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

[Peter_John]

Not until they have read the Bible (King James Version preferred as far as I’m concerned), at least three times, cover to cover. And not until they really want to know what Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 12 and 14 are talking about.

Isaiah 29 is about the state of mind of the covenant people in the face of the Assyrian conquest, compares their incredulity of salvation in that to their incredulity of his plan of redemption, and how miraculous that is.

Ezekiel 37 is simply a prophesy of reuniting the divided kingdoms of Israel.

Any verses of these two chapters can only be otherwise interpreted by taking them out of context.

Revelation 12 - 14, Catholics love for people to understand what they really mean, John is telling the people that the persecutions of Nero (and perhaps referring to others later, also brought on by the emperor of Rome) will not destroy the Church in its mission to bring Christ to the world, and that the blood of the vast numbers of martyrs will stand as witness against Rome, and that ultimately Rome will be given over to Christ: Christianity will conquer in the end.

There is no Apostasy. I note that you would prefer people to understand these chapters out of context than ion context.

 

[Peter_John]

You just described indoctrination. Knowledge requires facts and reason. Indoctrination requires emotion and claims of personal authority.

Pretty much. ParkerD does not seem interested in addressing arguments or questions he does not like. He dismisses conversation as sufficient, ignores the substantive questions, and falls back on his claims of what people really need to know instead.

 

[Peter_John]

I’ve read some transliterations of verses, and do find the King James is good, and the Douay Rheims often is close to the KJV.

BYU had a symposium on the King James Translation recently. It is not as though I’m a lone sheep in the wilderness. The King James Translation is accepted in the world at large.

And most of these editions also disregard the King James Translation of the deuterocanonical books. They were translated too, but rarely get published. Even in the translation of them the King James translators segregated them from the others, instead of including them in integral context with the rest of the Bible, which is how you said they should be studied.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

How quickly we can all seem to forget that only God is expected to be and is perfect. He can use imperfect people to do His perfect work, and does that very thing.

Parker - I couldn’t agree more. So then how come you don’t say the same for the early Church?!

Why do you claim there was an apostasy? Couldn’t God use imperfect people to do His perfect work back in the very beginning of His Church?

You are using a double standard when defending the LDS and their imperfections to the early Christians and their imperfections.

Based on this post, you cannot seriously believe that the early Christians should be held accountable for their imperfections.

 

[menofstjoseph]

Correct–salvation being to live with Christ in the glorified kingdom they have desired and lived for.

Christ wants people to accept His atoning grace to be changed and sanctified every whit and learn to desire what God desires, to be able to live in the presence of the Father, which is exaltation.
care!

Parker,
I absolutely agree with Bendedict. You do better job of presenting the Gospel than most Protestants I know.

I so wish you would explore the teachings of the Catholic Church and her history. Any Catholic worth their salt (or light) would be in absolute agreement with your above statement. I can’t think of any father of the Church, any bishop or pope that would oppose what you said.

Come on. Go to a couple of masses and do some more investigating. Trr it you like it!

 

[Peter_John]

Parker,
I absolutely agree with Bendedict. You do better job of presenting the Gospel than most Protestants I know.

I so wish you would explore the teachings of the Catholic Church and her history. Any Catholic worth their salt (or light) would be in absolute agreement with your above statement. I can’t think of any father of the Church, any bishop or pope that would oppose what you said.

Come on. Go to a couple of masses and do some more investigating. Trr it you like it!

Except that a Mormon perspective means very different things when it says, “Christ wants people to accept His atoning grace to be changed and sanctified every whit and learn to desire what God desires, to be able to live in the presence of the Father, which is exaltation.” Particularly the use of the wrod “exaltation” refers to the LDS version of the plan of salvation. When PrkerD makes the statement what he means is that God wants everyon eot accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and …

You know we’ve been over this before. What evidecne is there of the authority to act in the name of Christ having been removed from the Earth. Our witnesses that it was not include: 1) The continuity of communion among the early Church leaders, documents and traceable back to the Apostles. 2) The Apostolic succession concurrent with this. 3) The witness of the martyrs. 4) The continued Revelation to the Bishops, whcih led to the compilation of the Bible, and the numerus councils through History clarifying itnerpretation of doctrine. )5) The miracles among all the Saints up to ans since the time a book was published that affirmed it would only come out when it would be said that miracles were done away – which has not happened. The majority of Christians have always been Catholics, and Catholics never stopped believing in miracles.

You have provided no refutation for these things. You have even stated that the persecution of early Christian martyrs do not matter, among other things.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - I couldn’t agree more. So then how come you don’t say the same for the early Church?!

Why do you claim there was an apostasy? Couldn’t God use imperfect people to do His perfect work back in the very beginning of His Church?

You are using a double standard when defending the LDS and their imperfections to the early Christians and their imperfections.

Based on this post, you cannot seriously believe that the early Christians should be held accountable for their imperfections.

Lax16,

He certainly could, and did. The ones who I think “should be held accountable” were any called leader who subverted the leadership of the apostles (which was happening even during the time of Paul), or any other person who attempted to gain a leadership role but had no calling to lead (which was also happening during the time of Paul and of Peter and of John, as is shown in their epistles and in the book of Revelation). The followers should not “be held accountable”, and I don’t think they will be, and will receive all the glory they merited from their sincere beliefs and sincere repentance through Christ’s grace.

I understand why it looks like I am talking about a “double standard”. What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”. A person can be a Catholic and believe in it simply because of those two elements within their rationale for believing. (Sure, they also like the teachings and all the traditions. So they are living by what they like.) As far as I’m concerned, the “Great Apostasy” was allowed to happen, despite there being good people alive when the loss of authority occurred through persuasive “leader-types”, to transition from that rationale to the true Biblical basis for believing, which is to have a personal, two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, so that He can lead and guide toward making personal changes just as He promised He would. That is what leads to sanctification.

 

[KathleenGee]

You cannot wipe off the face of Christianity and then say 1800 years later that yours is true Christianity. There must be a different construct at work in the intent of Scripture and theology…

As people elucidated…doing so then the Mormon must go backwards in redefining everything in their understanding of progression…going backwards to go forward…and denying generations of believers whose life in the Cross is the one, ongoing reality.

Enduring in true faith is not easy, but very difficult because it revolves around not our way or desire of looking at things, but a daily dying to self.

Same words but different meanings.

 

[Peter_John]

What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”.

How does the Great Apostasy achieve God’s purposes when he declared his intent that the Gates of Hell not prevail against the Church Peter would establish?

How do the early Christian leaders constitute traditional authority? Seems like suffered at hte hand of traditional authority.

A person can be a Catholic and believe in it simply because of those two elements within their rationale for believing. (Sure, they also like the teachings and all the traditions. So they are living by what they like.) As far as I’m concerned, the “Great Apostasy” was allowed to happen, despite there being good people alive when the loss of authority occurred through persuasive “leader-types”, to transition from that rationale to the true Biblical basis for believing, which is to have a personal, two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, so that He can lead and guide toward making personal changes just as He promised He would. That is what leads to sanctification.

What you cite as the true Biblical basis for believing dismisses seven books of the Bible as immaterial, takes four chapters out of context and sets them above all others, so do not tell those of us who read and accept the whole thing about the true Biblical basis, un ;ess you tell us what we are missing – and can back it up.

Meanwhile, when was the authority lost?

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

He certainly could, and did. The ones who I think “should be held accountable” were any called leader who subverted the leadership of the apostles (which was happening even during the time of Paul), or any other person who attempted to gain a leadership role but had no calling to lead (which was also happening during the time of Paul and of Peter and of John, as is shown in their epistles and in the book of Revelation). The followers should not “be held accountable”, and I don’t think they will be, and will receive all the glory they merited from their sincere beliefs and sincere repentance through Christ’s grace.

Hi Parker - Please cite the names of the called leaders who subverted the leadership of the apostles.
Also, who were the person/s who attempted to gain a leadership role but no calling to lead?
Are you saying that THERE WAS NOT ONE PERSON ALIVE who was called to lead after the apostles all died? Please show me in the bible where this is spelled out.

I understand why it looks like I am talking about a “double standard”. What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”. A person can be a Catholic and believe in it simply because of those two elements within their rationale for believing. (Sure, they also like the teachings and all the traditions. So they are living by what they like.) As far as I’m concerned, the “Great Apostasy” was allowed to happen, despite there being good people alive when the loss of authority occurred through persuasive “leader-types”, to transition from that rationale to the true Biblical basis for believing, which is to have a personal, two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, so that He can lead and guide toward making personal changes just as He promised He would. That is what leads to sanctification.

The only reason you would want to believe in the Great Apostasy theory is because it would be necessary for Joseph Smith to be a prophet and therefore for Mormonism to exist.
I have read what you have said, and frankly, it makes my head hurt. No offense, but Mormons talk in circles using lots of fluff, and yet cannot back anything up with any substantial evidence.
The Great Apostasy did not happen, the priesthood authority never left, the Holy Spirit has never left…it is clear that LDS cannot back it up with anything but lots of fluffy words.

 

[SteveVH]

Parker, with the flood of posts since yesterday, I think my response to your post below got set aside. I would really like an answer if you don’t mind. Below is your post and part of my response:

SteveVH,
On the contrary, I have the kind of relationship with God that I have been describing, and it is not “acquired” from a church or an upbringing. It is obtained by going through the steps Christ taught, and it becomes one to one with “communing with God” being what gives this vitality and delightful trust, joy and gratitude.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
So the teachings found in Mormon documents have had no bearing on your beliefs? You formulated your ideas of eternal marriage, exaltation, etc. all on your own?

Thank you.

 

[Stephen168]

I understand why it looks like I am talking about a “double standard”. What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”. .

Christ taught the Apostles the truth. He established his Church on earth to teach the truth for all eternity. One has ‘free will’ to accept the truth or reject it. To suggest that God wants to expand free will has absolutely nothing to do with what is true. To suggest that he would stop teaching that 2+2=4, so more people would be free to reject it while the same time wanting us to know the truth is irrational; like Mormon theology.

Of course since the start of Mormonism people have been throw out because they disagree with Mormon leadership. Five of the first 12 Mormon Apostles were throw out of the Church; some free will. There is also the September Six and Simon Southerton. The Mormon Church teaches 2+2=5 and will excommunicate anyone who thinks otherwise. The Mormon Church has NO FREE WILL, reason, history, science… Not a double standard, just hypocrisy.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - Please cite the names of the called leaders who subverted the leadership of the apostles.

Diotrephes was one. (3 John 1:9) Whoever wrote letters not acknowledging John’s leadership on earth as the lead apostle after Peter had died, were others.

Also, who were the person/s who attempted to gain a leadership role but no calling to lead?

Alexander the coppersmith was one. (See 2 Timothy 4:3, 4, 14-16.)

Are you saying that THERE WAS NOT ONE PERSON ALIVE who was called to lead after the apostles all died?

The keys of apostleship was only for the apostles to have, so when they were gone, those keys were gone.

Please show me in the Bible where this is spelled out.

Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Ephesians 4:11-15.

The only reason you would want to believe in the Great Apostasy theory is because it would be necessary for Joseph Smith to be a prophet and therefore for Mormonism to exist.

The idea of prophets is not foreign to the Bible, so I can certainly accept that there would be prophets before the Second Coming of Christ to the earth. The Bible says there would be.

I have read what you have said, and frankly, it makes my head hurt. No offense, but Mormons talk in circles using lots of fluff, and yet cannot back anything up with any substantial evidence.

Which is exactly what I had said made sense to me. It leaves all of this deciding to the individual, through prayer–exactly as it should be, so that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, can really and truly lead the person without having “tradition” or “ancient authority” get in the way.

The Great Apostasy did not happen, the priesthood authority never left, the Holy Spirit has never left…it is clear that LDS cannot back it up with anything but lots of fluffy words.

Yes, I understand that the idea of individual personal revelation is “lots of fluffy words” to many people, which is why I have been trying to make the point that there is more to the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the Good Shepherd than “lots of fluffy words”.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, with the flood of posts since yesterday, I think my response to your post below got set aside. I would really like an answer if you don’t mind. Below is your post and part of my response:

Thank you.

SteveVH,

I’m grateful to have received the teachings as a youth that helped me understand what was to be expected if I were to gain “personal revelation” in my life. Then, I had to go through the steps to experience that on my own. This happened finally in 1973, after years of not understanding the guiding “burning in your heart” of the Holy Ghost bearing witness to truth. Even then, I needed to learn to distinguish between my own “wish” for things to be His guidance (such as whom to date), and real personal revelation. So I learned as I went along in life, and have gotten better at distinguishing the difference.

From both study of the Bible and from experience and prayer, I have first person witness experience about eternal marriage, about the Book of Mormon being true, and about both the need for prophets and apostles and the fact that they do exist and have been called by revelation through the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I also have first person witness experience about making changes in life that have helped me be a better person within my family, at my workplace, and in other relationships. So I know the guidance of the Good Shepherd in my life because He has helped me change my life, and that has been a blessing to me and my family (my wife especially, bless her for her patience . So the point is that I don’t need to rely on my upbringing–I have exactly the same kind of witness about those things and about Christ as the Good Shepherd that Peter had when he was told that his Father in Heaven had revealed to him that Jesus was the Promised Messiah, the Anointed One–the living Christ.

A wish again of peace to you and your loved ones.

 

[SteveVH]

I understand why it looks like I am talking about a “double standard”. What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”.

I am trying to imagine a loving, compasssionate God letting His children twist in the wind for 1800 years so that they would believe by trial and error rather than believing in the Tradition handed down through the Church He, Himself established and which might be taught by one’s parents. Were you not taught by your parents, who led you by your hand to the local ward? This post is very much related to my other post above. You claim to have received your faith directly from God without any influence of the church you attend.

The home is the domestic Church and all parents are obligated to hand the faith on to their children. I don’t know if you have children or not, but if you do, have you not taught them anything of the Mormon faith?

A person can be a Catholic and believe in it simply because of those two elements within their rationale for believing. (Sure, they also like the teachings and all the traditions. So they are living by what they like.)

And this cannot apply to Mormonism as well?

As far as I’m concerned, the “Great Apostasy” was allowed to happen, despite there being good people alive when the loss of authority occurred through persuasive “leader-types”, to transition from that rationale to the true Biblical basis for believing, which is to have a personal, two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, so that He can lead and guide toward making personal changes just as He promised He would. That is what leads to sanctification.

You sound as though you believe having a personal relationship with the “Good Shepherd” (your new favorite term) is exclusive to Mormonism and foreign to the rest of us. Do you really believe that?

 

[Peter_John]

(3 John 1:9) Whoever wrote letters not acknowledging John’s leadership on earth as the lead apostle after Peter had died, were others.
(See 2 Timothy 4:3, 4, 14-16.)
The keys of apostleship was only for the apostles to have, so when they were gone, those keys were gone.

That remains to be seen from these references. None of these affirm that people should be submitting to John’s authority.

The references with which you follow this are out of context, and the first actually says that Peter, not the 12 has the keys I present the refeerences you quoted, adding thje full context:

MATTHEW 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and bloodhas not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. [14](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot14)Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This reference actually leaves all authority with Peter, not with the body of the Apostles. Jesus tosses Peter the keys and says, “Do what you want. I trust you. nothing will stop you.”
This supports the position that there was no Great Apostasy.​

Matthew 18:15-20
15 “If your brother [1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot12) sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
This references seems less to involve the apostles than a promise of how solidly God will answer anyone’s prayers, a reference therefore supporting the common priesthood of the faithful.​

Ephesians 4: 8-16
8 Therefore, it says: “He ascended on high and took prisoners captive; he gave gifts to men.”
9 What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended into the lower (regions) of the earth?
10 The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, [6](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot6) to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, [7](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot7)
16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.
Nothing in this affirms that the Apostles were attended to be permanent positions, and the criteria to be a literal apostle defined in Acts suggests that it would have to end, as Apostle had to be someone who had been with them with Christ. Paul was an exception, and He does not seem, from the Bible, to have been designated by an organizational hierarchy, but by a personal manifestation of the resurrected Christ to him, not just a witness of the Holy Ghost. Only some were apostles. This also does not seem to be a caalog of Church positioons, as it does not discussdeacons or bishops. It clearly discusses roles, and discusses many other people with authoritative roles. It never limitsthe authority to call other leaders to the Apostles, it just says that Christ called some as Apostles, and some for other roles, and individual roles are for mutual edification.​

 

[Peter_John]

(3 John 1:9) Whoever wrote letters not acknowledging John’s leadership on earth as the lead apostle after Peter had died, were others.

(See 2 Timothy 4:3, 4, 14-16.)
The keys of apostleship was only for the apostles to have, so when they were gone, those keys were gone.

That remains to be seen from these references. None of these affirm that people should be submitting to John’s authority.

The references with which you follow this are out of context, and the first actually says that Peter, not the 12 has the keys I present the refeerences you quoted, adding thje full context:

MATTHEW 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and bloodhas not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. [14](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot14)Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This reference actually leaves all authority with Peter, not with the body of the Apostles. Jesus tosses Peter the keys and says, “Do what you want. I trust you. nothing will stop you.”
This supports the position that there was no Great Apostasy.​

Matthew 18:15-20
15 “If your brother [1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot12) sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
This references seems less to involve the apostles than a promise of how solidly God will answer anyone’s prayers, a reference therefore supporting the common priesthood of the faithful.​

Ephesians 4: 8-16
8 Therefore, it says: “He ascended on high and took prisoners captive; he gave gifts to men.”
9 What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended into the lower (regions) of the earth?
10 The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, [6](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot6) to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, [7](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l foot7)
16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.
Nothing in this affirms that the Apostles were attended to be permanent positions, and the criteria to be a literal apostle defined in Acts suggests that it would have to end, as Apostle had to be someone who had been with them with Christ. Paul was an exception, and He does not seem, from the Bible, to have been designated by an organizational hierarchy, but by a personal manifestation of the resurrected Christ to him, not just a witness of the Holy Ghost. Only some were apostles. This also does not seem to be a caalog of Church positioons, as it does not discussdeacons or bishops. It clearly discusses roles, and discusses many other people with authoritative roles. It never limitsthe authority to call other leaders to the Apostles, it just says that Christ called some as Apostles, and some for other roles, and individual roles are for mutual edification.​

 

[Peter_John]

The idea of prophets is not foreign to the Bible, so I can certainly accept that there would be prophets before the Second Coming of Christ to the earth. The Bible says there would be.

Catholicism believes in prophets. we do not believe that any new revelation will undo anything existing. The most complete revelation of God was in Jesus Christ himself. All Dogma already have basis in scripture and tradition.

Which is exactly what I had said made sense to me. It leaves all of this deciding to the individual, through prayer–exactly as it should be, so that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, can really and truly lead the person without having “tradition” or “ancient authority” get in the way.

Except the ancient authority that Christ replaced was that of the Hebrews, and the Apostles warned of anything new to come along afterward. Nothing in the traditions that followed the Apostles in the History of Christianity rules otu the importance of learning the truth persoanlly and developing a personal relationship with CHrist through prayer.

You do not believe us when we say this, because you believe what your Church has told you about us. You do not want to believe that your church would lie to you about this, but I testify to you that intentionally or unintentionally they do. Your representations of how they have shifted the way they represent teachings about the Adversary already shows how free your leaders play with the truth as it seems expedient.

Joseph Smith never really investigated Catholicism, so never had any arguments against it based on valid observations or research.

Yes, I understand that the idea of individual personal revelation is “lots of fluffy words” to many people, which is why I have been trying to make the point that there is more to the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the Good Shepherd than “lots of fluffy words”.

The most important thing about the Good Shepherd is that He will not abandon His sheep.

Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me;
my LORD has forgotten me.”
Can a mother forget her infant,
be without tenderness for the child of her womb?
Even should she forget,
I will never forget you.

 

[Peter_John]

Lax16,

He certainly could, and did. The ones who I think “should be held accountable” were any called leader who subverted the leadership of the apostles (which was happening even during the time of Paul), or any other person who attempted to gain a leadership role but had no calling to lead (which was also happening during the time of Paul and of Peter and of John, as is shown in their epistles and in the book of Revelation). The followers should not “be held accountable”, and I don’t think they will be, and will receive all the glory they merited from their sincere beliefs and sincere repentance through Christ’s grace.

I understand why it looks like I am talking about a “double standard”. What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”. A person can be a Catholic and believe in it simply because of those two elements within their rationale for believing. (Sure, they also like the teachings and all the traditions. So they are living by what they like.) As far as I’m concerned, the “Great Apostasy” was allowed to happen, despite there being good people alive when the loss of authority occurred through persuasive “leader-types”, to transition from that rationale to the true Biblical basis for believing, which is to have a personal, two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, so that He can lead and guide toward making personal changes just as He promised He would. That is what leads to sanctification.

teaching that when your leaders are sinful God does not take it out on the whole Church, but holds the individuals accountable, but that when the leaders of the early Christian Church were sinful God took it out on the whole Church is a double standard.

Jesus does not have a Double Standard.

So which is it? When Paul H. Dunn was established as having been lying in his discourses for the piror three decades, was his authority during that time still considered valid? Were his general conference addresses in that time still considered record of official discourses, or were they purged from the records? Were the people he ordained into leadership positions still considered leaders? Were all the baptisms of all the missionaries he had led considered invalid baptisms?

If you do not allow the same standard applied to him to apply to St. Ignatius of Antioch, or any of the Christian Martyrs, you apply a double standard. By applying the standard evenly you rule out any possibility of an apostasy, even as it is formal doctrine of your Church that it is impossible for an Apostasy to happen now.

By affirming the early Christian leaders had no auhtority, you mock their sacrifice – which is s serious thing to mock true Christian martyrs. "Fools mock, but they shall mourn (somewhere in the Book of Ether, about the time the Brother of Jared learns God does not have a body, but will take one on in mortality)

1 Cor 4:1-5
Brothers and sisters:
Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ
and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Now it is of course required of stewards
that they be found trustworthy.
It does not concern me in the least
that I be judged by you or any human tribunal;
I do not even pass judgment on myself;
I am not conscious of anything against me,
but I do not thereby stand acquitted;
the one who judges me is the Lord.
Therefore do not make any judgment before the appointed time,
until the Lord comes,
for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness
and will manifest the motives of our hearts,
and then everyone will receive praise from God.

 

[SteveVH]

teaching that when your leaders are sinful God does not take it out on the whole Church, but holds the individuals accountable, but that when the leaders of the early Christian Church were sinful God took it out on the whole Church is a double standard.

Jesus does not have a Double Standard.

So which is it? When Paul H. Dunn was established as having been lying in his discourses for the piror three decades, was his authority during that time still considered valid? Were his general conference addresses in that time still considered record of official discourses, or were they purged from the records? Were the people he ordained into leadership positions still considered leaders? Were all the baptisms of all the missionaries he had led considered invalid baptisms?

If you do not allow the same standard applied to him to apply to St. Ignatius of Antioch, or any of the Christian Martyrs, you apply a double standard. By applying the standard evenly you rule out any possibility of an apostasy, even as it is formal doctrine of your Church that it is impossible for an Apostasy to happen now.

By affirming the early Christian leaders had no auhtority, you mock their sacrifice – which is s serious thing to mock true Christian martyrs. "Fools mock, but they shall mourn (somewhere in the Book of Ether, about the time the Brother of Jared learns God does not have a body, but will take one on in mortality)

1 Cor 4:1-5
Brothers and sisters:
Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ
and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Now it is of course required of stewards
that they be found trustworthy.
It does not concern me in the least
that I be judged by you or any human tribunal;
I do not even pass judgment on myself;
I am not conscious of anything against me,
but I do not thereby stand acquitted;
the one who judges me is the Lord.
Therefore do not make any judgment before the appointed time,
until the Lord comes,
for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness
and will manifest the motives of our hearts,
and then everyone will receive praise from God.

Well said Peter John. I personally know a Mormon Bishop (or prior bishop) through my business dealings. This guy is basically a crook and everyone in my industry knows it. I also know Catholics who I might place in the same category. To condemn a Church for the individual acts of its members, even its leaders, is simply unfair and unreasonable. I don’t know a priest or a bishop in my Church who does not have his personal faults, nor do I believe there is a Mormon on the face of the earth that is free from sin and personal weakness. My former priest (now deceased) explained the Catholic Church as a divine institution made up of sinners. It is Christ that makes our Church holy and His Spirit which sanctifies us. That is why there can be no total apostasy. It is Christ’s Church, a divine institution, not a human institution who’s success or failure is dependant upon the works and actions of men.