LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[ParkerD]

Hi, Paul,
It’s fine with me for you to have chimed in with your perspective here. Every seed planted will not grow and produce fruit, according to Christ’s parable of the sower. Every “falling away” from pure truths to something more acceptable to people looking for acceptability, provides a wider range of choices, and God and Christ would desire choices to be amply available (not that they put them here on earth, but they have allowed them to happen), not a forced “way”. The choice of being a follower of Christ, to whatever degree one chooses, is made by each individual on the terms they choose for themselves.

 

[Xavierlives]

I think that mormons would claim that the rock is metaphor for revelation.

How is a rock a metaphor for revelation?

 

[ParkerD]

How is a rock a metaphor for revelation?

Xavierlives,
The more complete phrase would be “the rock of the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One.” Rock has a double meaning in that context–Christ is the rock, the foundation stone or chief corner stone which the builders had disallowed, as Peter affirmed in 1 Peter 2:6-8. The rock upon which He would build His church was that precious corner stone that Isaiah had foreseen. (Isaiah 28:16)

The way Christ remains the precious corner stone of the church He founded, is by revelation, and that is what He was teaching to Peter and the other apostles. He would always be the foundation stone, the chief corner stone, and would be the stone the builders (the Jewish nation) had rejected. In order for that chief corner stone to remain in place, the church would absolutely need revelation, and without revelation there would be no true church.

One can refer also to Matthew 7:24-25. The wise man who builds his house upon a rock has complete willingness and action in doing “the will of my Father which is in heaven.” How does the wise man know what the will of the Father is? By studying the Bible to learn the Father’s will, but also by revelation from the Holy Spirit since that is what the Bible teaches that one needs to do.

 

[TheosisM]

There is no scriptural evidence for a Great Apostasy. What we do see in the Bible is that there will be apostasies from the Church, and indeed there have been. From what I understand, the Mormon Great Apostasy posits that there was a loss of priesthood authority on earth. This specific idea is also not found in Scripture.

The issue of St. John still being on earth is not an issue at all. Catholics believe that St. Peter had primacy, given to him by Jesus Christ. We also believe that his successors would also have primacy as well. It is irrelevant whether this person was/is called “Pope” (there is no “position of Pope”, and the Coptic Orthodox patriarch (among others) is also called a “Pope”). Therefore, after St. Peter died, his successor assumed primacy. As an apostle, St. John still had authority, and still continued his unique role. However the primacy was only in St. Peter and his successors. The primacy of the Patriarchate of Rome stems from St. Peter, as well as its role in early Christian history.

ParkerD states-"There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates John would not be the designated leader of the church when he was the last living apostle.". More correctly, there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that John would be the designated leader of the church when he was the last living apostle. See above.

Catholics believe that Peter is a rock (look at his name as well), however he is obviously not the only rock, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. The head of the Church is Jesus Christ, the Church is the body of Christ, and Peter and his successors are the earthly/temporal heads of the Church (primacy).

Many churches have posited a Great Apostasy, and it seems as if they all read their beliefs into the ancient Church to say that these “truths” were lost and had to be restored. In a number of cases, there is also an appeal to gnostic gospels, as well as the ECFs (out of context in many cases) to show proof of their claims. What is clear is that there is no Biblical basis for a Great Apostasy, a removal of priesthood authority from the Church, among other issues. It would be interesting for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to participate in this discussion and give their perspective on these issues (since these threads, whether on this forum or others, are usually presented as an either/or scenario between Catholics and Mormons).

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
Peace to you also.

Your assumption that you understand perfectly the words Jesus gave in those instances, is not necessarily a valid assumption but is a crucial assumption.

“The gates of hell shall not prevail” is absolutely a true statement, because Jesus is going to hold the keys to the gates of hell (see Revelation 1:18) and therefore He is going to open those gates. The devil will lose any influence over all the spirits who went to the condition described as “hell” because they rejected Christ on earth. Those spirits get rescued from spirit prison by Christ as He promised when He quoted Isaiah 61:1 in the synagogue early in His ministry.

Christ is with the righteous always, and with the entire world always. He is with the righteous by virtue of His love and guidance influencing them and by the light of Christ influencing them, and He is with the entire world by the fact that He is the Light of the world and His words as preserved in the Bible live on in the world as they are read and followed. I think we all feel He is “with us”. I think He is “with us” as we seek to be “with Him” in the way we follow His example and live our lives.

Again, peace to you and all and I hope we can all follow His example.

Thank you for you explanation. But I think you misunderstand Jesus’ words. The words
He spoke pertain only to His Church. He promised that as hard as Satan and his horde try to destroy the Church they will never suceede because He will be always there to protect it. Also the Holy Spirit will always be there to guide His Church to keep it from
falling into error. This is all true because for 2000 years the Church has been attacked from without and from within, and yet it has remained true in the teachings and tradition
given it by Jesus and the Apostles. Many have tried to prove otherwise and all have failed.

And yes, we should all follow His teachings and live in peace with one another. But,
because of man’s greed and lust for power and control ( as spurred on by Satan ), this
will be a difficult thing to obtain. Remember, God gave man free will. In my estimation
man has mis-used it. Peace to you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

There is no scriptural evidence for a Great Apostasy. What we do see in the Bible is that there will be apostasies from the Church, and indeed there have been. From what I understand, the Mormon Great Apostasy posits that there was a loss of priesthood authority on earth. This specific idea is also not found in Scripture.

The issue of St. John still being on earth is not an issue at all. Catholics believe that St. Peter had primacy, given to him by Jesus Christ. We also believe that his successors would also have primacy as well. It is irrelevant whether this person was/is called “Pope” (there is no “position of Pope”, and the Coptic Orthodox patriarch (among others) is also called a “Pope”). Therefore, after St. Peter died, his successor assumed primacy. As an apostle, St. John still had authority, and still continued his unique role. However the primacy was only in St. Peter and his successors. The primacy of the Patriarchate of Rome stems from St. Peter, as well as its role in early Christian history.

ParkerD states-"There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates John would not be the designated leader of the church when he was the last living apostle.". More correctly, there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that John would be the designated leader of the church when he was the last living apostle. See above.

Catholics believe that Peter is a rock (look at his name as well), however he is obviously not the only rock, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. The head of the Church is Jesus Christ, the Church is the body of Christ, and Peter and his successors are the earthly/temporal heads of the Church (primacy).

Many churches have posited a Great Apostasy, and it seems as if they all read their beliefs into the ancient Church to say that these “truths” were lost and had to be restored. In a number of cases, there is also an appeal to gnostic gospels, as well as the ECFs (out of context in many cases) to show proof of their claims. What is clear is that there is no Biblical basis for a Great Apostasy, a removal of priesthood authority from the Church, among other issues. It would be interesting for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to participate in this discussion and give their perspective on these issues (since these threads, whether on this forum or others, are usually presented as an either/or scenario between Catholics and Mormons).

TheosisM,
If it were to have been “upon the rock of Peter’s primacy” that Christ was to have built His church, then Peter would certainly have made that perfectly clear when he wrote about the Rock in his epistle in 1 Peter 2:6-8. He also would have made that perfectly clear to the other apostles so that when he was killed or died, they would understand that their authority and the keys they had been given by Christ were going to mean nothing as compared with whoever would step forward and say that wherever Peter was when he died was the place where the leading bishop could claim to be the “Patriarchate” of the whole church.

Why in the world would John receive the vision he received on the isle of Patmos if someone else was the leader of the church who had the primary responsibility as “Patriarchate” to receive (1) revelation for the church, and (2) guidance from the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the church? Why would God do that? Why would God not give that vision to that “Patriarchate” leader who supposedly held the keys of authority to speak for God on earth?

Why would John’s vision see that another angel was going to fly from heaven with the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth, if the everlasting gospel in all its purity and power was already going to be on the earth?

And where has such an angel appeared, in your theological world view?

Of course the people of Rome would make their case for their leader to lead the whole church, and their leader would make his case. That is how the world does things. It doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it true.

Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome. That was never his designation. He was the first apostle, and all the apostles received keys of apostleship.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for you explanation. But I think you misunderstand Jesus’ words. The words
He spoke pertain only to His Church. He promised that as hard as Satan and his horde try to destroy the Church they will never suceede because He will be always there to protect it. Also the Holy Spirit will always be there to guide His Church to keep it from
falling into error. This is all true because for 2000 years the Church has been attacked from without and from within, and yet it has remained true in the teachings and tradition
given it by Jesus and the Apostles. Many have tried to prove otherwise and all have failed.

And yes, we should all follow His teachings and live in peace with one another. But,
because of man’s greed and lust for power and control ( as spurred on by Satan ), this
will be a difficult thing to obtain. Remember, God gave man free will. In my estimation
man has mis-used it. Peace to you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
Peace to you also.

It seems very clear that there is a built in contradiction to say that “God gave man free will” and in the same statement to say that the Holy Spirit will “keep it (the church made of people including leaders and members) from falling into error.”

God does not force. The Holy Spirit does not force. That idea is contrary to Their perfect nature and contrary to the knowledge that “God gave man free will.”

 

[Techno2000]

Parker,

If the Catholic Church can “Go off the Tracks” why can’t the LDS Church “go off the Tracks” ?

 

[spockrates]

Hello again, Parker.



I’m interested in learning what you believe are the most important ways that the Catholic Church drifted away. I myself am interested in fiding out the differences between the LDS religion and the Catholic religion regarding the way of salvation. Any answer you have time to give will be appreciated.

 

[Xavierlives]

Sorry for the long copy & paste nature, but these threads have a tendency to get scattered and I like to try to keep things together as much as possible.

1–There were several apostles called after Matthias was called, and one of those newly called definitely replaced James since he was killed by Herod as noted in Acts 12:2. ( I assume it was Paul.) So there was a pattern of succession, but with killings by government people plus killings by Jewish factions such as killed Stephen, it seems evident that the apostles would have had a difficult time preaching the gospel in various lands and then getting back together to choose a new apostle after one had been killed, as the opposition became more intense.

If they had the authority and the ability, why doesn’t what they established work then? They needed to be all together to vote?

One would surmise… and not be among civilization for “time, and times, and half a time.” (Revelation 12:14)

John would do all he did in using his authority of the apostleship under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, and never act on his own. So if the Holy Spirit didn’t direct him to call new apostles or if no one had sufficient spiritual maturity to be called as a new apostle, then he would not act on his own on the matter.

a.) So it is you contention that Revelation is about early times, not end times?
b.)So, while John had the Authority, the Holy Spirit lead him to hold off maintaining the church so it could fall into apostacy for 1800 years? Isn’t that like saying, God built up everything in the Old Testament to a climax of Jesus Christ’s message, the message went for 90 years and then fizzled. How is that consistent with the Bible? Or how is that consistent with the Mormon concept that that God’s has always sent prophets to lead his people?

2–Yes, it can be researched.

3–Priesthood authority is only granted by God subject to the individual righteousness of a person who receives that authority. When any priesthood holder no longer recognized John as the holder of the apostolic keys and therefore the authorized servant of God with the primary leadership role, then such a priesthood holder would nullify their authority. It was granted by God, and could certainly be taken away by God. It was God’s to give.

Whoa there, cowpoke. I am going to break this down to see if I understand what you are saying, then maybe I can ask a question.

1. God gives authority.
2. That authority was given to Person X.
3. Person X said John no longer had authority.
4. Since Person X had God’s authority, John was out.

Q. I think most people would say, didn’t God give person X and John the same authority?
Q. If John didn’t have God’s authority, then why do we read John’s Books?
Q. If John has a lesser role, then anyone can speak for the Church (and/or God) just not lead with priesthood authority?

4–That is a key misunderstanding. People could still have good feelings about the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and would have. The compilers of the Bible generally appear to have had good and noble intentions. This means they did an important work, but the more important work was done by the Israelite prophets and apostles who received the messages from God or wrote the histories and the prophetic writings that became the Bible later. The fact of the writings being available does not mean a drifting away from the pure teachings could not have been occurring at the same time the writings were being compiled and safeguarded.

So because I have good intentions, I can add or subtract to God’s word? Or are you saying God just used these people living in apostacy until they compiled the Bible, His written word, and once completed them, shed them like winters clothes in springtime.

Two points:

1. …
2. The LDS like to claim that Christian teachings changed in the first few centuries after the resurrection. Yet LDS teachings have changed (often 180 degrees) in the first 150 years of its existence far more than Christian teaching (which never “changed”, but has developed over time as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth as Jesus promised - John 16:13).

Or, it is okay to change course if you have God’s authority?

The more complete phrase would be “the rock of the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One.” Rock has a double meaning in that context–Christ is the rock, the foundation stone or chief corner stone which the builders had disallowed, as Peter affirmed in 1 Peter 2:6-8. The rock upon which He would build His church was that precious corner stone that Isaiah had foreseen. (Isaiah 28:16)

The way Christ remains the precious corner stone of the church He founded, is by revelation, and that is what He was teaching to Peter and the other apostles. He would always be the foundation stone, the chief corner stone, and would be the stone the builders (the Jewish nation) had rejected. In order for that chief corner stone to remain in place, the church would absolutely need revelation, and without revelation there would be no true church.

So, let me get this straight. The rock, is the foundation of a revelation, but “revelation” isn’t mentioned, “church” is instead? Is that it?

Or, the rock is the foundation of a revelation, but “revelation isn’t mentioned, but “Peter” is instead?

PART II after lunch.
Starting with

.

 

[Xavierlives]

It would be interesting for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to participate in this discussion and give their perspective on these issues (since these threads, whether on this forum or others, are usually presented as an either/or scenario between Catholics and Mormons).

I posited this question because, as I see it, the two churches are basically staking a claim in the same authority. I think it is a valid connection. I can’t seen Catholics raising the issue of their church’s authority, so a protestant is the likely source to question the authority of both.

 

[jpk1313]

I understand how it is presented, the apostles didn’t continue their ranks and the church fell into apostacy. I think part of the LDS story I haven’t ever heard is how the first Church failed. If the Catholic Church is here then how is that a failure or apostacy?

The first church failed by allowing a heretic named joseph smith to convince people he was a prophet. It is sad that the priests and bishops of that time did not do more to save those ignorant people from a false prophet who listened to demons pretending to be angels of lite. When mormons talk about the church in apostacy they are really talking about themselves they just don’t know it. Thank god I’m no longer a mormon and have come to the true faith of the one holy catholic apostolic church founded by the only begotten son of god jesus christ. And thanks to st. thomas aquanis I know that what mormons belive is just gibberish

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
If it were to have been “upon the rock of Peter’s primacy” that Christ was to have built His church, then Peter would certainly have made that perfectly clear when he wrote about the Rock in his epistle in 1 Peter 2:6-8. He also would have made that perfectly clear to the other apostles so that when he was killed or died, they would understand that their authority and the keys they had been given by Christ were going to mean nothing as compared with whoever would step forward and say that wherever Peter was when he died was the place where the leading bishop could claim to be the “Patriarchate” of the whole church.

As I mentioned, Scripture (and the Catholic Church) is clear that Peter is not the only “rock”. Jesus Christ is the “chief cornerstone”, and is the head of the Church, His Body. In the case of Matthew 16:18, it is quite simple to see that the “rock” is referring to Peter. In Greek and Aramaic, the text would read “You are rock, and upon this rock…” Who or what is the “rock” being referred to? Clearly Simon Peter (Petros/Cephas). Peter did not have to make anything clear in 1 Peter 2:6-8, because Jesus is the chief cornerstone. This is not an either/or situation for Catholics.

And who said that the authority that the apostles received would mean nothing compared with Peter’s successor(s)? Who said that? This is not how Catholics see this situation, nor do we see this in the Church today, as far as bishops’ not having authority and the Bishop of Rome having the authority. The apostles would always have their unique commission and authority. The successor of Peter would hold the primacy in the Church, which does not take away from the authority of the surviving apostles, and they would function in the same way that they did.

The concept of where Peter died is also interesting, because Peter also established a church in Antioch. So, which has primacy, Antioch or Rome? The primacy was in Peter, and went where he went.

Why in the world would John receive the vision he received on the isle of Patmos if someone else was the leader of the church who had the primary responsibility as “Patriarchate” to receive (1) revelation for the church, and (2) guidance from the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the church? Why would God do that? Why would God not give that vision to that “Patriarchate” leader who supposedly held the keys of authority to speak for God on earth?

Why would he have to? This is reading Mormon understandings of who can receive revelation for who into this, which is simply not how Catholics understand the Church. Again, John was an apostle, and therefore had his unique commission and role in the Church. In Catholicism, private revelations (I am not calling John’s revelation a private revelation) that are approved by the Church as being authentic and from God (and thus should be known by the Church as a whole) almost always come from people other than the head Patriarch (the bishop of Rome), though many have received such as well. Likewise, there is no issue of John receiving a very important revelation for the Church, which became scripture, even though he was not the head Patriarch of the Church. People are chosen for different reasons, and John’s apostolic authority was not lost simply because Peter’s successor had primacy.

Why would John’s vision see that another angel was going to fly from heaven with the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth, if the everlasting gospel in all its purity and power was already going to be on the earth?

And where has such an angel appeared, in your theological world view?

Revelations 14:6 is talking about the coming eternal reign of God, and that judgment time has come. This is indeed “good news” (gospel). This angel in verse 6 states that the hour of God’s judgment has come. Two more angels come after that. It is clear that this is not talking about an event that has already happened, nor could it possibly be talking about Moroni (since the judgment has not come yet). The context of the entire chapter, as well as the entire book of Revelation, shows this, when we think about what has already happened by the point of this angel’s good news.

Of course the people of Rome would make their case for their leader to lead the whole church, and their leader would make his case. That is how the world does things. It doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it true.

Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome. That was never his designation. He was the first apostle, and all the apostles received keys of apostleship.

Of course Peter was an apostle. He died an apostle. This is not an issue. Peter was indeed a bishop (as were all the apostles) if we understand the meaning of the word “episkopos”. Peter was also the first bishop of the Church of Antioch. Saying that Peter was the first bishop of Rome does not take away from his apostolic authority, nor does it say that he functioned as Pope Benedict XVI does and not as an apostle.

So, there simply is no Biblical basis for a Great Apostasy, the Church losing priesthood authority. All verses cited in reference to a Great Apostasy always refer to apostasies from the Church, not an apostasy of the Church, and/or a loss of priesthood authority.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

If the Catholic Church can “Go off the Tracks” why can’t the LDS Church “go off the Tracks” ?

Techno2000,

The LDS church has a check and balance system in place, if I may put it in that kind of language.

The Twelve Apostles are a check and balance to the First Presidency, and the Quorums of Seventy are a check and balance to the Quorum of the Twelve, and when the general membership of the church are asked if they sustain these brethren, then they act as a check and balance if any one member happened to know for sure of some first-hand major transgression that one of those in authority had committed.

All the stakes (each comprised of about 3,000 members) in the church have a stake president who reports to an Area Seventy and to the Quorum of the Twelve, so the stake presidents also act as a check and balance by providing feedback to the Quorum of the Twelve about the needs of the members in their stake.

The Holy Spirit guides at each level in this feedback and check and balance process. Since not one of those people is perfect, the check and balance mechanism is in place to allow for counsel, discussion of different points of view and different needs, and a feeling of unity as decisions are made. I have observed this happen. I know it works.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello again, Parker.



I’m interested in learning what you believe are the most important ways that the Catholic Church drifted away. I myself am interested in finding out the differences between the LDS religion and the Catholic religion regarding the way of salvation. Any answer you have time to give will be appreciated.

Hello again also, kind friend, “Spockrates”,

I think best that I respond to your question on the other thread where we have exchanged comments. I’ll explain why, there.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Jay53, Hello and good day to you,

I would think that if Diotrephes sought “preeminence”, and was “prating”, that those are significant issues about a departure from following authorized priesthood leaders.

The apostle John was the most senior of those on earth who had authority from Christ, when he was the last living apostle. It should be obvious that he would be the authorized leader. When he wrote the Book of Revelation, it should be obvious that he had authority from God to give the world a prophetic vision and prophetic writing and prophetic teachings–some of the most important teachings in the entire Bible.

There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates John would not be the designated leader of the church when he was the last living apostle. Nor does anything indicate that the church in Rome had any more of a higher position of authority or responsibility than any other place on earth where the gospel was being preached.

Whether John was “upset” or not (remember that he was the apostle of love), does not bear on the question of who had the rightful and fully authorized position of authority as the leader of the church on the earth. It ought to be obvious who had that position of authority, and it was John.

One should remember also that some Pharisees joined the church, and would have had the strongest Old Testament background among the early church members, plus the examples from the New Testament show that Pharisees in general were strongly opinionated and vocal about their opinions.

Put all those elements into the mix of the early church, plus slow transportation methods and inefficient communication methods, and it is relatively easy to understand why there were departures from the pure original teachings, and the example of not listing John as the leader of the church on earth is an example of this very departure and its quite inevitable consequences for that time period.

That is not true. Jesus gave this position to Peter 3 times. Feed my sheep etc. Just said you are Peter and I give you the keys to the Kingdom. Not John. Scripture is quite clear.

 

[ParkerD]

Xavierlives,
Sorry to have taken a while to get back to you on your questions. I do have a sincere interest in your questions, and hope I can answer in a way that makes sense and can clarify.

If they had the authority and the ability, why doesn’t what they established work then? They needed to be all together to vote?

Yes, that is what happened in Acts when a new apostle was called. So there was somewhat of a built-in problem, because they were commissioned to go to all the world and teach all nations, yet when an apostle died they needed to get back together and decide on what the Holy Spirit was revealing they should do to name a new apostle.

a.) So it is your contention that Revelation is about early times, not end times?

It is clearly about both the times John was living in, and a time before earth’s history when Satan rebelled and “Michael and his angels fought against the dragon,” plus the time period in between Christ’s day and the end times, plus the end times, plus judgment day.

b.)So, while John had the Authority, the Holy Spirit lead him to hold off maintaining the church so it could fall into apostacy for 1800 years? Isn’t that like saying, God built up everything in the Old Testament to a climax of Jesus Christ’s message, the message went for 90 years and then fizzled. How is that consistent with the Bible? Or how is that consistent with the Mormon concept that that God’s has always sent prophets to lead his people?

These are very important questions. If you are familiar with Daniel’s visions, in one of them he sees that (Daniel 7:25) “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

That is an example that God allows something to happen that may not seem reasonable to someone who is looking for God to give continuous protection to the “saints of the most High.” It is a similar prophecy that can be compared with Revelation 13:7 “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

There was to be a period of time on the earth when Satan’s influence would “overcome” the saints, and that influence would be allowed “until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

By the way, the message didn’t “fizzle.” Look at all the good in the world that is done through the influence of the Bible. It is miraculous when one thinks of the history of the world. The Bible message has been spread by good people the world over. It is not an “all-or-nothing” kind of case, at all.

Whoa there, cowpoke. I am going to break this down to see if I understand what you are saying, then maybe I can ask a question.

1. God gives authority.
2. That authority was given to Person X.
3. Person X said John no longer had authority.
4. Since Person X had God’s authority, John was out.

Q. I think most people would say, didn’t God give person X and John the same authority?

I’m not sure I understand your question about this. John was an apostle, and an apostle has more authority than any bishop, period.

So because I have good intentions, I can add or subtract to God’s word? Or are you saying God just used these people living in apostacy until they compiled the Bible, His written word, and once completed them, shed them like winters clothes in springtime.

I have tried to communicate that these people were not “living in apostasy”. The church had drifted from the apostles’ teachings, not fallen into dire apostasy. (I have no idea of their personal lives.) All the good intentions in the world does not mean a person has authority from God, but good intentions can of course bring good results that are beneficial to humankind. God gave His words to prophets. They wrote them down or spoke them. Others copied the texts or wrote down the words they had heard. Whose was the message? It was God’s message. He can allow imperfect people to find that message and disseminate that message–why not?

Or, it is okay to change course if you have God’s authority?

If God gives a person authority and inspires that person through the Holy Spirit, then as long as that person is acting with consistency with righteous principles, then yes they could change course.

So, let me get this straight. The rock, is the foundation of a revelation, but “revelation” isn’t mentioned, “church” is instead? Is that it?

“Church” means “full congregation of believers”. The believers get their knowledge from God about the Son of God being Jesus the Christ, by revelation. Revelation is the source of the knowledge that becomes the firm foundation–the rock–of their belief. Then when the rains and floods and winds come, they will stand firmly on that rock.

Or, the rock is the foundation of a revelation, but “revelation isn’t mentioned, but “Peter” is instead?

Peter had a rock-solid testimony of the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, and knew that Christ was the chief corner stone of the gospel. He was an example to be followed, for the other apostles and for believing members. But he did not have the function of being the same kind of “rock” as Jesus. See 1 Peter 2:5 for the kind of “stones” that members are to be.

I hope this has helped. Have a great afternoon.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
Power plays are exactly what we’re talking about. If Diotrephes was making a “power play”, which it sounds like he was, then that is not going to be a one-time event from one single person in all of the early church history. Just because others aren’t noted in the writings we have (besides some Pharisees), does not mean there weren’t others who made “power plays.” That would be a big deal, not an issue of “clashing personalities.”

I still don’t see how this leads to a loss of priesthood authority. You seem to be just dismissing the fact that there were no issues of doctrine or belief. Everyone in the Church was teaching and believed the same thing (which is not what Joseph Smith taught hundreds of years later.)

John would not “not want to” be the living apostle who would be recognized as the leader of the church. Read Revelation 1-3. He is writing as though he knows he is the leader of the church, and encouraging the members of the different cities. It is not as though he was stepping out of the picture. He held the keys of apostleship, which he was the last to hold on earth. Of course he would know he had a responsibility of leadership, and would not simply decide he “didn’t want to”, especially given the example of Peter whom he knew intimately. It is a ridiculous belief (pardon the strong word) to think that John would not accept the role and assignment of being the last living apostle and therefore the holder of apostolic keys of leadership and therefore the leader of the church on the earth.

This makes no sense to me. Your explanation here sounds more like “sour grapes” because John wasn’t given primacy in the Church. Jesus called us to be servants. IMHO, I honestly don’t think John would care that he wasn’t given primacy.

I think these verses are appropriate: Mark 10:39-45
“We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In reading some of the other posts here it also seems like Mormons think John should have had primacy because of Revelations and his visions. I’d like to here more about this -scriptural support for the fact that only the person in primacy can receive any kind of revelation from God.

You used the word “conspiracy”, not I. If that word fits, then I think that kind of situation applied later when someone was trying to legitimize their own position or the leader of Rome’s position as what came to be called the “papa” or the “Pope”. Study the steps leading to that declaration, and one will see a process of legitimizing the “supposed” passing on of the reins, but neither Peter nor Paul wrote about it in that way.

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I need you to give me these “steps” that somehow led the Church astray because in reading about Church history I don’t see it anywhere. I used the word conspiracy because John was still alive at the time Peter and Paul gave the primacy to Linus. If it was such a big deal that John should have been given primacy, then St. Peter and St. Paul are to blame for all of that.

Here’s an interesting article if you have time to read it.
therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_014.htm

 

[ParkerD]

Jay53,
I’ll try and respond but I think it sounds like you have a self-convincing kind of case built up, which is fine. I have quite a different point of view.

I still don’t see how this leads to a loss of priesthood authority. You seem to be just dismissing the fact that there were no issues of doctrine or belief. Everyone in the Church was teaching and believed the same thing (which is not what Joseph Smith taught hundreds of years later.)

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
Peace to you also.

It seems very clear that there is a built in contradiction to say that “God gave man free will” and in the same statement to say that the Holy Spirit will “keep it (the church made of people including leaders and members) from falling into error.”

God does not force. The Holy Spirit does not force. That idea is contrary to Their perfect nature and contrary to the knowledge that “God gave man free will.”

Sorry, ParkerD, but your assumption is not true. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to teach and to guide. Man was given free will to accept or reject what Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught
and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Because of man’s free will, he thinks ke knows more than God. This is why we are in the big mess that we are in. Peace.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem