LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[ParkerD]

OK, now you really have me confused. Pope Clement is unacceptable because he supposedly wasn’t given the keys, but was still allegedly teaching correct doctrine (according to Mormons)? When you say that the keys were only given to the apostles by Christ, not to anyone else, how did Jesus intend for His church to continue, if not by passing on the keys? St. Peter should have given “the keys” to St. John who should have given them to ________ ???

And, when did this drifting away in doctrinal purity come in to play then?

Jay53,
Those are extremely important questions. John had the keys to “bind on earth that which was bound in heaven”, but always the calling of a new apostle was by revelation through the influence of the Holy Spirit. Paul would have had that same authority. John outlived Paul and the other apostles. When he received his visions and saw what was part of God’s plan involving the church (that Satan would be allowed to have broad influence to make war with the saints and overcome them), he would have likely understood why the Holy Spirit had not directed the apostles to ordain more apostles beyond the few who were ordained during 34AD-70AD or so.

The apostles knew that the Holy Spirit was doing the guiding and directing, not them on their own. It was always a question of doing what the Holy Spirit directed, and not taking action until the Holy Spirit directed them to take action.

So again, if you read the verses from Daniel 7:24-26 and the verses from Revelation 13:6-7, one can see that a provison was made in God’s plan, that Satan would be allowed to have influence and actually “overcome” or in other words that the saints would be “given into his hand.”

The drifting away was gradual, and occurred differently in different locations. I can identify the results, but the actual points of change are not clear from writings I’ve read. If a person takes the New Testament and writes down every belief in its context and writes down the beliefs of today (every single one of them), they will begin to see the differences I am talking about. You will probably respond that the LDS church has made changes also, and that is true, so ultimately the question becomes whether the Holy Spirit has guided any such change, and that is where we are left–asking God for the Holy Spirit to guide our own understanding as to whether each change has been a “guided change,” or not.

 

[Texan77]

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?

In brief I have been told that through the death of the apostles and no succession came the apostacy…

One of the issue I have with the “death of the apostles” is that through my studies we do not know if John the Apostle actually suffered a death - and if he did we have no evidence of a successful attempt to kill him which would make him a martyr.

And in regards to no apostolic succession - Jesus promised that He would always be with His Church; likewiseI find it interesting that the LDS church has “apostles” and succession of their “apostles”…

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
Those are extremely important questions. John had the keys to “bind on earth that which was bound in heaven”, but always the calling of a new apostle was by revelation through the influence of the Holy Spirit. Paul would have had that same authority. John outlived Paul and the other apostles. When he received his visions and saw what was part of God’s plan involving the church (that Satan would be allowed to have broad influence to make war with the saints and overcome them), he would have likely understood why the Holy Spirit had not directed the apostles to ordain more apostles beyond the few who were ordained during 34AD-70AD or so.

What?!? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Since when is the calling of a new apostle by revelation. I’m taking that to mean that an apostle would have a “vision” or “revelation” that so-and-so is to be a priest/apostle. I would agree that the Holy Spirit calls individual men to become priests, but I certainly don’t believe that other priests or people receive revelations as to who will get that calling or not. Perhaps (I hope) you didn’t mean it that way. ???

Where did the Holy Spirit say that there would be no priests after 70 AD or so. ???

I’m sorry, but you have completely lost me here.

 

[ParkerD]

What?!? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Since when is the calling of a new apostle by revelation. I’m taking that to mean that an apostle would have a “vision” or “revelation” that so-and-so is to be a priest/apostle. I would agree that the Holy Spirit calls individual men to become priests, but I certainly don’t believe that other priests or people receive revelations as to who will get that calling or not. Perhaps (I hope) you didn’t mean it that way. ???

Where did the Holy Spirit say that there would be no priests after 70 AD or so. ???

I’m sorry, but you have completely lost me here.

Jay53,
As I had noted before, Matthew 18:18 says, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus was speaking to the apostles, and to no one else.

Being a priest is a different calling than being an apostle, with different responsibilities and different (less all-inclusive) authority. For example, when Christ sent out “other seventy” He did not give them this authority that He had given to the apostles. The apostles had a specific apostolic authority, and if it were to be passed on, it would be passed on to a new apostle. When Matthias was called, he was called by revelation. When Paul was called, he was called by revelation.

So yes, there were validly authorized “priests” in the church, but when John was departed along about 100AD, the keys of apostleship were gone. It seems logical to me that John knew something no one else in the church knew, since he had had the vision and knew its meaning. He would not have spread the word that when he was gone, all the authority of the church was going to be gone. Only the apostolic authority was going to be gone, and he would have wanted the church to remain as steadfast and faithful as possible and to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From that point is when there would have been a gradual lessening of the influence of the Holy Spirit and a gradual change from priests having valid authority recognized by God, and priests being called without the Holy Spirit having revealed the calling and without God having thus authorized the call.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
As I had noted before, Matthew 18:18 says, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus was speaking to the apostles, and to no one else.

Being a priest is a different calling than being an apostle, with different responsibilities and different (less all-inclusive) authority. For example, when Christ sent out “other seventy” He did not give them this authority that He had given to the apostles. The apostles had a specific apostolic authority, and if it were to be passed on, it would be passed on to a new apostle. When Matthias was called, he was called by revelation. When Paul was called, he was called by revelation.

So yes, there were validly authorized “priests” in the church, but when John was departed along about 100AD, the keys of apostleship were gone. It seems logical to me that John knew something no one else in the church knew, since he had had the vision and knew its meaning. He would not have spread the word that when he was gone, all the authority of the church was going to be gone. Only the apostolic authority was going to be gone, and he would have wanted the church to remain as steadfast and faithful as possible and to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From that point is when there would have been a gradual lessening of the influence of the Holy Spirit and a gradual change from priests having valid authority recognized by God, and priests being called without the Holy Spirit having revealed the calling and without God having thus authorized the call.

Are you actually saying that Jesus founded His Church knowing that it would fail by 100AD? Seriously? What was His point and purpose in establishing the church then? I’m sorry, but from a logical standpoint this makes absolutely no sense. I was following you up until this point, but maybe that means I didn’t have a firm grasp on what you were trying to say to begin with.

If you are saying that the God had to specifically reveal who would be an apostle to keep the Church going, then you are, in effect, saying that God failed to keep His Church going since He failed to appoint any new apostles. Again, this logically makes no sense. Jesus specifically said that He would be with us until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).

Is it the Mormon belief then that Joseph Smith was given these keys again and that Jesus appeared to call apostles then and even now appears to certain people to call them to be apostles to the LDS Church?

EDIT: I wanted to add this link for whomever is interested.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[Techno2000]

An important thing to understand is that the keys we are talking about are to “bind on earth what shall be bound in heaven,” and that power (those keys) were only given to the apostles by Christ, not to other positions in the church.

Parker, if the Catholic Church only rested in Man’s Hands it would have falling apart a long time ago.

 

[rinnie]

Jay53,
As I had noted before, Matthew 18:18 says, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus was speaking to the apostles, and to no one else.

[SIGN]Being a priest is a different calling than being an apostle[/SIGN], with different responsibilities and different (less all-inclusive) authority. For example, when Christ sent out “other seventy” He did not give them this authority that He had given to the apostles. The apostles had a specific apostolic authority, and if it were to be passed on, it would be passed on to a new apostle. When Matthias was called, he was called by revelation. When Paul was called, he was called by revelation.

So yes, there were validly authorized “priests” in the church, but when John was departed along about 100AD, the keys of apostleship were gone. It seems logical to me that John knew something no one else in the church knew, since he had had the vision and knew its meaning. He would not have spread the word that when he was gone, all the authority of the church was going to be gone. Only the apostolic authority was going to be gone, and he would have wanted the church to remain as steadfast and faithful as possible and to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From that point is when there would have been a gradual lessening of the influence of the Holy Spirit and a gradual change from priests having valid authority recognized by God, and priests being called without the Holy Spirit having revealed the calling and without God having thus authorized the call.

Yes in some ways. But being a Bishop and Pope is exactly the same thing as a Apostle. A Pope has the keys to the kingdom. And there is not one thing that the Apostles could do that the Bishops and Pope cannot. Peter was the Leader the Pope is the Leader. But they all have the same authority over sin.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, if the Catholic Church only rested in Man’s Hands it would have fallen apart a long time ago.

Techno2000,
If you’d care to explain in more detail, then that might be fascinating to read. In what way would it have “fallen apart”? Christ’s message is the greatest message in the world. As far as I’m concerned, the message is greater than the messengers, whether they have the pure version or a less-than-pure version. The message is strong enough that even when changed, it can do great good and be recognized by people as having true principles in its teachings, and blessings attending those who live those principles.

 

[Jay53]

The one difference I see from the article I linked in my last post is that the apostles were given the gift of miracles:

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

If the apostles of the LDS Church are the only true apostles, then they should have this gift. Does anyone know of any miracles performed by LDS apostles?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Techno2000,
If you’d care to explain in more detail, then that might be fascinating to read. In what way would it have “fallen apart”? Christ’s message is the greatest message in the world. As far as I’m concerned, the message is greater than the messengers, whether they have the pure version or a less-than-pure version. [SIGN]The message is strong enough that even when changed, [/SIGN]it can do great good and be recognized by people as having true principles in its teachings, and blessings attending those who live those principles.

I disagree with you hear parker 100%. If the true message is changed you are not getting the true message.

There is only ONE TRUTH. There is no such thing as a less than pure truth. No way can the teachings of Christ be any less then the PURE ONE TRUTH. He promised that to the Church.

 

[Jerusha]

I did a search and found this one:

greaterthings.com/Ridenhour/me_in_restoration/first_LDS_miracle.htm

Doesn’t sound too believable, though.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000,
If you’d care to explain in more detail, then that might be fascinating to read. In what way would it have “fallen apart”? Christ’s message is the greatest message in the world. As far as I’m concerned, the message is greater than the messengers, whether they have the pure version or a less-than-pure version. The message is strong enough that even when changed, it can do great good and be recognized by people as having true principles in its teachings, and blessings attending those who live those principles.

Errors would start to get worst and worst over the years leading to false teachings about Jesus.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000,
If you’d care to explain in more detail, then that might be fascinating to read. In what way would it have “fallen apart”? Christ’s message is the greatest message in the world. As far as I’m concerned, the message is greater than the messengers, whether they have the pure version or a less-than-pure version. The message is strong enough that even when changed, it can do great good and be recognized by people as having true principles in its teachings, and blessings attending those who live those principles.

Errors would get worse and worse over the years, leading to false teachings about Jesus.

 

[ParkerD]

Are you actually saying that Jesus founded His Church knowing that it would fail by 100AD? Seriously? What was His point and purpose in establishing the church then? I’m sorry, but from a logical standpoint this makes absolutely no sense. I was following you up until this point, but maybe that means I didn’t have a firm grasp on what you were trying to say to begin with.

If you are saying that God had to specifically reveal who would be an apostle to keep the Church going, then you are, in effect, saying that God failed to keep His Church going since He failed to appoint any new apostles. Again, this logically makes no sense. Jesus specifically said that He would be with us until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).

Is it the Mormon belief then that Joseph Smith was given these keys again and that Jesus appeared to call apostles then and even now appears to certain people to call them to be apostles to the LDS Church?

EDIT: I wanted to add this link for whomever is interested.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

Jay53,
Jesus is with those who are with Him, always. He will do that to “the end of the age.”

The calling of an apostle was always by revelation. The righteously authorized calling of priests would also be by revelation, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit specifically inspiring and authorizing the call.

Look again at the calling of Matthias and how he was chosen. The apostles prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide their decision, and asked specifically for whom “thou hast chosen”; then they “gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias…” (Acts 1:26) The Holy Spirit had guided the drawing of lots, since the apostles had prayed for that guidance and had been impressed that the method that would be sanctioned by the Holy Spirit would be to use a Jewish custom of “drawing lots.”

Acts 13 relates the inspired and directed callings of Paul and Barnabas:
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
(Note that “they” in these verses would be Peter and several other apostles, since Paul and Barnabas had returned from Jerusalem to where Peter was, per the end of Acts 12.)

The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost does the revealing of who should be an apostle. It is not needful that Christ appear to the apostle personally, since the Holy Spirit is a revealer of all truth. So each modern LDS apostle has been called by specific revelation, through the direction of the Holy Spirit to the prophet and the other apostles.

As to what Jesus knew, He knew the end from the beginning, and would have known Daniel’s prophecy as well as known of John’s coming vision and prophecy in the Book of Revelation. He also gave the parable recorded in Matthew 21:33-43, which uses the words “let us seize on his inheritance” and ends with the prophecy that
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I’ve noted before that the result of such a quick “drifting away” and the consequential breaking up of the church into several groups and the eventual Protestant churches, is that God has allowed humankind to have many, many choices in their religion. God desires free will to be fully operative, so that may seem contradictory if one thinks God wants everyone to worship in one way, but it is not contradictory if one realizes that God want to allow everyone to worship in whatever way they themselves choose.

This does not mean God has been the author of confusion, but that He has allowed the kind of confusion that exists in the religious world today. Thus, each person can really, truly make their own choice at some point in their life, and will hopefully seek the Holy Spirit to guide that selection but the selection is not forced or limited at all. It is to be made on an individual level, with individual blessings available to the extent the person follows the commandments of God and also seeks the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

 

[Techno2000]

This does not mean God has been the author of confusion, but that He has allowed the kind of confusion that exists in the religious world today. Thus, each person can really, truly make their own choice at some point in their life, and will hopefully seek the Holy Spirit to guide that selection but the selection is not forced or limited at all. It is to be made on an individual level, with individual blessings available to the extent the person follows the commandments of God and also seeks the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Parker, if the LDS church is the true church why isn’t the Holy Spirit leading everyone to it, and why do LDS have to go door to door?

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
Jesus is with those who are with Him, always. He will do that to “the end of the age.”

The calling of an apostle was always by revelation. The righteously authorized calling of priests would also be by revelation, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit specifically inspiring and authorizing the call.

Look again at the calling of Matthias and how he was chosen. The apostles prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide their decision, and asked specifically for whom “thou hast chosen”; then they “gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias…” (Acts 1:26) The Holy Spirit had guided the drawing of lots, since the apostles had prayed for that guidance and had been impressed that the method that would be sanctioned by the Holy Spirit would be to use a Jewish custom of “drawing lots.”

Acts 13 relates the inspired and directed callings of Paul and Barnabas:
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
(Note that “they” in these verses would be Peter and several other apostles, since Paul and Barnabas had returned from Jerusalem to where Peter was, per the end of Acts 12.)

The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost does the revealing of who should be an apostle. It is not needful that Christ appear to the apostle personally, since the Holy Spirit is a revealer of all truth. So each modern LDS apostle has been called by specific revelation, through the direction of the Holy Spirit to the prophet and the other apostles.

As to what Jesus knew, He knew the end from the beginning, and would have known Daniel’s prophecy as well as known of John’s coming vision and prophecy in the Book of Revelation. He also gave the parable recorded in Matthew 21:33-43, which uses the words “let us seize on his inheritance” and ends with the prophecy that
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I’ve noted before that the result of such a quick “drifting away” and the consequential breaking up of the church into several groups and the eventual Protestant churches, is that God has allowed humankind to have many, many choices in their religion. God desires free will to be fully operative, so that may seem contradictory if one thinks God wants everyone to worship in one way, but it is not contradictory if one realizes that God want to allow everyone to worship in whatever way they themselves choose.

This does not mean God has been the author of confusion, but that He has allowed the kind of confusion that exists in the religious world today. Thus, each person can really, truly make their own choice at some point in their life, and will hopefully seek the Holy Spirit to guide that selection but the selection is not forced or limited at all. It is to be made on an individual level, with individual blessings available to the extent the person follows the commandments of God and also seeks the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

This is nothing but confusion. God IS the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit was not calling any more apostles, then God willfully let His Church fall into this so-called apostasy. I’m sorry, but this is nothing but confusing. It’s like you’re saying that Jesus established His Church, but then willfully let it fail because ________ ???

And seriously, Matthew 21:33-43 has nothing to do with the LDS Church at all!!! It’s referring to the Jewish people. The son that the landlord sent was Jesus who was killed. I can’t even figure out what interpretation you are trying to put on that parable that would even involve the LDS Church. Equating the son killed in the parable with Joseph Smith?

I would recommend reading the article I linked in my earlier posts if you haven’t already.
It may help explain the differences between apostles and priests and how the successions to the Apostles worked.

I would also like to see the evidence of all of the Mormon Apostles Gift of Miracles. If they are in fact true apostles that would be something to see. (And I honestly don’t mean that sarcastically - if you have anything on that I would be interested to read it. )

As always, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, if the LDS church is the true church why isn’t the Holy Spirit leading everyone to it, and why do LDS have to go door to door?

Techno2000,
The answer is given here:

Romans10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It is also given here:

Matthew 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

And here:

Jeremiah 16:14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15 But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.
16 Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.

Also here:

Isaiah 5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
27 None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken:

The Holy Spirit does not lead people faster than they are ready to be led.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Techno2000,
The answer is given here:

Romans10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?[SIGN] and how shall they hear without a preacher? [/SIGN] 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It is also given here:

Matthew 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

And here:

Jeremiah 16:14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15 But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.
16 Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.

Also here:

Isaiah 5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
27 None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken:

The Holy Spirit does not lead people faster than they are ready to be led.

Huh. When was the RCC ever without a Priest or Pope or Bishop. And who in this country can say they have not heard of the CC? It is there like God told Peter contnue to build Churchs for all to see.

We even go to other countries. Granted if someone has no access to the truth he cannot be held to it. But no one in this country can say they never heard of Jesus. I am sorry you do not need to go door to door in this country. If People know who Oprah is, then had to have heard of Jesus.

 

[rinnie]

And God Bless you but where does any of this scripture you quote show that the devil beat the Holy Spirit and took over the Catholic Church.

If anyone says that the devil took over they are calling Jesus Christ a liar. Its as simple as that.

 

[rinnie]

Techno2000,
The answer is given here:

Romans10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It is also given here:

Matthew 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

And here:

Jeremiah 16:14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15 But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.
16 Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.

Also here:

Isaiah 5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
27 None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken:

The Holy Spirit does not lead people faster than they are ready to be led.

And unless I am mis-understanding you if you think Jesus was talking to JS instead of the Apostles why was here not here when Jesus said it and the Apostles were?