.

The LDS believe that with the advent of Mormonism a valid priesthood has been restored. So they believe there are priests. What makes a priest a priest, whether that is a Catholic, Levitical, Hindu, Aztec, Buddhist, animist, or a Shinto priest is the offering of sacrifice. The reason Protestant clergy are called ministers and not priests is they do not believe they offer any sacrifice and have no Mass, and deny the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass. In the Mormon religion does their scripture or doctrine call for Mormon priests to offer sacrifice of some kind? If not why are they called priests?

 

[majick275]

This is off topic, but I wondered about this and maybe someone can give a quick answer.

The LDS believe that with the advent of Mormonism a valid priesthood has been restored. So they believe there are priests. What makes a priest a priest, whether that is a Catholic, Levitical, Hindu, Aztec, Buddhist, animist, or a Shinto priest is the offering of sacrifice. The reason Protestant clergy are called ministers and not priests is they do not believe they offer any sacrifice and have no Mass, and deny the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass. In the Mormon religion does their scripture or doctrine call for Mormon priests to offer sacrifice of some kind? If not why are they called priests?

they believe they offer a broken heart and contrite spirit. they also believe they sacrifice fruits meet for repentance, tithes and offerings and their time and talent.

that’s the short answer. the more in depth is gonna end up with the fact that they don’t define their priests in the traditional sacerdotal way but rather as “empowered worshipers” who can use delegated authority to carry out God’s work

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I just wanted to point out that the LDS definition of apostasy is not the traditional definition, which does not deal with the terminology of “the loss of priesthood authority,” but is more accurately a reference to a willful and deliberate turning away of individual persons from a faith or movement.

The idea that there was a “loss of priesthood authority,” or the “keys” necessary for apostolic succession for Catholics, is an addition (or a clarification) to the general concept of apostasy, which is more simply defined.

RAR

Historically this may be the case, but recently many Mormons have abondoned this line of reasoning.

To many, it seems that loss of priesthood keys is the object of the apostasy while evil is a consequence of it.

Many have made it clear that deliberate “turning away from the truth” is not necessarily in of itself the apostasy, rather an effect of having lost priesthood keys.