Are Mormon Apostles the Real Thing?

[ParkerD]

Ok, correct me if I’m wrong here, but the way I understand it, the LDS have

The First Presidency, which includes the head guy and basically two assistants.
The Quorum of the 12, which is supposed to represent the 12 Apostles.
The Quorum of the 70,not sure what they are there for.

Then it would break down into the regular laity, with Bishops, High Priests etc., not necessarily in that order.

If the head guy receives a “revelation” from God to do X, at what point does that become doctrinal?

I beleive on another thread a long time ago, someone said that if a “revelation” is received, the other 2 in the First Presidency have to agree with or sustain it? Is that right? Don’t they trust the president?

I have also heard people say that there have been cases where a “revelation” has been received, sustained etc., only to be overturned or changed later. Is that possible.

I know thats alot of questions, but I’m just trying to figure out how this works.

twopekinguys,
I noticed that your questions haven’t been answered.

The Quorum of the Seventy includes men who live in different parts of the world and help make sure the LDS church organizations in different places in the world have strong leadership even in the midst of growth that is happening in many places, such as in the Philippines and in Brazil and Mexico and Ghana. The Quorum of the Twelve meet with them often as well, to gain feedback and provide guidance.

There is a great deal more “counsel” given by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles than what one would call “revelation.” The “counsel” is just as important, because it guides members in modern-day preparation for world conditions such as the current recession.

“Revelation” would be when the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles have met many times in the Salt Lake Temple and discussed an issue seeking inspiration that is pertinent to major or minor changes in how the church carries out the mission statement, which includes proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, edifying the body of Christ (the members), and redeeming the dead by doing temple work in their behalf. They must reach complete unanimous agreement on a decision before it is presented to the members of the church for them to also vote in what is called a “sustaining vote” for acceptance of the “revelation.”

This process of “revelation” happened in 1978 when the change regarding blacks receiving the priesthood, which had always been known was going to happen someday, was brought about after many years of its having been considered by the church leaders.

Your question about “trust” among the presidency needs further explanation. These men meet together several times a week, with open discussion about many issues seeking the perspective and experience of each person, including having met with leaders of the women’s organizations of the church for added perspective. There is complete trust among them. One may bring insights that helps the others understand complex issues and perspectives on a decision being made.

I’m not aware of a recent example of an “overturned” decision, but polygamy would certainly be that kind of a case, “overturned” in the early 1900’s.

 

[zaffiroborant]

twopekinguys,
I noticed that your questions haven’t been answered.

The Quorum of the Seventy includes men who live in different parts of the world and help make sure the LDS church organizations in different places in the world have strong leadership even in the midst of growth that is happening in many places, such as in the Philippines and in Brazil and Mexico and Ghana. The Quorum of the Twelve meet with them often as well, to gain feedback and provide guidance.

There is a great deal more “counsel” given by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles than what one would call “revelation.” The “counsel” is just as important, because it guides members in modern-day preparation for world conditions such as the current recession.

“Revelation” would be when the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles have met many times in the Salt Lake Temple and discussed an issue seeking inspiration that is pertinent to major or minor changes in how the church carries out the mission statement, which includes proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, edifying the body of Christ (the members), and redeeming the dead by doing temple work in their behalf. They must reach complete unanimous agreement on a decision before it is presented to the members of the church for them to also vote in what is called a “sustaining vote” for acceptance of the “revelation.”

This process of “revelation” happened in 1978 when the change regarding blacks receiving the priesthood, which had always been known was going to happen someday, was brought about after many years of its having been considered by the church leaders.

Your question about “trust” among the presidency needs further explanation. These men meet together several times a week, with open discussion about many issues seeking the perspective and experience of each person, including having met with leaders of the women’s organizations of the church for added perspective. There is complete trust among them. One may bring insights that helps the others understand complex issues and perspectives on a decision being made.

I’m not aware of a recent example of an “overturned” decision, but polygamy would certainly be that kind of a case, “overturned” in the early 1900’s.

All of this doesn’t really sound like a church lead by direct revelation to a prophet, Gods mouth piece on earth. It sounds more like a church lead by men who consider the question and pray for answers. What you describe is what others describe as the method for which their church is lead. It doesn’t seem to be the method that JS and BY used in leading the LDS church, they acted and spoke like they were prophets, those today? not so much.

 

[Religio71]

All of this doesn’t really sound like a church lead by direct revelation to a prophet, Gods mouth piece on earth. It sounds more like a church lead by men who consider the question and pray for answers. What you describe is what others describe as the method for which their church is lead. It doesn’t seem to be the method that JS and BY used in leading the LDS church, they acted and spoke like they were prophets, those today? not so much.

Yes. Think about how prophets (and apostles) worked in the Bible, then think about the Prophets of the LDS Church, that claim to restore such offices as prophets, apostles, teachers, etc. Think about God’s interactions with these men (as in, HOW he interacted).

 

[why_me]

You should have your mouth washed out with soap.

Why? I see nothing that merits my mouth being washed out with soap. If catholics criticize the lds faith, they must understand that they leave their own church up for criticism. And certainly non-catholics have a lot to criticize. But it would be the same for most faiths. No faith that has human beings as members is perfect.

 

[why_me]

Yes. Think about how prophets (and apostles) worked in the Bible, then think about the Prophets of the LDS Church, that claim to restore such offices as prophets, apostles, teachers, etc. Think about God’s interactions with these men (as in, HOW he interacted).

How did apostles react in the bible? The original twelve when Christ was alive did not behave that well. And we have no idea how they behaved outside of some jottings in the new testament. I would imagine much happened with them which is not recorded in the bible.

Do you know how god interacted with the apostles in the bible? Is god’s daily interactions with them recorded? I am sure that they were learning as they went about proclaiming the gospel.

 

[why_me]

I second the motion.

By the way since I received some criticism for saying that I am catholic and lds, how can you be catholic and protestant?

 

[Religio71]

How did apostles react in the bible? The original twelve when Christ was alive did not behave that well. And we have no idea how they behaved outside of some jottings in the new testament. I would imagine much happened with them which is not recorded in the bible.

Do you know how god interacted with the apostles in the bible? Is god’s daily interactions with them recorded? I am sure that they were learning as they went about proclaiming the gospel.

We have already discussed what the Twelve did, how they were chosen (what set them apart from others, including other apostles), etc. on this thread. Of course not everything is written in the Bible! HAHA Catholics probably say that moreso than anyone else, especially when talking with evangelicals. BUT we do have what IS written in the Bible, and thus we can compare what we know, with what we know about the LDS apostles.

And, we DO have many examples of God’s dealings with Biblical prophets, and what prophets did (aka, what made them prophets). This is what we’re to compare modern claimants to the prophet “office”. And of course there is the fact that prophets were never seen as the head of the Church.

Try reading this thread.

 

[why_me]

You have this fantasy about me going. I have to say, it’s kind of weird.

You ignored…pluralism…relativism…

I have no fantasy at all. I am just wondering how you can live among a people whose faith you dispise and hate. It must be frustrating for you. But I also believe that the mormons are a rather nice people and you feel rather safe and secure in their pressence. No matter what catholics may believe about the mormon faith, mormons are basically a good people who attempt to live the word of god according to their understanding of what that should be. I can think of worse people to live with.

What is relativism? Calling for unity between catholics and mormons to fight against the atheist and materialist trends in society is hardly a relativist stance. I think that the pope would agree with me.

 

[Religio71]

By the way since I received some criticism for saying that I am catholic and lds, how can you be catholic and protestant?

Read his profile:

“We are two guys sharing one computer. One is Catholic, One is Methodist.”

And you can’t validly claim to be Catholic and LDS. That is a complete contradiction. And of course you’re excommunicated latae sententiae. I hope you don’t blaspheme the sacraments by partaking.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes. Think about how prophets (and apostles) worked in the Bible, then think about the Prophets of the LDS Church, that claim to restore such offices as prophets, apostles, teachers, etc. Think about God’s interactions with these men (as in, HOW he interacted).

Religio71,
Au contraire, if you re-look at Acts 15 you will read of a dispute among some members, a council meeting of the church leaders with discussion (v. 6), and the decision announced by Peter as well as a sending forth of the decision to the people of Antioch who needed to hear it from the church leaders assigned to give them the message.

The epistles were written forms of counsel from the leaders of the church, of course. They were specific items of counsel and direction given to the members of the place to which each epistle was written.

As an earlier example from the Bible, you may remember that Moses took counsel from Jethro about how he should govern the Israelites, and he was well-served by that counsel. God can inspire people as they counsel together, and decisions made by a counsel process are most often better decisions than those made by an individual on their own.

 

[why_me]

We have already discussed what the Twelve did, how they were chosen (what set them apart from others, including other apostles), etc. on this thread. Of course not everything is written in the Bible! HAHA Catholics probably say that moreso than anyone else, especially when talking with evangelicals. BUT we do have what IS written in the Bible, and thus we can compare what we know, with what we know about the LDS apostles.

And, we DO have many examples of God’s dealings with Biblical prophets, and what prophets did (aka, what made them prophets). This is what we’re to compare modern claimants to the prophet “office”. And of course there is the fact that prophets were never seen as the head of the Church.

Try reading this thread.

What we know if very little. It is difficult to compare with such little knowledge. Most prophets and apostles went about life eating, drinking, going to the toilet and forming human relationships. Just like everyone else. They were human beings. Heck, even Peter and Paul had disagreements. And James too. I would have loved to have heard what they said to each other during such disagreements. I think that we would be shocked.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have no fantasy at all. I am just wondering how you can live among a people whose faith you dispise and hate. It must be frustrating for you. But I also believe that the mormons are a rather nice people and you feel rather safe and secure in their pressence. No matter what catholics may believe about the mormon faith, mormons are basically a good people who attempt to live the word of god according to their understanding of what that should be. I can think of worse people to live with.

What is relativism? Calling for unity between catholics and mormons to fight against the atheist and materialist trends in society is hardly a relativist stance. I think that the pope would agree with me.

Yes, if you actually read what the POPES have written you would understand clearly that ecumenism has nothing to do with your ideas of relativism and pluralism. If you had such an understanding you would be CATHOLIC. Period.

You know nothing about me or my life so a) you can stop pretending that you do and b) you can stick it where the sun don’t shine.

 

[why_me]

Read his profile:

“We are two guys sharing one computer. One is Catholic, One is Methodist.”

And you can’t validly claim to be Catholic and LDS. That is a complete contradiction. And of course you’re excommunicated latae sententiae. I hope you don’t blaspheme the sacraments by partaking.

It is amazing that a methodist and a catholic can agree on so much when it comes to the lds church. Much better if they would look into each others faith and see their own differences. The catholic peking should be more concerned with converting the methodist peking to the true faith. By the way, Joseph Smith admired the methodist faith. And his mom and sisters joined the Presbyterians before the advent of the founding of the lds church.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
Au contraire, if you re-look at Acts 15 you will read of a dispute among some members, a council meeting of the church leaders with discussion (v. 6), and the decision announced by Peter as well as a sending forth of the decision to the people of Antioch who needed to hear it from the church leaders assigned to give them the message.

The epistles were written forms of counsel from the leaders of the church, of course. They were specific items of counsel and direction given to the members of the place to which each epistle was written.

As an earlier example from the Bible, you may remember that Moses took counsel from Jethro about how he should govern the Israelites, and he was well-served by that counsel. God can inspire people as they counsel together, and decisions made by a counsel process are most often better decisions than those made by an individual on their own.

Yes ParkerD, Catholics fully agree with this. In fact, we have things called Ecumenical Councils . Also, thank you for referring to Acts 15, which describes the FIRST Ecumenical Council accepted by Catholics, Orthodox and others, the Council of Jerusalem.

So again, it is very interesting to note the differences between God’s interactions with Biblical prophets and apostles, Joseph Smith and the first apostles and prophets of the LDS Church, and the more modern ones.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Religio71,
Au contraire, if you re-look at Acts 15 you will read of a dispute among some members, a council meeting of the church leaders with discussion (v. 6), and the decision announced by Peter as well as a sending forth of the decision to the people of Antioch who needed to hear it from the church leaders assigned to give them the message.

The epistles were written forms of counsel from the leaders of the church, of course. They were specific items of counsel and direction given to the members of the place to which each epistle was written.

As an earlier example from the Bible, you may remember that Moses took counsel from Jethro about how he should govern the Israelites, and he was well-served by that counsel. God can inspire people as they counsel together, and decisions made by a counsel process are most often better decisions than those made by an individual on their own.

And yet I see Mormons consistently mocking our councils as the councils of men. Every single council is held up as an example of ridicule and how our church is wrong, yet it’s a virtue when done in yours. Just another example of "when Mormons do it it’s okay when Catholics do it it’s wrong.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hardly, I am only stating a fact. We have no idea what the early apostles said or did. Certainly they did more than what has been recorded in the new testament. And I do think that we would all be shocked if a notetaker was following them around jotting down what they were saying.

How did apostles react in the bible? The original twelve when Christ was alive did not behave that well. And we have no idea how they behaved outside of some jottings in the new testament. I would imagine much happened with them which is not recorded in the bible.

Do you know how god interacted with the apostles in the bible? Is god’s daily interactions with them recorded? I am sure that they were learning as they went about proclaiming the gospel.

What we know if very little. It is difficult to compare with such little knowledge. Most prophets and apostles went about life eating, drinking, going to the toilet and forming human relationships. Just like everyone else. They were human beings. Heck, even Peter and Paul had disagreements. And James too. I would have loved to have heard what they said to each other during such disagreements. I think that we would be shocked.

Since you believe so little is known about the 12 Apostles maybe you will admit that the LDS claim to “restoring” the original 12 apostles has no foundation and is nothing more than opinion. Since all religions are okay if they teach people to be nice to each other, this should be not problem. So LDS apostles as a restoration of the original 12 is nothing more than an opinion or interpretation right? Like a fable where the moral is more important than the reality of the story, right?

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is amazing that a methodist and a catholic can agree on so much when it comes to the lds church. Much better if they would look into each others faith and see their own differences. The catholic peking should be more concerned with converting the methodist peking to the true faith. By the way, Joseph Smith admired the methodist faith. And his mom and sisters joined the Presbyterians before the advent of the founding of the lds church.

But he had no admiration for the Catholic Church. This is obvious from the BOM.

 

[Religio71]

Since you believe so little is known about the 12 Apostles maybe you will admit that the LDS claim to “restoring” the original 12 apostles has no foundation and is nothing more than opinion. Since all religions are okay if they teach people to be nice to each other, this should be not problem. So LDS apostles as a restoration of the original 12 is nothing more than an opinion or interpretation right? Like a fable where the moral is more important than the reality of the story, right?

Agreed. whyme seems more concerned with everyone being nice neighbors and being nice people to everyone, no matter what they believe. We have our way and they have their way, and everyone should just be nice. Like I said in this post:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5527198&postcount=129

Jesus did not agree with this, and commissioned the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel and baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus would NOT say that it’s ok what people believe, we should just accept it, as long as we’re all nice. HAHAHA.

 

[ParkerD]

Agreed. whyme seems more concerned with everyone being nice neighbors and being nice people to everyone, no matter what they believe. We have our way and they have their way, and everyone should just be nice.

Jesus did not agree with this, and commissioned the Apostles to go out and preach the Gospel and baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus would NOT say that it’s ok what people believe, we should just accept it, as long as we’re all nice. HAHAHA.

Religio71,
Christ also commissioned the Apostles “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47) Repentance, baptism, remission of sins go together. They are part of the commission given to the apostles. But it was to be done by invitation, by preaching and teaching, not by force or coercion or trying to make everyone afraid of God or His punishment.

Jesus suffered the atonement so people, though imperfect, could become LIKE HIM. To become like Him is to act the way He would act, which means to “be nice” (from the heart, from within, not with any sense of “better than thou”). It also means to become ONE WITH Him. That is what He prayed for in the Intercessory prayer.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
Christ also commissioned the Apostles “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47) Repentance, baptism, remission of sins go together. They are part of the commission given to the apostles. But it was to be done by invitation, by preaching and teaching, not by force or coercion or trying to make everyone afraid of God or His punishment.

Jesus suffered the atonement so people, though imperfect, could become LIKE HIM. To become like Him is to act the way He would act, which means to “be nice” (from the heart, from within, not with any sense of “better than thou”). It also means to become ONE WITH Him. That is what He prayed for in the Intercessory prayer.

Yes, Catholics do believe this. There is a difference between being Christ-like and being so relativist like whyme that he/she says that we should “let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics”. This is NOT Christ-like.