Are Mormon Apostles the Real Thing?

[Religio71]

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=4bc861cb2b86b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

"I bear my solemn witness that these gifts are with the Church today. The sick are healed, the eyes of the blind are opened, the ears of the deaf are unstopped, the lame are made to walk. The gift of tongues blesses our missionaries and others the world over. The gifts of wisdom and knowledge are evidenced by the leadership of our people everywhere. Devils are cast out, spirits are discerned, the gift of faith is demonstrated on every side. Many mighty miracles give evidence that this is indeed his church, the church of Jesus Christ. All the gifts and powers and blessings that have always identified Christ’s church are with the Church today."

Where are the writings about the sick being healed, the eyes of the blind being opened, the ears of the deaf being unstopped, and the lame walking? I’m really curious about this, as many/most of the LDS miracles seem to have been concentrated in the early period of the LDS Church.

 

[ParkerD]

Religio271,
I hope I can be brief here in answering, as these things have been talked about repeatedly in this forum in other threads. I do appreciate the validity of your feelings about these things.

You are right, Bruce McConkie was not an Apostle yet at the time that the first edition of Mormon Doctrine was released. However, interestingly, Apostle Marion Romney wrote a letter to President McKay, citing the various errors found in the book. This list did not include anything related to McConkie’s statements on blacks.

McConkie also wrote another book, The Millenial Messiah, in 1982, while he was an Apostle. Here is an interesting statement of his on the Jews:

Let the spiritually illiterate suppose what they may, it was the Jewish denial and rejection of the Holy One of Israel, whom their fathers worshiped in the beauty of holiness, that has made them a hiss and a byword in all nations and that has taken millions of their fair sons and daughters to untimely graves.

The treatment of the Jews by the world has fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies. Just because Brother McConkie said that those prophecies have been fulfilled, why would that be out of line?

His speculation about the blacks reflects the principle of agency with regard even to the publishing of books. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. The same goes for Brother Smith, who really had no business speculating about that subject even though he had been asked about it and was considered an authority on many subjects. His writing was from his own mind, not as an apostle or a church authority but as a man with an opinion, on that subject.

I think you are missing the point that we have already stated. St. Paul was an apostle. However he was not one of the Twelve. There were apostles that were not part of the Twelve. The Bible states the criteria to be one of the Twelve, and St. Paul did not meet that criteria, and neither do the current LDS Apostles, who claim to be members of the same Quorum as the original Twelve Apostles.

Paul’s words are unambiguous in 2 Corinthians 12:11, that “in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles…” Christ had called the twelve, and had given them a commission. The verse in Acts does not state “the criteria to be one of the Twelve.” It states the qualifications the apostles were seeking at that particular point in time, to replace Judas as one of the twelve apostles. It does not imply at all that that was going to be the last appointment of one of the twelve apostles, and Christ’s commission implies the exact opposite of your assertion, because they were to go into all the world and teach all nations.

Could you cite some of these modern day healings and casting out of demons? Catholics are readily able to read about the various healings and exorcisms (and all the other miracles) that occur in the Church. In fact, I just finished reading a book called “The Rite”, which documented the journey of an American priest to Rome, studying to become an exorcist.

Having had personal experiences several times in my life in those things, I will just say that they are not broadcast but are kept quiet because they are not done for seeking the glory of the world, period. You can find references in talks (already cited on this thread), and I see no need to try and find more on the internet. It serves no useful purpose for anyone.

It is interesting that LDS claim that they restore the Church organization of Apostolic times, yet there is no First Presidency apparent in the Bible or historical writings. Peter did have primacy, as Bishop of Rome, and this is acknowledged by Catholics, Orthodox (though we debate over the extent of that primacy, they still acknowledge that there is/was a primacy), and others. However James and John did not have a special role in the Church. Also, even if Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency, they were part of the Twelve. The LDS First Presidency is in addition to the Twelve, creating 15 Apostles.

James and John were present on the Mount of Transfiguration, with Peter and Christ. They were also present when Christ went into the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37). They had a special role among the twelve.

As to their being fifteen, the latter-day work encompasses a larger scope and I suppose if the Lord wants to have a presidency of His Church in addition to Twelve Apostles, He could reveal that this be done. The issue becomes being guided by revelation but also consistency with the Bible in method and purpose. These were the leaders of the church on earth, but with Christ as the chief corner stone and foundation.

It is also interesting that LDS claim that their apostles are also prophets, yet there is no evidence that the Biblical apostles were also seen as prophets.

See Acts 15:32. “Being prophets also themselves” implies the apostles were understood to be “prophets”.

 

[ricko]

See Acts 15:32. “Being prophets also themselves” implies the apostles were understood to be “prophets”.

Quoting out of context is not nice nor Christian. Here is what the entire verse says:

“Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, strengthened the community and gave them reassurance in a long discourse”

Implies the apostles to be prophets? No it does not.

The treatment of the Jews by the world has fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies. Just because Brother McConkie said that those prophecies have been fulfilled, why would that be out of line?

I’m hooked. Could you quote (in context) the OT prophecies that states the modern day treatment of Jews?

 

[Religio71]

Thanks for continuing to respond. I do agree that these things have been gone over here before, but that’s how all forums work. Forums could end after a year of existence, if that.

I guess that’s just a difference on how we see miracles. Miracles, signs, and wonders come from faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are not to be fascinated by miracles in and of themselves, but to know what they mean. Namely, the power and providence of God. But I understand if you don’t want to talk about it. I still find it interesting that Elder Cullimore stated that in the LDS Church, blind people regain sight, deaf people hear, and the lame can walk, and yet these things aren’t discussed or written about, as they testify (in theory) to the power of Christ. Catholics document the miracles that occur in the Church, as the Biblical peoples did, as they testify to God, and what comes to those that have faith.

I don’t think that the argument that Acts is talking only about what the Apostles were looking for at that time works. They all met the criteria themselves, and it makes sense that to be one of the Twelve, you had to meet that criteria as well. The Bible is quite clear that there were apostles that were part of the Twelve, and apostles that were not. Barnabas was also termed an apostle, and was not part of the Twelve. Silas was also an apostle, but not one of the Twelve. In fact, your reference of Acts 15:32 shows that there was a non-Twelve apostle that was also a prophet. Timothy was also termed an apostle. As was Apollos. So it is clear from the Bible that there were many apostles, but not all apostles were part of the Twelve. This includes Paul.

Christ’s commission does not mean that the Twelve had to continue forever. The Apostles ordained bishops, who continue the commission, in union with the successor of Peter (himself also a bishop), the Bishop of Rome.

In the Bible, the Twelve individually had the power, by the Holy Spirit, to understand and define teachings. This is not found in the current LDS Church, as only the President can issue revelation for the entire church.

Where is there Biblical/historical evidence that Peter was also a prophet? Or that a prophet was to be the head of the Church?

 

[ParkerD]

Quoting out of context is not nice nor Christian. Here is what the entire verse says:

“Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, strengthened the community and gave them reassurance in a long discourse”

Implies the apostles to be prophets? No it does not.

I’m hooked. Could you quote (in context) the OT prophecies that states the modern day treatment of Jews?

Rick,
My problem is that I am pressed for time today. The King James translation for Acts 15:32 says “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” The word “also” refers back through the chapter to Barnabas and Paul, and perhaps also to Simeon and James and Peter.

I will look up more references later, but one about the house of Israel is in Deuteronomy 4:26-28. Moses is prophesying what will happen if the house of Israel forgets the covenant of “the Lord your God.”

26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

27 And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you.

28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Verse 30 is also important:
30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

31 (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

 

[ParkerD]

Rick,
My problem is that I am pressed for time today. The King James translation for Acts 15:32 says “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” The word “also” refers back through the chapter to Barnabas and Paul, and perhaps also to Simeon and James and Peter.

I will look up more references later, but one about the house of Israel is in Deuteronomy 4:26-28. Moses is prophesying what will happen if the house of Israel forgets the covenant of “the Lord your God.”

26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

27 And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you.

28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Verse 30 is also important:
30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

31 (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Rick,
Here are three other verses about the tribulation upon the tribe of Judah specifically:

Jeremiah 23:40 And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.

Jeremiah 24:9-10 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.

And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.

Isaiah 60:15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for continuing to respond…
I don’t think that the argument that Acts is talking only about what the Apostles were looking for at that time works. They all met the criteria themselves, and it makes sense that to be one of the Twelve, you had to meet that criteria as well. The Bible is quite clear that there were apostles that were part of the Twelve, and apostles that were not. Barnabas was also termed an apostle, and was not part of the Twelve. Silas was also an apostle, but not one of the Twelve. In fact, your reference of Acts 15:32 shows that there was a non-Twelve apostle that was also a prophet. Timothy was also termed an apostle. As was Apollos. So it is clear from the Bible that there were many apostles, but not all apostles were part of the Twelve. This includes Paul.

Christ’s commission does not mean that the Twelve had to continue forever. The Apostles ordained bishops, who continue the commission, in union with the successor of Peter (himself also a bishop), the Bishop of Rome.

In the Bible, the Twelve individually had the power, by the Holy Spirit, to understand and define teachings. This is not found in the current LDS Church, as only the President can issue revelation for the entire church.

Where is there Biblical/historical evidence that Peter was also a prophet? Or that a prophet was to be the head of the Church?

Religio71,
It would be helpful if the Bible told when each of the apostles died, but it doesn’t. Acts presents a chronology of events over several years period of time. If someone was an apostle who was not listed as part of the original twelve or Matthias, it doesn’t mean that a death couldn’t have occurred and a new apostle called. Just because such a thing is not recorded in Acts, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened, of course.

As to your point about revelation, the entire quorum of the Twelve unitedly vote on “revelation” for the entire church before it is announced as such. This is very important, a key concept. Then the members also vote on the announced “revelation” for it to be sustained as such.

Peter’s epistles show both teaching and prophecy and the power of his calling in how he does those things. Christ is the head of the church, always.

Revelation 22:9 says that an angel appeared to the apostle John, and the angel said “I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets,…”
The word “prophets” was not shied away from after the mission of Christ on earth. There was still an expectation of true prophets. Indeed, as John wrote in Revelation 19:10, “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” A prophet is a teacher and a testifier of Christ and an upholder of His laws and teachings for the benefit of humankind.

 

[ricko]

(Ephesians 2:20) “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets…Notice past tense, been built. Once a foundation is laid it does not need to be laid down again, it is built upon “ It was upon these men the apostles and prophets that the foundation the church was built on, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Those who claim apostolic authority today are attempting to rebuild the church whose foundation was already laid and built . Later on in Eph.4:11 Paul writes, “and he himself gave some to be apostles and prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers…” he does not say he keeps on giving apostles and prophets for the simple reason formerly stated they were the foundation of the church.

The foundation has been laid, it is completed. As in Jude, “the faith that has been given ONCE…”

The true apostles are unique in their ministry , office, and power never to be duplicated. They were for a specific period in Church history. It is impossible for their to be modern day apostles as in the beginning since none of those today possess the necessary credentials to be an apostle. In 1 Cor.4:9 Paul explains what it was to be an apostle. “For I think God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; “ (this is in the aorist tense meaning that they do not continue.) The apostles example were that they gave their lives for Christ and the Church. It was their teaching and it being written including miracles that made them apostles.

 

[ParkerD]

(Ephesians 2:20) “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets…Notice past tense, been built. Once a foundation is laid it does not need to be laid down again, it is built upon “ It was upon these men the apostles and prophets that the foundation the church was built on, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Those who claim apostolic authority today are attempting to rebuild the church whose foundation was already laid and built . Later on in Eph.4:11 Paul writes, “and he himself gave some to be apostles and prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers…” he does not say he keeps on giving apostles and prophets for the simple reason formerly stated they were the foundation of the church.

The foundation has been laid, it is completed. As in Jude, “the faith that has been given ONCE…”

The true apostles are unique in their ministry , office, and power never to be duplicated. They were for a specific period in Church history. It is impossible for their to be modern day apostles as in the beginning since none of those today possess the necessary credentials to be an apostle. In 1 Cor.4:9 Paul explains what it was to be an apostle. “For I think God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; “ (this is in the aorist tense meaning that they do not continue.) The apostles example were that they gave their lives for Christ and the Church. It was their teaching and it being written including miracles that made them apostles.

Rick,
Thanks for explaining your position thoroughly. I have a certain knowledge that the foundation included living apostles for a growing church, and that is what Christ fully intended and the apostles fully attested. Paul’s writing in 1 Cor. 4 does not mean the apostles would all die and not be replaced. He was talking about being persecuted and not being “puffed up,” which evidently some of those he was writing to had a problem with.

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.
10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

 

[Eliza10]

I thought I would share what I have learned observing my friend’s LDS Church.

It is certainly safe to say that when Mormons speak of their priests, bishops and apostles they have a COMPLETELY different meaning than we have for those same offices.

For example, from what I’ve learned, as an outsider, the Mormon office of a Priest, of the Aaronic Priesthood, order of Melchiezadek, is conferred on ***all twelve *year old boys (soon after they turn twelve), upon completion of religious training comparable to training for Catholic First Communion. Obviously, thats a far cry from the requirements of becoming a Catholic Priest, as are the responsibilites far different as well. Training then continues for the boys, on Sundays and in home teaching. The amount and regularity of religious education that practicing Mormon families take part in is admirable.

A Mormon Bishop is quite comparable to a local pastor of a Protestant Church. That is obviously quite, quite differnt from what we call a Bishop!!!

For both the Mormon Bishop and the local Evangelical Pastor, there is no training for that office. For example, in my old Evangelical Church, both pastors were members of the congregation currently holding secular jobs, with no training at all to be a minister at all, when they took their post (they later took a few classes but mostly learned on the job. (They were faithful people of course, otherwise they wouldn’t have been chosen).

This much is the same in my friend’s Mormon Church. When their Bishop (essentially a local pastor) was called to another post, they immediately selected and appointed a new Bishops from the congregation, a man who continues to hold a very, very busy professional postion. That is a major difference there - the Mormon Bishop holds a secular postion as well. He must - because the Bishop position is volunteer! No salary paid! And its no small task either, but it is much assisted by a very active and organzined volunteering church membership, through many committees and appointments.

As to the Apostles, they claim these hold a special postion appointed by God (through their process which involves prayer as well as organizational protocol). These Apostles do draw a salary. But as Catholics we disagree with this definition of an Apostle, as the Mormon Church is divorced from Apostolic Succession. That is the reason we Catholics answer:** No - the Mormon Apostles are not the real thing.**

 

[why_me]

I thought I would share what I have learned observing my friend’s LDS Church.

As to the Apostles, they claim these hold a special postion appointed by God (through their process which involves prayer as well as organizational protocol). These Apostles do draw a salary. But as Catholics we disagree with this definition of an Apostle, as the Mormon Church is divorced from Apostolic Succession. That is the reason we Catholics answer:** No - the Mormon Apostles are not the real thing.**

You were going good until the last paragraph. What is the real thing? Are Cardinals the real thing? On the thread there has been much criticism of Bruce R. McConkie. However, McConkie was first a human being with human imperfections. Likewise for other Mormon leaders. Now the same can be said for catholic leaders. Heck, the child abuse scandals that rocked the world testify to that. And the silence by catholic cardinals was very detrimental to the catholic church. One thing I do know is that catholics have no right in criticising Mormon leaders. There own leaders have made tremendous blunders.

 

[why_me]

The LDS church needs more help and less criticism now more than ever. I see Mormons in practice and Catholics in teachings are able to if working together be able to make huge inroads and perhaps an impact on society in the US.

Not if they fight though.

This is so true and I have said the same thing on this forum often. Unfortunately the hatred öf the former mormon now catholic posters have just can’t seem to understand it. Likewise, for the cradle catholics. Much unites the two faiths and they do work together at times. Much better to unite in agreement than always concentrate on disagreements.

 

[Religio71]

You were going good until the last paragraph. What is the real thing? Are Cardinals the real thing? On the thread there has been much criticism of Bruce R. McConkie. However, McConkie was first a human being with human imperfections. Likewise for other Mormon leaders. Now the same can be said for catholic leaders. Heck, the child abuse scandals that rocked the world testify to that. And the silence by catholic cardinals was very detrimental to the catholic church. One thing I do know is that catholics have no right in criticising Mormon leaders. There own leaders have made tremendous blunders.

Are Cardinals the real what?

we’re talking about Mormon apostles, that claim to be in the same office as the original Twelve Apostles. The child abuse scandals, heinous and a disgrace, were not related to theological statements. McConkie, as a Seventy, one that “preach[es] the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world” and “act in the name of the Lord and under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews””, was discussing a policy that was related to theological issues, that affected a large worldwide segment of the human population, and basically said that blacks were condemned from the pre-existence. All said as he preached the Gospel to the world.

 

[Religio71]

This is so true and I have said the same thing on this forum often. Unfortunately the hatred öf the former mormon now catholic posters have just can’t seem to understand it. Likewise, for the cradle catholics. Much unites the two faiths and they do work together at times. Much better to unite in agreement than always concentrate on disagreements.

It is not hatred. It is a recognition that LDS believe in false doctrine, and the Catholic Church is the true Church. That is what these discussions come down to from the Catholic POV. We can work together on various social issues, and we do, however doctrinally, the former is true.

And let’s not pretend that the LDS Church doesn’t believe that itself is the true Church and all others are false. You post on MADB, you should know how they view Catholics

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are Cardinals the real what?

we’re talking about Mormon apostles, that claim to be in the same office as the original Twelve Apostles. The child abuse scandals, heinous and a disgrace, were not related to theological statements. McConkie, as a Seventy, one that “preach[es] the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world” and “act in the name of the Lord and under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews””, was discussing a policy that was related to theological issues, that affected a large worldwide segment of the human population, and basically said that blacks were condemned from the pre-existence. All said as he preached the Gospel to the world.

Wasting your time, as this has been explained to whyme several times.

 

[why_me]

Are Cardinals the real what?

we’re talking about Mormon apostles, that claim to be in the same office as the original Twelve Apostles. The child abuse scandals, heinous and a disgrace, were not related to theological statements. McConkie, as a Seventy, one that “preach[es] the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world” and “act in the name of the Lord and under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews””, was discussing a policy that was related to theological issues, that affected a large worldwide segment of the human population, and basically said that blacks were condemned from the pre-existence. All said as he preached the Gospel to the world.

No one is perfect regardless of their position and calling in a church. Mistakes will be made. Most criticism here on this forum as to do with his book Mormon Doctrine. Mormon Doctrine was a poor choice for a title because it gave it the impression that it was actually based on mormon doctrine. As has been said when that book came out it created problems among other leaders of the lds church. And the first edition was shelved for a revised second edition. I am not here to argue mormon doctrine but critics of the catholic church can use the same arguments as catholics do toward other churches.

For example, if god actually does lead the catholic church how could he have allowed priests and nuns to abuse children? Especially since nuns are considered to be brides of Christ and priests can forgive sins in his name?

And in terms of blacks, regardless of what was said, mormons seem not to be prejudice now and in the past as a whole. In fact, my catholic relatives were much more prejudice against blacks than any mormon I met. And I remember quite well because I was attending the lds church quite regularly in the 1970’s.

No church is perfect because a church is made up of human beings.

 

[why_me]

Wasting your time, as this has been explained to whyme several times.

Correct me if I am wrong but I do think that if the Mormon Church was plagued by the abuse scandal as the catholic church has been, you probably would be condemning the Mormon way of life and mormon doctrine for forstering such abuse. As would other catholics on this section of the forum. In other words, such abuse if it existed in the lds church would be a condemnation by catholic apologists of the mormon way of life and its church.

Non-catholics can make a lot of hay from catholic imperfections. I was in the Boston area and the abuse scandals have created many problems for the catholic church since many priests were implicated in the abuse.

 

[why_me]

And let’s not pretend that the LDS Church doesn’t believe that itself is the true Church and all others are false. You post on MADB, you should know how they view Catholics

Yes, the lds church does consider itself the true church as does the catholic church. But the lds church does not view other churches as false. Rather it views many other christian faiths as having certain truth but not the complete truth. Over on MAD the catholic posters are treated very well and with respect. You can PM any catholic poster posting on that forum and get the same response.

 

[Religio71]

Yes, the lds church does consider itself the true church as does the catholic church. But the lds church does not view other churches as false. Rather it views many other christian faiths as having certain truth but not the complete truth. Over on MAD the catholic posters are treated very well and with respect. You can PM any catholic poster posting on that forum and get the same response.

I’ve observed MADB for a number of years, and have seen otherwise.

And I admire you trying to put a “nice” spin on LDS belief on other churches, but LDS scripture and other writings say otherwise:

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil ; wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).

Joseph Smith-History 1:19

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that **all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” **

“The Christian world, I discovered, was like the captain and crew of a vessel on the ocean without a compass, and tossed to and fro whithersoever the wind listed to blow them. When the light came to me, I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:73).

“What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225).

"Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.177).

“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornication’s and wickedness.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.255).

But let’s not get off topic. The point of this thread is to discuss the claims of the LDS Apostles, and not Catholic cardinals (whatever that had to do with this topic) or the sexual abuse scandal. You can start new threads to discuss Catholic issues if you want. Feel free to address how and why LDS apostles are true apostles, and are in the same “Quorum of Twelve” as the original Twelve, and how they are doing the same things.

 

[Religio71]

For example, if god actually does lead the catholic church how could he have allowed priests and nuns to abuse children? Especially since nuns are considered to be brides of Christ and priests can forgive sins in his name?

If God actually does lead the LDS church how could he allow the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

The real question you should be asking is why does God allow all sinful things, if you’re asking us that question. We already agree that people are sinful and say and do sinful things. The difference between the abuse scandal and what discussing McConkie is that McConkie was teaching on a policy directly related to theology, and directly related to the progression of a people in a church. The priesthood is everything in the LDS Church. So we’re talking about two completely different areas here, so your comparison is really only trying to divert from the topic at hand. Start a new thread if you so feel the need to discuss the above.