LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[Jay53]

Jay53,
What I was trying to explain was that the priests and bishops ordained by the Apostles were ordained based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but the disconnect came when either the members or other local leaders didn’t accept those appointed leaders (which would be that they were “dismissing them from the ministry”), and there was dissension in the ranks, plus when new leaders needed to be called and the apostles were not directly involved. The Holy Spirit needed to be involved with the members and the leaders at every point, such that dissension would have been minimal. I think John saw all of that dissension coming, in his vision, and saw its ultimate effects including trying to accomodate differences of opinion that would lead to slight changes in doctrines or how the ordinances were done. That is the kind of “drift” that it seems was likely to happen.

As to “miracles”, there have been many and I suppose they are impressive, but the kind of miracle that impresses me the most in Christianity is the Jean Valjean kind of miracle of the heart and soul. (I love Les Miserables–what a powerful musical, despite the heartache of the scenes that show the dark side of humanity! Victor Hugo must have been greatly inspired to write the book he wrote, and then the music of that play is so incredibly beautiful. I love the scenes showing the forgiveness extended by the priest, and then Jean Valjean’s reaction.)

Thanks again for all of your posts, and explanations.

I’m just referring to the apostolic succession in that St. John ordained Polycarp who ordained bishops. And St. Peter ordained St. Clement who ordained bishops. In other words, the Apostles ordained Bishops who then ordained priests who succeeded them when they died and so on and so on. The dissension doesn’t invalidate the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles because the bishops received their ordination from the apostles which was considered valid and was then passed down through the ages to today. Unless you are speaking of some other kind of dissension that means something different. Just because one priest doesn’t like another priest and creates dissension in the ranks doesn’t invalidate one’s ordination over the other.

And while I appreciate the miracle you mentioned, I was thinking more of the “Gift of Miracles” as stated by St. Paul:

1. The Gift of Miracles. Each apostle was endowed with the gift of miracles to enable him to perform signs validating his ministry as an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). These manifestations provided motives of credibility showing the divine authority of the apostles and, by extension, those they appointed as successors. catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

(emphasis mine)

If the LDS Church is claiming (and I don’t know if they are) that their Quorum of Twelve Apostles are a restoration of the twelve apostles from the time of Jesus who have “the keys”, then they should have this gift to “validate [their] ministry as apostles”.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi, Kimmielittle,
Good point. I didn’t have much time at that particular moment, but it would have been better to have explained myself more.

Joseph Smith was familiar with prophecies and teachings and promises of the Old Testament as well as of the New Testament. Our days and Joseph Smith’s days on the earth are days of fulfillment of many prophecies. The Old Testament prophecies about the last days or the “latter days” are treasures for us to understand who live on the earth today.

Here is one from Isaiah 4:

“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” The word “reproach” means “childlessness.”

I hope that helps to clarify for you and for Rinnie. (And in case you’re wondering, no–I don’t think plural marriage will ever again be required for a group of covenant people. I think those days are over, but there are great days ahead with abundant blessings of heaven promised for the covenant people of latter day Zions all over the world, and those blessings will center in righteous families who love the Lord. “Great shall be the peace of thy children” will be fulfilled.–Isaiah 54:13)

Hiyas Parker

Much better

Thank you

 

[lyolee]

They are not claiming to be the restoration of the Quorum of The Twelve, as the twelve of those which Jesus Christ chose himself were his witnesses as well as his testimony here on earth. The Salt Lake City, UT brethren invite members in, inorder to fill vacant seats of Honor within the said governing body, or in other words The General Authorities of the LDS Church. Similarly, the current LDS President of the Church is not Jesus Christ restored to His rightfull position, but merely an elder who happened to be the secretary to the last President who was Gordon B. Hinckly ( who also happened to be the secretary to the several Presidents of the LDS church before he himself became President). Now passed away, Thomas S. Monson, who used to be either one of Gordon B. Hinckly’s councilors or Gordon B, Hinckly’s secretary, is not the current President of the LDS Church. They are niether voted in or cast in by lots, yet sustained my the LDS membership by the raising of the hand, and if someone is opposed to the choice, may raise his hand when asked if anyone happens to be opposed to the choice of who will now act a President of the LDS church.

lyolee.

 

[kimmielittle]

Parker I probally disagree with just about everything you say. But and this is a big But I think you are awesome. You may not be Catholic but you have the patience of a Saint

Now if I could just get you Catholic

I first met Parker on a thread about some fool Binding Saint Damien to a wife. Everyone else seemed to skirt the problem and defended the Baptism of dead. Parker was the only one that said someone did wrong.

That above all, impressed me.

 

[Xavierlives]

They are not claiming to be the restoration of the Quorum of The Twelve, as the twelve of those which Jesus Christ chose himself were his witnesses as well as his testimony here on earth. The Salt Lake City, UT brethren invite members in, inorder to fill vacant seats of Honor within the said governing body, or in other words The General Authorities of the LDS Church. Similarly, the current LDS President of the Church is not Jesus Christ restored to His rightfull position, but merely an elder who happened to be the secretary to the last President who was Gordon B. Hinckly ( who also happened to be the secretary to the several Presidents of the LDS church before he himself became President). Now passed away, Thomas S. Monson, who used to be either one of Gordon B. Hinckly’s councilors or Gordon B, Hinckly’s secretary, is not the current President of the LDS Church. They are niether voted in or cast in by lots, yet sustained my the LDS membership by the raising of the hand, and if someone is opposed to the choice, may raise his hand when asked if anyone happens to be opposed to the choice of who will now act a President of the LDS church.

lyolee.

Hmm? There isn’t a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?

 

[rmcmullan]

I am coming in late on this and maybe the answer to my question is buried somewhere in the previous 11 pages of postings, but if so, I’m afraid I missed it, so let me ask:

In the book of Acts, there is a record of calling new apostles, .e.g Mathias to replace Judas. So it looks as though they were to carry on the work that Christ began. In the closing chapters of John, Christ appears to the apostles and charges them to “feed His sheep.” So where is the tradition that takes this charge from the apostles and gives it to the bishop at Rome?

I guess a lot of the answer to this question is how you see the role of the Apostles.

 

[Marie5890]

They are not claiming to be the restoration of the Quorum of The Twelve, as the twelve of those which Jesus Christ chose himself were his witnesses as well as his testimony here on earth. The Salt Lake City, UT brethren invite members in, inorder to fill vacant seats of Honor within the said governing body, or in other words The General Authorities of the LDS Church. Similarly, the current LDS President of the Church is not Jesus Christ restored to His rightfull position, but merely an elder who happened to be the secretary to the last President who was Gordon B. Hinckly ( who also happened to be the secretary to the several Presidents of the LDS church before he himself became President). Now passed away, Thomas S. Monson, who used to be either one of Gordon B. Hinckly’s councilors or Gordon B, Hinckly’s secretary, is not the current President of the LDS Church. They are niether voted in or cast in by lots, yet sustained my the LDS membership by the raising of the hand, and if someone is opposed to the choice, may raise his hand when asked if anyone happens to be opposed to the choice of who will now act a President of the LDS church.

lyolee.

Correction here. When the president/prophet of the LDS church, the next one to become the president/prophet is the member of the Q12 with the most SENIORITY …NOT whomever was secretary to the previous president (who isnt a GA in the first place)

Upon the death of the Pres/prophet…the 1st Presidency is dissolved…

The President of the Q12 (who is the most senior) then becomes the Pres/Proph and he chooses who he wants to be his counselors

 

[Techno2000]

I am coming in late on this and maybe the answer to my question is buried somewhere in the previous 11 pages of postings, but if so, I’m afraid I missed it, so let me ask:

In the book of Acts, there is a record of calling new apostles, .e.g Mathias to replace Judas. So it looks as though they were to carry on the work that Christ began. In the closing chapters of John, Christ appears to the apostles and charges them to “feed His sheep.” So where is the tradition that takes this charge from the apostles and gives it to the bishop at Rome?

I guess a lot of the answer to this question is how you see the role of the Apostles.

Jesus only said this to St.Peter, there is no “them”… take a Look.

Douay-Rheims Bible

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?

Gospel According to Saint John
< prev | Chapter 21 | next >

 

[rmcmullan]

Jesus only said this to St.Peter, there is no “them”… take a Look.

Douay-Rheims Bible

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?

Gospel According to Saint John
< prev | Chapter 21 | next >

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you answering the question? Are you saying that because Jesus directed his answer to Peter that this implied that the Apostles were decommissioned?

 

[Techno2000]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you answering the question? Are you saying that because Jesus directed his answer to Peter that this implied that the Apostles were decommissioned?

The point I’m making is that you added the word " THEM" to what Jesus said in this scripture about feeding his sheep.

 

[rmcmullan]

Granted but why are you making this point? Here are a few other related commissions to the Apostles:

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This was particularly directed to His “11 disciples” but I assume that it was what we refer to as His Apostles with Judas missing.

Mark 16: 14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

[rmcmullan]

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?

This much we’ve been through before. It failed when the authority of the Apostles who were taught and ordained by the Lord was replaced with the authority of the bishop in Rome.

 

[ricko]

This much we’ve been through before. It failed when the authority of the Apostles who were taught and ordained by the Lord was replaced with the authority of the bishop in Rome.

It did not fail, it continued under the bishops. The Apostles were a special group of people. To help you understand this consider that the definition of an Apostle is one who is appointed by Christ. Therefore that office or position was destined to die out. When Christ came he established his Church appointing the 12 as Apostles. He also left the Church in the hands of the Apostles and their successors (bishops) giving them authority, “As the Father has sent me so also I send you”. He also gave the Church the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles passed this authority on to others who would not carry the title, Apostle but had the same authority. Christ established his Church for all time until the end of the world. He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and they haven’t. However, some of the gifts that the Apostles had were only for them such as the gift of healing and were not passed on. The bishops were the successors of the Apostles. The authority was passed down to todays bishops but there are no more Apostles. Otherwise Christ would have remained to commission more. So there is a unbroken line of authority from the Apostles to the bishops and will continue so until the end of the world.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=Xavierlives;5947999]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?

Xavierlives, Read the Bible Verse Below:

Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Xavier, the first Church never failed, we know this from Jesus Christ Himself Jesus said in the above bible verse that "the Gates of Hell can not prevail against it.

Xavier, if you believe that the First Church failed then you make Jesus Christ a liar, and you don’t want to do that!

Xavier, the First Church continues today and it is the Catholic Church and No other period!

Ufam Tobie

 

[Xavierlives]

ufamtobie:
Xavierlives, Read the Bible Verse Below:

Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Xavier, the first Church never failed, we know this from Jesus Christ Himself Jesus said in the above bible verse that "the Gates of Hell can not prevail against it.

Xavier, if you believe that the First Church failed then you make Jesus Christ a liar, and you don’t want to do that!

Xavier, the First Church continues today and it is the Catholic Church and No other period!

Ufam Tobie

Well, the point of the question was not that I believe the first church failed, but the LDS seem to be claiming the same authority as the Catholic Church, and they hold that view. As a protestant, I see it more of an either / or for the two Churches. but of course as a “protestant” I can “protest” against both.

The other part really revolves around the concept of whether Mormons are Christians, because of this claimed authority. Why that is important goes back to some of my protestant ideals. I think God’s plan of salvation is pretty easy. The problem is, the last time I asked a Catholic whether protestants would be in heaven, the answer was no. Same for the Mormons. Not that any of this really matters, but it does with the interaction of these different faiths seems to follow the “its my way or the highway” mentality. This eventually leads back to authority and the main interaction between LDS and CC, which is this “failure.” This is why I think it is important to try to figure it out.

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay Ricko, thanks, I thought that this was the Catholic perspective, I just wasn’t sure.

The idea that the Apostles were just a temporary sort of position vs. the leadership of the church is hard to substantiate or refute from the scriptures. The LDS position requires it to be permanent to uphold their claim of an Apostacy and the Catholic position requires it to be temporary to uphold their claim of Apostolic Succession, n’est pas?

 

[catholic-rcia]

The problem is, the last time I asked a Catholic whether protestants would be in heaven, the answer was no. .

If you want to speak about simple, here is simple
You asked a Catholic who does not understand his or her faith. The one fantastic gift the Church has is the Scriptures…her Diary so to speak. And the Catechism. Nothing is hidden.

Of course Protestants can go to heaven. This is Catholic beleif. They are Christians right? At least those who beleive in the Apostles Creed, Trinity etc… We need to cut our false information so we don’t confuse and move foreward. God is the God of Truth.The Church has this truth in Christ, Indivudully we do not have a lock on this truth… be careful with decpeption. …dicern…
Rich
www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com

 

[ricko]

Okay Ricko, thanks, I thought that this was the Catholic perspective, I just wasn’t sure.

The idea that the Apostles were just a temporary sort of position vs. the leadership of the church is hard to substantiate or refute from the scriptures. The LDS position requires it to be permanent to uphold their claim of an Apostacy and the Catholic position requires it to be temporary to uphold their claim of Apostolic Succession, n’est pas?

Applying a little common sense would help greatly. Jesus came to earth with a two-fold mission, redemmer and teacher. The redemption was accomplished on the cross. His teaching began with the Apostles. He wanted His teaching to be spread by the Apostles and their successors (bishops). Yes, the Apostles are gone but their work continues with the bishops. Now if Christ wanted the Apostles to continue through-out the ages then He would have remained on earth to commission new Apostles. But He went to the right hand of the Father. He had already established the beginnings of His Church in the Apostles with protection from teaching error and a guarantee that His Church would never perish. The scripture is there plain and true. As Catholics dealing with the truth we accept His statements as they are written in scripture. There is no need to twist the meaning of His words, they say what they say. His Church would be protected and last till the end of the world. Nothing can overcome the plain truthful teaching of the Word of God. The tradition of the Apostles continues in the bishops. That authority was passed on as is evident in the scriptures. Now if someone starts another church hundreds of years later they have to somehow justify that church’s existence. When someone takes scripture and starts adding teachings to it that are clearly out of context with what scripture clearly says then we have a problem. Most everyone WANTS to believe that the church they have chosen is the true church but how many really will look at the truth in an objective way and accept it? Not many.

 

[rmcmullan]

When the eleven called Matthias to be an Apostle to replace Judas, they must have been still thinking that they were still the ones responsible for the Savior’s charge to bring His gospel to all the world.

Also, the requirements to fulfill the office of a bishop is laid out in the New testament. But there doesn’t seem to be any mention that one bishop would be per-emminent over another.

Look, all I am saying is that the Apostolic Succession is not supported by any study of the scriptures. If a bishop is the same as an Apostle, why didn’t He call 12 bishops? It’s your claim. And the switch from an apostolic leadership to the pre-emminence of a local leader located at the source of political power is just as easily explained by an Apostacy.

 

[TheosisM]

Look, all I am saying is that the Apostolic Succession is not supported by any study of the scriptures. If a bishop is the same as an Apostle, why didn’t He call 12 bishops? It’s your claim.

No, this is not our claim. We do not believe that a bishop is the same as an apostle (or more precisely, one of the Twelve Apostles). What we do believe is that Jesus Christ gathered the Twelve Apostles for a unique role, with unique authority and power. We believe that there was certain criteria that the Twelve/Thirteen met that distinguished them, and we believe that this criteria was what was given in the choosing of a new Apostle to replace Judas. No one else could meet this criteria after that time. Therefore, the leadership of the Church passed on to the Bishops, who had/have many of the same powers and authority of the Twelve, but are still different, and are not “the same as an Apostle”. Bishops hold authority in their local jurisdictions. There are also “patriarchs” who are bishops over a “particular church”. The Catholic Church is made up of 23 “particular churches”, such as the Roman Catholic church (the largest), the Ukrainian Catholic church, Ethiopian Catholic church, etc. A patriarch/bishop is at the head of each one. The Bishop of Rome, the patriarch of the Roman Catholic church, has primacy, being the successor of St. Peter.

We simply do not expect everything to be spelled out in the Bible (we are not sola scriptura), nor do we expect to find the development of the Church, as it grew larger, to be there either. What we do find is the beginnings of the Church, the establishing of authority and priesthood, various priesthood offices, and the criteria to be one of the Twelve Apostles. Bishops, who are overseers, became the apostolic authority when no one could meet the criteria to be one of the Twelve. There is no evidence that Paul or anyone else called “apostle” was part of the Twelve, and we understand them to be “apostles” in the sense of the definition of the word.