Are Mormon Apostles the Real Thing?

[Religio71]

That’s one of the major problems with the LDS apostles, they have no powers that the real original Apostles had. Therefore they cannot be true Apostles otherwise we would be seeing and hearing about healings as in the Gospels and Acts.

Now to say there are miracles but they are not allowed to talk about them and no reporters allowed is a little too much. Kinda like, “I got the gold plates but no one can see them and they are going to heaven so no one can ever see them” The Catholic Church allows all miracles to be investigated by anyone as it is an open church. Miracles in the bible were all in public. Jesus and the Apostles never tried to keep their miracles secret.

I say the evidence is that the LDS apostles are not Apostles and are only self proclaimed as Joseph Smith was. Where are the healings for all to see? Where is the proof?

This lack of healings on the part of LDS apostles proves that the Catholic Church is right. The Apostolic Age ended with the death of the last Apostle.

I agree. there are many miracles that occur in the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox Church), and for Catholics, they are investigated thoroughly, and discussed widely. Of course private miracles do occur, however there are also miracles witnessed by many. This seems to follow what happened in Biblical times. The apostles of the LDS Church profess their belief in Jesus Christ, and claim to be “special witnesses of Christ”, however there is a real lack of “signs and wonders” that marked the Biblical apostles.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, how do you see the current Twelve as equivalent to the Biblical Twelve? How are they the same office? How do they act like the original Twelve? Do they perform signs and wonders?

Religio71,
Your last question here and Rick’s comment have been eye-openers for me. Here I have always been impressed by the testimonies and teachings of Peter, James, John, and Paul, and according to you I was supposed to be impressed by their “signs and wonders?” I am more impressed by Christ’s teachings than by any miracle He performed. Same with the apostles.

The apostles act like the original twelve mostly by how the teach and testify and preserve the pure doctrines of the gospel while still assimilating the growth of the church by people joining from all nations, just as the original twelve did.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
Your last question here and Rick’s comment have been eye-openers for me. Here I have always been impressed by the testimonies and teachings of Peter, James, John, and Paul, and according to you I was supposed to be impressed by their “signs and wonders?” I am more impressed by Christ’s teachings than by any miracle He performed. Same with the apostles.

The apostles act like the original twelve mostly by how the teach and testify and preserve the pure doctrines of the gospel while still assimilating the growth of the church by people joining from all nations, just as the original twelve did.

I think you mistake “impression” with the real purpose of miracles. Miracles always point toward God. The miracles of Christ (and all those that acted in the name of God) are not separated from the teachings of Christ. Signs, wonders and miracles are also marks of a true apostle, and that is what we are trying to discuss in reference to LDS apostles:

**
2 Corinthians 12:!2

12Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.**

So from our point of view, LDS apostles have not demonstrated signs and wonders, which are marks of an apostle.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
Your last question here and Rick’s comment have been eye-openers for me. Here I have always been impressed by the testimonies and teachings of Peter, James, John, and Paul, and according to you I was supposed to be impressed by their “signs and wonders?” I am more impressed by Christ’s teachings than by any miracle He performed. Same with the apostles.

The apostles act like the original twelve mostly by how the teach and testify and preserve the pure doctrines of the gospel while still assimilating the growth of the church by people joining from all nations, just as the original twelve did.

Also, why are you separating the testimonies and teachings of the Apostles from the signs and wonders? We made no such distinction. We are asking about a characteristic of apostles (signs, wonders, miracles) that is Biblical, and where is the evidence of such characteristics in LDS apostles.

 

[PaulDupre]

According to the New Testament, the qualifications for being an apostle are:

a) Must have been a disciple of Jesus and traveled with the other apostles from Jesus’ baptism by John until his ascension into heaven.

b) Must be an eye-witness to the resurrected Jesus.

• Acts 1:21-22

No man today meets these qualifications; therefore there can be no “modern apostles”.

Paul

 

[ParkerD]

I think you mistake “impression” with the real purpose of miracles. Miracles always point toward God. The miracles of Christ (and all those that acted in the name of God) are not separated from the teachings of Christ. Signs, wonders and miracles are also marks of a true apostle, and that is what we are trying to discuss in reference to LDS apostles:

**
2 Corinthians 12:!2

12Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.**

So from our point of view, LDS apostles have not demonstrated signs and wonders, which are marks of an apostle.

Religio71 or Rick or PaulDupre,
In trying to understand what you mean, it would help me out if you would list the “signs, wonders, and mighty deeds” specifically that you are talking about that the apostles did, with the appropriate New Testament references. Thanks.

I also might as well get clarification about the apostle Paul, who in the preceding verse to the one cited here says “for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles…” How could he possibly think he could write that and have the people believe him in their hearts unless he was one of the twelve apostles at the time he wrote that?

 

[Stephen168]

I also might as well get clarification about the apostle Paul, who in the preceding verse to the one cited here says “for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles…” How could he possibly think he could write that and have the people believe him in their hearts unless he was one of the twelve apostles at the time he wrote that?

He did not qualify to be one of The Twelve, which has already been explained.

The Bible gives us the criteria to be one of the Twelve:

Acts 1:21-22

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

22Beginning 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. **

James, the Righteous (Gal 1:19), Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14) were apostles but never one of The Twelve.
Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias. . This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths.

It also seems that if Mormonism was restored at the very hand of God and having 12 Apostles was the key to this, why did it seem to take 5 years for Joseph Smith to come up with the first group of 12 apostles?

 

[Religio71]

Religio71 or Rick or PaulDupre,
In trying to understand what you mean, it would help me out if you would list the “signs, wonders, and mighty deeds” specifically that you are talking about that the apostles did, with the appropriate New Testament references. Thanks.

Firstly, let’s start with the quote I have already gave, which is Saint Paul discussing some of the signs of an apostle (whether of the Twelve or not):

**12Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (KJV)

12The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance (NIV)**

Here are some of the things the Twelve did:

Mark 6:7

** 7And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; **

Mark 6:12-13

** 12And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

13And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.**

Healing and exorcism were thus powers given by Christ to the Apostles. Both continue in the Catholic Church.

 

[Religio71]

Also in Matthew 10:

**
8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give**.

 

[Religio71]

Here are some snips from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entries “Apostle” and “First Presidency”:

An “apostle” is an ordained leader in the Melchizedek Priesthood in THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. Apostles are chosen through inspiration by the president of the church** (were apostles in Biblical times chosen by prophets?), sustained by the general membership of the Church, and ordained by the First Presidency and the quorum of the Twelve apostles by the laying on of hands. They serve as general authorities—as distinguished from local and regional officers—holding their office as apostle for the duration of their lives. The senior apostle is the President of the Church.
**

Latter-day Saints believe that the New Testament apostles—Peter, James, and john—comprised a First Presidency with Peter as the presiding officer, and with James and John as counselors.(Even if this was true, they were part of the Twelve, not in addition to the Twelve. Thus another example of the claim that the original Church organization was restored failing) As an ancient First Presidency, they functioned in a manner similar to the First Presidency today. For instance, the Bible describes occasions when Jesus dealt with Peter alone (Matt. 18:19; Luke 24:34), and others when the three apostles were involved (Matt. 17:1-3; 26:37-39; Mark 5:37-42). These passages suggest that the roles of these three men were different from the roles of the other apostles. As a First Presidency, Peter, James, and John possessed the special authority to give Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the keys of ministry in the dispensation of the fulness of times. It is these keys that control the exercise of the priesthood by all others in the vital functions of the Church in modern times.

 

[ParkerD]

He did not qualify to be one of The Twelve, which has already been explained.

James, the Righteous (Gal 1:19), Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14) were apostles but never one of The Twelve.
Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias. . This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths.

It also seems that if Mormonism was restored at the very hand of God and having 12 Apostles was the key to this, why did it seem to take 5 years for Joseph Smith to come up with the first group of 12 apostles?

Hi, Stephen,
Thanks for the questions. I was busy this morning–no time to respond.

Joseph Smith didn’t “come up with the first group of 12 apostles.” He received a revelation in June of 1829 (before the church was organized as a church in the last days) that the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris), should search out the men who would be called as the apostles, based on their desires. (Doctrine and Covenants section 18). It did take a number of years before all of the twelve were called and ordained, on February 14, 1835, chosen by the Three Witnesses and ordained by them as directed by revelation–Oliver Cowdery having received the keys of priesthood along with Joseph Smith in 1829 under the hands of Peter, James, and John who came as messengers to the earth. the choosing was done after the men had proven out what their desires were, and what their willingness was to keep the commandments of God and not falter when difficulties came.

Christ did take a shorter time to choose the original twelve apostles. The clear pattern I observe is that God does not do for man what man can do for himself, even with the choosing of the apostles. Christ knew men’s hearts, and worked within the established religion (Jewish) to choose the twelve apostles based on knowing their hearts, although he also prayed fervently about this the night before He chose them.

If Joseph Smith had been an imposter, he would surely have immediately chosen twelve apostles in 1830 to show that he had the authority and was organizing Christ’s church again on the earth. He didn’t. The church was fully organized in due time, but not in a rushed way such as an imposter would have done.

Christ gave the Holy Ghost for when He was personally going to be gone, as He promised that He would. It is a far different matter with the twelve apostles. They were to go into all the world and teach all nations. That was their specific commission, given to them by the Lord Himself, who knew exactly what He was calling them and sending them forth to do.

No one has answered my question about Paul’s statement, because Paul was obviously one of the twelve apostles and that is why he made the statement he made.

 

[Religio71]

Hi, Stephen,

No one has answered my question about Paul’s statement, because Paul was obviously one of the twelve apostles and that is why he made the statement he made.

I believe we have already shown one Biblical criteria to be one of the Twelve:

Acts 1:20-22

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

**21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
**
22Beginning 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.

Is the choosing of LDS apostles the same as the Biblical model? Were Apostles chosen by Prophets?

 

[ParkerD]

I believe we have already shown one Biblical criteria to be one of the Twelve:

Acts 1:20-22

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

**21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
**
22Beginning 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.

Is the choosing of LDS apostles the same as the Biblical model? Were Apostles chosen by Prophets?

Hi, Religio71,

Christ chose the Twelve Apostles by knowing the hearts of all men. The eleven apostles at the time Matthias was chosen prayed for direction saying “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen…” (Acts 1:24)

It is clear that the Lord chose Matthias as one of the twelve, by revealing His will in the matter.

The prophet Samuel chose David as the replacement for Saul, by seeking inspiration for “the Lord looketh on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) The change was not immediate, but it happened in the due time of the Lord, and David had already been anointed to become king. (1 Samuel 16:13)

The Lord chooses whom He chooses, and reveals His choice in these matters by revelation in whatever way suits His purposes. He can certainly inspire a prophet to choose a new apostle.

You seem to seek to proscribe what the Lord can and cannot do. That is a bind that has been placed in your mind, and is not what the Spirit intends but what humans seeking to retain power intend. Power seeks to justify itself, of course. We see it happen every day, at most every level of human power exerted by people acting in their own best interest.

 

[Stephen168]

The historical facts are:

Joseph Smith -]didn’t/-] “come up with the first group of 12 apostles.” -]He received a revelation in June of 1829 (before the church was organized as a church in the last days) that the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris), should search out the men who would be called as the apostles, based on their desires. (Doctrine and Covenants section 18). /-]It did take a number of years before all of the twelve were called and ordained, on February 14, 1835, chosen by the Three Witnesses -]and ordained by them as directed by revelation–Oliver Cowdery having received the keys of priesthood along with Joseph Smith in 1829 under the hands of Peter, James, and John who came as messengers to the earth. the choosing was done after the men had proven out what their desires were, and what their willingness was to keep the commandments of God and not falter when difficulties came./-]

 

[StrawberryJam]

According to the New Testament, the qualifications for being an apostle are:

a) Must have been a disciple of Jesus and traveled with the other apostles from Jesus’ baptism by John until his ascension into heaven.

b) Must be an eye-witness to the resurrected Jesus.

• Acts 1:21-22

No man today meets these qualifications; therefore there can be no “modern apostles”.

Paul

Paul, I think that means Paul of Tarsus is an imposter.

 

[Religio71]

The Bible is clear on what was necessary to be one of the Twelve. It is clear that current LDS Apostles do not meet this criteria, and the claim that they restore the office of Apostle doesn’t work. And LDS Apostles are chosen by a Prophet. The Biblical apostles were not chosen by prophets. LDS claim that Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency in the Bible, however it is not clear that James and John had a special office or role. Also, Peter, James and John were part of the Twelve, not in addition to it. LDS thus have 15 Apostles. So this isn’t really a restoration of the Apostolic organization. LDS Apostles are also prophets, with the President being The Prophet. Another departure from the Apostolic organization.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The Bible is clear on what was necessary to be one of the Twelve. It is clear that current LDS Apostles do not meet this criteria, and the claim that they restore the office of Apostle doesn’t work. And LDS Apostles are chosen by a Prophet. The Biblical apostles were not chosen by prophets. LDS claim that Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency in the Bible, however it is not clear that James and John had a special office or role. Also, Peter, James and John were part of the Twelve, not in addition to it. LDS thus have 15 Apostles. So this isn’t really a restoration of the Apostolic organization. LDS Apostles are also prophets, with the President being The Prophet. Another departure from the Apostolic organization.

Hi,

It seems you also can not address the “problem” of Paul of Tarsus.

 

[ricko]

They can’t be Apostles because the teachings of the LDS are always changing.

According to current LDS teaching, they almost disown some of their own apostles/prophets because of some of the things they have said in the past. Things such as men in the moon (Quakers) and people living on the sun.

The Great Apostasy which in former teaching was “complete apostasy” is now taught as a “partial” apostasy. With the Catholic Church retaining “some” truths but not the important ones; this statement from Parker.

You never saw the Apostles of the bible change their teaching. The changing thing has gotten so bad that one Mormon told us to not bring up any issue or statement that is a 100 years or more old. This is not a rock of a church. Whereas in the Catholic Church the teachings and documents date back 2,000 years and there for all to see. Now THAT sounds like the Rock of a church that Jesus established

 

[Religio71]

Hi,

It seems you also can not address the “problem” of Paul of Tarsus.

what is the problem? He was an apostle, he just wasn’t one of the Twelve. He, like the LDS Apostles, does not meet the requirements to be one of the Twelve.

 

[Religio71]

They can’t be Apostles because the teachings of the LDS are always changing.

According to current LDS teaching, they almost disown some of their own apostles/prophets because of some of the things they have said in the past. Things such as men in the moon (Quakers) and people living on the sun.

The Great Apostasy which in former teaching was “complete apostasy” is now taught as a “partial” apostasy. With the Catholic Church retaining “some” truths but not the important ones; this statement from Parker.

You never saw the Apostles of the bible change their teaching. The changing thing has gotten so bad that one Mormon told us to not bring up any issue or statement that is a 100 years or more old. This is not a rock of a church. Whereas in the Catholic Church the teachings and documents date back 2,000 years and there for all to see. Now THAT sounds like the Rock of a church that Jesus established

The words of the late Apostle Bruce McConkie are quite interesting, as a supposed Apostle, member of the same Quorum of Twelve as Peter, James, John, etc.