Help with debating a Mormon

[zerinus]

If John knew and Peter knew and other apostles knew that John would become a “translated being”, then giving the Petrine authority to Linus was the right thing to do because John (soon to become a “translated being”) can not be the head of the church, he has other responsibilities. That is what Parker told me.

placido

In the early Church the Twelve Apostles (while they were alive) formed the governing council or authority of the church. The Twelve form a quorum, which means that their number is fixed at 12; and there has to be a minimum number of them present at any one time to make a quorum—i.e. meaning that their decisions can be considered authoritative and binding on the whole church. In modern LDS scripture it has been revealed that that number is 7. In other words, if 7 members of the quorum meet together in council (the others being absent for whatever reason—sickness, death, having another engagement etc.), they can make decisions that are binding on the remaining Apostles and on the rest of the church. If that number drops below 7, then the quorum is not complete, and they cannot make such decisions. Strictly speaking, Peter was not the “head of the church;” the Quorum of the Twelve was. Peter became the de-facto “head of the church” by virtue of his being the President of the Quorum; but he only enjoys that privilege by virtue of that particular appointment. In other words, if the Quorum of the Twelve is not, Peter does not have a calling as an officer of the church either—until that quorum is once again reestablished, with him at its head! So this idea of Peter passing on his authority to Linus, or to the bishop of Rome, or to the Pope, is not a theologically viable proposition. The authority rests with the Quorum, not with Peter. Where there is no Quorum, Peter by himself does not have the authority to appoint someone to be his successor in the church.

 

[AMDGtoo]

their number is fixed at 12; and there has to be a minimum number of them present at any one time to make a quorum—i.e. meaning that their decisions can be considered authoritative and binding on the whole church.

Who says that the number is fixed? Jesus gave authority to the Church He founded (the Catholic Church)–not to an arbitrary number, which as you said the LDS, much later, changed to 7.

Peter was not the “head of the church;” the Quorum of the Twelve was. Peter became the de-facto “head of the church” by virtue of his being the President of the Quorum; but he only enjoys that privilege by virtue of that particular appointment.

Argue with Jesus. Jesus already is quoted as changing Simon (Peter)‘s name to “Cephus” or “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 and told him that “upon this rock” (cephus) “I” (Jesus) will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" And in Matthew 16:19 we see that Jesus gave Peter the keys (hearkening back to Isaiah 22:22 where the key to the house of David is given to the steward. Looks like Jesus has made Peter the steward of His (Jesus’) Church. And why not? Jesus is of the House of David, and Jesus is king.

 

[Arandur]

In the early Church the Twelve Apostles (while they were alive) formed the governing council or authority of the church. The Twelve form a quorum, which means that their number is fixed at 12; and there has to be a minimum number of them present at any one time to make a quorum—i.e. meaning that their decisions can be considered authoritative and binding on the whole church. In modern LDS scripture it has been revealed that that number is 7. In other words, if 7 members of the quorum meet together in council (the others being absent for whatever reason—sickness, death, having another engagement etc.), they can make decisions that are binding on the remaining Apostles and on the rest of the church. If that number drops below 7, then the quorum is not complete, and they cannot make such decisions. Strictly speaking, Peter was not the “head of the church;” the Quorum of the Twelve was. Peter became the de-facto “head of the church” by virtue of his being the President of the Quorum; but he only enjoys that privilege by virtue of that particular appointment. In other words, if the Quorum of the Twelve is not, Peter does not have a calling as an officer of the church either—until that quorum is once again reestablished, with him at its head! So this idea of Peter passing on his authority to Linus, or to the bishop of Rome, or to the Pope, is not a theologically viable proposition. The authority rests with the Quorum, not with Peter. Where there is no Quorum, Peter by himself does not have the authority to appoint someone to be his successor in the church.

Demonstrate anywhere in history of the early Church (not in modern Mormon fantasies) where this is clearly supported. CFR.

Further, it seems to be put forth by Mormons that Paul was an Apostle, which would seem to bring the number to 13. And what, then, about the 12 set up in the Americas? Seems like you’ve got 25 to deal with by your own accounting, not 12.

 

[placido]

In the early Church the Twelve Apostles (while they were alive) formed the governing council or authority of the church. The Twelve form a quorum, which means that their number is fixed at 12;
Wrong. Their number was 11 when Jesus ascended to heaven, but grew to 13 when Paul converted. That means the leadership of the church was to expand proportionally with the growth of the church.
zerinus;5705699:

there has to be a minimum number of them present at any one time to make a quorum—i.e. meaning that their decisions can be considered authoritative and binding on the whole church.
In modern LDS scripture it has been revealed that that number is 7. In other words, if 7 members of the quorum meet together in council (the others being absent for whatever reason—sickness, death, having another engagement etc.), they can make decisions that are binding on the remaining Apostles and on the rest of the church. If that number drops below 7, then the quorum is not complete, and they cannot make such decisions.

That makes sense in terms of church governance and good administration … no special “revelation” is needed for that.

Strictly speaking, Peter was not the “head of the church;” the Quorum of the Twelve was.
Peter became the de-facto

“head of the church” by virtue of his being the President of the Quorum; but he only enjoys that privilege by virtue of that particular appointment.
In other words, if the Quorum of the Twelve is not, Peter does not have a calling as an officer of the church either — until that quorum is once again reestablished, with him at its head!
The LDS church disagrees with you. It has formed “the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” and Peter is not part thereof, let alone being its head.

So this idea of Peter passing on his authority to Linus, or to the bishop of Rome, or to the Pope, is not a theologically viable proposition.

We know that, for whatever reason, some people won’t see that as a “viable proposition”. For them, the only “viable proposition” is having Peter passing his authority to Joseph Smith, 1 700 years after Peter’s death.

The authority rests with the Quorum, not with Peter. Where there is no Quorum, Peter by himself does not have the authority to appoint someone to be his successor in the church.

If only a quorum (7 apostles) has the authority, then you have a lot to explain. Now tell me: did Peter, John and James (3 out of 12 apostles) form a quorum when they supposedly restored the church authority in June 1829?

placido

 

[majick275]

there was no quorum to appoint Joseph smith…there were allegedly 3 (peter james and john) and Joseph and oliver ran things with just the two of them for quite some time. there are currently 15 apostles in the LDS church and the first presidency runs things (as they always have) NOT the “12”…only when the “prophet” dies does the 12 then rubber stamp the longest tenured apostle as the next president, he then selects 2 to be his counselors and the “12” select replacements as needed to bring them back up to 15…it is simply unsupported by facts to claim that current LDs organization is historical or biblical.

 

[PJM]

The basic issue with Mormons is a complete lack of Faith and little if any understanding of who and what God actually are.

So long as they persist in unbelief, lack of comprehension, and lack of understanding will naturally follow.

No one can comprehend the emensity of God, the total goodness of God, nor can one comprehend fully how the mind and heart of God operate.

Having shared that, God permitted, desired and longs for a personal relationship with humanity [made in “God’s image” [Gen. 1:26-27] in a intentional imperfect manner, so that we would have to SEEK God, in order to Find God.]

God sent Jesus into His WORLD not simply to Redeem us [Thank you Jesus] but also that we might come to know Him in personal relationship.John 10: 37 “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

From this perspective alone, it is bewildering, that they choose not to see God as God.

The Created Universe simply can not have always existed. That is simply a “cop-out.” In our galaxy there are BILLIONS of Planets and all stay wehre they were palced. Light travels at about 1,850 miles per second, and scientist estimate that it would take 47,000 years to travel at the speed of light to go from one end to another.

The average human person is made of of an estimated 10,000 TRILLION soft cells. Humanity are the only things in the created universe with the ability to actually LOVE, a direct result of having a mind, intellect and freewill. Logic alone can lead one to understand that where ever these gifts come from, they are given with a pracise purpose.

One can come to know of THE CREATOR [we choose to call God] by contemplating the Universe. The fact that Mormaons do not do so, gives evidence of lack of thought, lack of onjecitivity, and a complete lack of Faith.

It is a cult based om “me, myself and I” to the exclusion of God, common sesnse, logic and even a desire to seek truth. Mormons are very “moral” people. Why?

Love and prayers,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

But as I recall that was not at the center of the OP’s question.

The OP’s original question was about how he could responde to the LDS members’ contention regarding ongoing revelation. There is ongoing revelation by God. That is an issue separate and apart from the Authority of the Church to proclaim what is true from the deposit of faith - from the Catholic perspective.

Then you either did not understand what I said, or completely ignored it. The Bible contains laws which are designed to tell people how to act to be saved. It contains prophecies that we expect to be fulfilled, which gives us hope. They contain sacred histories which are designed to make us wise in the knowledge of God’s dealings of with man. It contains warnings which we ignore at our peril. Their purpose is not just for God to tell us: “Look at me, here I am!”These laws, prophecies, histories, and warnings reveal who God is and how He interacts with us. It’s the “big picture” painted by the Scriptures that I was referring to. Please don’t be obtuse.

Peace,
Robert

 

[zerinus]

Demonstrate anywhere in history of the early Church (not in modern Mormon fantasies) where this is clearly supported. CFR.

Not everything that we believe in can be proved from the Bible or from early church history. That is why we have the principle of continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture. Now if you don’t believe in modern prophets and Apostles and in continuing revelation, that is your choice. But unbelief is not something to be proud of. There are many people who have not believed in the contemporary revelations of God throughout history, and their unbelief has led to their condemnation.

 

[zerinus]

Wrong. Their number was 11 when Jesus ascended to heaven, …

I don’t recall denying that.

… but grew to 13 when Paul converted. That means the leadership of the church was to expand proportionally with the growth of the church.

We know of at least one other apostle who died early on, and that was James who was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2). There may have been others.

That makes sense in terms of church governance and good administration … no special “revelation” is needed for that.

It takes revelation to know of these things, since the information does not exist in the Bible. Church government is sufficiently important that it requires revelation to know how to do it properly.

The LDS church disagrees with you. It has formed “the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” and Peter is not part thereof, let alone being its head.

I was talking about the Twelve in the ancient church, when most of the original members including Peter were still alive. In those days Peter was the presiding officer of the Twelve. Nowadays others serve in that capacity.

We know that, for whatever reason, some people won’t see that as a “viable proposition”. For them, the only “viable proposition” is having Peter passing his authority to Joseph Smith, 1 700 years after Peter’s death.

It is not “whatever reason”. I gave you the reasons which were logical and made sense.

If only a quorum (7 apostles) has the authority, then you have a lot to explain. Now tell me: did Peter, John and James (3 out of 12 apostles) form a quorum when they supposedly restored the church authority in June 1829?

Peter, James, and John came down as angelic ministers to restore the priesthood on earth. When Jesus ordained the Twelve Apostles during His ministry, He ordained them one at a time, not all at once. In the early days of the LDS Church too things had to be done one step at a time, while the Church was being organized. The Apostles couldn’t be ordained all at once; it had to be done one at a time. Once the organization was complete, however, it remained complete to this day—new members being added as older ones have passed away (or apostatized).

 

[zerinus]

The OP’s original question was about how he could responde to the LDS members’ contention regarding ongoing revelation. There is ongoing revelation by God. That is an issue separate and apart from the Authority of the Church to proclaim what is true from the deposit of faith - from the Catholic perspective.

The LDS Church claims public revelation. It claims an open canon of scripture. The OP’s question centered on that claim by the LDS Church. Your argument that there is also such a thing as a private revelation does not address the OP’s question. How does your argument that there is a private revelation as well as a public revelation address the OP’s concern that he felt “stumped” by the LDS claim to public revelation? Does the fact that there is also a private revelation prove that the LDS claim to public revelation cannot be true? How? Where is the logic in that argument?

These laws, prophecies, histories, and warnings reveal who God is and how He interacts with us. It’s the “big picture” painted by the Scriptures that I was referring to. Please don’t be obtuse.

Your original claim was that the revelation of the Bible is complete, because in it God has “revealed Himself to man,” which (according to you) is the purpose of scripture, therefore no additional scripture or revelation was necessary. I was trying to show you why that argument is false. The purpose of scripture is not just for God to tell us: “look at me, here I am; this is my beautiful self”. God has spoken to man in every age of the world because their needs and their requirements were different. Each required the word of God for their own times and their own needs. Just as the word of God to Moses was not sufficient for the people who lived in the days of David and Solomon; and the word of God to the people of their time were not sufficient for the people who lived in the days Hezekiah and Jeremiah; and the words of God to them was not sufficient for the people who lived in the days of Jesus and His Apostles; similarly the words of God to all of them combined (through highly valuable) is not sufficient for the people of our time. We are as much in need of prophets, Apostles, revelation, scripture, and divine guidance as they did in those days—notwithstanding the great value we all attach to the records of ancient scripture that we already possess.

 

[AMDGtoo]

It takes revelation to know of these things, since the information does not exist in the Bible.

No it does not take “revelation”, since records exist (even continuing secular records as well as Church records.) And of course it wouldn’t necessarily be in the Bible. The Bible records the Old Testament prophecies on salvation history while the New Testament records snippets of Jesus life (regarding salvation–the reason for revelation) and the doings of the early Church. The canon of the Bible wasn’t officially determined until the fourth century (and that was done by Catholic councils and Catholic popes.)

 

[zerinus]

No it does not take “revelation”, since records exist (even continuing secular records as well as Church records.) And of course it wouldn’t necessarily be in the Bible. The Bible records the Old Testament prophecies on salvation history while the New Testament records snippets of Jesus life (regarding salvation–the reason for revelation) and the doings of the early Church. The canon of the Bible wasn’t officially determined until the fourth century (and that was done by Catholic councils and Catholic popes.)

LDS believe that the early church apostatized, and the original structure was lost. Therefore revelation was necessary to restore the Church to its original form, with the Twelve Apostles at its head, as was the case in the early church.

 

[Arandur]

Not everything that we believe in can be proved from the Bible or from early church history. That is why we have the principle of continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture. Now if you don’t believe in modern prophets and Apostles and in continuing revelation, that is your choice. But unbelief is not something to be proud of. There are many people who have not believed in the contemporary revelations of God throughout history, and their unbelief has led to their condemnation.

False beliefs, false prophets, and false teachings lead to all kinds of condemnation. I suggest you read your Bible on those points . You might pay particular attention to the cautions about listening to angels; rejecting the Gospel of the original Apostles; and Jesus’ many parables such as the wise man building his house on rock or counting the cost to make sure he could finish his tower (to say nothing of the Lord’s promises about His Church that He built).

You claimed something about the early Church. There is a great deal of historical evidence about the early Church. A call for references to back up your claims is perfectly reasonable, particularly when much evidence available stands strongly against your assertions.

That you are willing to completely ignore and even contradict much clear evidence on many, many issues shows dishonesty and irrationality. No Godly revelation can contradict truth, and this matter of quorums and so forth in the early Church is one among many such contradictions you claim to be true. Yet clear evidence to the contrary and a lack of any supporting evidence should be an obvious sign that your so-called “revelations” are utterly false and deceitful, thus the product of either man or devil.

 

[Arandur]

Your original claim was that the revelation of the Bible is complete, because in it God has “revealed Himself to man,” which (according to you) is the purpose of scripture, therefore no additional scripture or revelation was necessary. I was trying to show you why that argument is false. The purpose of scripture is not just for God to tell us: “look at me, here I am; this is my beautiful self”. God has spoken to man in every age of the world because their needs and their requirements were different. Each required the word of God for their own times and their own needs. Just as the word of God to Moses was not sufficient for the people who lived in the days of David and Solomon; and the word of God to the people of their time were not sufficient for the people who lived in the days Hezekiah and Jeremiah; and the words of God to them was not sufficient for the people who lived in the days of Jesus and His Apostles; similarly the words of God to all of them combined (through highly valuable) is not sufficient for the people of our time. We are as much in need of prophets, Apostles, revelation, scripture, and divine guidance as they did in those days—notwithstanding the great value we all attach to the records of ancient scripture that we already possess.

What do you mean by “sufficient?”
Did Christ’s Saving Act not save?
Do the conditions for salvation change?
Is there always something essential for our salvation that is yet to be revealed? If so, how can any of us ever be saved?
Did Christ’s Incarnation mean nothing and fulfill nothing and change nothing?

God’s interaction with man from Adam’s time to Christ’s was a preparation for Christ. The Jewish people were being prepared for Him. Once He came, Truth became a person, and we were once again united to God and now given a home in the Universal Church, united in Christ’s Body, as His Bride, truly and fully reunited to God’s Family again. This is quite a significant change. Indeed, if all necessary public revelation, all revelation essential to salvation, essential to effecting that change, were not complete, then we could not be restored to God’s presence, and Christ’s Saving Act would have been insufficient.

We all, of course, need God’s grace, strength, and guidance in our lives and in our Church life, and He offers this continually. “Guidance” is not what we refer to when we use the term “revelation,” however; at least that’s not how Catholics use the terms. Thus why I cited the communication barrier. Mormons have redefined “revelation” quite apart from any commonly-accepted uses of the term (even Protestants tend to vary in only comparatively minor ways when they speak of revelation).

 

[AMDGtoo]

LDS believe that the early church apostatized, and the original structure was lost. Therefore revelation was necessary to restore the Church to its original form, with the Twelve Apostles at its head, as was the case in the early church.

Problem with that. There’s nothing in history to say that the original Church did apostasize (that there was a Total Apostasy) so that LDS belief (that you speak of) is even necessary. Afterall, Matthew 16:18 has Jesus saying that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. There are also plenty of historical records that indicate that there was no Total Apostasy. The LDS can’t read records and they believe that Jesus was a both a failure and a liar? I hope not.

 

[PJM]

=Arandur;5708040]False beliefs, false prophets, and false teachings lead to all kinds of condemnation. I suggest you read your Bible on those points . You might pay particular attention to the cautions about listening to angels; rejecting the Gospel of the original Apostles; and Jesus’ many parables such as the wise man building his house on rock or counting the cost to make sure he could finish his tower (to say nothing of the Lord’s promises about His Church that He built).

You claimed something about the early Church. There is a great deal of historical evidence about the early Church. A call for references to back up your claims is perfectly reasonable, particularly when much evidence available stands strongly against your assertions.

That you are willing to completely ignore and even contradict much clear evidence on many, many issues shows dishonesty and irrationality. No Godly revelation can contradict truth, and this matter of quorums and so forth in the early Church is one among many such contradictions you claim to be true. Yet clear evidence to the contrary and a lack of any supporting evidence should be an obvious sign that your so-called “revelations” are utterly false and deceitful, thus the product of either man or devil.

Friend if you will be more specific, I will endeavor to respond to your needs and your apparant challange. I’m way toooooo Old to read minds

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Friend if you will be more specific, I will endeavor to respond to your needs and your apparant challange. I’m way toooooo Old to read minds

He was talking to zerinus, not you.

 

[Arandur]

Friend if you will be more specific, I will endeavor to respond to your needs and your apparant challange. I’m way toooooo Old to read minds

?
I was responding to Zerinus’s claim that the LDS “quorum” was established among the original Apostles and in the early Church.

I wasn’t challenging anything you said, that I can recall.

 

[PJM]

=ThuriferAcolyte;5708359]He was talking to zerinus, not you.

Yep,

Just offering help

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, if a girl decides to have sex with her brother and gets pregnant, the baby is innocent and the Mormon Church has no problem with killing it. That is murder, the produce of Mormon revelation.

What part of 'the only incest that could qualify here is rape" did you not get? A woman who 'decides to have sex with her brother" isn’t going to worry about asking the church authorities for counseling in this matter.

If a Mormon and a Catholic have the exact same operation in the exact same situation, the act will either be murder or an accident depending on what operation they had. And both operations would be called the same thing.

No, they obviously are not, because when you are faced with this situation, it’s OK…you perform a medical procedure that is required to save the life of the woman, and if that procedure is 100% fatal to the fetus, it’s still not abortion. However, if a MORMON woman, after counseling, decides to have the same procedure, you call it an abortion.

and that, sir, is why I am disgusted with those Catholics who call us ‘anti-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’

It’s the hypocrisy.