LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavierlives
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mfbukowski said:
It’s the difference between having the ability to do something vs predicting that you will do it.

Just because I can punch somebody doesn’t mean I will do it.

The church CAN fail, but the prophecy says just won’t.

Does that help?

If it could not possibly fail, it couldn’t fail regardless of what happened.

It would lack the “ability” to fail.

If we were talking about running a race, it would have no legs and be in a wheel chair. It would not have the ability to fail.

Using the same analogy, in the other case, the church would be a well trained athlete who was totally capable of winning the race if he wanted to, but instead he decided to sit in the chair and not participate in the race, and we knew that he would not get out of the chair.

We would say “He could win, but he won’t”

I am saying the church could fail, but it won’t.

The other point of view says that it could not fail even if it tried to.

If you can’t do something, you are not free, you are not in control of yourself.

So that would mean that the people in the church were not free or couldn’t control their own ability to make choices which would make the church fail.

Does that make it clearer?
Click to expand...
Its clear to me you said the Mormon Church can fail. I agree, and has. The RCC not only CANNOT fail it WILL NEVER Fail. Why because it is led by the Power of the Holy Spirit, one in being with God. If the Holy Spirit can fail, then God can fail. which is just down right IMPOSSIBLE. That is why the CC is not led by People. It is led by GOD HIMSELF!😃
 
rinnie said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]
…

Because of free will many rejected his word. If people rejecting the RCC means the Church failed then you would have to agree that Jesus Christ also failed. But he did not fail, and neither did the Church. They are one In being!
Click to expand...
Thank you for this insight, I never looked at it that way.
Click to expand...
The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, if the Church failed, then that means the Body of Christ failed.
Click to expand...
It is impossible for Jesus Christ to fail, people are given the freedom to obey or deny Him.
Click to expand...
 
rinnie said:
Its clear to me you said the Mormon Church can fail. I agree, and has. The RCC not only CANNOT fail it WILL NEVER Fail. Why because it is led by the Power of the Holy Spirit, one in being with God. If the Holy Spirit can fail, then God can fail. which is just down right IMPOSSIBLE. That is why the CC is not led by People. It is led by GOD HIMSELF!😃
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be strange if the mystical Body of Christ was lead by people.
Click to expand...
The Body of Christ is lead by Jesus Christ Himself.
Click to expand...
 
:D:extrahappy:
40.png
Answersplease:
Bingo!😃

The Church is made up of 4 Characteristics. INSPEPARABLY LINKED WITH EACHOTHER. They indicate essential features of the Church and her mission.

The church does not possess them of herself, it is Christ THROUGH the HOLY SPIRIT that makes his church ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC, AND IT IS HE WHO CALLS HER TO REALIZE EACH OF THESE QUALITIES.😃
 
ParkerD said:
Xavierlives,
This is a case where we are not going to agree, but I have appreciated you expressing your point of view. Of course God is Spirit. He is a spiritual Being, just as a “son of God” becomes a spiritual being who has been changed from his carnal and fallen state. Those who are changed by the Holy Spirit are spiritual beings. They are no longer natural, carnal beings. That is what the “second birth” and “sanctification by the Holy Spirit” are all about. But I suggest you are not going to see that in the way you are reading the Bible. You have your mind already made up–how can the Spirit teach you anything since you have already made up your mind what every passage means?

But you will do well and be as happy as you wish by living the gospel as best you can and keeping the commandments as best you can. God bless you in that, and God bless your family as you do so.👍
Click to expand...
Just a couple of questions then:

How did Joseph Smith go from non-spiritual to falling into a spirtual level equal to that of say, Moses or Elijah or greater (because no man has seen God)?

When we look to Moses we see several moments where he “broke God’s law” but still he had a fellowship with God. What we don’t see is a “living in sin” pattern. She we be able to look at Joseph Smith’s life and say there is no pattern of “living in sin?”

What about BY? Or any other church leader?

If a church is being lead by a person living in sin, are they not in apostasy if he is not removed immediately?
 
ParkerD said:
Xavierlives,
This is a case where we are not going to agree, but I have appreciated you expressing your point of view. Of course God is Spirit. He is a spiritual Being, just as a “son of God” becomes a spiritual being who has been changed from his carnal and fallen state. Those who are changed by the Holy Spirit are spiritual beings. They are no longer natural, carnal beings. That is what the “second birth” and “sanctification by the Holy Spirit” are all about. But I suggest you are not going to see that in the way you are reading the Bible. You have your mind already made up–how can the Spirit teach you anything since you have already made up your mind what every passage means?

But you will do well and be as happy as you wish by living the gospel as best you can and keeping the commandments as best you can. God bless you in that, and God bless your family as you do so.👍
Click to expand...
Hi Parker. I am not quite sure if I am understanding you, could you be more clear. What do you mean by the Son Of God being CHANGED from his carnal and FALLEN STATE:eek:
 
I think you are misunderstanding him. We are all children of God, even though we have a sinful nature, He still loves us.
 
Paul C
Yes, the Catholics created this policy that the successor of St. Peter would be the leader of the Church. Remember, the Church , through St. Peter was given the powers to lose and bind. They also declared that the next generations leaders would be called Bishops, not apostles, out of respect for the original apostles

Evanfaust
Yes, Peter had authority, but he followed God’s revelations and rules. When Peter ordained a bishop he gave him the keys and powers pertaining to the office of bishop, which has a lower jurisdiction than that of the apostle, and that was the extent of it! Now, if he ordained someone an apostle, then that person would be an apostle. To assume that the bishops had an apostle authority is ridiculous. Apostles are apostles and Bishops are bishops. That is why there is a distinction! Don’t try to equalize the two offices because there is no evidence they can be the same!

What you said above is just assumption! Remember you have to prove what you just said by canonized scripture, tradition or Catholic policy is not valid in an argument! The reason is evident. There were many divisions in the original church and Rome seized power and decided to do their own policies and make up their own rule. As you know the Christians were divided and there were many factions. Later on Christians were unified by the Emperor Constantine, which is evidence that the church became a mixture of Christendom and Paganism.

Evidently the Catholic church does not have the foundation of Apostles and Prophets as it should be. Your foundation is on bishops, which is different from what original church Christ established.

“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Eph 2:20

The Catholic Church does not have apostles or Prophets, which is another clear evidence of the apostasy of the original church!
 
*Paul C
Who said that only the Pope could have visions? This is completely disproven in Scripture. St. Stephen had a vision of God as he was being stoned and he wasn’t the leader of the Church. St. Paul had a vision of Jesus on the Road to Damascus and he was busy persecuting the church at the time.

But lets be clear, There are no new truths being revealed. All those truths were shared with the Apostles. When we talk about Catholic visionaries like St. Faustina or Padre Pio or Bernadette Soubirous, they are not being told new doctrines. They are being given insight or direction on how to live within those doctrines. for instance, St. Bernadette saw Mary 18 times in 1858 and we led to discover the spring that has miraculously cured at least 59 people of their physical disabilities but countless others of their spiritual ones since that time. It was still the Pope’s role to determine whether these visions were real and he does that be insuring that the results are consistent with existing Catholic Doctrine.

The Pope’s main role is to insure that the truth about Jesus Christ is taught accurately and that the sacraments are administered to the faithful.*

Evanfaust

I understand that any member of the church can receive revelation in their own jurisdiction, but the head of the church should receive revelation for the whole church and mankind. For example, Peter received revelation for the preaching to the gentiles. But the Pope never received or claimed to receive any revelation from God.

The Pope does not have visions! And that is exactly the problem! Peter had visions and revelations! If he was the first Pope as Catholics believe, then there should be a consistency! All the other Popes should receive revelation too. But there isn’t! And that is the essence of the issue here! When St. Clement was the Pope, John the apostle received a revelation for the whole church and received new information never revealed before. New truths were revealed to John, while the Pope had no idea! That is really hard for anyone to swallow!
 
Paul C
Do you really thing that Apostates COULD seize power and control the Church without God’s intent. Isn’t God omnipotent? And didn’t Jesus promise to be with the church until the end of the age in Matthew 28: 18-20? You are getting too caught up in titles, which are meaningless. Peter lived in Rome and when he died, he was replaced as leader of the Church by Linus, who also lived in Rome. As the highest ranking member in the city, he WAS the bishop. And yes, I’m sure there was a revelation that Peter should be succeeded in leading the Church and that that person should be stationed in Rome. Why would you think otherwise.

Evanfaust
Did not God allow Adam and Eve to become mortal? Did not God allow the Israelites to be dispersed in every nation? Did not God allow Israel to fall into apostasy and be captive many times?

You need some clarification to the meaning of this scripture! The end in Mat 28:18-20 refers to a period of time, not endless time.

"In Matthew 28:20, the Greek has Jesus saying that he will be with the church until the end of the “aion” – which means “eon,” “epoch,” “age,” or “period.” We believe that Jesus was with His Church until the end of that dispensation. Then came the apostasy. But for those who follow Him in any age, He is always there. However, there are times when the truth is not found on earth - or when authorized prophets and apostles are absent. Such a time was predicted in Amos 8:11,12, referring to a coming age in which there will be a famine of truth. Fits the dark age of the Apostasy very well! That’s why there had to be a time of refreshing (Acts 3:19), to bring again that which was lost.

Remember, Christ is always with His followers, but that does not mean that they are always with Him. It was the rejection of Christ and His gospel in favor of worldly doctrines and practices that resulted in the Apostasy - this was not caused by Christ withdrawing from us, but the other way around. The scriptures also prophesy of the Apostasy and the Restoration - and he continues to be with His followers."
(Jeff Lindsay article)
 
PaulC
You are right that Matthias was not an original Apostle an that he was chosen through St. Peter’s leadership in Acts 1 to replace Judas Iscariot and bring the group back up to the symbolic 12, representing the 12 tribes of Israel. And that was done prior to Pentecost. There is no indication that any other Apostles were replaced by other Apostles. Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles in Acts as well, but they wren’t replacements. Furthermore, when St. James is killed in Acts, he is not recorded as being replaced. Apostles were the ones sent out to preach and convert in the first generation. No one was called an Apostle after that.

Evanfaust
The Biblical evidence is to replace and maintain the body of twelve apostles like the twelve tribes of Israel. Since we have record of the replacements of Judas, it infers the importance of keeping the body of 12.

My original argument was that one of the Apostles should be the successor of Peter, since Peter was an Apostle and John was alive in 67 AD, why wasn’t he called to be the “Pope”? Peter received revelations and John was entitled to revelation too. Peter, James and John represented the presidency of the church, symbolizing the Deity; the Father, the Son and the Holly Ghost. The main evidence that John was the higher authority of the Church was the revelation given to him in the Patmos Island in 96 AD, besides the fact that he was an apostle.

All bishops had equal authority in the church. Rome did not have any more privilege than any other place, Peter was never a Bishop of Rome and he was never a Bishop. Bishops do not have the same authority as an apostle. Just because Peter died in Rome, that should make the Bishop of Rome more important than any other bishop in other part of the world. That is a ludicrous argument! What if he had died in a city where the church had not yet been established?
 
Paul C
This is Saint Paul’s description of the various jobs available within the Church, the body of Christ. He went on to describe how the church couldn’t function without people fulfilling each position and that all were important. Don’t try to make it say something it wasn’t meant to say.

Evanfaust
Exactly! The Apostle is making distinction between Apostles, prophets and other positions in the church with a clear objective not to blur the line. Bishops are not apostles and apostles are not bishops!

**“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” Ephesians 4:12 (KJV) **

You are the one trying to equalize bishops to the level of apostles! They are not same! The scriptures make a clear distinction!
 
Jay53
If you want to play this game, then where is the “gift of miracles” in the Mormon apostles that all of the original Apostles had?

Evanfaust
In fact they do have the gifts! Many miracles are happening in the church since the restoration by Joseph Smith. But the signs are for the faithful! That is the way it was in the early church!
 
evanfaust said:
Paul C
This is Saint Paul’s description of the various jobs available within the Church, the body of Christ. He went on to describe how the church couldn’t function without people fulfilling each position and that all were important. Don’t try to make it say something it wasn’t meant to say.

Evanfaust
Exactly! The Apostle is making distinction between Apostles, prophets and other positions in the church with a clear objective not to blur the line. Bishops are not apostles and apostles are not bishops!

**“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” Ephesians 4:12 (KJV) **

You are the one trying to equalize bishops to the level of apostles! They are not same! The scriptures make a clear distinction!
Click to expand...
Scriptures also make clear the requirements for being an apostle, yours don’t meet them.
 
Jesus had an earthly ministry. During his ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. By tradition, James, Luke, and Mark were members of the seventy. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve were not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.
40.png
Eusebius:
For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top