LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[rmcmullan]

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

And that’s not unreasonable and I think you are admitting that there is no Biblical precedent. There doesn’t need to be for it to be correct (not that I think that!)

So I’ll leave you with this quote from St. Clement, the first Pope@Rome:

Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned

 

[TheosisM]

And that’s not unreasonable and I think you are admitting that there is no Biblical precedent. There doesn’t need to be for it to be correct (not that I think that!)

So I’ll leave you with this quote from St. Clement, the first Pope@Rome:

Thank you, and I agree.

 

[rinnie]

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

Mc this does not make sense to me How could the authority and Bishop of Rome mean that the Church failed. It just shows you that the Church has continued for goodness sakes. Now if the Apostles who were ordained by our Lord DID NOT replace themself and continue to pass on the power then I could understand. BUt the Power was passed on by the laying of hands as Jesus promised. I mean did you think that the Apostes were going to never die or something? And do you not understand the Church is led by the Advocate the Holy SPirit not the Aposltes. They only obey the HS. They have no power without the HS.

 

[rmcmullan]

I don’t expect the Apostles to live forever anymore than I expect any of the bishops to live forever.

As I’ve said in my initial post, this is a matter of the role you see that the Apostles play. Rico tells me they were transitional figures and after a period of the overseeing the church, that overseeing body was abandoned. They replaced Judas with Matthias, if there were other replacements and for how long of a time is not recorded so only a matter of speculation.

Personally, I find it hard to conceive that the church did not need any oversight and that the Apostles should have been continued, to reconcile any disputes that different local authorities might have. It seems to me that this would just lead to some sort of evolution of doctrine according to the charisma and power of individual bishops. If you read St. Clements letters, you’ll see he is busying himself with giving advice to other churches. Who made him the overlord of the church at Corinth?

 

[rinnie]

I don’t expect the Apostles to live forever anymore than I expect any of the bishops to live forever.

As I’ve said in my initial post, [SIGN]this is a matter of the role you see that the Apostles play. [/SIGN] Rico tells me they were transitional figures and after a period of the overseeing the church, that overseeing body was abandoned. They replaced Judas with Matthias, if there were other replacements and for how long of a time is not recorded so only a matter of speculation.

Personally, I find it hard to conceive that the church did not need any oversight and that the Apostles should have been continued, to reconcile any disputes that different local authorities might have. It seems to me that this would just lead to some sort of evolution of doctrine according to the charisma and power of individual bishops. If you read St. Clements letters, you’ll see he is busying himself with giving advice to other churches. Who made him the overlord of the church at Corinth?

No I do not see this a role. IT is A promise from Jesus CHrist to give them the same power he had and to pass on as he promised. Hades will never take over (death) would never take over this power. Which means it will never die with a Bishop etc. It will be passed on as Jesus promised. Jesus promised us the Advocate the HS and he also promised us the Church WOULD NEVER FALL. If the Church failed the Advocate failed. That means the Holy Spirit failed. The HS is still in the RCC today as when Peter was there. Jesus promised he would never leave us orphans. If the Church failed he left us Orphans. Sorry we still have the RCC and still being led by the same HS.

 

[rmcmullan]

No one was in any danger of being abandoned by the Lord’s Church while it was lead by the Apostles. The danger was to the Apostles and the humble followers of Christ who were made into martyrs by enemies.

Isa 50:1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.

and the Saviour’s

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

The real problem the early church faced was persecution and rejection.

 

[Xavierlives]

The real problem the early church faced was persecution and rejection.

I guess the first church and the Mormon church do have something in common.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

No one was in any danger of being abandoned by the Lord’s Church while it was lead by the Apostles. The danger was to the [SIGN]Apostles and the humble followers of Christ who were made into martyrs by enemies.[/SIGN]

and the Saviour’s

The real problem the early church faced was persecution and rejection./QUOTE

I do not understand how you thinking that the Humble followers of Christ being made into martyrs has anything to do with the HS leading the CC imto all truth.

And as far as the Early Church being faced with persecution and rejection where is the big surprise there? Jesus told us that would happen, and he also said do not worry about it. He said that the devil would try to tear down his Church. But he Promised us the devil would not succeed. We know that the RCC is the one the devil wants to tear down the most. Because if he can get rid of the true Church he won. But he never will. Like I said we got Gods word on that.

 

[rmcmullan]

I was saying that while God will always support man, the inverse is not true, man frequently rejects God’s counsel’s and He does not force Himself on anyone. Logically, the church can fail if man turns his back on it. We saw what happened to Israel and the many entreaties of the Lord through His prophets that went unheeded. I don’t know why it would be any different today.

For those that take His yoke upon themselves, the Holy Spirit will guide them, yes, but so far as I know He does not operate within the confines of the Catholic Church exclusively.

 

[rinnie]

I was saying that while God will always support man, the inverse is not true, man frequently rejects God’s counsel’s and He does not force Himself on anyone. Logically, the church can fail if man turns his back on it. We saw what happened to Israel and the many entreaties of the Lord through His prophets that went unheeded. I don’t know why it would be any different today.

For those that take His yoke upon themselves, the Holy Spirit will guide them, yes, but so far as I know He does not operate within the confines of the Catholic Church exclusively.

Noted. I agree while God can work anywhere and through anyone we still have the promise that he is in the Church though. That is his promise to us to be given to the Church at Pentecost. And lead the Church. But I do disagree with you that the Church can fail if Man fails. Man can and will fail everytime he sins. That is the whole purpose of the Church to be there for Man when he does fail to put him back on the right road through repentance and Confession.

But See here is the big thing Jesus said he will send us the Advocate the HS and the HS will never fail. So the CHurch will never fail. But it amazes me how you can see that Man can sin, but you cannot see the CHurch cannot because of the HS. And yet you can take the word of a Man JS who tried to do exactly what scripture warned us about, and turn us away from the teachings of the Church? How you cannot see the sins of JS but yet can see where there is failure in the Church that does not exist. It is still here and has been for over 2000 years. In order for the Church to have failed it would have to cease to exist anymore. That never happened.

 

[rmcmullan]

…But it amazes me how you can see that Man can sin, but you cannot see the Church cannot because of the HS.

Because I see the church as a collection of men (men in the generic sense).

I certainly agree that the HS cannot fail but since men govern within the church and they don’t always listen to the HS, they can fail. Perhaps the problem is the way the RC has mystified the church (and I’m not familiar with the teaching.) What is your idea of what the church is?

 

[Xavierlives]

Noted. I agree while God can work anywhere and through anyone we still have the promise that he is in the Church though. That is his promise to us to be given to the Church at Pentecost. And lead the Church. But I do disagree with you that the Church can fail if Man fails. Man can and will fail everytime he sins. That is the whole purpose of the Church to be there for Man when he does fail to put him back on the right road through repentance and Confession.

But See here is the big thing Jesus said he will send us the Advocate the HS and the HS will never fail. So the CHurch will never fail. But it amazes me how you can see that Man can sin, but you cannot see the CHurch cannot because of the HS. And yet you can take the word of a Man JS who tried to do exactly what scripture warned us about, and turn us away from the teachings of the Church? How you cannot see the sins of JS but yet can see where there is failure in the Church that does not exist. It is still here and has been for over 2000 years. In order for the Church to have failed it would have to cease to exist anymore. That never happened.

My issue is one of purpose.

If Christ’s message was sufficent to start the first church and the Mormon’s accept that the Bible is the word of God, then it would seem all one needs to get back on track would be the God’s Word? Otherwise what we are talking about is man. What I hear is the First Church failed because man failed. Now we need another man with another message to put a fresh coat of paint on it and say it is new. If you think God’s Word needs a new coat of paint, you are a bit jaded. What is the purpose to the new church?

 

[TheosisM]

I have a question: Can the LDS Church fail/“apostasize” today, as the early Church did in the LDS view? Why or why not?

 

[Xavierlives]

I have a question: Can the LDS Church fail/“apostasize” today, as the early Church did in the LDS view? Why or why not?

In the same vein, can the prophet fail. We see Moses’s failures recorded but why don’t we see acknowledgement of the current prophet’s shortcomings?

 

[ParkerD]

My issue is one of purpose.

If Christ’s message was sufficent to start the first church and the Mormon’s accept that the Bible is the word of God, then it would seem all one needs to get back on track would be the God’s Word? Otherwise what we are talking about is man. What I hear is the First Church failed because man failed. Now we need another man with another message to put a fresh coat of paint on it and say it is new. If you think God’s Word needs a new coat of paint, you are a bit jaded. What is the purpose to the new church?

Xavierlives,
Here are the promises of God which John saw in vision as recorded in Revelation 14:6-7 which say:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

It would seem that what John saw disagrees with your implication to just “add a fresh coat of paint” using the teachings of the Bible. I would say that it would be important to figure out why an angel comes to bring the everlasting gospel to “them that dwell on earth”. If God considered the matter important enough to send an angel, then it seems important enough to find out what the angel had to say.

 

[ParkerD]

I have a question: Can the LDS Church fail/“apostasize” today, as the early Church did in the LDS view? Why or why not?

TheosisM,
Hello and good day to you. Perhaps you read an entry I posted last week about a “check and balance” system that is part of the revealed organization for the church, beginning with the Holy Spirit as revelator and Christ as the head of the church, and having in place apostles and prophets, a quorum of seventy, leaders at local levels, and the members each having the opportunity to vote on whether they “sustain” those called to be leaders.

All the break-off groups from the LDS church have abandoned that check and balance system in favor of some person that the group wanted to follow. It is the outcome of people making a choice that is theirs to make, but ultimately it means they lost the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their life and are “winging it” on their own.

Here are pertinent sets of verses from Daniel that apply to your question, since Daniel wrote what the Lord wanted written and it is a true prophecy:

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

(Be sure and understand that the idea of “brake in pieces” is not physical, but spiritual, and means that although people will try and dominate politically or otherwise, the Lord’s kingdom will prevail and preserve the spiritual fortitude of the “saints of the most High” through them overcoming just as John prophesied that they would.)

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
Hello and good day to you. Perhaps you read an entry I posted last week about a “check and balance” system that is part of the revealed organization for the church, beginning with the Holy Spirit as revelator and Christ as the head of the church, and having in place apostles and prophets, a quorum of seventy, leaders at local levels, and the members each having the opportunity to vote on whether they “sustain” those called to be leaders.

So the LDS Church will never fail/apostasize because of this checks and balances system. So the early Church was established by God without a checks and balances system?

 

[rmcmullan]

I would say that the RCC is a lot more laissez-fair, having lost their leadership at an early point in its formation. It looks like the early church was full of free-lancers who eventually settled upon a doctrine. But eventually there was a Protestant Reformation and the cracks in that foundation turned into fractures that have never healed.

I’m not finding any fault with most of the modern RCC teachings but I am saying that had the Apostles not all been martyred, the angel Moroni would have given the Book of Mormon to the Pope!

 

[ParkerD]

So the LDS Church will never fail/apostasize because of this checks and balances system. So the early Church was established by God without a checks and balances system?

TheosisM,
As you would realize, that is a completely pertinent question.

Acts 15 shows that a check and balance system was in place in the early church, and followed the process that members or local leaders who had a concern raised the concern and the apostles ultimately heard the matter and discussed it together and made an inspired decision in unity, through inspiration from the Holy Ghost. The decision was sent out by the apostles to the members.

John’s writings in the early chapters of the Book of Revelation show that he was acting in his stewardship as an apostle to check and balance the members, some of whom were following false ideas that had sprung up among them. Some evidently didn’t heed his counsel. John also shows the same stewardship role in his epistle 3 John 1:9-10.

The eventual breakdown of the check and balance system and process had to do with all of the following:

1–The members brought their own philosophies into how they implemented and taught the gospel among themselves, thus losing the Holy Ghost through bringing in impurity from their own desires which the Holy Ghost would not override because of the principle of agency and unfettered personal choice. Thus, they didn’t heed the apostles’ repeated warnings.

2–The local leaders had squabbles over who was preeminent, who had baptized whom and was thus more “special”, and what the pure doctrines were.

3–The Holy Spirit did not inspire that new apostles be called and ordained after a point in time. Matthias was called, and Paul and Bartholomew were called, and other few, but later this replacement process did not preserve the position of twelve apostles–perhaps because no one was worthy enough to be called, or perhaps because the twelve had an insurmountable obstacle in getting together to vote on a new apostle. A great deal of disunity and of persecution is evident in 50-70 AD.

History becomes a teacher so that it does not repeat itself. It appears that the New Testament provides a clear picture of the importance of a complete check and balance system, always with the Holy Spirit not guaranteed to be with anyone but promised to be with those who are personally righteous, seek unity not division and not power, and are grounded in the pure gospel teachings that the Savior taught.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Here are the promises of God which John saw in vision as recorded in Revelation 14:6-7 which say:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

It would seem that what John saw disagrees with your implication to just “add a fresh coat of paint” using the teachings of the Bible. I would say that it would be important to figure out why an angel comes to bring the everlasting gospel to “them that dwell on earth”. If God considered the matter important enough to send an angel, then it seems important enough to find out what the angel had to say.

Ok. So you prove my point my exact point. God’s word is everlasting. There is no need to add a fresh coat of paint.

I just don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion. The last time I checked the beast hasn’t started marking people, the 144,000 are not in our midst (which by the way were unmarried and considered God’s firstfruits), and while we live in a dark time now, I think we are a bit off from the end of days.