Apostacy by 570 A.D / For Casen and us

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

Just a couple thoughts and some questionss on the macro scale in regards to the great apostacy:

1. Both Catholics and LDS agree that Christ established a visible church under the authority of Peter and the Apostles.
2. Both Catholics and LDS agree that some form of the Christian church has survived to this day (be it legitimate or apostate).

In the old testament, whenever Israel transgressed God’s law to the degree that required His intervention, He personally notified them in some way of their apostacy and what the consequence would be. In other words, he called them on it, told them so, and then delivered the punishment/probation that would help them rectify the transgression.

Now, given God’s relationship pattern with Israel in the old testament, why would God remove the priesthood from the early Christian church and not so much give a peep that He did so? If what the church became was so bad that the priesthood had to be removed, why didn’t God tell anyone? The church went on after the great apostacy appointing successors to the bishops without any inkling that this power had been removed. Then suddenly God tells Joseph Smith that He removed the priesthood some 1700 years ago? Does that seem odd to anyone? Why keep it a secret while leaving the church thinking it’s authority was intact all that time?

I think this is a good question. I will offer a response, but I think you make a good point.

My concept of the apostasy is that the position of head of the church was lost when the Apostles ceased their public mission. There are certainly gaps of many centuries in the Old Testament when there was a loss of this position.

I have suggested that the lesser authority was present for some period of time and vanished before 1830, so I do not demand that there was no priesthood for radically long times.

And the Judaeo-Christian history suggest that many people reject the person who is communicating with God when he calls them to repentance. Noah had a very small number of folks who believed him (all of them were related to him too). John the Baptist, the predecessor of Jesus had a very small following. And Jesus seems to have had even fewer who followed Him than John at least during His lifetime.

Anyway, I suggest that there have been extended periods of time when the authority to lead the world church to be the Prophet has been absent. Then when this authority is restored the Sadducees and Pharisees and other such religious leaders are seldom the ones who take notice.

Charity, TOm

 

[stillsearching]

TOmNossor:

I think this is a good question. I will offer a response, but I think you make a good point.

My concept of the apostasy is that the position of head of the church was lost when the Apostles ceased their public mission. size]

size]

And Jesus seems to have had even fewer who followed Him than John at least during His lifetime.

Anyway, I suggest that there have been extended periods of time when the authority to lead the world church to be the Prophet has been absent.size]

Charity, TOm

1. Of course, this has never happened. This is a hypothetical statement. The Apostles never ceased their public missions and are with us today.
2. Not so. Christianity is the largest religion in the world, therefore the still living Christ has more followers than anyone else in history.
3. Never happened, due to number 2 above- the still living Christ is with us still.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

My concept of the apostasy is that the position of head of the church was lost when the Apostles ceased their public mission. There are certainly gaps of many centuries in the Old Testament when there was a loss of this position.

I’m not sure you can show this from the Old Testament. Prophets were usually called to bring people back to the fold, and to put religious or political leaders back on the right path. They corrected the established religious authority without necessarily condeming it to total apostacy and having to restore the old priesthood. Was the priesthood ever removed in the Old Testament?

I have suggested that the lesser authority was present for some period of time and vanished before 1830, so I do not demand that there was no priesthood for radically long times.

That’s not official LDS teching, is it? I’ve been through the missionary discussions. I’ve been told time and time again that the apostacy resulted in the “removal of the priesthood from the earth.” That means no priesthood for 1700 years. No valid priests to perform sacraments or legitmately act in behalf of God. If you believe differently then I think you’re going out on your own. What is this lesser authority you speak of? Either the priesthood continued or it didn’t. The LDS church officially proclaims that the priesthood was taken away completely.

Anyway, I suggest that there have been extended periods of time when the authority to lead the world church to be the Prophet has been absent. Then when this authority is restored the Sadducees and Pharisees and other such religious leaders are seldom the ones who take notice

.

I think you’re mistken when you put forth that it was necessary to always have a prophet as the head of the church. Prophets were called at specific times for specific purposes, not necessarily to head the religion and have another prophet as a successor in order for the religion to continue. It’s the priesthood that maintained that authority throughout the Old Testament, and I would contend throughout the New Testament and up to today as well.

Furthermore, the main point of my post was to demonstrate how odd I thought the idea of God removing the priesthood without telling anybody about it–for 1700 years no less. Nobody knew. That’s certainly not consistent with how he dealt with his people throughout salvation history.

 

[stillsearching]

Chris-WA:
size]

That’s not official LDS teching, is it? I’ve been through the missionary discussions. I’ve been told time and time again that the apostacy resulted in the “removal of the priesthood from the earth.” That means no priesthood for 1700 years. No valid priests to perform sacraments or legitmately act in behalf of God. If you believe differently then I think you’re going out on your own. What is this lesser authority you speak of? Either the priesthood continued or it didn’t. The LDS church officially proclaims that the priesthood was taken away completely.

Since the Real Presence of the Living Christ is still with us, none of these statements have any validity and have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

 

[Brad_Haas]

BTW, multiple and simultaneous prophets are recorded in the New Testament, carrying out the work of prophecy. They weren’t in charge.

 

[Jerusha]

A prophet is generally a person crying out for reform from outside the established hierarchy, or from a low position within. “Going against the flow.” NOT a person speaking from the top. Responsible leadership listens to their people, being servants.

 

[Jerusha]

I’m busy reading this:

transporter.com/apologia/lds_rcc/cont02.html

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi Tom,

You posted:

My concept of the apostasy is that the position of head of the church was lost when the Apostles ceased their public mission. There are certainly gaps of many centuries in the Old Testament when there was a loss of this position.>>

Me: I think you are aware that I have discussed this very issue at length on ZLMB; I see one major problem: one of the fundamental functions of Christ’s apostles was their witness to His resurrection. In fact, I would argue that this is the primary function of the apostles. Other functions of the apostles are (and were) in a very real sense ‘transferable’ (e.g. overseeing/shepherding, ministering, church planting, ordaining, prophecy, evangelism); in fact the apostles (in the NT) are called episkopoi, presbyteroi, and diakonoi, functions that became separate offices during and after the period of the NT apostles. As you know, the doctrine of ‘apostolic succession’ suggests that all the functions of the apostles were ‘transferred’, all except two: eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and the ability to receive corporate revelation (though one did not have to be an apostle to receive corporate revelation for the Church).

You also wrote:

I have suggested that the lesser authority was present for some period of time and vanished before 1830, so I do not demand that there was no priesthood for radically long times.>>

Me: What exactly do you mean by “lesser authority”? Apart from the two unique functions I mentioned above, it seems that all of the apostles functions were passed on.

Grace and peace,

David

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

I’m not sure you can show this from the Old Testament. Prophets were usually called to bring people back to the fold, and to put religious or political leaders back on the right path. They corrected the established religious authority without necessarily condeming it to total apostacy and having to restore the old priesthood. Was the priesthood ever removed in the Old Testament?

Again, I really enjoyed you post. There certainly seem to have been periods were there was a clear singular man at the head of the church in the Old Testament. Folks like Moses and Noah. There certainly seem to be periods of time when there is not evidence of a Moses or Noah like leader. I would suggest that the position that Caiphus held during Jesus’ mortal ministry (yes, Jesus Christ does live today) was not the equivalent of a Moses or Noah. I believe Caiphus possessed a lesser authority of some sort.
The Title Prophet: All men are called to prophesy. As I see this, it is one of the gifts of the Spirit (so some may possess it and others may not). The person with the keys to lead the church is thought to possess the ability to prophesy, but what is most critical as I discuss the Apostasy is the possession of the keys. The keys in and of themselves, in my opinion, are not integrally linked to the gifts of the spirit. LDS believe that God chooses the Apostles and Prophets and so we generally expect that He has a purpose in His selections. As a Catholic, I believe you cannot suggest that the one with the keys to lead the church must be in possession of gifts of the spirit. While LDS leaders may have done things we do not consider good or righteous there is no doubt that this has occurred in the valid succession chain for the Catholic Church.
What I am trying to say is that I used the term “Prophet” to refer to the person with the keys and priesthood to lead the world-wide church. This person does not always have to prophesy in ways that we saw some leaders prophesy, but he must possess the keys giving him divine sanction to lead the world-wide church.
So here is what I suggest . Malachi clearly did prophesy. He may have possessed the keys to lead the world-wide church. He spoke of great wickedness and corruption of the priesthood. For some 400 years after Malachi I would suggest there is no evidence that a world religious leader possessed the keys to lead God’s church. I do not believe Caiphus had them. I do not believe that Judas Maccabaeus was more than a godly military man.
John the Baptist was born of a priestly family (potentially possessing through his linage a lesser priesthood, but not the keys). Jesus Christ then restored the keys to lead God’s church and delivered them to Peter. Ciaphus and his successors continued to pass on what authority they may or may not have possessed until perhaps 70AD, but clearly God’s greater authority was in the hands of Peter and the Apostles.
I do not see any evidence that the first Popes possessed Peter’s authority. The lesser authority was clearly passed to Bishops by the Apostles, but I do not see any Bishop who possesses world wide authority. Over the course of many years the Bishops developed into Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and ultimately Pope. If Newman is correct this was the seed growing into the tree. If I am correct this is merely men exerting authority upon those around them as all men are prone to do.
The lesser authority continued to exist.
When Ciaphus failed to acknowledge Christ and Peter he cut himself off. When the Catholic leaders failed to acknowledge Joseph Smith they cut themselves off. Whatever valid authority still existed if any would either vanish or wither. What that looks like I do not know, but I focus on the keys to lead the church.
I choose the above example because I am very slightly more familiar with it than with older-Old Testament occurrences, but I do not consider myself very informed in pre-New Testament history. It does seem obvious that there were large gaps in the recorded divinely sanctioned Jewish leaders.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

not official LDS teching? … “removal of the priesthood from the earth.” That means no priesthood for 1700 years. No valid priests to perform sacraments or legitmately act in behalf of God. If you believe differently then I think you’re going out on your own. What is this lesser authority you speak of? …

What is critical is that God’s church was restored through Joseph Smith due to an Apostasy. This is LDS teaching. From my view of history the absence of one who possessed the keys to lead the church after the Apostles seems the most clear position to defend.
First, I want to discuss the dual nature of the priesthood in the EarlyChurch. Do not confuse what I am saying with suggesting that the early church defined these roles as Aaronic and Melchezedek or even that they are exactly analogous to these terms in the CoJCoLDS. Instead it is better to view this dual nature being associated with General Authorities and Local Authorities. I suggested this concept almost two years ago and a year or more ago on this board based on my reading of the ECF, but Nibley develops this better and quotes non-LDS authors so I will use Harnack’s words.
Nibley:
… on the one side … the central ecclesiastical organization of those inspired teachers under the direction of the spirit, and on the other side the local organization with their administrative officers. … the double organization of the primitive church.
So what I suggest is that the “inspired teachers” or “general authorities” did not pass on their authority to the Bishops. Instead the Bishops were “local … officers.” Contra-Harnack, I see inspiration in the office of the Bishop, but I do not see them possessing the authority to define in global church matters. I see no charasm of infallibility within a collection of Bishops or within the Bishop or Rome. The early Bishops lead their churches with inspiration. Tertullian saw the gifts departing from these leaders and Tertullian saw the usurpation of the Roman authority. The lesser authority existed for some period of time, but went away.
You asked if this is official LDS teaching. James Barker in the 1952-1954 priesthood manuals did develop this idea. He suggested that when St. Cyprian’s correct view that those who were “dipped” by heretics must be baptized by those with authority was rejected (in practice, but not explicitly and authoritatively till Trent I think) this was the path to the departure of the lesser authority granted by the ordination of bishops by Apostles.
To my knowledge there is no official teaching on what the apostasy was. There is even less on WHY it happened (and LDS should take pause when we think about this). But, I do not think anyone would have a problem with the concept that the lesser authority existed for many centuries after the greater authority ceased to function.

…necessary to always have a prophet as the head of the church. Prophets were called at specific times for specific purposes, not necessarily to head the religion … It’s the priesthood that maintained that authority throughout the Old Testament, and …throughout the New Testament and up to today.

… odd I thought the idea of God removing the priesthood without telling anybody about it–for 1700 years no less. Nobody knew. That’s certainly not consistent with how he dealt with his people throughout salvation history.
I hope I have requalified the term “Prophet” so that we are talking about a man with the authority to lead God’s church. I do not believe that we do not see extended periods of time without a singular leader of God’s Church throughout the Old Testament. I also think we have good reason to postulate that the remnants of apostate authority seldom recognize the restoration. But your point is not without power.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

AugustineH354:

I think you are aware that I have discussed this very issue at length on ZLMB; I see one major problem: one of the fundamental functions of Christ’s apostles was their witness to His resurrection. In fact, I would argue that this is the primary function of the apostles.

I think I have seen it some, and I suspect I am plagiarizing someone’s response, but here goes. I think the Bible most clearly testifies to the fact that Paul was an apostle. I believe it was you who collected 17-21 total folks called apostles. It is internally consistent to suggest that Paul was not an apostle proper like the 13 (Judas and his replacement), but I am not sure if it is the best read of the Bible. So clearly when Judas was replace the apostles choose from those who were with Christ through the crucifixion and resurrection, but Paul and others who seem to be apostles do not meet that criteria. Early LDS presidents all knew the prophet Joseph Smith, but one day they did not. I would of course suggest that God called these men ultimately, but their early and faithful association with the restoration certainly was part of their maturation to be ready (God prepares who He calls). I think the criteria for Judas’ replacement were a very effective method of aiding in the selection, but I would suggest the Bible points to other apostles who did not meet these criteria latter on in the Early Church.

AugustineH354:

Other functions of the apostles are (and were) in a very real sense ‘transferable’ (e.g. overseeing/shepherding, ministering, church planting, ordaining, prophecy, evangelism); in fact the apostles (in the NT) are called episkopoi, presbyteroi, and diakonoi, functions that became separate offices during and after the period of the NT apostles. As you know, the doctrine of ‘apostolic succession’ suggests that all the functions of the apostles were ‘transferred’, all except two: eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and the ability to receive corporate revelation (though one did not have to be an apostle to receive corporate revelation for the Church).

Yes, “apostolic succession” does suggest these things. But Newman suggests that the “overseeing/shepherding” the entire church was only passed as a seed and ultimately grew into a visible authority. As a LDS, I merely suggest that there was no seed passed and what developed was usurpation (Tertullian’s word). I of course have no ability to prove who is correct Newman or the CoJCoLDS. I believe that neither position is fatally flawed.

AugustineH354:

You also wrote:

I have suggested that the lesser authority was present for some period of time and vanished before 1830, so I do not demand that there was no priesthood for radically long times.>>

Me: What exactly do you mean by “lesser authority”? Apart from the two unique functions I mentioned above, it seems that all of the apostles functions were passed on.

Nibley develops this extensively in his recent book. I have spoken of the local and global authority for about two years since that is what I saw in the ECFs, but Nibley certainly provides much more than I can.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

Again, I really enjoyed you post. There certainly seem to have been periods were there was a clear singular man at the head of the church in the Old Testament. Folks like Moses and Noah. There certainly seem to be periods of time when there is not evidence of a Moses or Noah like leader.

Exactly. God raised prophets when he needed them for specific reasons to do something significant for that period of salvation history. It’s not necessarily about being head of “the church.” It’s about God’s intervention in certain specific times for specific purposes that would eventually lead to the establishment of *the *church–God’s worldwide kingdom on earth. Prophets were men who were called by God to reveal something–not necessarily to start or restore a church or lead a church. In other words, the legitimacy of “the church” did not demand that there was always a prophet leading it.

You see, LDS seem to have this religious structure model that says throughout salvation history the legitimate church was always led by a prophet. I don’t think this was the case. Sometimes there was a prophet at the head, or not at the head, when necessary for a specific time and purpose. The continuous authority, however, always resided in the priesthood, whether or not there was a prophet somewhere in the mix. In other words, the continuity does not come from one prophet succeeding another–rather it comes from the priesthood being handed down from one generation to the next.

What I am trying to say is that I used the term “Prophet” to refer to the person with the keys and priesthood to lead the world-wide church. This person does not always have to prophesy in ways that we saw some leaders prophesy, but he must possess the keys giving him divine sanction to lead the world-wide church.

So here is what I suggest . Malachi clearly did prophesy. He may have possessed the keys to lead the world-wide church. He spoke of great wickedness and corruption of the priesthood. For some 400 years after Malachi I would suggest there is no evidence that a world religious leader possessed the keys to lead God’s church. I do not believe Caiphus had them. I do not believe that Judas Maccabaeus was more than a godly military man.
John the Baptist was born of a priestly family (potentially possessing through his linage a lesser priesthood, but not the keys). Jesus Christ then restored the keys to lead God’s church and delivered them to Peter.

I’m not sure anyone ever possessed these keys until Peter received them from Christ. The keys of the Old Testament (ex. Isaiah 22) refer to the ones given by the king of Israel to his prime minister (not the prophet), which symbolized the prime minister’s power to act with the king’s own authority. When Christ gave Peter the keys, I don’t think He was restoring the Old Testament keys. He wasn’t making Peter a political figure. The keys Christ gave to Peter were something far greater–the keys to Christ’s own kingdom–the church. Steeped in Old Testament history, Peter would have immediately understood the significance of the keys. But now the keys meant something far greater, because unlike the Old Testament, these keys weren’t for a political kingdom. The keys Peter received were for Christ’s kingdom, with Christ as the king and Peter as his prime minister. And if we understand the pattern of the Old Testament, we see that these keys are passed on–somebody had to receive them.

Again, I would be interested in your response to the oddity of God keeping the apostacy secret for 1700 years.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:
Exactly. God raised prophets when he needed them for specific reasons to do something significant for that period of salvation history. …

You see, LDS seem to have this religious structure model that says throughout salvation history the legitimate church was always led by a prophet. … rather it comes from the priesthood being handed down from one generation to the next.

I would suggest that both Catholics and LDS have a religious structure that says that there is a head of the church who possesses keys. I have dialogued with Catholics who linked Isaiah’s keys with Peter’s keys so I do not think it is unCatholic to do so. For me the important thing is who has the keys.

I will not disagree with you that the Old Testament does not demonstrate that a Prophet must always be at the head of the church, but I do not think that the Old Testament demonstrates that this is a flawed idea either. When a prophet appears it seems that it is always associated with divine interaction with our world (not the mere exercise of current authority).

And the priesthood does get handed from one generation to the next, but somehow Ciaphus did not possess the spiritual enlightenment to recognize Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. This is in my paradigm a product of his apostate authority.

Chris-WA:
I’m not sure anyone ever possessed these keys until Peter received them from Christ. The keys of the Old Testament (ex. Isaiah 22) refer to the ones given by the king of Israel to his prime minister (not the prophet), which symbolized the prime minister’s power to act with the king’s own authority. When Christ gave Peter the keys, I don’t think He was restoring the Old Testament keys. He wasn’t making Peter a political figure. The keys Christ gave to Peter were something far greater–the keys to Christ’s own kingdom–the church. Steeped in Old Testament history, Peter would have immediately understood the significance of the keys. But now the keys meant something far greater, because unlike the Old Testament, these keys weren’t for a political kingdom. The keys Peter received were for Christ’s kingdom, with Christ as the king and Peter as his prime minister. And if we understand the pattern of the Old Testament, we see that these keys are passed on–somebody had to receive them.

I guess what I consider most important is whether Peter gave the keys to Linus or to Joseph Smith.

If you have not read through this, it is very interesting. I believe both sides do quite well and neither comes out as the definitive winner.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html

Chris-WA:
Again, I would be interested in your response to the oddity of God keeping the apostacy secret for 1700 years.

LDS regularly point to the Bible as telling the Apostasy was at hand and would occur. My favorite part of the above debate (and I think the only part I have incorporated into my apostasy paradigm) is the Pastor of Hermas fairly clearly detailing the apostasy and the lesser organization that would replace the original church.

I would suggest there were those in the Early Church that knew of the apostasy. Eventually the emerging authority desired to link their power to the keys Peter possessed. This was not mentioned until Irenaeus and was far from clear for many more years.

Also, others like Joseph Smith’s ggggg grandfather John Lathrop recognized that authority was both necessary and absent. John Lathrop seems to have been a “restorationist in waiting.”

Combine the above with the fact that what was missing from the post apostolic church did not prevent it from carrying out what I think was its mission. Compile the Bible, preserve the witness of Christ, and teach may people to follow God. The restoration just provided more.

Charity, TOm

 

[Brad_Haas]

TOmNossor:

LDS regularly point to the Bible as telling the Apostasy was at hand and would occur. My favorite part of the above debate (and I think the only part I have incorporated into my apostasy paradigm) is the Pastor of Hermas fairly clearly detailing the apostasy and the lesser organization that would replace the original church.

I like to point to the Bible as telling that no such total or debilitating apostasy would occur .

It’s been a long time since I read that debate. I’m struck by Dr. Bickmore’s use of texts like 2 Clement as though they’re authentic and (in that case) really originated in the second century. I’m also impressed by how much he cited the Pastor of Hermas, especially since it’s only his interpretation of the vision that the Church would be completed and a lesser one take its place.

 

[tkdnick]

Chris-WA:

I’m not sure anyone ever possessed these keys until Peter received them from Christ. The keys of the Old Testament (ex. Isaiah 22) refer to the ones given by the king of Israel to his prime minister (not the prophet), which symbolized the prime minister’s power to act with the king’s own authority. When Christ gave Peter the keys, I don’t think He was restoring the Old Testament keys. He wasn’t making Peter a political figure. The keys Christ gave to Peter were something far greater–the keys to Christ’s own kingdom–the church. Steeped in Old Testament history, Peter would have immediately understood the significance of the keys. But now the keys meant something far greater, because unlike the Old Testament, these keys weren’t for a political kingdom.

Great point. The keys in the OT were “types” for the keys which Jesus gave to Peter. They were a lesser, imperfect form of the perfected keys that Peter was giving.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

I would suggest that both Catholics and LDS have a religious structure that says that there is a head of the church who possesses keys. I have dialogued with Catholics who linked Isaiah’s keys with Peter’s keys so I do not think it is unCatholic to do so. For me the important thing is who has the keys.

Yes I agree, starting with Peter in the New Testament. The keys of the Old Testament are definitely linked, but I would say that the Old Testament keys were a type or foreshadowing of those given by Christ to Peter. The types in the Old Testament are always inferior to their fulfillment in the New.

I will not disagree with you that the Old Testament does not demonstrate that a Prophet must always be at the head of the church, but I do not think that the Old Testament demonstrates that this is a flawed idea either. When a prophet appears it seems that it is always associated with divine interaction with our world (not the mere exercise of current authority).

And the priesthood does get handed from one generation to the next, but somehow Ciaphus did not possess the spiritual enlightenment to recognize Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. This is in my paradigm a product of his apostate authority.

The authority is transferred via the priesthood. Caiphus sat on the chair of Moses, which means he had Moses’ authority. The change comes when Christ establishes the New Covenant with Peter and the Apostles during the Last Supper. It is at the Last Supper where they become priests, and here is the transfer of authority away from the Jews. You might even say that the priesthood never left the earth, because right there the transfer took place. Contrast this with the LDS idea that the priesthood was taken completely away for 1700 years.

 

[Chazemataz]

I think that all of you would like to read this.

 

[Vidar]

BJ Colbert:

Apostacy does not mean the belief in Jesus Christ was taken from the earth. It only means the authority to act in God’s name was taken. It could not pass through wicked men and when the Emperor Justinian took over Rome and made the Pope change some of the original beliefs of the Church as established by Jesus Christ, and also forced all people to be Catholic, even when they were pagans and heathens, the church could not exist in it’s original state any longer. Because of that the church was inundated with non believers and there was no longer any authority to act in God’s name. God still loved His people and the people still believed in Him and tried their best to worship and keep the faith, with all the evil that had entered the church. The Catholic Church kept the belief in Christ alive, but they lost the authority to act in God’s name. In spite of this loss of authority, the Catholic Church still did a great job spreading and keeping the faith in Jesus Christ alive.
The settling of America and the new freedom of religion in this world prepared the way for the authority and keys of the priesthood to be restored through the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. There is no other country or no other time that it could have happened. God did not only appear to the prophets of old as the Catholics claim, He has appeared to prophets in modern times and he continues to guide and lead our prophet today, Gordon B. Hinckley and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Since all men are sinners, there have been bad Catholics as well as bad Mormons, but through Jesus Christ and His atonement for our sins, we all have the opportunity to repent and live the commandments of God. We are all brothers and sisters in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
BJ

If you claim that the great apostacy occured in the year 570, then the LDS church is certainly not a restoration of the Catholic Church that fell. Why? Read the documents of the fathers up to that point and you will see they were Catholics, teaching distinctively Catholic doctrines… Therefore, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, mormonism certainly isn’t…

BTW. Why wasn’t Jesus born in the 1800’s instead of 6BC? Knowing that his church would be a failure, and lead to hundreds of millions of people believing in that nasty apostate Catholic Church. Why not pay for our sins in the 1800’s? NOW you believe the Church cannot fail. NOW you believe the authority of Christ will not be removed from earth. Funny why Jesus needed Joseph Smith to found a church that would last to the end of time, instead of just doing it himself…

Vidar

 

[arieh0310]

Vidar:

Funny why Jesus needed Joseph Smith to found a church that would last to the end of time, instead of just doing it himself…

EXACTLY!!! If God was such a failure at establishing His Church why should we trust Joseph Smith’s won’t fail. Also, why would God in the flesh start the original Mormon church around 30 AD knowing that all traces of its distinctive teachings would be completely erased from the historical record.

I love Catholicism for the simple fact that it views itself as a continuation, a completion of the absolute truth found in Judaism. Christ did come to restore an apostate church, He came to fulfill Scripture. Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and some Protestants all believe somewhere along the line God’s Church failed and needed restoration. At least Buddists, Taoists, and the like are original.

 

[Vidar]

TOmNossor:

I guess what I consider most important is whether Peter gave the keys to Linus or to Joseph Smith.

Charity, TOm

According to David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the book of Mormon:

"This matter of “priesthood,” since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthood is mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church - until Sydney Rigdon’s days in Ohio. This matter of two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire, and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed in their hearts. As I have said before, according to the desires of the heart, the inspiration comes, but it may be the spirit of man that gives it… This is the way the High Priests and the “priesthood” as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning - and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, p.64).

If you compare the text of the book of commandments to the doctrine of covenants, David Whitmer is vindicated. The giving of the keys to Joseph Smith was interpolated into a text that originally said nothing of the event. Whitmer explains:

"You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are today in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon (An Address To All Believers In Christ, p.49).

LaMar Petersen writes about the original book of commandments:

"The notable revelations on Priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants before referred to, Sections 2 and 13, are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the Restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years. More than four hundred words were added to this revelation of August 1829 in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the additions made to include the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph’s apostolic calling but there is no mention of Melchizedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, Seventies, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on Church organization and government of April, 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments three years later. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations known as Sections 42 and 68 (Problems In Mormon Text, by LaMar Petersen, p.8).

Tom:

Could you provide us with evidence prior to the interpolations into the D&C revelations that Joseph Smith even claimed to have been ordained to the High Priesthood by Peter or received the keys to the kingdom from him? According to David Whitmer the ordination of Smith by Peter was unheard of in the first years of the LDS Church. Can you demonstrate that this is not the case?

If not, I guess we’re stuck with Linus

Vidar