In Defense of Joseph Smith

[BrotherofJared]

The term Catholic was first written in about 107 AD by Ignatius of Antioch. That would be an early Christian calling other early Christians, Catholic.

I am really trying to follow your thinking here, but I don’t know what you mean by “Christians would have been looking for Apostles…”. Please explain.

The Bible teaches that in the church first come apostles, second prophets, so… where are the apostles? Apparently the need for apostles has been explained away. So, if an early Christian came to the Catholic church, not knowing the new organization. He would have been excommunicated if he didn’t embrace it and accept the Pope’s authority.

 

[adrift]

The Bible teaches that in the church first come apostles, second prophets, so… where are the apostles? Apparently the need for apostles has been explained away. So, if an early Christian came to the Catholic church, not knowing the new organization. He would have been excommunicated if he didn’t embrace it and accept the Pope’s authority.

I guess you haven’t caught up yet. The Apostles referred to the 12 that Jesus chose. It wasn’t a permanent position nor is there anything that says it is. In fact scripture says otherwise which I have already provided. An early Christian would be Catholic. I know that your church believes that the Church was in apostasy at some point. There was a thread about when the LDS says that happened. The Catholic Church founded by Jesus began on Pentecost 33 that is an historical fact. The LDS Church founded by Joseph Smith began 1829 also an historical fact.

 

[JaminB123]

The Bible teaches that in the church first come apostles, second prophets, so… where are the apostles? Apparently the need for apostles has been explained away.

It seems we’re getting hung up on semantics and specific words. Catholics might not have a specific office called “Apostle” but that doesn’t in itself negate legitimacy or Apostolic succession for its leaders simply because that specific word isn’t used. Mormons call their leader the “President” of the Church. Well, the word “President” doesn’t appear in the Bible either as I recall so therefore the Mormon church is illegitimate by your logic, no? Where is the word “Mormon” in the Bible or the phrase “Latter Day Saints”?

The word “Bible” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but all true Christians still believe in the Bible. The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible either, but all true Christians believe in the Trinity. Heck, Jesus never used the word “Christian” in any of the Gospels. I’m sure there’s many other examples, but this should suffice. The principles are more important than specific modern English words. I could design a church tomorrow that uses all the “right words” but that wouldn’t in itself make it legitmate.

If we renamed our Cardinals to be Apostles tomorrow and renamed our Pope as Prophet, would that satisfy you? Of course not. You’d call it a word game and that’s all you’re playing at as far as I can see.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The apostles passed on their authority to their successors, who are present in the Catholic Church to this day.

Please point out the specific verse in the New Testament where the ancient Church was titled “the Church of Jesus Christ”. Indeed, cite the verse where the name of the Church is given. Otherwise, your argument holds no water. Indeed, for a time, your church was titled “the Church of the Latter day Saints”, which further makes your argument irrational.

I wasn’t arguing. I was postulating. There is no name of the church in the Bible, including the absence of the name: Catholic church.

I have read that your Bishops, at some level, have the same functions as the apostles, but still; they are not apostles and why not? How many Priests does it take to ordain a Bishop? Lets say there was a holocaust of some sort and all the Bishops are dead, we only have a few Priests left, how many Priests does it take to ordain a Bishop? I can’t find the answer to that anywhere and I did Google it.

There are no apostles in the church today because they all died and if you have no apostles, then you have no church. All you have is a place to meet.

 

[BrotherofJared]

No, not enough said. Whether or not they worship Jesus Christ or have twelve apostles is not relevant to the fact that the author of the article in the OP is using an argument that would validate Islam, among many other religions invented throughout the ages, by virtue of their continued existence to this day (indeed, many of them have many more members than Mormonism).

I guess then, it depends one what you think the OP meant by accomplishments. How are Islam’s accomplishments similar to Mormons?

 

[BrotherofJared]

Nathan said that because in early Judaism, they did not have a distinction between God allowing something, and God positively willing or causing something. They reasoned that because God is all-powerful, if something happened, it must have been because God caused it. Even sin. They had the right premise but the wrong conclusion.

The earlier books of scripture reflect this incomplete understanding of God. If Pharoah sinned, it must be because God hardened his heart and caused him to, if David had multiple wives, then they must have been given by God etc… There was no understanding of the relation between free will and God’s providence, or God allowing things that He didn’t approve of.

But as the centuries went on their theology deepened, so that they could begin to see that not everything that happens necessarily happens because God positively willed it. A good example of this development is the way 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles recount the same story of David holding a census against God’s will. 2 Samuel 24 says God himself caused David to take a census of the people, where 1st Chronicle’s version says it was satan that tempted him, not God. Chronicles was written after the Babylonian exile, which explains why the versions are so different. It reflects the deeper understanding Israel had of the nature of God at that particular time that they didn’t have at the time 2nd Samuel was written.

This gets even more explicit when we get to the book of Sirach, which was written a little bit after Chronicles. Even if you don’t accept it as Scripture, it’s still a good illustration of how Jewish thought developed on the issue:

Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”; for he will not do what he hates. Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he has no need of a sinful man. The Lord hates all abominations,
and they are not loved by those who fear him. 14 It was he who created man in the beginning,
and he left him in the power of his own inclination. 15 If you will, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. 16 He has placed before you fire and water:
stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. 17 Before a man are life and death,
and whichever he chooses will be given to him. 18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything; 19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man. 20 He has not commanded any one to be ungodly.(Sirach 15:11-20)

Now we see there’s an explicit distinction between what God wants and what man does, which was not as clearly understood in the earlier books of the Old Testament.

Anyways, the point of all this is to show that just because a book in the Old Testament says God caused or did something, that doesn’t necessarily mean He approves of it. Otherwise we would have to say God also caused David to sin with the census, which is not true, according to the rest of the bible.

So, if we want to know what God intended for marriage, then we need to follow Jesus’ example: Don’t go back to David or Moses or even Abraham, go all the way back to the beginning, before sin entered the world, before mankind rejected God. And when we do, we see monogamy, not polygamy, is what God created. If God intended polygamy, then he would have given Adam multiple wives. But he didn’t. He gave him one.

With this kind of reasoning, there is no way to use the Bible to prove anything but what you want it to say. It’s a wonder that Christ could use any of the Old Testament to prove he was the Son of God or of a resurrection. God didn’t really talk to them. Moses just kind of made it up as he went along. They had to wait until Judah was exiled to Babylon before they really understood how God worked. I guess the exile finally woke them up… NOT.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I couldn’t less care if he compared himself to John Lennon…but Jesus Christ is another story.

I think you missed the point. The Beatles once declared a similar statement, which has been seen as the point they began to lose popularity.

 

[BrotherofJared]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

As someone else said wikipedia could save you a great deal of embarrassment with your posts.

Yes. Early second century. That is not early enough to be in the scriptures. Meaning you guys made up the name of the church after the apostles died. The members of the church during the apostles lives did not call themselves Catholic. But still, this argument is moot. No apostles, no church.

 

[JaminB123]

Then I guess the adage “by their fruits ye shall know them.” is false.

No, I think this adage is true. I’m quite familiar with the fruits of JS. It’s part of why I reject JS as a prophet.

Here’s a good video that describes some of the concerns regarding JS’s “fruit”: youtube.com/watch?v=FUgx8i0VMsY

But let me guess your reaction–it’s all anti-Mormon lies? OK, but what specifically in this video is a lie?

 

[BrotherofJared]

After thinking about this some more, I would like to add. The Catholic Church has the Apostles, after all our first Pope was Peter an Apostle.

What is an Apostle?

From Acts 1

In order to be an Apostle:
1, he must have been with Jesus the whole time Jesus was among them that is witnessing the baptism of John to the time Jesus was crucified.
2. he was a witness to the resurrection.
Unless this criteria is met, they are not an Apostle.

That’s what your church tells you, but where i the Bible does it show that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome? For that matter, how could Peter have appointed Linus as his successor? No outgoing Apostle ever appointed his replacement, the other apostles selected candidates and drew lots to fill the empty seat in the quorum. There is even doubt that Peter was ever in Rome.

I guess that would rule Paul out as being an apostle.

 

[JaminB123]

No apostles, no church.

Why is that? Because you say so? We’re going to need more than that. Does Sacred Scripture say that without apostles, there is no church? No, it doesn’t. Does Sacred Tradition say that without apostles, there is no church? No, it doesn’t. Yet somehow you are above Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and can decree the requirements of Christ’s church?

The whole “apostle” thing… This is the same semantic argument that I addressed in a previous post that you didn’t respond to. Even if we renamed our Cardinals to be Apostles tomorrow, it would not settle anything with you. You would still consider us apostates. It’s a silly argument over wording.

Where does the Bible say that there should be a “President” of the church? You guys have a “President” of your church–that word is not in the Bible, ergo your church is false. This is basically the same shallow argument you keeping making.

But it’s the same old story–Mormons are unable to defend their church without attacking the Catholic Church (you guys don’t have “apostles” and we do, so there!). Please move beyond the tired bumper sticker defenses (“No apostles, no church”) and show some meaningful understanding of theology and history.

 

[BrotherofJared]

There is no biblical evidence that Moses commanded the children of Israel to practice polygamy. The only thing the bible reports about polygamy is that Moses regulated polygamy, the same way he regulated divorce and revenge.

Polygamy, divorce and revenge were all deeply-ingrained artifacts of the existing culture of the time. Rather than try to dismantle an entire culture all at once, God gave commandments to regulate the things that were offensive to Him. Later on in the OT, polygamy seems to have disappeared.

Now Mormons will agree that divorce and revenge are not commanded by God. Why the double standard about polygamy?

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I disagree on the biblical evidence, but I would like to see where you think he regulated polygamy like divorce. I recognize that he allowed divorce. I’m not sure about the revenge part, how do you regulate that? I’m not sure that I see a double standard.

 

[BrotherofJared]

You have yet to show that Moses married two distinct women and that both were his wives at the same time. You can’t show that, because the bible gives no indication of it whatsoever.

You are merely reading things into the text that are not there in order to justify the adultery of your church’s founders.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I call foul. You read things out of the text, I can read things into the text.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Exactly. Why don’t the LDS see that? When I was an LDS convert, I accepted the idea that Moses practiced and commanded polygamy, because I had never read the OT for myself. The first time I did, I realized that the I and the other LDS were wrong about it.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Please show me where I am wrong about it. If it’s too big to put here, give me a link.

 

[BrotherofJared]

“Pope” is not an office. “Pope” is a title. The office of the Pope is that of bishop.

I know that already. Nit picking my words. There’s still no apostles.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I don’t know how you think that this proves that the Christians were looking for the Apostles. It only speaks to the different chrisms. Note that it says not all can be Apostles and also note that except for Matthias no other of the twelve were replaced.
The Apostles and what makes an Apostle I assume you haven’t got to that post yet but I will repeat it
Acts 1 20-22
In order to be an Apostle:
1, he must have been with Jesus the whole time Jesus was among them that is witnessing the baptism of John to the time Jesus was crucified.
2. he was a witness to the resurrection.
Unless this criteria is met, they are not an Apostle.

Then what was Paul? A Pope?

 

[BrotherofJared]

The authority of the Apostles came from their priesthood office, which was that of bishop. For example, when speaking of who will replace Judas, we read:

Acts 1:20

20 For 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.

So, while the Apostles were also bishops, not all bishops were/are Apostles. The Apostles passed on their authority (their “bishoprick”) to their successors, and Catholic bishops are their successors.

Catholic history is also filled with many examples of prophets and prophetesses. We have many people that received Heavenly visions, angelic visitations, messages from Heaven, etc. The Church has approved many of these occurrences as worthy of belief by the faithful. In contrast, Mormonism decides to call 15 men “prophets, seers, and revelators”, yet these men do none of those things, at least not in any way that would distinguish them from the non-prophet leaders of various other religions.

That assumes, of course, that apostle is not an office. It also assumes that you have the right understanding of a bishop’s office. I contend that there was a lot of re-defining after the apostles were killed. If your definition of apostle is correct then the church must truly have been short-circuited at the very beginning. We can’t have it both ways, apostles being present at Christ’s life and resurrection and having first apostles in the church. That’d be a church that would last less that, what 60 years?

The first calling to the quorum as one who filled that description, but it cannot have been a requirement as Peter must have known that eventually, they would call other apostles that didn’t fit that description, i.e. Paul. The requirement appears to be that apostles were always a requirement in order to properly administer God’s church.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Your quite correct this does not say anything about polygamy. What you miss is that it was only the first born that was considered the off spring of the dead brother after that the children were of the live husband.

Yes. I thought someone would stretch this around to meet their needs no matter how difficult it would be. What if the brother was already married?

 

[BrotherofJared]

I’ll post the whole thing here, because it’s a lousy prooftext for Christian polygamy:

“6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And the name of his house[a] shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off. 11 When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity.”

If this is the best proof from Mormonism that polygamy is commanded by God and somehow a legitimate Christian practice, then the conversation is over.

There are ample endorsements of monogamy from the New Testament that supersede any pro-polygamy/pro-polyandry interpretations of the above. Here’s a few:

“…let each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” - 1 Corinthians 7:2

“And the two shall become one flesh” - Mark 10:8

“‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife…” - Mark 10:7

“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” - 1 Timothy 3:2

Monogamy is central to the Christian teaching on marriage, epitomized in the ideal of Christ as the groom and his Church as the bride. God may have tolerated polygamy in the OT, just as he tolerated adultery. But Jesus raised the moral bar in the New Testament and called us to perfection in marriage, eschewing divorce and polygamy. As the Catechism and the NT teach, polygamy is not God’s design for Christian marriage. This was so in Eden and has always been so in the Christian era. Only a Mormon would disagree.

Then let the conversation be over, but it was practiced and proper in certain circumstances and god commanded it. Therefore it stands to reason that God can command it again if the circumstances warrant it.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I guess you haven’t caught up yet. The Apostles referred to the 12 that Jesus chose. It wasn’t a permanent position nor is there anything that says it is. In fact scripture says otherwise which I have already provided. An early Christian would be Catholic. I know that your church believes that the Church was in apostasy at some point. There was a thread about when the LDS says that happened. The Catholic Church founded by Jesus began on Pentecost 33 that is an historical fact. The LDS Church founded by Joseph Smith began 1829 also an historical fact.

Where does it say which apostles that vers refers too? How do you know it wasn’t a permanent requirement? (because it’s not in the Catholic church?). I agree, that is when the church founded by Christ started, It was taken away because that church kept allowing outside influences to dictate their beliefs which lead them away from Christ just as the children of Israel constantly kept departing from their God. Thus the reason I keep stating, if you lose the apostles, you lose the church and it had to be restored, thus the need for a prophet to be called to restore it in 1830 (you’re one year off).