LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[Xavierlives]

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?

 

[ParkerD]

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,
Here are some important verses in the New Testament that show both that there was disunity in the early church, and that there were significant departures from the pure doctrinal teachings of the apostles:

1 Peter 3:16 "…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever.

3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
…
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

If those kinds of things were happening among part of the early members of the church, and if the apostle John was still alive on the earth when he was not even acknowledged as the leader of the church after all the other apostles had died, then it appears reasonably evident that impurities could find their way into the church teachings and also that authority held by John was ignored by some of the people.

The pure water of the pure gospel could become impure without meaning that every person drinking the water was “in apostasy”. It just means they no longer had pure water from the pure source. But impure water was better than no water, and all this will work itself out over the long span of human history. People will have the full access to the pure water, in fulfillment of Isaiah 55. Peace to you and all.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Here are some important verses in the New Testament that show both that there was disunity in the early church, and that there were significant departures from the pure doctrinal teachings of the apostles:

1 Peter 3:16 "…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever.

FYI it is 2 Peter 3:16-18.

But I will read the rest and try to respond.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Xavierlives,
Here are some important verses in the New Testament that show both that there was disunity in the early church, and that there were significant departures from the pure doctrinal teachings of the apostles:

1 Peter 3:16 "…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever.

3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
…
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

If those kinds of things were happening among part of the early members of the church, and if the apostle John was still alive on the earth when he was not even acknowledged as the leader of the church after all the other apostles had died, then it appears reasonably evident that impurities could find their way into the church teachings and also that authority held by John was ignored by some of the people.

The pure water of the pure gospel could become impure without meaning that every person drinking the water was “in apostasy”. It just means they no longer had pure water from the pure source. But impure water was better than no water, and all this will work itself out over the long span of human history. People will have the full access to the pure water, in fulfillment of Isaiah 55. Peace to you and all.

The disunity was created by those who rejected apostolic teaching and followed madmen in the desert, or forests, who claimed to be visited by lizards orangels with gold tablets.

There was no disunity in the Church. The disunity was outside the Church.

 

[Jay53]

The disunity was created by those who rejected apostolic teaching and followed madmen in the desert, or forests, who claimed to be visited by lizards orangels with gold tablets.

There was no disunity in the Church. The disunity was outside the Church.

I have to agree with Chesterton rules here. I don’t think those verses indicate any disunity in the Church. Commentary on Diotrephes indicates that, in fact, there were no issues with doctrine or beliefs. (biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/3John/Imitating-Truth-Vv-9-12)

I have another related question - why do Mormons believe that St. John needed to be the leader of the Church and was somehow upset that he had been passed over? This is perhaps my ignorance of this part of early church history, but that seems to be my impression: that Mormons believe St. John should have been Pope and because he wasn’t, the Church couldn’t follow the correct teachings of Jesus and therefore needed to be restored.

 

[Stephen168]

“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,” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book IV, Chapter 7.

 

[ParkerD]

I have to agree with Chesterton rules here. I don’t think those verses indicate any disunity in the Church. Commentary on Diotrephes indicates that, in fact, there were no issues with doctrine or beliefs. (biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/3John/Imitating-Truth-Vv-9-12)

I have another related question - why do Mormons believe that St. John needed to be the leader of the Church and was somehow upset that he had been passed over? This is perhaps my ignorance of this part of early church history, but that seems to be my impression: that Mormons believe St. John should have been Pope and because he wasn’t, the Church couldn’t follow the correct teachings of Jesus and therefore needed to be restored.

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.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Here are some important verses in the New Testament that show both that there was disunity in the early church, and that there were significant departures from the pure doctrinal teachings of the apostles:

2 Peter 3:16-18
3 John 1:9-12
Revelation 2:4-5; 14-16

If those kinds of things were happening among part of the early members of the church, and if the apostle John was still alive on the earth when he was not even acknowledged as the leader of the church after all the other apostles had died, then it appears reasonably evident that impurities could find their way into the church teachings and also that authority held by John was ignored by some of the people.

The pure water of the pure gospel could become impure without meaning that every person drinking the water was “in apostasy”. It just means they no longer had pure water from the pure source. But impure water was better than no water, and all this will work itself out over the long span of human history. People will have the full access to the pure water, in fulfillment of Isaiah 55. Peace to you and all.

Ok, I think I am confused. Are you using these scriptures to show some division in the church? I am really muddled about the background of LDS. The way I remember It is something like “There was an apostacy after the first church failed, and now there is LDS.” But I thought there was a time or notation of when and where the failure occurred. Or is it just a General idea?

Or is that the point? John was next in line but did not take the position of Pope and because he never was Pope, the Church died when he died?

“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,” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book IV, Chapter 7.

And yes, I know this is going to be a touchy subject on the CF, but I’m really trying to understand where they think they get this authority. Using their logic, it should be Catholics or Mormons (but they have this Protestant flavor that I just can’t wrap my brain around).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Xavierlives,
Here are some important verses in the New Testament that show both that there was disunity in the early church, and that there were significant departures from the pure doctrinal teachings of the apostles:

1 Peter 3:16 "…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever.

3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
…
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

If those kinds of things were happening among part of the early members of the church, and if the apostle John was still alive on the earth when he was not even acknowledged as the leader of the church after all the other apostles had died, then it appears reasonably evident that impurities could find their way into the church teachings and also that authority held by John was ignored by some of the people.

The pure water of the pure gospel could become impure without meaning that every person drinking the water was “in apostasy”. It just means they no longer had pure water from the pure source. But impure water was better than no water, and all this will work itself out over the long span of human history. People will have the full access to the pure water, in fulfillment of Isaiah 55. Peace to you and all.

The New Testament scriptures do not prove a Total Apostacy of the Church, these scripture only prove that the Catholic Church Jesus built was still standing writing, preaching, teaching, and handing down the Oral Apostolic Teachings given them from Jesus. The New Testament reveals that the first century Apostolic Church were exposing heretics and heresies as she has always done these past 2000 years.

Apostates do not appear for another 400 years, when the Patriarch Nestorious from Constantinople (Eastern Catholic Church) denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Which the Coucil of Ephesus defeated. There was never a Total Apostacy, only Apostates who were exiled, and or excommunicated for teaching something new to God’s Children which conflicted with the Apostlic Teachings written and in practice by the Catholic Church.

To believe in a Lie of a Total Apostacy of the Church Jesus built, is to label Jesus a Liar, for Jesus promised that the “gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” Mt.16:18. Besides how can the Church Jesus built and promised to be with always, fall away into a total apostacy? this total apostacy belief denies the power and promises (Word) of Jesus.

Both religious and secular history prove that the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church today, and it never went into a Total Apostacy.

It should be noted here also that the first heresies and or heretics came from the Eastern Catholic Church in the first 400 years when they appeared not from the Western Catholic Church where the Pope was the successors of Peter.

Peace be with you

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, I think I am confused. Are you using these scriptures to show some division in the church? I am really muddled about the background of LDS. The way I remember It is something like “There was an apostacy after the first church failed, and now there is LDS.” But I thought there was a time or notation of when and where the failure occurred. Or is it just a General idea?

Or is that the point? John was next in line but did not take the position of Pope and because he never was Pope, the Church died when he died?

And yes, I know this is going to be a touchy subject on the CF, but I’m really trying to understand where they think they get this authority. Using their logic, it should be Catholics or Mormons (but they have this Protestant flavor that I just can’t wrap my brain around).

Xavierlives,
You’re right that this is a fairly touchy subject, and it’s important to understand that the word “apostasy” means “loss of doctrinal purity and loss of God’s authorization to perform priesthood ordinances.” It doesn’t mean the inference that the word “apostasy” has in a dictionary, and it doesn’t mean everyone in the church was “apostate” (I don’t even like that word at all). It was more like a drifting away, when the anchor of the apostles was gone. That drifting away happened gradually, but a significant evidence that it did happen is the case of John being recognized as the leader of the church on earth, or not.

(Thanks, by the way, for noting my typing error about 2 Peter in lieu of 1 Peter.)

You probably are aware that there was not a “position of Pope” at the time of John, at all. No one was referred to as “Pope” (in translation “papa” or its equivalent) at that time. But if you look up papal succession, John’s name will not be on the list.

The church didn’t “die” when he was no longer around (he had been translated, by the way). It drifted without anchor. It became led by the most eloquent and persuasive leaders, who gained the people’s trust. That is simple to understand in the world today, as we look around and see examples of that in many countries as leaders emerge.

(But bear in mind that many people have “itching ears” as Paul wrote about in 2 Timothy 4:3, so those who gained the people’s trust would not necessarily be the ones who were preserving doctrinal purity in their teaching and leadership.)

 

[Javl]

Hello again ParkerD. I’ve read your posts and once again ask a question that has never been answered by any LDS. I repeat. Jesus said that “…the gates of hell shall not prevail”
against His Church, and also “I am with you always”. He also told the early Church that it would have the Holy Spirit to guide it. Now if all this were so, how then could the early Church stray and apostacize? If they did, then Jesus’ words meant absolutely nothing, and anything he called truth would not be. So then, why follow Him and adhere to His teachings?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

Hello again ParkerD. I’ve read your posts and once again ask a question that has never been answered by any LDS. I repeat. Jesus said that “…the gates of hell shall not prevail”
against His Church, and also “I am with you always”. He also told the early Church that it would have the Holy Spirit to guide it. Now if alll this were so, how then could the early Church stray and apostacize? If they did then Jesus’ words meant absolutely nothing…

Shalom Aleichem

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.

 

[Marie5890]

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.

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.”

Um…Parker…Christ was referring to the Church itself…But I am glad you agree that its a true statement…

 

[why_me]

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.”

Um…Parker…Christ was referring to the Church itself…But I am glad you agree that its a true statement…

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

 

[Xavierlives]

The disunity was created by those who rejected apostolic teaching and followed madmen in the desert, or forests, who claimed to be visited by lizards orangels with gold tablets.

I’ve alway imagined them clothed in white, but I guess orange works just as well.

 

[Jay53]

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.

Hello Parker, and good day to you too!

I still don’t understand this. Just because John was the last living apostle doesn’t mean that he absolutely had to be the Pope. What if he didn’t want it? Who supposedly took his place instead? Peter was the first Pope and supposedly he along with St. Paul gave the reins to Linus and then to Anacletus, which would then mean that Ss. Peter & Paul had a hand in this “conspiracy” against St. John and the Church going astray.

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus. newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

(And with regard to Diotrephes, please reread the link I put in my last post - there isn’t anything mentioned about doctrinal issues or deviations from Christ’s teachings - it simply seems to be a case of clashing personalities and “power” plays. )

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
You’re right that this is a fairly touchy subject, and it’s important to understand that the word “apostasy” means “loss of doctrinal purity and loss of God’s authorization to perform priesthood ordinances.” It doesn’t mean the inference that the word “apostasy” has in a dictionary, and it doesn’t mean everyone in the church was “apostate” (I don’t even like that word at all). It was more like a drifting away, when the anchor of the apostles was gone. That drifting away happened gradually, but a significant evidence that it did happen is the case of John being recognized as the leader of the church on earth, or not.

Yes, I think I remember that part of the presentation. The part I am struggling with was something along the line of why the apostles did not continue to provide for future leadership (or priesthood) of the church. Is there some LDS notation of that? Or commentary on that moment in time?

(Thanks, by the way, for noting my typing error about 2 Peter in lieu of 1 Peter.)

You probably are aware that there was not a “position of Pope” at the time of John, at all. No one was referred to as “Pope” (in translation “papa” or its equivalent) at that time. But if you look up papal succession, John’s name will not be on the list.

Well, I am not Catholic so I don’t know anything about that church. I guess that is the great thing about the internet.

The church didn’t “die” when he was no longer around (he had been translated, by the way). It drifted without anchor. It became led by the most eloquent and persuasive leaders, who gained the people’s trust. That is simple to understand in the world today, as we look around and see examples of that in many countries as leaders emerge.

Yeah, “die” might not be the best choice of words. I’m just trying to get to the apostacy you mention. How did the church lose the priesthood authority?

(But bear in mind that many people have “itching ears” as Paul wrote about in 2 Timothy 4:3, so those who gained the people’s trust would not necessarily be the ones who were preserving doctrinal purity in their teaching and leadership.)

I guess the part I am supposing is, I imagined this apostacy the LDS believes occurred had to have been after 400 AD. when the Bible was canonized or the LDS use of the Bible would be invalid.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello Parker, and good day to you too!

I still don’t understand this. Just because John was the last living apostle doesn’t mean that he absolutely had to be the Pope. What if he didn’t want it? Who supposedly took his place instead? Peter was the first Pope and supposedly he along with St. Paul gave the reins to Linus and then to Anacletus, which would then mean that Ss. Peter & Paul had a hand in this “conspiracy” against St. John and the Church going astray.

(And with regard to Diotrephes, please reread the link I put in my last post - there isn’t anything mentioned about doctrinal issues or deviations from Christ’s teachings - it simply seems to be a case of clashing personalities and “power” plays. )

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.”

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.

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.

 

[ParkerD]

1–Yes, I think I remember that part of the presentation. The part I am struggling with was something along the line of why the apostles did not continue to provide for future leadership (or priesthood) of the church. Is there some LDS notation of that? Or commentary on that moment in time?

2–Well, I am not Catholic so I don’t know anything about that church. I guess that is the great thing about the internet.

3–Yeah, “die” might not be the best choice of words. I’m just trying to get to the apostacy you mention. How did the church lose the priesthood authority?

4–I guess the part I am supposing is, I imagined this apostacy the LDS believes occurred had to have been after 400 AD. when the Bible was canonized or the LDS use of the Bible would be invalid.

Xavierlives,
I hope I can answer your questions.

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.

One would surmise that John was worried about this issue as he had the vision he had on the isle of Patmos. I think the evidence is clear that he understood the church was going to “fly into the wilderness” and that later “another angel” would fly through heaven and come to earth with the message of the “everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth…” (Revelation 14:6) So although he held the keys of the apostleship, he didn’t pass them on to anyone because he saw the vision that the church was going to “fly into the wilderness” 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.

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.

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.

 

[PaulDupre]

Two points:

1. All of the bible passages that the LDS use as proof texts for the “great apostasy” describe apostasy FROM the Church, not apostasy OF the Church (which is impossible according to Jesus). If apostasy from a church or dissent among members is indicative that a church is not true, then the mere existence of “apostates” like myself and the millions of others who have left the LDS cult in disgust plus the dozens of Mormon splinter groups means that Mormonism is untrue.
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).