P
peary1
Guest
This thread is too much. I’m pulling my hair out over this drivel! :banghead:
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
TheosisM,
I am hoping this thread dies away quickly. I also hope this is my last post on this forum. It becomes like a cat chasing its tail, or many cats chasing many tails.
Peace to all. I don’t mean anyone is a cat, but it does seem pointless to go over the same topics again and again.
If you read Titus 1 you find that the apostle Paul had given Titus a stewardship that included ordaining elders “in every city”, then he talks about “bishops” which given the context appears to be expanding his earlier instruction. So the line of authority was Paul, an apostle, ordaining and instructing Titus, who ordained and instructed others (bishops). The absence of explaining that bishops will then ordain other bishops answers your question, but obviously not adequately for you.
I know full well that you have what you want in your religion, and like what you have, and wouldn’t change a thing. That is totally fine with me. I think the Lord had a brilliant plan in creating this earth and sending us here to see how we would respond when not in His presence, and how the Holy Spirit would or could become our guide in life as we choose to follow His guidance. I love the plan of salvation given by Heavenly Father and sustained by Jesus Christ and by all of us who are here as mortal people on this earth, also specially sustained by Jesus Christ as our loving, redeeming Savior. God bless you in your search for Him and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in your life, more and more as you go.
J
Jay53
Guest
So whose ordination was invalid?TheosisM,
I am hoping this thread dies away quickly. I also hope this is my last post on this forum. It becomes like a cat chasing its tail, or many cats chasing many tails.
Peace to all. I don’t mean anyone is a cat, but it does seem pointless to go over the same topics again and again.
If you read Titus 1 you find that the apostle Paul had given Titus a stewardship that included ordaining elders “in every city”, then he talks about “bishops” which given the context appears to be expanding his earlier instruction. So the line of authority was Paul, an apostle, ordaining and instructing Titus, who ordained and instructed others (bishops). The absence of explaining that bishops will then ordain other bishops answers your question, but obviously not adequately for you.
I know full well that you have what you want in your religion, and like what you have, and wouldn’t change a thing. That is totally fine with me. I think the Lord had a brilliant plan in creating this earth and sending us here to see how we would respond when not in His presence, and how the Holy Spirit would or could become our guide in life as we choose to follow His guidance. I love the plan of salvation given by Heavenly Father and sustained by Jesus Christ and by all of us who are here as mortal people on this earth, also specially sustained by Jesus Christ as our loving, redeeming Savior. God bless you in your search for Him and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in your life, more and more as you go.
So Paul ordained Titus who ordained other priests who ordained more priests. Whose ordination was invalid? Honestly, I don’t get it.
P
peary1
Guest
P
ParkerD
Guest
Jay53,So whose ordination was invalid?
I respect that you have asked an important question, and I’ll expand using Titus 1. If you read verses 9-11 and 14, you will note that there was serious concern about “gainsayers” and “vain talkers”, “specially they of the circumcision:” “who subvert whole houses, teachings things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”
So Paul expressed the need for a carefully “set in order” organization with “sound doctrine” and without money as a basis for the appeal of the doctrine. The organization was directed by the apostles, who were carefully guarding the “sound doctrine” and were guiding the selection of “elders” or “bishops”. The occasions of “vain talkers and deceivers” were already happening at that point, and some of that deception seemed particularly to be associated with Jewish traditions such as circumcision.
This is the very reason that having apostles as living leaders was so important–to guide the selection of leadership and to guard and preserve the “sound doctrine” even as these kinds of dissent and “subversion” were happening.
By saying priests and bishops and elders could go around ordaining other priests and bishops and elders without the direction and involvement of the apostles, is to make the assumption that every leader was as spiritually strong and guided by the Holy Spirit as were the apostles, but that assumption is not validated by reading Titus nor Acts nor any of the epistles or the Book of Revelation. It is an unwarranted assumption.
The pattern was clearly apostles guiding the levels of leadership who had more localized authority among the people of the various cities (including guiding the selection of those leaders), and that is shown in Titus 1. Titus 1 also shows why that was so important in the early church, and it would also demonstrate why it is important today–to “hold fast the faithful word” and “exhort” using “sound doctrine.”
Wishing you peace and a wonderful Christmas season in your family.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Peary1,
I didn’t mean in my earlier post you cited, that the “whore of Babylon” is any specific church organization. It has more to do with worldliness in general, and with false worship practices that involve not worshiping the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ or not having the Holy Spirit as the guiding influence of true worship, and worldly philosophies such as secularism and the like.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I guess every mormon “priesthood” holder not ordained by a mormon “apostle”, or at the very least a letter from one of these “apostles”, has had an invalid mormon ordination. All willy nilly ordaining bishops and priests, indeed!
Or course, all mormon “ordinations”, top to bottom, are invalid. There never has been a time it was otherwise.
Or course, all mormon “ordinations”, top to bottom, are invalid. There never has been a time it was otherwise.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Welcome to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe. toot! toot!
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Did it prevail from 400 to 1830?
C
Catholic20064
Guest
I’m not sure where the Mormons get the idea there is a difference between an apostle and a bishop.
In KJV Acts 1:20 at the time of the replacement of Judas as an apostle we read:
It is pretty difficult to maintain there is a difference in the terms Bishop and Apostle in the New Testament. They don’t ever seem to be used in the same sentence in the KJV Bible:
The Mormons seem to have invented their Melchizedek Priesthood out of whole cloth based on some rather flimsy Biblical evidence in Genesis, Psalms and Hebrews. Most people would limit this Melchizedek priesthood to Christ alone, but the Mormons have received “latter-day revelation” to invent their high priesthood while relegating the office of Bishop to their lower priesthood.
History indicates to me at least that when the apostles were ordaining bishops they were ordaining their replacements to carry on the work of the church. I don’t see the justification to claim the apostolic office was different than the office of bishop. I can’t see where Mormon claims are in line with the teaching of the New Testament.
In KJV Acts 1:20 at the time of the replacement of Judas as an apostle we read:
In other translations the term office, leadership or overseership is used instead of bishoprick.
It is pretty difficult to maintain there is a difference in the terms Bishop and Apostle in the New Testament. They don’t ever seem to be used in the same sentence in the KJV Bible:
I don’t think it makes sense in the last passage to say that pastors=bishops without stretching quite a bit.
The Mormons seem to have invented their Melchizedek Priesthood out of whole cloth based on some rather flimsy Biblical evidence in Genesis, Psalms and Hebrews. Most people would limit this Melchizedek priesthood to Christ alone, but the Mormons have received “latter-day revelation” to invent their high priesthood while relegating the office of Bishop to their lower priesthood.
History indicates to me at least that when the apostles were ordaining bishops they were ordaining their replacements to carry on the work of the church. I don’t see the justification to claim the apostolic office was different than the office of bishop. I can’t see where Mormon claims are in line with the teaching of the New Testament.
P
ParkerD
Guest
RebeccaJ,
Hello and Merry Christmas! I am sure this is a wonderful season of the year at the Cathedral where you attend. I hope some readers here had a chance to catch the Tabernacle Choir “Spoken Word” this past Sunday where David McCullough gave such a stirring message, and I loved the children’s choirs in that particular Sunday’s choir presentation. I have no doubt there are lovely things for the holidays in your world, also.
A “willy-nilliness” would be a likely result somewhere in the world in LDS-based outcomes of how things might end up in one place or another, if it weren’t that the apostles and seventy are reviewing the calling of each bishop before they are called, and go out to each stake when the time comes to find the new stake president for a stake, and do the finding by being guided by the Holy Spirit in very deed. Then they are in contact on a frequent basis with that stake president.
There is an important sifting process within the ranks of LDS priesthood organization, and such a sifting process is alluded to in Titus 1 as well as in other instances in Acts and in the epistles. Priests and elders are called at the local level without (name removed by moderator)ut or involvement from the apostles or the seventy, but the primary local leadership roles of bishop and stake president have their direct involvement and thus there is an opportunity for “sifting” the hearts of those called while they serve in other meaningful roles. (I realize you could cite cases where that has not resulted in every bishop in the LDS church being without major flaws that have come to light later, but the cases are few and the members are asked to provide feedback along the way such that a check and balance is in place.)
Thanks for the interaction from time to time, RebeccaJ. I have appreciated some insights I have learned from you–thanks! Warm wishes always…
C
Catholic20064
Guest
Where does the office of Stake President come from as a restoration of some original New Testament church?
J
Jay53
Guest
Hi Parker! Merry Christmas to you and your family as well!
So you are saying that Titus and others that the apostles ordained had no authority to ordain others themselves - that only the Apostles themselves could do that? Do you have any evidence of this?
With regards to Titus 1, I don’t see where it is ordained priests who are the “gainsayers” and “vain talkers”. It seems to me from the passage that St. Paul was sending Titus there specifically to appoint/ordain priests/elders to correct any errors among the people there.
Perhaps you can also clarify for me the question I have been asking in different threads but no one has answered, but it seems pertinent to this discussion. In what way and what evidence is there that the LDS apostles are the same as the first Apostles, i.e. Gift of Miracles. Are LDS apostles seen in a similar light to St. Paul and St. Barnabas who were called to be apostles, but were not direct witnesses to Jesus’ earthly ministry?
Thank you!
R
rinnie
Guest
Thanks C-R. I hope I do not de-rail the thread if so please PM me. But what do they say when you ask them about the Cross. And why do they ignore it?
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
Just noticed the PM
Sorry, deleted
Sorry, deleted
P
ParkerD
Guest
Catholic20064,
Merry Christmas to you and your family. It sounds from reading about you from time to time, that you have much to be thankful for at this wonderful season of the year.
The use of the word “stake” comes from the following use in Isaiah:
ISAIAH
CHAPTER 54
Explanatory Heading: In the last days, Zion and her stakes shall be established, and Israel shall be gathered in mercy and tenderness—They shall triumph—
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
So just as a tent has “stakes”, a growing church organization has a support system and network with local “anchors” as well as the general “tent” which becomes the entire body of Christ, the foundation and chief cornerstone of which is the Lord, Jesus Christ.
“President” means “presiding high priest” at the local level, in the case of “stake presidents”. So that would mean “presiding high priest within a stake of Zion,” to whom the people should look for leadership as they gather within the tent of Zion. A stake president serves for approximately ten years, then they are released and another is called. They have two counselors whom they select by inspiration through the Holy Spirit’s guidance when they are called, and who are also approved by the apostle or visiting seventy at the time the stake president is called. If a counselor moves away during the time the stake president is still serving then a new counselor is approved by the apostles or seventy.
I would very much doubt that the use of the term “stake president” came directly from a use in New Testament times. But there was such a function as a “presiding high priest” back then.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Jay53,Hi Parker! Merry Christmas to you and your family as well!
So you are saying that Titus and others that the apostles ordained had no authority to ordain others themselves - that only the Apostles themselves could do that? Do you have any evidence of this?
With regards to Titus 1, I don’t see where it is ordained priests who are the “gainsayers” and “vain talkers”. It seems to me from the passage that St. Paul was sending Titus there specifically to appoint/ordain priests/elders to correct any errors among the people there.
Perhaps you can also clarify for me the question I have been asking in different threads but no one has answered, but it seems pertinent to this discussion. In what way and what evidence is there that the LDS apostles are the same as the first Apostles, i.e. Gift of Miracles. Are LDS apostles seen in a similar light to St. Paul and St. Barnabas who were called to be apostles, but were not direct witnesses to Jesus’ earthly ministry?
Thank you!
Thanks for the warm wishes! Yes, the LDS apostles are similar to Paul and Barnabas. That is correct. (I see no reason to look for miracles as a standard for identifying apostles. I do see having a fervent and sure testimony of Jesus as the living Christ as a standard, through the perfect witness of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised there would be.)
What the several passages in the New Testament show about the apostles’ involvement, is that they were continuously monitoring, teaching, calling leaders who called others, but then the apostles were still monitoring how the resulting local leadership was doing, and they would give (name removed by moderator)ut by letters or by visiting, and they would bring encouragement and love and sometimes forceful instruction. There was a line of authority that was always in place.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
Who was the presiding high priest in the New Testament? I don’t see a reference to a high priest in the New Testament Church aside from Jesus Christ.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I am still back at the Pearl of Great Price…and that kind of language is just the very type that came out of 1830’s America…the Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists use it…and non denominationals all believe in the Rapture…where we will be flying on the airplane, and our true Christian pilot will be taken up and we go into 9/11 all over again.
(That rapture idea came from a British evangelist 120 years ago and later retracted his idea. But the rest really liked that idea and stayed with it.)
Pelagianism…making or believing on things through whimsy.
Staking sounds like the 4 pillars of Islam…they use them and for every church they capture or take over they stake it…we have stakes in Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods to be claimed for Mormonism…and we have the Muslims up the street abiding their time being ‘tolerant’ but no mixing with us, just like the Mormons.
I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…
(That rapture idea came from a British evangelist 120 years ago and later retracted his idea. But the rest really liked that idea and stayed with it.)
Pelagianism…making or believing on things through whimsy.
Staking sounds like the 4 pillars of Islam…they use them and for every church they capture or take over they stake it…we have stakes in Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods to be claimed for Mormonism…and we have the Muslims up the street abiding their time being ‘tolerant’ but no mixing with us, just like the Mormons.
I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…
P
ParkerD
Guest
Kathleen Gee,
No one can help with your wrong ideas. Sorry–not possible…You’re on your own with how you think–can’t change that.
No one can help with your wrong ideas. Sorry–not possible…You’re on your own with how you think–can’t change that.
- Status