Apostasy and Restoration in Mormonism (Mainly for Gabriel!)

[Augustini]

I would like, if I may, to turn the conversation to the issue of Matthew 16:18-19. I have studied this, and hopefully have something useful to contribute to the discussion.

The symbolism of Matthew 16:18-19 definitively draws upon imagery of the Temple – there is reference to:

• A Rock as a foundation
• The building on it
• Hades
• Keys
  These are significant references to the Temple, as they would have known it. Jesus could not have spelt it out more clearly that the Church was to be the eschatological fulfilment of the Temple.

The Temple was viewed as a microcosm or epitome of the world. The building was charged with motifs parallel to that of the priestly account of the creation of the world. The Temple was also a site where various ‘levels’ of the universe were ‘bound together’: heaven, the earth and the netherworld. It was also viewed as being the centre of the universe. Additionally, the Temple was thought to be the ‘navel of the earth’, the source of order and life for the whole world.
The foundation stone of the Temple was known as the ‘eben shetiyah. This was at the very core of the Temple, found in the most significant place of all: the Holy of Holies. There were many myths and legends surrounding this rock, and it was considered to be of great importance.
This mythology was not exclusive to Jerusalem: indeed, during the second and first millennia BC, Temples in the Near and Middle East shared the Jerusalem Temple’s cosmic understanding of a foundation stone. The notion was widespread.
It was believed that the raging waters of the tehom (the abyss) were stopped by the placement of this stone. The tehom is synonymous in mythic imagery with demonic powers.
The ‘eben shetiyah is the place of communication between the upper world and the nether world. Ancient Jewish myths further testify to this tradition of the stone sealing the passage down to the abyss.
Moreover, it is the place of communication with tehom and in general the realm of the dead, but Hell in particular. In 1 Enoch 26 one sees a vision of the centre of the earth, consisting of Mount Sion, the Mount of Olives and the present Djebel Abu Tor, with the valley of Gehinnom between the latter two. The headings of the Targums illustrates the existence of a passage beneath the ‘eben shetiyah, by referring to the fifteen Ma’alot psalms and their analogy with the fifteen steps in the Temple which exist between it and Hades.
It is also true to say that ‘gates of Hades’ here in this context carries much darker, much more demonic/Satanic connotations than would first appear from just studying ‘Hades’. Firstly, we know that ‘gates’ is a pars pro toto expression for the city itself. We also know that it was an ancient Jewish tradition to place Gehenna (or the notion of it) with the navel of the earth (i.e. the foundation stone of the Temple), even though topologically the valley of Hinnom was outside the walls. Finally, it was understood that this valley housed only one of the gates of Hell. Jesus’ reference therefore, carries a much more demonic tone.

What does all this mean? Well, Peter was to be the Rock upon which Jesus was to build his Church, and therefore he was to be the new ‘eben shetiyah that would seal the passage to Hades, thus preventing the demonic powers being unleashed on the Church. But what if Peter is not the Rock in Matthew 16? This presents a problem to reconcile: the mythic imagery of the Temple, which is clearly behind this text, makes no sense if it is simply built on a confession of faith and not the person of Peter - let alone the usual linguistic arguments that suggest Jesus is not referring to the confession.
But Peter’s confession was important. Why? Because it concurs with another aspect of the foundation stone: the issue of teaching true doctrine. Peter revealed the truth about Jesus: He was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Having this truth revealed, Jesus then goes on to speak about His plans for the Church, making use of Temple imagery. As the anointed Davidic King of the end times, Jesus would build his Temple (the Church), fulfilling his Messianic role.
But what form does the evil powers of the underworld take? It has been noted by some Mormon scholars (Noel B. Reynolds is one) that the principal cause of the Apostasy was a decline in covenantal practice among Christians (and this took the form of changing ordinances etc.). We know that Peter’s role in the Church was also pastoral (as we see with Jesus asking him to feed His sheep/lambs). It is a necessity therefore, that he teach true doctrine (about God, salvation and so forth) and the correct way to enter into the covenant and renew it. Peter’s role in sealing off the passage to the abyss is also to do with him preventing incorrect teaching: false teaching and wrong understanding of the sacraments leads to unfed sheep (i.e. lost souls).

It would seem therefore, that instituting Peter as the new foundation stone was precisely to prevent an apostasy occurring.

Sorry it’s a bit long, but any thoughts?

 

[PaulDupre]

If by that you mean an immediate witness, then that would have exclude Paul, because he was not an immediate witness of Christ’s resurrection with the original disciples and the Twelve.

“Apostle” just means “one who is sent”.

There is no evidence that Paul was ever one of the twelve. Paul gave himself the title of “apostle to the gentiles” because he was sent to the gentiles.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

“Apostle” just means “one who is sent”.

There is no evidence that Paul was ever one of the twelve. Paul gave himself the title of “apostle to the gentiles” because he was sent to the gentiles.

Paul

Wrong. I have gone through all that with you before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1605253&postcount=181

You just like wasting your own time and everybody else’s

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

My points were:

1. The purpose of being an Apostle was to be a witness to the resurrection
   2) To qualify as an Apostle one must
   a) Witness the resurrected Lord
   b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth
   3) These requirements limit the position to the first century.
   4) Apostle and The Twelve don’t seem to be the same thing. One can be an Apostle and not be one of The Twelve.

I agree with you on point ‘2a’ in that being a witness to the resurrected Christ does not have a time limit. The risen Lord could appear to anyone at anytime.
On point ‘2b’ we have a conflict. Either Peter lied about the requirements for being an Apostle or Paul lied by claiming to be an Apostle (2 Cor 1:1). When you claim that point ‘2b’ didn’t apply to Paul, so it doesn’t apply to anyone, then you are claiming Peter lied about the requirements. You seem to be in the Peter lied camp. I spend some time in the Paul lied camp, but kept wondering; how could an Apostle lie? Maybe I’m confused on the requirements. Then I remembered Scott. While in the military, I was stationed with Scott at a training center in Virginia. Scott got ‘saved’ and spent a lot of his time preaching to us and the students about his views of scripture and how we could be saved, too. I seldom agreed with Scott but we all shared an office, so I knew what he preached. I walked with Scott, I heard his preaching, but just didn’t agree.
Paul knew the Christians and he knew their message or else he would have no desire or ability to persecuted them (Gal 1:13, 1 Cor 15:9, Acts 7:57). Even though Paul did not agree with Christ, he was a witness to his earthly ministry. I believe Peter required an Apostle to be a witness to the earthly human Lord and the glorified divine Lord. It also gets me out of the lying Apostle bind. I still maintain my first three points.

I also maintain my fourth point. I gave you a list of three or four others beside The Twelve that had been referred to as Apostles. PaulDupre also points out that Paul was never one of The Twelve. I read your links and you make a great case for Paul being an Apostle but I did not see where he was made one of the Twelve.

Rabbit Trails:

Incorrect! Jesus was not dead that He should need to be “replaced”! He was God Omnipotent. He rose again on the third day, and continued to minister to His church thereafter as He had done before (Matthew 28:9-10, 16-18; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-30; John 21:4-25; Acts 1:3; Acts 9:5-6, 10-16; Acts 18:9-11; Acts 22:17-21; Acts 23:11; Acts 26:15-18). There was no need to replace Jesus!

I agree there is no need to replace Christ…or the Apostles.

As I had stated, that office could not be maintained by the church because of the Apostasy. The bishops held an apostate priesthood, and the perpetuation of their office was not a legally valid one in the church.

You are begging the question. You have not shown an Apostasy, yet.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you. All I can say is that I am also disappointed with your response. I do not accept your assessment of my commentary. If that is the best that you can do, I don’t think there is an awful lot left for us to “discuss”.

zerinus

Well zerinus, being that you are unable to establish historical data to support your theory or religious doctrine of a pretended apostacy of the Roman Catholic church. I would agree with you that no further discussion is needed, now if you could stop teaching this false doctrine, and inform your leader ship, that no historical data exists of a full apostacy of the original Catholic church of Jesus Christ. How does one live with oneself to teach a false doctrine of an apostacy without no historical facts to support it?

So unless you can give me facts to prove your apostacy doctrine and not some commentary to twist biblical events and writings to support your false apostacy doctrine that does not hold up to history, nor historical witnesses. I am sorry your false doctrine on an apostacy church of Jesus Christ cannot even place a date to such an apostacy event. Yes I read your commentary to this question, but it only offers a lawyers attempt to twist words to favor your argument.

The court requires hard evidence inorder to prove your false accusations to an apostacy of the Catholic church,not to mention eyewitnesses, or historical support, which in your commentary does not provide. So before making this false accusation about an apostacy, make sure you have evidence to support your claim, not opinions and commentaries that dont provide factual evidence to your false claim.

I would like to inform you that your lawyering tactic arguments may work for those young minds, and that is a diservice to Christianity, which only deals with faith and Truth, not unfactual evidence claiming to an apostacy of christianity, inorder to justify your 18th century improved and everchanging religion.

zerinus, now that you can not provide proof for your apostacy. You have made another false claim. You have the honors now to prove why your religion is the one that replaced the Catholic church that Jesus built on Peter the Rock. Without proof of a historical apostacy, your religion falls away from the True church of Jesus christ.

So I give you the floor, can you prove your religion to be from Jesus christ himself?, I know I can of my Roman Catholic faith, prove to you that she has been here unchanged since Jesus
Christ and the first apostles.

So again, You have made a claim to be the religion that replaced, in your opinon, an apostate church of Jesus Christ. Can you please provide evidence to make your claim? Please provide dates, historical events, and eye witnesses to your claim. If you cant provide historical and factual evidence to Jesus christ himself, then I will provide for this forum, why your religion cannot be any church of Jesus christ.

Peace be with you

 

[zerinus]

On point ‘2b’ we have a conflict. Either Peter lied about the requirements for being an Apostle or Paul lied by claiming to be an Apostle (2 Cor 1:1). When you claim that point ‘2b’ didn’t apply to Paul, so it doesn’t apply to anyone, then you are claiming Peter lied about the requirements. You seem to be in the Peter lied camp. . . .

I believe that neither of them lied. I think that you are misinterpreting what Peter said:

Acts 1:

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

The death of Judas was a unique case. The original Apostles (including Judas) had all been witnesses of Christ’s ministry and death and resurrection (plus many others). The Apostles knew that a primary calling of an Apostle was to be a witness to the world of Christ’s ministry and resurrection (Acts 1:8). Therefore in their choosing a successor, they naturally sought for a candidate whom they knew already fulfilled those conditions, rather than select any old guy at random, and expect God to miraculously “transform” him into such a “witness”. That reflects the circumstances that prevailed at that particular moment in history. That was a decision that the Apostles had to make at that particular time, and they chose for themselves the criteria by which they wanted to make it. That did not exclude the possibility of God miraculously transforming someone in the future into such a “witness” at a later time of His own choosing—and we can see that He did just that in the case of Paul. You are reading too much into the statement of Peter. And for your information, modern LDS Apostles are also required to have the same qualifications as the ancient ones—i.e. to be especial witnesses of Jesus Christ:

D&C 27:

12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry, and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;

D&C 107:

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

They receive their witness in the same way that Paul did—by special revelation form the Lord.

I also maintain my fourth point. I gave you a list of three or four others beside The Twelve that had been referred to as Apostles. PaulDupre also points out that Paul was never one of The Twelve. I read your links and you make a great case for Paul being an Apostle but I did not see where he was made one of the Twelve.

His argument was that Paul was not an Apostle at all! Now you are changing tack, and arguing that he was an Apostle, but not one of the Twelve! Truth is that you are both wrong. He was both an Apostle, and one of the Twelve, because that is the only way that he could have been and Apostle at all.

I agree there is no need to replace Christ…or the Apostles.

Not true! The two cases are not comparable. Jesus was never dead that He should be replaced. His ministry to His church never came to an end. He continued to minister to His church after His death and resurrection as shown by numerous examples. The Apostles, on the other hand, did die, and their ministry on earth did come to an end; therefore they needed to be replaced. If not so, why then replace Judas? Why replace James?

You are begging the question. You have not shown an Apostasy, yet.

Not true. I have shown that there was an Apostasy. The disappearance of the Apostles was one such a sign, but not the only one. There were many more.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

You are reading too much into the statement of Peter.

I read very little into Peter’s statement. It is a simple two step requirement. I use to read more into step ‘b’ than I do now. It wasn’t long ago I read the requirements as:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord.
b) Have walked with the twelve while the Lord was among them. I presumed it meant to walk among the twelve as a friend.

As you pointed out, my presumption would exclude Paul. You prefer to remove the requirement while I prefer to remove the presumption. Removing the requirement goes against the Apostle Peter. Removing the presumption goes for the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Again no one past the first century could meet these requirements.

His argument was that Paul was not an Apostle at all! Now you are changing tack, and arguing that he was an Apostle, but not one of the Twelve! Truth is that you are both wrong. He was both an Apostle, and one of the Twelve, because that is the only way that he could have been and Apostle at all.

I am not changing tack. I have always maintained there were more Apostles than The Twelve. I agree with PaulDupre that Paul was not one of The Twelve.

 

[zerinus]

Stephen168,

When Jesus was on earth, He chose twelve disciples to whom He gave the name of Apostles:

Luke 6:

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.

The Apostles became His closest circle of disciples, and they were often with Him at the most critical moments of His ministry, such as when they eat the last Passover before He was betrayed. He never called anybody else Apostle. After His death and resurrection, the Apostles remained a closely knit circle, and central to the ministry on the earth, and especially in the church:

Acts 1:

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Acts 4:

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

After that, the Twelve Apostles formed a body which effectively formed the governing council of the church. Hence, when a serious doctrinal problem arose in the church which could not be resolved locally, recourse was made to the Twelve Apostles—as in the case of the dispute concerning circumcision for example, which became so serious that eventually it had to be brought before that governing council for a resolution, as described in chapter 15 of the book of Acts.

Paul unquestionably counts himself as one of the Apostles. I had already given a long list in that link; here are just a couple of verses:

1 Corinthians 4:

9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

1 Corinthians 15:

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

You have admitted that whenever a vacancy arose in the Twelve by the death of one of its members, another was chosen to fill that vacancy. Judas was not an exception. It was done in the case of James too. That means that it was a requirement to maintain the Quorum always at Twelve. There is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in the New Testament, either during Jesus’ ministry on earth or afterwards, that there should be any “Apostles” outside of the body of the Twelve. The reason why Paul likes to call himself “apostle of the Gentiles” is because God had specifically commissioned him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. That did not mean that he could not have been one of the Twelve. By the same token, Peter was also called “apostle of the circumcision” (i.e. to the Jews). That did not mean that he was not one of the Twelve either:

Galatians 2:

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.)

There was never any suggestion of anyone being an Apostle without being one of the Twelve. Paul further adds:

1 Corinthians 12:

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Conclusion: There never were more than Twelve Apostles at any one time. If Paul was an Apostle (which he was), then he was one of the Twelve. The Twelve formed the governing council of the church; and they were meant to continue. Just as “teachers” and “gifts” and other callings in the church were meant to continue, so were the Apostles. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. The scriptures are clear. When one Apostle died, another was appointed to succeed him for that purpose. No getting away from that.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

I read very little into Peter’s statement. It is a simple two step requirement. I use to read more into step ‘b’ than I do now. It wasn’t long ago I read the requirements as:

a) Witness the resurrected Lord.
b) Have walked with the twelve while the Lord was among them. I presumed it meant to walk among the twelve as a friend.

As you pointed out, my presumption would exclude Paul. You prefer to remove the requirement while I prefer to remove the presumption. Removing the requirement goes against the Apostle Peter. Removing the presumption goes for the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Again no one past the first century could meet these requirements.

You did read more into Peter’s statement than you needed to. Criteria #2 was not a general requirement to be an Apostle (i.e. one of the Twelve) in every instance. Peter did not say that every future Apostle needs to fulfill that requirement. That was a criterion that they adopted for selecting choosing a successor to Judas, which was a special case, and at a special moment in time. The main requirement was that he should be a witness to the resurrection of the Jesus Christ. Paul considered himself qualified to be an Apostle because he has such a witness:

1 Corinthians 9:

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

There was no such thing as Apostles outside the Twelve.

I am not changing tack. I have always maintained there were more Apostles than The Twelve. I agree with PaulDupre that Paul was not one of The Twelve.

If he was not one of the Twelve, he was not an Apostle. There were never meant to be any Apostles outside of the Twelve.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

this insistence on there being exactly 12 apostles is not supported in scripture and certainly is not the case in the LDS church where there are 15 apostles.

 

[Stephen168]

If Paul was an Apostle (which he was), then he was one of the Twelve.

Can you show me in the New Testament where the eleven got together and made Paul a member of the twelve?

 

[zerinus]

Can you show me in the New Testament where the eleven got together and made Paul a member of the twelve?

Can you show me in the New Testament where Paul was ordained an Apostle at all, by anyone (which he clearly was)?

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

Can you show me in the New Testament where Paul was ordained an Apostle at all, by anyone (which he clearly was)?

zerinus

I’ll take that as a “no.”

Can you show me where the eleven got together and selected James’ replacement as one of the twelve?

 

[zerinus]

I’ll take that as a “no.”

It is more than a “no”.

Can you show me where the eleven got together and selected James’ replacement as one of the twelve?

That was your suggestion, not mine! Here is a quote:

James the Greater (Acts 12:2) was replaced by Simeon (the Apostle/Zealot/son of Alphaeus) (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3.32)

I am not familiar with that information. I took your word for it that it was a reliable source. My original assumption had been that Paul was ordained an Apostle to replace James.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

Criteria #2 was not a general requirement to be an Apostle (i.e. one of the Twelve) in every instance. Peter did not say that every future Apostle needs to fulfill that requirement. That was a criterion that they adopted for selecting choosing a successor to Judas, which was a special case, and at a special moment in time. The main requirement was that he should be a witness to the resurrection of the Jesus Christ.

Can you show me in the New Testament where Peter talks about waiving this requirement for all future members of The Twelve?

 

[zerinus]

Can you show me in the New Testament where Peter talks about waiving this requirement for all future members of The Twelve?

Yes. We know that in two ways. Firstly, the context of Peter’s statement suggests that that was a special and unique situation relating to the downfall of Judas. Secondly, the case of Paul. We know that he was ordained an Apostle (by whom and where and when we do not know), and yet he did not fulfill that condition. That suggests that it was not a general or essential requirement for an Apostle.

He himself identifies his seeing of Jesus as fulfilling the condition. He could stand as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The idea that having been with the disciples from the beginning was a requirement for being one of the Twelve, but not of being an Apostle, is an absurd and ridicules suggestion.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

James the Greater (Acts 12:2) was replaced by Simeon (the Apostle/Zealot/son of Alphaeus) (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3.32).

Okay, I just checked the source of that information on the Internet, and it appears that it was NOT reliable as I had assumed. Here is a quote:

Now EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.32] tells us that James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon his brother; and also that Symeon sat in that see till A.D. 107, when as a martyr he was crucified in his hundred twentieth year. Source: blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jud/Jud000.html

This James who was the bishop of Jerusalem is NOT the same as James the Apostle, who was beheaded by Herod. I am disappointed. I had assumed that you gave reliable sources that could be implicitly trusted. Looks like I was wrong. Too bad. So I will go back to my original assumption that Paul was ordained an Apostle in order to replace James, who had been beheaded by Herod. There is no concrete proof of that of course; but that is a very reasonable assumption.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

Zerinus is back, peddling his same old tired arguments, trying to legitimize a false church, a false doctrine and a false "prophet. He fervently wishes that his convoluted protestations will somehow make his twisted reasoning true and that we stupid gentiles will finally see the logic of his feeble arguments. Zerinus, the horse is dead. Stop flogging it. You have lost both the battle of wits and the battle of truth, your fly-by-night religion is a lie and you are a liar and the truth is not in you. Mormonism will, finally, join Mithraism, Isis worship, mohammedanism and all other false religions on the trash-heap of history. Better wise up, before it’s too late.

 

[zerinus]

Okay, I just checked the source of that information on the Internet, and it appears that it was NOT reliable as I had assumed. Here is a quote:

Now EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.32] tells us that James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon his brother; and also that Symeon sat in that see till A.D. 107, when as a martyr he was crucified in his hundred twentieth year. Source: blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jud/Jud000.html

This James who was the bishop of Jerusalem is NOT the same as James the Apostle, who was beheaded by Herod. I am disappointed. I had assumed that you gave reliable sources that could be implicitly trusted. Looks like I was wrong. Too bad. So I will go back to my original assumption that Paul was ordained an Apostle in order to replace James, who had been beheaded by Herod. There is no concrete proof of that of course; but that is a very reasonable assumption.

zerinus

And by the way, this also reduces the number of (apparent) “Apostles outside of the Twelve” to one—or practically “nil”. There were in fact no Apostles outside of the Twelve; and Paul was undoubtedly one of them.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

This James who was the bishop of Jerusalem is NOT the same as James the Apostle, who was beheaded by Herod.

This sent me back to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 to make sure I didn’t have the three different Apostles James mixed up. Seems like I had. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The Apostle James the Righeous (Gal 1:19) first Bishop of Jerusalem, and one of the 70 (not one of the 12) was replaced my the Apostle Simeon as the second Bishop of Jerusalem.

We have the Twelve, Apostle Paul, Apostle Barnabas (one of the 70), and Apostle James the Righteous. Atleast 14 of them alive at the same time.