LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[Javl]

ParkerD:

Just a comment on the Apostle John. Just because John was the senior or last Apostle
does not mean that he was to take over the church. Please keep in mind that Peter’s successor was named while some of the other Apostles may have been alive and no
objection was ever made. That we do not know the circumstances that were present at
that time. And also the culture ( rules and regulations, if you will ) of that day was different from that of today. We must not judge yesterday by today’s standards. Also, at
the time John was a prisoner ( so we understand ) on the island of Patmos and may not
have been able to take over the reins of the Church. Peace.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem:

 

[Jay53]

You seem to have overlooked or forgotten the following case in Acts 15 (two cases, actually):

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Now bear in mind that the Pharisees considered themselves the doctrinal experts, and were very adamant when they presented their opinions about doctrine. That is evident in their dealings with Christ. They wanted circumcision to still apply as “the law”. Do you think they just went on their way and everybody was happy? (If you do, then you’re not much of a student of human nature. People don’t just walk away having been told they are wrong, and never bring it up again–especially considering the Pharisees who, again, considered themselves doctrinal experts.)

If a person makes a “power play,” then that means he is trying to legitimize authority he does not have. The idea that God would just ignore that kind of “power play” as to the righteous use of His priesthood, is ignoring from whence the authority comes–it is granted by God, not something that can be gotten by a “power play.”

The idea that John or I would have “sour grapes” ignores the keys of the apostleship, which were greater than the authority of the bishops, period. An apostle wouldn’t need to be “given primacy in the church”–by whom would that be given? Christ had already given the apostles “primacy”. That is so clear in the Bible as to be self-evident.

It is not self-evident. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I just don’t see where John HAD to be the leader of the Church. Jesus gave Peter the keys - thus Peter could choose his successor. And I’m still not seeing the dissension about doctrinal beliefs that you are alleging. I’m looking for dissension about the doctrinal beliefs that separate Mormons and Catholics. I haven’t seen any evidence where Peter and the apostles or their successors taught some of the Mormon doctrines, i.e. God the Father had flesh and bones, there is a “Heavenly Mother” that God procreated with to make “spirit children”, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 separate gods, etc.

 

[Jay53]

If I have understood correctly, Catholics bring up the council described in Acts 15 to show that Peter was the acknowledged leader of the earthly church (which I agree that he was). He was the one who had the vision described in Acts 10 that led to the apostles understanding that it was time to take the gospel to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius. So in this instance, we can see the precedent–a revelation (vision), and a new direction for the preaching of the gospel–through the leader of the earthly church, Peter. No one else came to Peter and said, “Hear me–I had this vision and this is what it means the church should do.”

John was the leader of the earthly church when he had the visions described in the Book of Revelation. That follows the pattern set in Acts.

How does having visions make you the leader of the Church? By that reasoning, any saints that had visions of Christ over the centuries should have been made leader.

Why would they be to blame for something they did not need to do? The leadership authority rested on the apostles. Peter knew that, and Paul knew that. Why would they have to be blamed for not writing down that when they died, whoever was still alive who was an apostle was the leader of the church on earth? There was no need for them to declare that, because it was already a known pattern, and Christ had established that pattern by calling twelve apostles and giving them apostolic authority (keys), not just Peter.

Furthermore, why would they be blamed for having dealings with Linus? That didn’t make Linus in charge of the church. It meant Linus had a calling to minister to a certain group of people (if it was really the same Linus).

I speed-read the article you cited. I’ve read that kind of explanation before. It is the common defense, but by moving right away to 210 AD and saying things were exactly the same by that point in time as in 70 AD, is just pulling wool over people’s eyes. But the case of course needs to be made, to justify and legitimize the whole idea of the “papacy”. Again, Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, and was never a bishop, period. He had a different calling, a more authoritative calling of leadership–an apostle.

SS Peter & Paul would be blamed because they were the ones who set up their successors. Again, there is no evidence that St. John or anyone else disputed St. Peter or his successors. Does the Mormon Church have evidence otherwise - that St. John and/or others disputed the apostolic succession?

Are you saying that the apostasy happened then right after St. Peter died because St. John was not given/did not take leadership of the Church?

I still don’t see where any apostles or disciples from back then were teaching the contentious beliefs of the Mormon Church.

 

[Techno2000]

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.

Ok, I see…I wish Jesus would have done something like this with the first Church He tried to start I guess even God can make mistakes .:

 

[ParkerD]

To JAVL, Jay53, and Techno2000,
I have seen your responses, and sincerely appreciate those. I wanted each of you to know I will reply as I have the time today or this evening if not during the day. Meanwhile, have a great day, all.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
I totally agree that man was given free will, and part of that free will is that man can “accept or reject what Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught (which would be the same thing since They have a unity of omniscience and of purpose), and the Holy Spirit’s guidance.”

And yes, many, many people think they “know more than God,” I suppose, or at least they seem to act like they do. I don’t know why in your mind that wouldn’t have applied in 70AD as well as today. If you do think it applied in 70AD, then why wouldn’t it apply to everyone? That is, why would some few be excluded from the necessity of making sure that they weren’t succombing to the tendency to insert their own will in place of God’s will, and justify themselves by saying that the Holy Spirit would never let them make a wrong decision?

Peace and good will to you also, JAVL.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD:

Just a comment on the Apostle John. Just because John was the senior or last Apostle
does not mean that he was to take over the church. Please keep in mind that Peter’s successor was named while some of the other Apostles may have been alive and no
objection was ever made. That we do not know the circumstances that were present at
that time. And also the culture ( rules and regulations, if you will ) of that day was different from that of today. We must not judge yesterday by today’s standards. Also, at
the time John was a prisoner ( so we understand ) on the island of Patmos and may not
have been able to take over the reins of the Church. Peace.

Shalom Aleichem:

JAVL,

I don’t view it as a question of “taking over the church.” Maybe “watching over the church.”
You have a tradition that “Peter’s successor was named while some of the other Apostles may have been alive” but that is merely a tradition with neither proof from the Bible nor any evidence from real history recorded in 70-90AD. The idea that “no objection was ever made” is a nice assumption, but it is merely a convenient assumption.

Why would John object to something that was going to be made into a tradition after he was gone from among the members of the earthly church? He did give clues about what was going to happen, through his recording of the vision he had, but since he saw the end from the beginning, and the events along the way, and Christ’s ultimate triumph, he would be content in knowing he had personally done his able-bodied best to preserve the pure doctrines and ordinances of the fullness of the gospel.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
I totally agree that man was given free will, and part of that free will is that man can “accept or reject what Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught (which would be the same thing since They have a unity of omniscience and of purpose), and the Holy Spirit’s guidance.”

And yes, many, many people think they “know more than God,” I suppose, or at least they seem to act like they do. I don’t know why in your mind that wouldn’t have applied in 70AD as well as today. If you do think it applied in 70AD, then why wouldn’t it apply to everyone? That is, why would some few be excluded from the necessity of making sure that they weren’t succombing to the tendency to insert their own will in place of God’s will, and justify themselves by saying that the Holy Spirit would never let them make a wrong decision?

Peace and good will to you also, JAVL.

Shalom Chevarim:

Yes, it would apply to everyone, from the primitive Church up until today. But you say that what I said is a contradiction, I see none.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,

I don’t view it as a question of “taking over the church.” Maybe “watching over the church.”
You have a tradition that “Peter’s successor was named while some of the other Apostles may have been alive” but that is merely a tradition with neither proof from the Bible nor any evidence from real history recorded in 70-90AD. The idea that “no objection was ever made” is a nice assumption, but it is merely a convenient assumption.

Why would John object to something that was going to be made into a tradition after he was gone from among the members of the earthly church? He did give clues about what was going to happen, through his recording of the vision he had, but since he saw the end from the beginning, and the events along the way, and Christ’s ultimate triumph, he would be content in knowing he had personally done his able-bodied best to preserve the pure doctrines and ordinances of the fullness of the gospel.

Shalom chevarim:
If a replacement for Judas was made, why couldn’t a successor be made for Peter to
continue his work as Jesus’ representative on earth? You may consider this to be an assumption, but I know that it is not. 2000 years of the CCs history has proven that.
Also, you assume that John objected. He did not. His vision forewarns us as to what
what we may expect at the end.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

PAX DOMINI :

 

[ParkerD]

Shalom Chevarim:

Yes, it would apply to everyone, from the primitive Church up until today. But you say that what I said is a contradiction, I see none.

JAVL,
Peace to you also.
The contradiction I meant to bring into the light is the mistaken idea that men who had their own free will would never be allowed to not follow the Holy Spirit in their decisions. If one answers that men did have free will with “no strings attached”, then that would mean that any one man or any group of men could lose the influence of the Holy Spirit through their own choices, even if they were to say “we believe we have the Holy Spirit and know God’s will.”

In other words, their belief that they had the Holy Spirit does not make it so. A tradition that says they had the Holy Spirit does not make it so. What makes it so is if they really, truly were being guided and were taking the exactly proper steps to obtain that guidance.

 

[Techno2000]

To JAVL, Jay53, and Techno2000,
I have seen your responses, and sincerely appreciate those. I wanted each of you to know I will reply as I have the time today or this evening if not during the day. Meanwhile, have a great day, all.

Parker you’re so nice, I have to give you this.:hug1:

 

[Stephen168]

Ok, I see…I wish Jesus would have done something like this with the first Church He tried to start I guess even God can make mistakes .:

I’ll say. Seems like the same check and balance system we had in the military. All those junior officers as a check against -]their boss/-] senior officers

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
Peace to you also.
The contradiction I meant to bring into the light is the mistaken idea that men who had their own free will would never be allowed to not follow the Holy Spirit in their decisions. If one answers that men did have free will with “no strings attached”, then that would mean that any one man or any group of men could lose the influence of the Holy Spirit through their own choices, even if they were to say “we believe we have the Holy Spirit and know God’s will.”

In other words, their belief that they had the Holy Spirit does not make it so. A tradition that says they had the Holy Spirit does not make it so. What makes it so is if they really, truly were being guided and were taking the exactly proper steps to obtain that guidance.

Shalom Chevarim:
OK, ParkerD. I see what you mean, and yes what you say is correct. Too many say that they have the Holy Spirit when they do not. But, when all are of one accord in faith and
morals and to say that they do not have the Holy Spirit and/or are guided by Him, then
that person is denying and acting against the Holy Spirit himself.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

Jay53:
Jay53,

Here are some ideas to think about in response your comments:

Self-convincing case? I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by this.

What I meant was you already seem to be pretty convinced, and have satisfied yourself, for example, that the link you posted was a completely logical and unbiased presentation of the “way things were”. I am not trying to “unconvince” you, but would welcome your opening up the possibility of “unconvincing” yourself.

My statement ended with: Christ had already given the apostles “primacy”. That is so clear in the Bible as to be self-evident.

Your response:

It is not self-evident. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I just don’t see where John HAD to be the leader of the Church. Jesus gave Peter the keys - thus Peter could choose his successor. And I’m still not seeing the dissension about doctrinal beliefs that you are alleging. I’m looking for dissension about the doctrinal beliefs that separate Mormons and Catholics. I haven’t seen any evidence where Peter and the apostles or their successors taught some of the Mormon doctrines, i.e. God the Father had flesh and bones, there is a “Heavenly Mother” that God procreated with to make “spirit children”, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 separate gods, etc.

If you’re really saying that you don’t believe that Christ ordained the apostles with a clear pattern in place that their authority “outranked” or was “superior in line of authority” to the bishops and the deacons, then it seems to me you haven’t thought much about the New Testament writings. Clearly, Peter and John and Paul are shown as having a leadership role that is general and widespread among the early church members. They give assignments, they talk of giving callings, and they warn the members of the church in the various locations about holding on to the pure doctrinal teachings.

The idea that Peter acting by himself could “choose his successor” and ignore the other apostles whom Christ had chosen along with himself to carry the gospel message into all the world, is not something I can believe that a person would think is logical.

There is not a shred of evidence that Peter passed the “keys of the kingdom” on to Linus. There is ample evidence that John held the same responsibilities Peter held: he was to “feed the sheep”; he had the same power described as “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18, addressed to all the apostles) He was not the first apostle named by Christ–Peter was; but he was named in a successive order that placed him third or fourth on the list of the Twelve. He was right alongside Peter and exercised authority with Peter in Acts 3-5.

Peter was usually “voice”, which shows he was the acknowledged leader, but John participated in those sacred events and was as much an apostle as was Peter.

As an example of dissension in the early church, here is the passage (the only one in the New Testament) where the name of Linus even appears at all: (2 Timothy 4:

10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; …
11 Only Luke is with me…
14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: … Amen.
…
21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

I had earlier cited the disagreement that the Pharisees converts to the church had about circumcision. Peter gave the answer, but that does not mean the Pharisees would have become silent about their disagreement. Human nature is what it is. The logical sequence is that when they understood the expression that baptism was evidence of the “new covenant”, they would assume and argue that it should be done at the age circumcision was done. (But please, I don’t see that it will be helpful to go off on that tangent in this thread. You asked for a doctrinal difference and a doctrinal dispute.)

I am out of room on this post, so I will continue with another post right away.

 

[ParkerD]

Jay53,
Here is the remainder of my last post about doctrinal differences evident from the Bible:

I neither care “yea” or “nay” about whether spirits are “procreated”, but Paul certainly taught that God is the father of spirits (meaning the spirits of humankind):

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

You will notice the use of the word “Godhead” by Paul. I have already discussed that Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God in the vision he saw, and the passage in Deuteronomy 4:28 that shows worship of God should acknowledge He can “see”, “hear”, “eat”, and “smell.”

Finally, marriage is ordained of God, and eternal marriage is a Biblically evident belief.

 

[ParkerD]

Jay53:
Jay53,
Here are more reponses to your later questions:

How does having visions make you the leader of the Church? By that reasoning, any saints that had visions of Christ over the centuries should have been made leader.

I think you have not understood that the vision Peter had was significant in persuading him that it was the correct time to have the gospel go to the Gentiles, and he was the one who needed to understand that because he was the leader of the earthly church.

John’s vision was more than just to prove that Jesus is the Christ. If you think he wrote the whole Book of Revelation just to prove that, then I suggest you haven’t read it very thoroughly. (If you have read it, you will have read about events and prophecies not covered anywhere else in the Bible. This is not some random vision. It announces prophecies and confirms many important doctrines.)

I already wrote to JAVL about the issue of John’s authority and that the only thing that says that Peter gave keys to Linus or that Peter was the bishop of Rome or that where Peter was when he died was where the keys needed to stay, is TRADITION. There is not a shred of historical evidence from 60-90 AD that Peter did gave keys to Linus, but Tradition written down later by men who had a case to prove and had a private, biased interest in the outcome has become the foundational belief for the papacy.

Again, John would not have disputed something that happened after he was gone from the scene.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
Here is the remainder of my last post about doctrinal differences evident from the Bible:

I neither care “yea” or “nay” about whether spirits are “procreated”, but Paul certainly taught that God is the father of spirits (meaning the spirits of humankind):

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

You will notice the use of the word “Godhead” by Paul. I have already discussed that Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God in the vision he saw, and the passage in Deuteronomy 4:28 that shows worship of God should acknowledge He can “see”, “hear”, “eat”, and “smell.”

Finally, marriage is ordained of God, and eternal marriage is a Biblically evident belief.

Parker,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think I’ll just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps you are right and I am just viewing this under the lens of Catholicism so much so that I cannot be unconvinced. I suspect the same is true for you in reverse. I just honestly don’t see where St. John being or not being Pope or being/not being given primacy had or has any effect on the doctrines of the Church.

And I’m sorry, but I don’t see any validity to Mormon doctrine in any of the Biblical passages you’ve quoted. If you are viewing them under the lens of believing Joseph Smith, then you can stretch them to fit that way (maybe), but you need Joseph Smith’s “revelations” to even come up with those interpretations. Again, with certain issues, I defer to the fact that even the Jewish people did not have the interpretations that Mormons do. The Isreaelites certainly did not believe that God was a man of flesh and bones and that He was married to the “Heavenly Mother” and had spirit children.

I still don’t see where/when it is you believe that the Church failed. Was it right after St. Peter died and St. John was not given primacy? or later?

Again, I thank you for your patience with me and your responses.

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, I see…I wish Jesus would have done something like this with the first Church He tried to start I guess even God can make mistakes .:

Tehno2000,
The early church was in its infancy during the period of 34AD - 60AD. The apostles clearly had a check and balance role, as seen repeatedly and confirmed in Acts 15.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think I’ll just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps you are right and I am just viewing this under the lens of Catholicism so much so that I cannot be unconvinced. I suspect the same is true for you in reverse. I just honestly don’t see where St. John being or not being Pope or being/not being given primacy had or has any effect on the doctrines of the Church.

And I’m sorry, but I don’t see any validity to Mormon doctrine in any of the Biblical passages you’ve quoted. If you are viewing them under the lens of believing Joseph Smith, then you can stretch them to fit that way (maybe), but you need Joseph Smith’s “revelations” to even come up with those interpretations. Again, with certain issues, I defer to the fact that even the Jewish people did not have the interpretations that Mormons do. The Isreaelites certainly did not believe that God was a man of flesh and bones and that He was married to the “Heavenly Mother” and had spirit children.

I still don’t see where/when it is you believe that the Church failed. Was it right after St. Peter died and St. John was not given primacy? or later?

Again, I thank you for your patience with me and your responses.

Jay53,
Jesus added to the doctrinal knowledge and foundation of the Old Testament, and actually refuted the beliefs of the Pharisees, so what the “Jewish people” believed is neither here nor there with respect to what is true doctrine.

I already had a thorough discussion about Matthew 22:23-33 which discusses marriage. It was the recent thread on LDS celestial marriage. Eternal marriage (by those living in worthiness and belief in Christ and the resurrection) is a teaching and belief that has a clear logical foundation from reading Matthew 22:23-33, as well as being known by revelation from God to prophets.

I still don’t see where/when it is you believe that the Church failed. Was it right after St. Peter died and St. John was not given primacy? or later?

I have wanted to convey an understanding that the church drifted, not that it “failed.” Again, there is no evidence from 60-70-80-90 AD that anyone in the church thought Linus was the earthly head of the church following Peter’s death. It is later tradition that says that was the case. It was not contemporaneous history. John’s writings don’t convey any sense of there being some other leader besides the apostles who should be viewed by the members as the earthly leader of the church. I suggest you re-read his epistles and the Book of Revelation with that kind of question in mind.

The early chapters of the Book of Revelation, which would cover a later time period than all of the epistles in the New Testament, shows that John was concerned about influences within the church that were leading people astray. He gives repeated warnings.

John was gone from the scene sometime between 100AD-120AD. The drift had already begun in certain places, but of course continued after he was gone. The keys of the power that “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” were gone when John was gone.

So two kinds of loss happened–a drift in doctrinal purity, and a loss of that which God had given and man could not take upon himself: authority directly from God. What remained appeared operationally “the same” and organizationally “similar” (with no Twelve Apostles), but it lacked the key elements that needed to be preserved in purity, and the clearest evidence of that is when later tradition ignored John’s leadership role and said Linus had been given keys that in fact he had not been given.

 

[kimmielittle]

Parker,

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

FINALLY