LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

[Peter_John]

Hi, Lax16,

If you look at Matthew 21:38 and 43, then look at Titus 1:10,… (include all in between)
…So the Holy Ghost was inspiring the apostles to give their best efforts to teach the members and lead them, but at that point of his vision he was being told why they were not receiving inspiration about replacing apostles as one died or was killed. (They had earlier done so with Paul, Barnabas, and James, but later in time, the inspiration to do so did not come–they did not force that there be apostles anyway. They followed the inspiration that said not to ordain new apostles at that later point in time.

Have a good day.

You are reading way too much into this that is not justified by exegesis. It clearly reflects your belief in translation errors in the Bible, in an inability to fully comprehend it accurately without bringing in material from other sources.

The fact is that it is comprehensible in context with an accurate awareness of the historic circumstances under which it was written.

Consider this: Your Book of Mormon teaches that after the records which became the Bible went forth to the Gentiles from the Jews many plain and precious parts were removed.

That is exactly why protestants do not use the Deuterocanonical books. Several books that the Jews accepted as scripture at the time of Christ were written in Greek. These take the record of the Old Testament from about 400 years BC, where Protestant canon ends, to about 150 years BC.

These include doctrines such as the state of souls between death and the resurrection, the tradition of resurrection more fully assimilated, some very specific prophecies about Jesus, and the final complete shift in Judaic thought from considering God the king over all the Gods to acknowledgment of Him as the one and only Gods, with all others nothing more than human constructs. It is impossible to understand the fullness of the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament without the context of these books.

Around the end of the First Century the Jews in diaspora had a sort of a fundamentalist revival. They eliminated any books without original records in Hebrew from their accepted readings in the synagogues. When Martin Luther apostasized, he accepted the Jewish canon for the Old testament as it existed in his time, not in the time of Christ – therefore, after the Bible went forth to the Gentiles from the Jews, many plain and precious parts WERE removed, and this was the Bible Joseph Smith had to work with.

You cannot understand the whole Bible without them. You cannot fill in with conjecture where no conjecture is needed. The NT verses you cite make complete sense with less complicated explanations than the one you gave, arising from the valid historical, cultural, and scriptural context.

 

[lax16]

I agree with everything you said and hope that you did not take my words as any criticism of your comments. I find that it is easy for me to get tied up in arguing details that lead the conversation away from the topic of the thread. I’ve begun taking a “big picture” approach to these issues and was just trying to point out that, in my opinion anyway, the topic of this thread remains unanswered. I’ve been placed on “ignore”, apparently, by the LDS posters on this forum. I must admit that I have become extremely frustrated by their refusal to just answer questions head on, to allow reason to enter into the thought process, and have to admit that, in some cases, I have been less than charitable in my responses. In any case, I really appreciate your posts and your ability to keep your head.

God bless.

Hi SteveVH - Thanks for your kind words and did not take them as criticism. I appreciate your help trying to keep this thread on topic!

I also find myself moving from a big picture to a detailed approach (and back again!) to discuss Mormonism. I find that the posts really move around a bit and I try to continue to think “out of the box.”

Thanks again!

 

[lax16]

I am going to play Devil’s Advocate, and point out that these same arguments could be used to dispute Communion of Saints – and that is what LDS believers say is happening here. In Christ “Death is done away”. Mormons believe in Communion of Saints, they just do not call it that, but it is the basic concept behind their temple work.

Hi Peter John - Welcome to CAF and thank you for your “fresh” approach to our discussion.
Please note that I am not discussing the Communion of Saints. The discussion is about how the LDS choose their prophet. Is the Holy Spirit called on? Is it a vote?
They have continued to argue that the first apostles “dropped the ball” when it came to passing on priesthood authority. The questions have gone back and forth “how do you know?” and “when did it happen?”
If you have not already done so, please read through their claims, then the links provided.
It is very surprising how they choose their prophet and how BY was chosen to follow JS.

In fact, I argue that though they may not recognize it, nothing in the Apostle’s Creed contradicts Mormonism, only interpretations of its application do.

Oh no they don’t. Their definition of God is different. They believe He was once a man with a body.
Jesus Christ is not God’s only Son. They believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, therefore God had more than one son.
He was not conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit according to LDS teaching. They teach that God had a relationship with Mary that “naturally” resulted in Jesus.

The Bible also says that we should look to God for the living to hear from the Dead. If we take this as an argumant to refute LDS succession of authority, we have to stop all of our canonizations of faithful departed, and requests to them for intercession.

What? Who prays for the intercession of saints expecting them to be channeled in another person? I totally disagree with you on this one.

 

[lax16]

To All my LDS friends:

There is only one true priesthood that exists on this earth today and that is the Catholic priesthood. Jesus established it along with His Church. It has not been abrogated, cancelled, or disappeared. It is still as authentic, viable and active as when first instituted, because there NEVER HAS BEEN any so-called apostacy of the Church. Individuals yes, the Church, NEVER. Also there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever in scripture to support the LDS so-called Aaronic and Melchisidekian priesthoods in Christianity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

 

[lax16]

Hi, Lax16,

If you look at Matthew 21:38 and 43, then look at Titus 1:10, then perhaps (just perhaps) you might be able to see that Christ was giving a prophecy in Matthew 21:38 and 43, that was starting to be fulfilled as shown in Titus 1:10, and as most assuredly shown in the posts that you and JAVL have posted about the Jewish beliefs about God being the foundation of your beliefs. The prophecy was not only that He Himself was going to be killed, (and He was the Heir Son), but also that the perpetrators were gong to “seize on His inheritance”–His inheritance being what the gospel was given to establish on the earth, a society of peace and forgiveness and love. Thus He prophesied also that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–which means the Jews were going to not have the leadership role (which the tribe of Judah had up until the time of Christ), after His death and after the perpetrators had “seized on His inheritance”. This was an unfolding process, not a one-day-to-the-next process.

Hello Parker - Please explain how the foundation of your God, the God of the OT, is not the same as the Jewish God?
Everybody knows that Jesus’ message was going to be rejected by many. I have no idea how this proves that no part of the Church survived after being spread by the first apostles.

So again, Paul, Barnabas, and James the brother of Jesus were named and ordained as apostles who were part of the ongoing church and showed the pattern that would have been followed had not “they of the circumcision” seized on the inheritance, changed the ordinances, brought about a change in expectation about the leadership of bishops versus the leadership of apostles, and changed expectations about each member receiving the personal guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost–instead the leaders being able to do exactly as your post about the word “Christian” showed: not looking at the word as shown in the context of its origin, but looking at it from the context of those who had “seized the inheritance” and had changed the meaning.

So, even though all of the first apostles were Jewish and were successful converting Jews and Gentiles, it was the Jews that didn’t believe in Him that hijacked God’s plan for His Everlasting Church?
Please be explicit - what ordinances were changed?

Then, as I have noted to you before, John, the last surviving apostle, was told in vision that the church was being taken into the wilderness, and that there would be a restoration later through an unnamed angel but a known and seen angel who would come from the presence of God to the earth with a message to them dwelling on earth. So the Holy Ghost was inspiring the apostles to give their best efforts to teach the members and lead them, but at that point of his vision he was being told why they were not receiving inspiration about replacing apostles as one died or was killed. (They had earlier done so with Paul, Barnabas, and James, but later in time, the inspiration to do so did not come–they did not force that there be apostles anyway. They followed the inspiration that said not to ordain new apostles at that later point in time.

Parker why would John’s vision have more importance than Jesus’ Promise?

Have a good day.

You too!

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi Fly - from mormon.org It seems to be full of contradictions that I have outlined in red.
There is no voting and yet the new prophet is selected in a unamimous decision?:hypno:

(edited for length)
What is the Difference Between the Pope and the Prophet?
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, while the prophet leads The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are sometimes called Mormons. There are both similarities and differences between the two positions.

One way in which the Catholics and Mormons differ is in how their highest leader is chosen. For the Mormons, there is no suspense, no voting, and no ceremony. While Catholics watch for smoke to let them know a choice has been made, Mormons already know who will lead them the moment the previous president dies. The process follows an established pattern and offers no surprises.

The first presidency is dissolved at the moment the president of the church dies, and the apostles are then officially leading the church as a body. At this moment, there are generally fourteen apostles, not twelve, since the two counselors are apostles as well, and they return to their place in the quorum. The highest ranking apostle, known as the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, leads the apostles. A meeting is held among the apostles, in which they discuss two options. One is to reorganize the First Presidency immediately. The other is to wait, and allow the apostles to continue leading for a time.

Once the decision is made to reorganize, the new prophet is selected in a unanimous decision by the apostles. The new prophet has always, from the beginnings of the church, been the longest serving apostle, which is why there is no surprise. Everyone knows who to expect, long before the need arises. The prophet chooses his new counselors and the First Presidency is organized and the apostle who has served the longest after the prophet is the new head of the Quorum of the Twelve. If that person was chosen as a counselor, the longest serving apostle not in the First presidency becomes the acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Later, the new prophet will select a new apostle to fill the vacancy in the Quorum.

There is no contradiction. Even a casual reading will let you know that the only decision in question is when to re-organize the First Presidency.

 

[flyonthewall]

Fly -
more from the link you provided:

In addition to President Young’s powerful and persuasive teachings regarding the authority and leadership of the Twelve, with himself at their head, another event had a profound impact on the Saints. As President Young spoke to the congregation, the Lord manifested in a most miraculous manner that Brigham Young was indeed chosen to lead the Church at that time. Benjamin F. Johnson, a 26-year-old member of the Church who was present that day, later recalled that as President Young spoke, “I jumped upon my feet,** for in every possible degree it was Joseph’s voice, and his person, in look, attitude, dress and appearance was Joseph himself, personified; and I knew in a moment the spirit **and mantle of Joseph was upon him.” 5 Several others who were present bore similar testimonies, including a 17-year-old British convert, George Q. Cannon:

“If Joseph had risen from the dead and again spoken in their hearing, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many present at that meeting; it was the voice of Joseph himself; and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard, but it seemed in the eyes of the people as if it were the very person of Joseph which stood before them. A more wonderful and miraculous event than was wrought that day in the presence of that congregation we never heard of. The Lord gave his people a testimony that left no room for doubt as to who was the man chosen to lead them.” 6

Even before this special conference convened, most of the Saints had already accepted the leadership of the Twelve. Others who may have had unresolved questions undoubtedly were influenced by President Young’s powerful discourse and the miraculous transformation that demonstrated that Joseph’s prophetic mantle had fallen upon President Young. Because of that event and the Saints’ awareness of the special relationship between Joseph and the Twelve and the unique roles the Prophet assigned them during his later years, “the Saints soon began to see how things were,” Joseph Fielding reported. They also saw “that the 12 must now hold the Keys of Power and Authority according to the Revelation which says the 12 are equal with the First Presidency. … It was now no hard thing determining who should lead the Church.” 7

This is in direct opposition to what God commands of us. He says to go to Him and not the dead for answers. So why did the early Mormons do exactly that?

This is not in opposition to what God command as it was a manifestation from God.

Leviticus 19:31 - **Do not go to mediums **or consult fortune-tellers, for you will be defiled by them. I, the Lord, am your God.

Leviticus 20:6 - **Should anyone turn to mediums **and fortune-tellers and follow their wanton ways, I will turn against such a one and cut him off from his people.

Deut 18:10 Let there not be found among you anyne who immolates his son or daughter in the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner or caster of spells, **nor one ****who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead. Anyone who does **such things is an abomination to the Lord, and because of such abominations to Lord, your God, is driving these nations out of your way.

I Chronicles 10:13-14 Thus Saul died because of his rebellion against the Lord in disobeying his command, and also because he had sought counsel of a necromancer, and had not rather inquired of the Lord. Therefore, the Lord slew him, and transferred his kingdom to David, the son of Jesse.

You are reading into the occurance much more than is there. There was no “medium” involved, no divination, It was a sign from God directly on who the mantle of authority would be passed to.

 

[lax16]

There is no contradiction. Even a casual reading will let you know that the only decision in question is when to re-organize the First Presidency.

“Once the decision is made to reorganize, the new prophet is selected in a unanimous decision by the apostles.”

Please read again. There is a contradiction.

 

[lax16]

This is not in opposition to what God command as it was a manifestation from God.

Talking in circles.

You are reading into the occurance much more than is there. There was no “medium” involved, no divination, It was a sign from God directly on who the mantle of authority would be passed to.

So Joseph Smith’s voice coming out of Brigham Young’s mouth was not channeling?
What is channeling then?

Please give an example from scripture when God has passed on authority in this way.

Either way, a person looking like and speaking in the voice of a dead person is certainly not the Holy Spirit.

I noticed you haven’t responded to the “voting” that you said Mormons don’t do when selecting a prophet, but clearly do as the links you provided demonstrate.

How is the selection process of a person speaking/looking like a dead person and taking a vote on the new prophet like the original twelve apostles?

 

[lax16]

If Joseph had risen from the dead and again spoken in their hearing, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many present at that meeting; it was the voice of Joseph himself; and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard, **but it ****seemed in the eyes of the people as if it were the very person of Joseph which stood **before them. A more wonderful and miraculous event than was wrought that day in the presence of that congregation we never heard of. The Lord gave his people a testimony that left no room for doubt as to who was the man chosen to lead them.” 6

The definition is interesting and food for thought.

Definition: ChannelingBy Wikipedia.org

See all articles by Douglas Pak
Average: 0Your rating: None
Share |
The term “mediumship” denotes the ability of a person (the medium) to apparently experience contact with spirits of the dead, spirits of immaterial entities, angels, or demons. The medium generally attempts to facilitate communication between non-mediumistic people and spirits who may have messages to share.

A medium may appear to listen to and relate conversations with spirit voices; go into a trance and speak without knowledge of what is being said; allow a spirit to enter their body and speak through it; relay messages from the spirits those who wish to contact them with the help of a physical tool, such as a writing implement.

Mediumship is also part of the belief system of some New Age groups. In this context, and under the name channelling, it refers to a medium who receive messages from a “teaching-spirit”.

In some cultures, mediums (or the spirits working with them) are believed to be able to produce physical paranormal phenomena such as materialisations of spirits, apports of objects, or levitation.

There are two main techniques mediumship developed in the latter half of the 20th century. One type involves psychics or sensitives who can speak to spirits and then relay what they hear to their clients. One of the most noted channels of this type is clairvoyant Danielle Egnew, known for her communication with angelic entities.

The other incarnation of non-physical mediumship is a form of channeling in which the channeler goes into a trance, or “leaves their body” and then becomes “possessed” by a specific spirit, who then talks through them. In the trance, the medium enters a cataleptic state marked by extreme rigidity. The control spirit then takes over, the voice may change completely and the spirit answers the questions of those in its presence or giving spiritual knowledge. The most successful and widely known channeler of this variety is JZ Knight, who claims to channel the spirit of Ramtha, a 30 thousand year old man. Others claim to channel spirits from “future dimensional”, ascended masters or in the case of the trance mediums of the Brahma Kumaris, God himself.

 

[lax16]

Okay. To attempt to bring the thread back somewhat to the original topic…

After reading the provided links, it is interesting to note that there is not a clear involvement of the Holy Spirit when the LDS passed on the role of prophet from JS to BY.

Because the LDS believe the first apostles “didn’t do it right”, how did the LDS first apostles “do it right”?

I am sure most non-LDS posters feel that proof has not been provided proving the priesthood authority was taken from the earth, however, how about proof that the LDS are “doing it right”?

 

[Peter_John]

Okay. To attempt to bring the thread back somewhat to the original topic…

After reading the provided links, it is interesting to note that there is not a clear involvement of the Holy Spirit when the LDS passed on the role of prophet from JS to BY.

Perosnally I consider making such a judgment a bit above my spiritual pay grade. I find the account of the conference where the decision was made to differ little in general style, if not specific content, frome descriptions of many events in the lives of our own Saints. A Mormon would consider many of our accounts as unusual and non-representative of the actions of the Holy Spirit as we may perceive this.

As i think I have thoroughly expressed, I see no need to even be concerned with the details. Approving the general concept of succession of authority happening in this way validates some actions in Catholic history, and therefore indicates double standard if it is acceptable now but was not then.

Whether or not ti was the Holy Spirit God can judge, but it certainly seems unnecesary if authority contiued through similar trials in the past.

 

[pablope]

Fly -
more from the link you provided:

In addition to President Young’s powerful and persuasive teachings regarding the authority and leadership of the Twelve, with himself at their head, another event had a profound impact on the Saints. As President Young spoke to the congregation, the Lord manifested in a most miraculous manner that Brigham Young was indeed chosen to lead the Church at that time. Benjamin F. Johnson, a 26-year-old member of the Church who was present that day, later recalled that as President Young spoke, “I jumped upon my feet,** for in every possible degree it was Joseph’s voice, and his person, in look, attitude, dress and appearance was Joseph himself, personified; and I knew in a moment the spirit **and mantle of Joseph was upon him.” 5 Several others who were present bore similar testimonies, including a 17-year-old British convert, George Q. Cannon:

“If Joseph had risen from the dead and again spoken in their hearing, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many present at that meeting; it was the voice of Joseph himself; and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard, but it seemed in the eyes of the people as if it were the very person of Joseph which stood before them. A more wonderful and miraculous event than was wrought that day in the presence of that congregation we never heard of. The Lord gave his people a testimony that left no room for doubt as to who was the man chosen to lead them.” 6

I Chronicles 10:13-14 Thus Saul died because of his rebellion against the Lord in disobeying his command, and also because he had sought counsel of a necromancer, and had not rather inquired of the Lord. Therefore, the Lord slew him, and transferred his kingdom to David, the son of Jesse.

Yep…definitely looks like divination and the occult…very unusual and not biblical…IMHO.

 

[Peter_John]

Talking in circles.
So Joseph Smith’s voice coming out of Brigham Young’s mouth was not channeling?
What is channeling then?

It is actually referred to as the transfiguration of Brigham Young in some LDS writing, even some older lesson manuals. There is no indication that anyone “summoned” Joseph Smith’s spirit, and it would certainly contradict Mormonism to believe that Joseph Smtih’s spirit was involved at all. It is poresented as the perception of those there with no invocation or involvement of the dead at all. It does not qualify as dabbling with familiar spirits, because no spirits were involved. It was a perceptual experience for those affected.

We have to be fair. Is what this describes really so much stranger than stigmata, bilocation, or levitation? Is it all that stranger than Balaam’s talking donkey in the Old Testament, or the dry bones rising up in Ezekiel? I put my money on the last one as the strangest.

It is in fact not represented as a manifestation of Joseph Smith, but a sign that Brigham Young rightfully stood in his place. Our beliefs could just as easily be ridiculed, and have been – and there is no need. The entire account is all pointless if there was no Great Apostasy to begin with, and the reasoning that the methods described here are acceptble in Apostolic succession only reinforce Catholic claim to it when applied equally to our history, rendering the need for Mormonism’s professed restoration nil.

The Book of Mormon itself defines its own lack of necessity. It states that it will come forth at a time when it would be said, suggesting generally said, that miracles had been done away. Yet, at the time it came forth the majority of Christians in the world still believed in miracles, because Catholics never stopped believing in them. Joseph Smith just did not knoiw that, because he quickly dismissed Catholicism as silly before his prfessed first vision.

Most denominations around Palmyra, NY may have taught that visions and miracles were done away, but most Christians in the world still believed in them, so the Book of Mormon did not have to restore those either – just one more reason why no Restoration was necessary because nothing had been lost but unity(Protetantism). Mormonism has served to further fracture Christianity, not to restore communion.

 

[pablope]

Hi Fly - from mormon.org It seems to be full of contradictions that I have outlined in red.
There is no voting and yet the new prophet is selected in a unamimous decision?:hypno:

(edited for length)
What is the Difference Between the Pope and the Prophet?
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, while the prophet leads The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are sometimes called Mormons. There are both similarities and differences between the two positions.

One way in which the Catholics and Mormons differ is in how their highest leader is chosen. For the Mormons, there is no suspense, no voting, and no ceremony. While Catholics watch for smoke to let them know a choice has been made, Mormons already know who will lead them the moment the previous president dies. The process follows an established pattern and offers no surprises.

The first presidency is dissolved at the moment the president of the church dies, and the apostles are then officially leading the church as a body. At this moment, there are generally fourteen apostles, not twelve, since the two counselors are apostles as well, and they return to their place in the quorum. The highest ranking apostle, known as the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, leads the apostles. A meeting is held among the apostles, in which they discuss two options. One is to reorganize the First Presidency immediately. The other is to wait, and allow the apostles to continue leading for a time.

Once the decision is made to reorganize, the new prophet is selected in a unanimous decision by the apostles. The new prophet has always, from the beginnings of the church, been the longest serving apostle, which is why there is no surprise. Everyone knows who to expect, long before the need arises. The prophet chooses his new counselors and the First Presidency is organized and the apostle who has served the longest after the prophet is the new head of the Quorum of the Twelve. If that person was chosen as a counselor, the longest serving apostle not in the First presidency becomes the acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Later, the new prophet will select a new apostle to fill the vacancy in the Quorum.

From reading this, seems there is no need for the HS to manifest who the new leader is, as this implies it goes to the most senior or eldest…and who may not be the one chosen by the HS to lead, ergo, not necessarily the right person to be the leader.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello Parker - Please explain how the foundation of your God, the God of the OT, is not the same as the Jewish God?

Hi, Lax16,

I don’t use the term “foundation of belief in God”, but if I understand your question then the Jewish God (although occasionally viewed in the plural) would be generally understood to mean “Jehovah”, who is Jesus Christ, but the Jews as a people did not understand that Jehovah is Jesus Christ, as I have to assume you know. So my belief in God is definitely not the same as the Jewish belief in God, not only in this way but in many other ways from what I’ve read of their beliefs.

Everybody knows that Jesus’ message was going to be rejected by many. I have no idea how this proves that no part of the Church survived after being spread by the first apostles.

It doesn’t “prove” it. It was merely a prophecy about what was going to happen after the “stone which the builders rejected” had become the “head stone of the corner”. I have “seen the Lord’s doing”, and it is marvelous in my eyes–a marvelous work and a wonder, something hidden coming in a completely different way than the common mortal expectation.

So, even though all of the first apostles were Jewish and were successful converting Jews and Gentiles, it was the Jews that didn’t believe in Him that hijacked God’s plan for His Everlasting Church?

Yes and no–Jews “of the circumcision” who liked the message about the gospel of love but also liked some of their “old gospel” including circumcision as a token of a covenant, would have been a powerful voice within the fledgling church organization, because of their knowledge of the law and their belief in themselves as “experts”. That is quite evident in the passage in Titus, in other passages from Paul’s writings, in Peter’s epistles, and it was prophesied by Christ as I noted that the leadership role was going to be taken from the Jews.

So it was a group of Jews (Pharisees, it would seem) who had liked the message but who wanted to change some things in the church for it to be to their liking. It was not the same Jews who had brought about the crucifixion of the Savior, but it was nonetheless a group of Jews. (Note: Not the apostles, but other Jews who gained influence and exerted their influence toward making changes.)

Please be explicit - what ordinances were changed?

Baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the meaning of the communion ordinance, and the meaning of the “eternal marriage” ordinance and covenant.

Parker why would John’s vision have more importance than Jesus’ Promise?

As I’ve noted several times, Jesus’ promise as you read and understand it, means a totally different thing to me than it does to you. John’s vision saw the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in reality and totality. It is totally consistent to read Jesus’ promise and John’s vision and see that they tie closely together, particularly when also bringing into the picture the prophecy of Isaiah about the “nail in a sure place” (Isaiah 22:23) which is a clear prophecy about the atonement of Christ, and the key of the house of David upon Christ’s shoulder.

You too!

Thanks–it was a very nice day–beautiful weather, too.

 

[ParkerD]

You are reading way too much into this that is not justified by exegesis. It clearly reflects your belief in translation errors in the Bible, in an inability to fully comprehend it accurately without bringing in material from other sources.

Peter John,

I don’t consider that I do “exegesis”. I read a passage, figure out the context using cross references to other passages, and find that simple enough usually to arrive at a good basis for understanding a passage. I am OK with there having been translation inaccuracies–that doesn’t hamper an ability to cross reference and figure out the meaning.

The fact is that it is comprehensible in context with an accurate awareness of the historic circumstances under which it was written.

Yes, I’m fine with the context and historic situation.

Consider this: Your Book of Mormon teaches that after the records which became the Bible went forth to the Gentiles from the Jews many plain and precious parts were removed.

Yes–for example, Jacob 5 contains a wonderful allegory about the “tame and wild olive trees” that was written by Zenos, a prophet whose writings were on the brass plates of Laban and thus are in the Book of Mormon but not in the Bible and contained “plain and precious truths” in that allegory about the very subject of this thread.

…It is impossible to understand the fullness of the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament without the context of these books.

Around the end of the First Century the Jews in diaspora had a sort of a fundamentalist revival. They eliminated any books without original records in Hebrew from their accepted readings in the synagogues. When Martin Luther apostasized, he accepted the Jewish canon for the Old testament as it existed in his time, not in the time of Christ – therefore, after the Bible went forth to the Gentiles from the Jews, many plain and precious parts WERE removed, and this was the Bible Joseph Smith had to work with.

You cannot understand the whole Bible without them. You cannot fill in with conjecture where no conjecture is needed. The NT verses you cite make complete sense with less complicated explanations than the one you gave, arising from the valid historical, cultural, and scriptural context.

Joseph Smith read the Apocrypha, and found that it contained many truths but was not all true. I don’t think the writings you noted are necessary for understanding the Bible (KJV). Perhaps they can add some insights as one reads them, but I don’t consider them necessary study texts.

 

[ParkerD]

These are the Catholic perceptions you need to refute to make a case:

First-- the role of the apostles (and you don’t have 12 Apostles yourself, you have 15, and sometimes more – look at the video"Special Witnesses of Christ".) The Bible never specifies the Apostles as a permanent central body of leadership. Apostle means one who is sent forth. The requirement it gives is that it has to be someone who was with them and Jesus from the start – they would not last forever, and the early Church did not believe that they would have to. They expected Jesus to return soon. Only later did they begin writing about it taking longer.

Paul was accepted as an Apostle because he was personally called by Jesus Himself, not just by a strong testimony of the Holy Spirit. Being an Apostle required a literal personal encounter with Jesus. Judas was not replaced to fill a vacancy, but to fufill a prophecy. Note that in Acts the reason Peter gives for replacing Judas is not based in any personal or general revelation. It is not based in any instructions Jesus gave for how to organize the Church – he left that up to Peter. It is based in interpretation of existing scripture.

Hi, Peter John,

I totally disagree with most of your points except that an apostle is “one who is sent forth”–but they are “sent forth” with a very particular and specific mission to fulfill.

Apostles certainly were called as a “central body of leadership”–of course, that is apparent in both how they were called, how they were instructed, how Peter, James and John had special roles, and how they proceeded after the ascension in carrying on the work of leadership of the church.

Paul did not receive a title of “apostle” until well after his vision of Christ. Those were distinct events, not successive events.

As far as Peter’s words in describing how they chose Matthias, I have no problem with those words. The words of the Bible “live” for many who read the words (especially apostles), even to the extent of feeling that they are present watching the situation unfold–that is delightful and powerfully moving. Also, as one sees a person healed by Christ, even today, they know He lives and His healing power is just as real today as it was 2000 years ago. They can bear a powerful, living witness that He lives, that He loves unconditionally, that He brings forgiveness into the lives of people, and that He is the promised Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God, who atoned for our sins and was indeed resurrected and lives today.

As a Mormon the early church history is presented as something confusing and jumbled. The fact is there is quite a body of early Crhistian writing establishing early Church leaders as in communion with the Apostles in all their actions. take a close look at St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. There is a continual body of records from the 1st Century on. The historical evidence of continutiy and consistency in doctrine and ordination is irrefutable, beginning with people in communication with the remaining apostles late in the First Century.

I realize those kinds of writings are “irrefutable” for those who make them so. I find they contain discrepancies, and certainly do not prove what they are quoted as “proving”, at all.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to “Peter John”:

Consider why Apostolic succession through Bishops makes sense for the organization of the day. The Apostles were sent forth. They set up churches in areas, and then might never be able to come back again. It could take months for messages to get from one place to another – but of course they could anyplace more quickly from Rome. A worldwide centralized hierarchy was unrealistic, especially with so much emerging persecution.

The apostles traveled far and wide, for a purpose. They had a very special assignment which they understood and sought to carry out to the best of their abilities. I think they left a great legacy, including the legacy of following the Holy Spirit in what they did and how they did it, and including the legacy of teaching that disagreements and contention among leaders within local communities where the church was established were to be avoided and that “sound doctrine” was to be taught.

What mattered was the administration of the Eucharist (the Sacrament). This was the single most sacred thing Jesus left to pass on. The selection of Gospels emphasizes this. Every story of a miraculous meal in the Bible has some bearing on the validity of the Eucharist, as do many stories of other miracles. Jesus can change the nature of substance. he can multiply the quantity of substance. He is revealed in the breaking of the Bread.

I think that is a subject that would be a completely different thread topic. It is too sensitive a topic for this thread, or even for this forum as far as my opinion goes.

You have to prove that Apostolic succession of authority through the Bishops was not valid. You have to prove that Apsotles could be people who had not been with the disciples from the beginning of Jesus ministry, or been called by him absolutely literally in person, as with Paul.

No–what I do need and do have is the witness of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised to His followers. Jesus is absolutely alive, and provides an absolutely true witness through the Holy Spirit, just as Peter received, and as I noted above the Biblical record can bring a person to a “living reality” of the experience if they allow themselves to be brought into that reality–a spiritual reality that is vivid and joyful.

(and note that your first Council of the Twelve was called by Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery, four people each). You have to prove that the Apostles was intended as a permanent governing body for the Church.

There is not one inkling of a passage of Biblical scripture that implies or says they weren’t to be a “permanent governing body for the Church.”

You have to prove that the Eucharist was intended to be symbolic.

John 6 was not about the Eucharist, but I realize Catholics disagree and I have spent time on that topic long ago but it is too sensitive a topic.

You have to prove that Jesus WOULD take the authority away – and that will be the tough one.

I really don’t think it’s tough at all. I’ve already explained why it makes complete sense to me that He would, to allow for real free will choice in choosing religions rather than having an obligated choice or a forced choice or a tradition-based choice or a monopoly position choice.

So the first thing you may want to look at is finding a date when you can affirm the apostasy was complete. What date would you suggest? When did it happen?

If you tell me what date it was established by the “church” that there was a “bishop” in Rome (not Peter, who was never a bishop) who had more authority and a singular leadership role in the church than John had, then I’ll tell you when the apostasy was complete, because that would be the same date. That would mean the group taking over the leadership role of the “church” had brought about a “complete apostasy” by differing from the established line of authority of John as established by Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you tell me what date it was established by the “church” that there was a “bishop” in Rome (not Peter, who was never a bishop)

ParkerD…

A complete twist of reality. Peter was not Bishop because he was an Apostle . Petrine authority went with Peter. When he was in Jerusalem he was an Apostle and he had Petrine authority. When he was in Antioch he was an Apostle and he had Petrine authority. When he was in Rome he remained an Apostle and he retained Petrine authority. He wasn’t Bishop of Rome, because he was “more” than a bishop. Just as the Bishop contains the fullness of the priesthood and is even more, the Apostles posessed the fullness of being Bishop “And then some”. A bishop is a successor to an Apostle. The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. The Pope holds the ‘See’ that Peter established.

Peter was the first of the Apostles where-ever he went. Being an Apostle presumes the function of the preisthood and the authority of the bishop. He was “Apostle” while in Rome and that included and surpassed the function of a Bishop.