LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavierlives
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My questions are about “signs” per se, although you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that Jesus’ apostles were given the Gift of Miracles, that LDS apostles do not have. 🤷

My question is more about verifying the veracity of a prophet and those supposedly ‘ordained’ after him. I used as an example Muhammad. Why don’t you believe Muhammad? He claims to be a prophet, received revelations from an “angel”, had his revelations recited over the 23 years of his “ministry” and refused to recant his prophethood even 'til the day he died. Why don’t you accept his prophethood?
Sorry, I just reread this and the first sentence should say:

My questions aren’t about “signs” per se … 😊
 
I think it’s really far-fetched to claim that Peter was a Pope! He was an Apostle–you can check the gospel of John, it makes it pretty darn clear. If there’s a Biblical record of Peter being either a Pope or Bishop, I’d love to see it.

Check out Act 10 on Peter’s calling. It was to both Jew and Gentile. Before that, the Apostles were each going to judge the tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30)–that sound like much more like a oversight calling than a local leader!

You can’t have a the local leaders being called to give oversight if you don’t believe the church needs oversight, if they’re all mind-melded with the HS. This is where the divide by zero happens. This is where all the rivers run up stream and time flows backwards. And now to claim that the Apostle Peter was a Pope!
The title Pope may not have been used but he is still considered the first Pope. As for hi s not being bishop, he was the head of the Church in Rome and as such he is considered a bishop for the leader of a Church is a bishop. All this is documented. If you have read the history of the Church you would know of it ( and don’t say that it was written by Catholics. Remember, there were no Protestants back then. ). Since Peter was commisioned directly by Jesus to feed his lambs and sheep ( three times ) this alone put Peter in a position of prominence. With Peter’s death ( and the other Apostles too ) the authority and commission that jesus gave him did not die with him but was passed on to his successor. If not, then why did Jesus bother to build a Church if it would die out with Peter and the Apostles?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
With Peter’s death ( and the other Apostles too ) the authority and commission that jesus gave him did not die with him but was passed on to his successor. If not, then why did Jesus bother to build a Church if it would die out with Peter and the Apostles?
Exactly. Everything the Mormons come up with to justify the “restoration” of the church is all contary to the bible. The B.O.M. itself is condemned in scripture as being “another Gospel”. There is no evidence of the “great cities” and many things in the BOM are pure fiction. The eleven witnesses knew each other and many were related. Not objective witnesses at all. The golden plates just disappeared, yet the Dead Sea Scrolls and other parts of the bible are still here. The Mormons then say you have to have faith to believe those things and they ignore the evidence against the whole Joseph Smith story.

In faith, the human intellct and will cooperate with divine grace. The assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind” CC 156
 
Javl, it still doesn’t sound right. There’s no Biblical record of Peter being even the bishop/local authority at Rome. He did administer there, at least we have an account of that, but there’s no indication of whether he was administering in the office of an Apostle or Bishop.

And please note only Catholic consider Peter to be the first Pope. No one else does.

There seems to be this supposition that only Peter was charged to feed His sheep. I don’t know what the other eleven were supposed to do then. Jesus called twelve and he called them to be Apostles, not bishops.

Jesus came to fulfill His role as the Lamb of God. It wasn’t His decision to slay the Apostles. If what we read in the book of Acts is accurate, the church was persecuted and by the time the historical record picks up again (around St. Clement), there was only a scattered remnant of what The Lord and His Apostles had started. And all the Apostles were gone. Jesus wasn’t as nearly concerned about a church as modern-day Catholics are. In the end, it’s only a vehicle to achieve the immortality and eternal life of man.
 
Javl, it still doesn’t sound right. There’s no Biblical record of Peter being even the bishop/local authority at Rome. He did administer there, at least we have an account of that, but there’s no indication of whether he was administering in the office of an Apostle or Bishop.

And please note only Catholic consider Peter to be the first Pope. No one else does.

There seems to be this supposition that only Peter was charged to feed His sheep. I don’t know what the other eleven were supposed to do then. Jesus called twelve and he called them to be Apostles, not bishops.

Jesus came to fulfill His role as the Lamb of God. It wasn’t His decision to slay the Apostles. If what we read in the book of Acts is accurate, the church was persecuted and by the time the historical record picks up again (around St. Clement), there was only a scattered remnant of what The Lord and His Apostles had started. And all the Apostles were gone. Jesus wasn’t as nearly concerned about a church as modern-day Catholics are. In the end, it’s only a vehicle to achieve the immortality and eternal life of man.
Not everything is in the Bible. There are Historical documents too to support this. Yes, there were 12 called ( and 1 betrayed Him ). And Peter was pre-eminent among them, for why else would Jesus change Peter’s name from Simon-bar-Jonah? And also why didn’t Jesus change the names of the other Apostles too? Peter was put in charge, He was given the commission directly by Jesus to feed His Lambs and Sheep.

Now if as you say that Jesus was not so concerned about a Church as we Catholics are, then why did He start the Church? Why did he give them the Authority to continue it? Why did He say that He will be with it always? Have you read the History of the early and primitive Church? With all the persecutions of Nero, Domitian, Diocletian, Caracalla, etc. the Church should have disappeared. Instead it grew and all the more stronger. This is because it was founded and protected by God and guided by the Holy Spirit. That same Church is still here today teaching what Jesus and the Apostles taught and with the same Authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Jesus came to fulfill His role as the Lamb of God. It wasn’t His decision to slay the Apostles. If what we read in the book of Acts is accurate, the church was persecuted and by the time the historical record picks up again (around St. Clement), there was only a scattered remnant of what The Lord and His Apostles had started. And all the Apostles were gone. Jesus wasn’t as nearly concerned about a church as modern-day Catholics are. In the end, it’s only a vehicle to achieve the immortality and eternal life of man.
If Jesus wasn’t concerned about the church then why did He and God to contradict John 6:46, to visit with Joseph Smith and create the “new” church?
 
I think we’re at the point where we need to recognize our irreconcilable differences.

It’s always great to debate topics, it really helps to understand the many faucets of the faith we all subscribe to! Thank you for all your replies. I’m bowing out now though, I think we’ve exhausted the topic.
 
I think we’re at the point where we need to recognize our irreconcilable differences.

It’s always great to debate topics, it really helps to understand the many faucets of the faith we all subscribe to! Thank you for all your replies. I’m bowing out now though, I think we’ve exhausted the topic.
I don’t think we have. There are still questions that have not been answered by the LDS.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
I apologize for stepping into this unprepared, I did ramble on in my post without enough prayer prior. I do feel compelled to right something then move on. Hope it helps.

The reason the Church is set up the way it is set up is to prevent heresy. The checks and balances have worked unbelievably well for 2000 years. No Government anywhere can claim the same. When a new sect shoots up challenging Orthodox Christian belief we have the reliability of the Catholic Church to counter their false claims. Why do other sects keep popping up? Why do other Christian sects mis-read the scriptures? Place their own meaning into them? Its about power, they want what the Catholic Church has, but they want it as their own. (The Fall of Mankind) There is power in opening another church. In order to open another Church one has to set itself apart from the original, the authentic. . They corner themselves into telling souls why they are better. They will say and do, even lie to make themselves stand apart from the truth in order to attain or to keep this power. The core of the Catholic Church is human powerless, we are powerless. We have no one to point to saying we are better, we are more righteous etc…. We are who we are in God

After we are transformed, we can look back and see that we were guided through this process by Another who is choosing us, desiring us, and is infinitely wise and compassionate. That means you do not have to figure out all the patterns ahead of time. You do not have to be that smart, that good. You just have to surrender. Good spirituality is not about being good. It is about God being good. When you keep your eyes on the reality of God’s goodness, then God rubs off into you. You start being good almost in spite of yourself, but you do not even care about it anymore. You are not checking whether you are better than the next person. You have got something so much more wonderful to be excited about. Richard Rohr

When we evangelize we don’t have to be on top of another faith, a bit better than another faith, a better breed of people, a nicer friendlier people. Plain and simple we are just a bunch of fallen people who surround ourselves around Jesus, He makes us better. All we need do is speak of our sin and how Jesus has transformed are lives. Because in the end all we have is Him. We do not have to change the world into believing as we do. All we are asked to do is love others,….simple. When I learned this faith I wanted to run out and tell everyone about it. What I have learned is that most people don’t want to hear about it. But then one person asks a sincere question out of the blue…remember this….we have the sincere answers. It’s amazing!

They listen and it all makes sense. Here in Northern Utah the Church is growing, souls are asking, lives are being changed. What they are hungering for most is a personal relationship with Jesus. They realize for the first time that He is always with them, not when they do something right or achieve a certain level of success. That they are loved right now, just the way they are right now. In that the Holy Spirit moves them towards a deeper, spiritual awakening. The Church understands that this is a matter of development, it takes precious time to fall in Love with God, after that nothing else really matters, a new life begins and we are all converted a bit more because of it, because we are all connected to Him together. (Trinity)
www.utahmission.com
 
I’m not sure why you guys are pushing this but then, it just occurred to me that you don’t have this scripture:

It’s probably a bit much to take in all at once but here the Lord is saying that people who seek signs are looking for shortcuts to faith and usually end up falling away anyway. In the Bible he tells the Pharisees that it is like adultery–all the fun and sensation without any of the commitment or hard work that makes a relationship last.

Another point is that once you’ve witnessed a “sign” and you don’t act on it, it only brings you condemnation.
rmcmullan, that passage is not relevant here, and it is curious that you avoid the simple question and instead attempt to paint Jay53 as “seeking signs”, when in essence, all he wants to know is how are the Mormon apostles like the Biblical ones!

This is very simple: the Biblical apostles had the gift of miracles. Mormons claim that their apostles are just like the Biblical ones, so it would follow that they would also have the gift of miracles, which comes with the office. So, where can we read about all these miracles of today’s Mormon apostles? These would be a great testimony of their office, as we see in the Bible.
 
And please note only Catholic consider Peter to be the first Pope. No one else does.
The Eastern Orthodox recognize that Peter established Sees at both Rome and Antioch, and was the first leader in both. Please look into the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I’m sure that the Oriental Orthodox believe similarly.
There seems to be this supposition that only Peter was charged to feed His sheep. I don’t know what the other eleven were supposed to do then. Jesus called twelve and he called them to be Apostles, not bishops.
Obviously he called Twelve Apostles, not bishops. That is not an issue for Catholics. We don’t expect Peter to be called Pope or Bishop. What we do expect is that Peter acted as leader and established churches in both Antioch and Rome. We believe that other apostles established churches elsewhere, such as Mark establishing the Church of Alexandria, Andrew establishing the Church of Constantinople, Thomas in India, etc. All of the apostles had roles in guiding the Church. What Peter had was primacy, which is clear from the Bible.
 
I think it’s really far-fetched to claim that Peter was a Pope! He was an Apostle–you can check the gospel of John, it makes it pretty darn clear. If there’s a Biblical record of Peter being either a Pope or Bishop, I’d love to see it.

Check out Act 10 on Peter’s calling. It was to both Jew and Gentile. Before that, the Apostles were each going to judge the tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30)–that sound like much more like a oversight calling than a local leader!

You can’t have a the local leaders being called to give oversight if you don’t believe the church needs oversight, if they’re all mind-melded with the HS. This is where the divide by zero happens. This is where all the rivers run up stream and time flows backwards. And now to claim that the Apostle Peter was a Pope!
What? :confused:

Firstly, you seem to be asking for things that Catholics don’t believe, nor do we think are logical to believe, such as thinking that the Bible should call Peter a Pope or Bishop, let alone the extra-biblical historical record. Not everything is said in the Bible, and there is much more that we know about the early Church from other historical writings.

Peter was an apostle. End of story. Now, what we believe is that bishops, being the successors of the apostles, became the leaders of the Church after no one else could fulfill the requirements to be on of the Twelve (which we believe were made clear when Matthias was chosen). Since the bishop is an overseer, many will claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and of Antioch (both Sees that he established, with Paul). Again, we do not expect the historical record to state that Peter was Pope or even Bishop. He was an apostle, and was chosen to be so. However, he was a bishop if we understand the word to mean an overseer. Therefore, all apostles could have been considered bishops in the “overseer” meaning and role.

Your “divide by zero” comment is weird. We believe that the Church does have oversight. Bishops are local leaders, and have authority in their respective territories. We also believe that the successors of Peter not only have authority over their territory, but have primacy, and have jurisdictional authority over the entire Church when necessary. This is what the Bishop of Rome has: not just oversight over local territory, but oversight over the entire Church.
 
ThoesisM,

SO far as I’m concerned, this thread is dead. You’ve all given it your best and all you’ve done is convince me that you’re not thinking right. I’m sure I’ve made the same impression on you.

However, if you want to start a new thread on seeking for signs, I’ll join that one. You Catholics definitely need a schooling on that subject !😛
 
ThoesisM,

SO far as I’m concerned, this thread is dead. You’ve all given it your best and all you’ve done is convince me that you’re not thinking right. I’m sure I’ve made the same impression on you.

However, if you want to start a new thread on seeking for signs, I’ll join that one. You Catholics definitely need a schooling on that subject !😛
Generally on these forums, we always think that the other party is not thinking right, so that’s okay.

Feel free to start a thread on seeking for signs. It’s just amazing to me that you can’t see the difference between “seeking for signs” and discerning whether Mormon apostles are like the Biblical ones, who had the gift of miracles. Perhaps its because they don’t have the gift? 🤷
 
Generally on these forums, we always think that the other party is not thinking right, so that’s okay.

Feel free to start a thread on seeking for signs. It’s just amazing to me that you can’t see the difference between “seeking for signs” and discerning whether Mormon apostles are like the Biblical ones, who had the gift of miracles. Perhaps its because they don’t have the gift? 🤷
I think I am on the LDS Blacklist for new topics.
 
Generally on these forums, we always think that the other party is not thinking right, so that’s okay.

Feel free to start a thread on seeking for signs. It’s just amazing to me that you can’t see the difference between “seeking for signs” and discerning whether Mormon apostles are like the Biblical ones, who had the gift of miracles. Perhaps its because they don’t have the gift? 🤷
Thank you, Theosis M, for attempting to clarify my position and question. You have indeed stated in this and your previous post what my question is (and that I am not “seeking signs”) - just no Mormons here seem to want to answer it. (Nor my question about in what way Joseph Smith’s claim of prophethood is more convincing than Muhammad’s.) 🤷
 
Thank you, Theosis M, for attempting to clarify my position and question. You have indeed stated in this and your previous post what my question is (and that I am not “seeking signs”) - just no Mormons here seem to want to answer it. (Nor my question about in what way Joseph Smith’s claim of prophethood is more convincing than Muhammad’s.) 🤷
It’s very sad, but I have found in the various threads in this forum that when many respondents have no answer to a question or refuse to see or understand the other side, they use one of two mottoes: “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”, and/or, “when all else fails, quit!”.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
It’s very sad, but I have found in the various threads in this forum that when many respondents have no answer to a question or refuse to see or understand the other side, they use one of two mottoes: “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”, and/or, “when all else fails, quit!”.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Yeah, I’ve closed out a LDS thread this way.
 
ThoesisM,

SO far as I’m concerned, this thread is dead. You’ve all given it your best and all you’ve done is convince me that you’re not thinking right. I’m sure I’ve made the same impression on you.

However, if you want to start a new thread on seeking for signs, I’ll join that one. You Catholics definitely need a schooling on that subject !😛
Us Catholic’s have no need to SEEK FOR SIGNS. Jesus Christ left us the Church so we will not get lost. If we had to start seeking for signs we would be in real trouble and on the lost road. Jesus left us one VISIBLE SIGN. THE RCC!😃

And in the RCC there are 3 important signs. The sign of the Cross when we pray. In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!
 
ThoesisM,

SO far as I’m concerned, this thread is dead. You’ve all given it your best and all you’ve done is convince me that you’re not thinking right. I’m sure I’ve made the same impression on you.

However, if you want to start a new thread on seeking for signs, I’ll join that one. You Catholics definitely need a schooling on that subject !😛
Yes , you are correct. You’ve convinced us that you are not thinking right. As for the matter of signs, we need none. Why must we supplement the Word of God with signs?
How do they, or what do they, have to do with salvation? God’s Word is sufficient.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top