Mormon Prophets, Seers, and Revelators

[mfbukowski]

???

Peter is the head of the apostles, and he alone was given the keys.

I’m not sure what you are attempting to prove here, but it is not relevant to my previous question.

In fairness to you, I edited that before I saw this post- perhaps it is more clear now-- maybe not.

You asked why Peter was the rock- he was the first prophet of the “rock of foundation” of the church - apostles and prophets- as shown in Ephesians, Christ being the chief “Rock”- he is the little rock

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Pahoran]

Because Jesus said “I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life”. This means that He is the Son of God, and I can give you some more quotations but unfortunately my Bible is not beside me–my house is torn up.

I’m sorry to hear about your house. But you don’t need to support that point, because I don’t dispute it. I cheerfully stipulate to it; Jesus is the Son of God. No problem.

So, in utmost charity, Jesus while on earth and after he was resurrected, gave the Keys of His Kingdom to His Apostles, and while preaching and dying for us on the Cross told us how to live.

All of which I also accept. Still no problem.

There was no further need for Divine Revelation, and if you read the letters of the Apostles they repeat what Jesus said.

And there’s that little leap. You haven’t established that there was no need for further revelation. Yes, the Apostles sometimes repeated the words of Jesus, and sometimes they gave counsel original to them.

When next you find your scriptures, I invite you to read Acts 10. That does not merely reiterate what Jesus taught, but introduces an entirely new teaching. And that teaching arises from a vision received by the senior apostle.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SteveVH]

In my opinion, the problem here is not with Peter being the little rock- Christ being the big rock- the problem is in thinking that the “gates of hell not prevailing” refers it being impossible for the church to fail.

“… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the enemy cannot prevail, then how does the Church fail? (My best shot at poetry ) Of course that is what it means. What else could it mean.

 

[SteveVH]

And there’s that little leap. You haven’t established that there was no need for further revelation. Yes, the Apostles sometimes repeated the words of Jesus, and sometimes they gave counsel original to them.

When next you find your scriptures, I invite you to read Acts 10. That does not merely reiterate what Jesus taught, but introduces an entirely new teaching. And that teaching arises from a vision received by the senior apostle.

Regards,
Pahoran

And from Whom, do you suppose, the vision was given? The Catholic take on revelation is that Jesus Christ is the fullfillment of all revelation, from the early prophets on. It is from that standpoint that the Church believes no further revelation can be given nor needs to be given. God has revealed Himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ. This does not presuppose that the Church will be able to penetrate fully the depths of that revelation at any one given time. It is understood, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in greater depth over the centuries. In the case of Peter, he received Christ’s revelation that all, including the gentiles, are invited into the family of God. This same revelation is reflected in Paul’s letters: “There is no longer Greek nor Jew, slave or free, woman or man…”. It is simply a reiteration of what Jesus was speaking of all along, even though they didn’t perceive it. It was a reiteration of the one revelation - Jesus.

This does not mean that God has stopped all communication with his Church. On the contrary, the Church constantly depends upon the voice of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Saints are testimony to this fact. Each of them received communication from God; private revelation which continues to build up the Church. It is, however, always within the context of the one revelation of God to man in His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is God’s word, He has no other. The fullness of that truth is found in both the Sacred Scriptures and in Sacred Tradition. We will be pondering its meaning until He comes again.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you for making my point. Anyone can claim anything. You then say prove that it didn’t happen because you have no proof that it did. Not real convincing.

Modern day Apostles are true Apostles like Paul, even though they hadn’t been one of Jesus’ followers during His mortal ministry.

Well, Parker, all I can know is what I read in God’s word and learn from the Tradition of my Church. I know that Christ appeared to Paul because I believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the word of God and it says that He did. No, I don’t know when or how he was appointed. It isn’t mentioned. He, along with Barnabas, is just referred to as an apostle. What I know from the word of God is that he witnessed the resurrected Christ and was called an apostle. That’s all.

So you are acting presumptuously by claiming, without evidence, that Paul was not ordained to the Apostleship by the existing Apostles.

And who is Parker by the way? It ain’t me!

Then Jesus, being God, knowing all things, was just off in his timing?

No; God has given man the freedom to choose his actions, and suffer the consequences of them. If people want to apostatize and lose God’s blessings, He is not stop them. He will warn them of the consequences of their actions, but will not coerce them to do what is the right thing for them to do if they really don’t want to do it.

Do you see how hard you must strain to make this work? . . .

No, I don’t! I have already told you that the primary cause of the loss of the Twelve Apostles was the apostasy of the early church.

Yes you have and I couldn’t disagree more.

Without ever providing a credible explanation why. Not very encouraging.

Than you for correcting my misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the duties and authority belonging to the office of bishop cannot be compared within our respective churches. They are not even close.

I agree. In Catholicism, being a bishop is a profession. You go to college, study for it, get a job, work your way up until you get promoted to become a bishop. And you get paid for it. In Mormonism (and in the early Christian Church) it is not so.

So I would say, within the context of your understanding of “bishop”, I can see why you would think that there must be something more. Parker, your understanding and explanations of the Mormon faith are far and above what I received in my conversations with the local Mormon bishop in my neck of the woods. I was shocked at his lack of knowledge of his own faith. In fact, the two missionaries that were with him just stared at the table in embarrassment. So I can understand why you would believe that the Church must have a higher human authority than a bishop, again, within the context of your understanding of “bishop”.

I don’t know what you are talking about frankly, and who the heck is Parker? Why do you keep calling me Parker?

Ok. Are you trying to say that our bishops are not assigned to act as bishop of a particular congregation? We call that particular congregation a diocese (comprising many parishes) and every single bishop is assigned a diocese. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

I was trying to explain to you what happens when a Mormon bishop gets released. He does not lose ordination to the office of bishop. He simply loses his appointment to be the bishop of a particular congregation.

Sorry, we have witnesses, documented from the very early Church. We have their words in writing. Anyone wishing to study the history of the Church can readily find these documents, ranging from Sacred Scripture to the ECF’s to official Church documents. It is why people such as Henry Newman converted while on a mission to harm or destroy the Church. The further they dig, the more convinced they become.

Those evidences are flawed, because bishops simply cannot be successors to Apostles.

As far as documentation concerning Peter’s successor:

"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." (Irenaeus-Against Heresies3:3.3 - 180 AD)

Linus is presented by Jerome as "the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church" (“Post Petrum primus Ecclesiam Romanam tenuit Linus” -Chronicon, 14g p. 267)

Okay, who was he? He was a bishop, not an Apostle. He had no authority to govern the whole Christian Church as a bishop.

There are more, Parker. Let me know if you would like me to list them.

Okay, I know why you are do muddled up now; you have been debating with Parker for too long. Your brain has gone numb!

Really? If I question the faith of a satanist I am undermining my own? If I question the faith of one who believes Jesus was just another man I am undermining my own? If I question the faith of one who believes in many gods I am undermining my own? If that was the case, then what in the world were the Apostles doing preaching to anyone?

That is not what I meant. You were questioning the foundation of Mormonism because it is faith based. The truth is that the foundation of all religions is faith based, including yours. If you question the validity of another religion merely because it is faith based, you undermine your own.

 

[mfbukowski]

“… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the enemy cannot prevail, then how does the Church fail? (My best shot at poetry ) Of course that is what it means. What else could it mean.

I will answer briefly to not derail the thread.

The best answer I can give you from a Catholic perspective is found in the Apostle’s Creed:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

The savior was able to enter hell (hades) because he had the “keys” and there, preach to the spirits who were there,

And then,

Apocalypse /Revelation 1:18

Douay-Rheims Bible

And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.

He has the keys to death and hell and has given them to his true church, so that the church has the power by the priesthood, to preach to the dead.

The true church has the “keys to the gates of Hades” and emulates the savior in teaching the dead the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 Pet. 4: 6

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

THAT is why the true church has the keys to the gates of hell and the gates of hell “cannot prevail against it”.

Gates are passive things. They don’t jump out and “prevail” against a church- the only way gates can “prevail” is if YOU DON’T HAVE THE KEY!

The savior has given the keys to his church, so the gates can’t prevail’

Capeesh?

Saying that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is in no way some kind of guarantee that the church cannot fail, what it is talking about is entirely different- it is saying that the savior gave the keys of hades to his church so it could preach in the realm of the dead- or “hades”.

THAT is what that phrase means!

 

[SteveVH]

He has the keys to death and hell and has given them to his true church, so that the church has the power by the priesthood, to preach to the dead.

The true church has the “keys to the gates of Hades” and emulates the savior in teaching the dead the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 Pet. 4: 6

THAT is why the true church has the keys to the gates of hell and the gates of hell “cannot prevail against it”.

Those to whom Christ preached when He descended were those who’s destiny was heaven, through the merits of His sacrifice and resurrection. The gates of heaven had been closed due to the disobedience of Adam and Eve, but now were open. There were those also who would remain in hell for eternity. It is not speaking of those. Christ has defeated death and assures His Church of victory over the powers of death. That is, the gates of hell (the power of death) will not prevail against Christ’s Church because He has defeated death. That is what was preached to “the dead”, those who had physically died and were awaiting their redemption.

Gates are passive things. They don’t jump out and “prevail” against a church- the only way gates can “prevail” is if YOU DON’T HAVE THE KEY!

The savior has given the keys to his church, so the gates can’t prevail’

Capeesh?

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I was always under the impression that it was the gates that jumped out and prevailed. You must understand that us Catholics are simple folk. We must have missed that meaning after pondering these words over the past 2000 years. Capeesh? Nice touch.

Saying that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is in no way some kind of guarantee that the church cannot fail, what it is talking about is entirely different- it is saying that the savior gave the keys of hades to his church so it could preach in the realm of the dead- or “hades”.

THAT is what that phrase means!

Again, Catholic exegets must have just blown right past this. What I do know is that Christ gave to Peter, and therefore to His Church, the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”. If you want to believe that the Mormon Church instead received the “keys of hades” you are free to do so.

 

[mfbukowski]

If you want to believe that the Mormon Church instead received the “keys of hades” you are free to do so.

Cute, but I don’t think you realized that you were thereby acknowledging that we received those from Jesus Christ and therefore are the true church.

Jesus said in Revelation 1:18, (as I quoted earlier) (Douay Rheims- Apocalypse)

And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.

Hell of course is “Hades”- or what we refer to as Spirit Prison.

If Jesus had them, and now we have them, we must have gotten them from him.

Next time read a little more carefully before you fire off a reply.

I didn’t mean to be insulting by saying “capeesh”? - I was simply explaining our position because you asked.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Cute, but I don’t think you realized that you were thereby acknowledging that we received those from Jesus Christ and therefore are the true church.

Jesus said in Revelation 1:18, (as I quoted earlier) (Douay Rheims- Apocalypse)

Hell of course is “Hades”- or what we refer to as Spirit Prison.

If Jesus had them, and now we have them, we must have gotten them from him.

Next time read a little more carefully before you fire off a reply.

I didn’t mean to be insulting by saying “capeesh”? - I was simply explaining our position because you asked.

wow, that’s a steeeeerech.

 

[JHow]

I…Gates are passive things. They don’t jump out and “prevail” against a church- the only way gates can “prevail” is if YOU DON’T HAVE THE KEY!..

Or, if an opposing army comes and forces them open. Joshua didn’t open the gates of Jericho with a key, for instance. “Gates” often come up in a military context in the Bible.

 

[Javl]

Cute, but I don’t think you realized that you were thereby acknowledging that we received those from Jesus Christ and therefore are the true church.

Jesus said in Revelation 1:18, (as I quoted earlier) (Douay Rheims- Apocalypse)

Hell of course is “Hades”- or what we refer to as Spirit Prison.

If Jesus had them, and now we have them, we must have gotten them from him.

Next time read a little more carefully before you fire off a reply.

I didn’t mean to be insulting by saying “capeesh”? - I was simply explaining our position because you asked.

Your interpretation of “the Keys of Heaven” and “the gates of hell” ( Matt. 16:18-19 ) are just that, an interpretation. How can the “keys of heaven” relate to Jesus having the keys to hell? And, do you really understand what was meant by “the gates of hell”?

As for the “keys”, the Bible says that Jesus gave the “keys of Heaven” ( authority ) to Peter alone. When did the LDS Church receive the keys from Peter. Also, when and where did the keys to hell come from? I find nothing of all you have said in the Bible. Can you please show me where and what I missed? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[zerinus]

I will answer briefly to not derail the thread.

The best answer I can give you from a Catholic perspective is found in the Apostle’s Creed:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

The savior was able to enter hell (hades) because he had the “keys” and there, preach to the spirits who were there,

And then,

Apocalypse /Revelation 1:18

Douay-Rheims Bible

Sorry to disagree with a fellow Mormon; but to have the “keys of death and hell” means that he has the power to cast anyone he wishes down to hell, as taught in this verse:

D&C 63:

1 Hearken, O ye people, and open your hearts and give ear from afar; and listen, you that call yourselves the people of the Lord, and hear the word of the Lord and his will concerning you.
2 Yea, verily, I say, hear the word of him whose anger is kindled against the wicked and rebellious;
3 Who willeth to take even them whom he will take, and preserveth in life them whom he will preserve;
4 Who buildeth up at his own will and pleasure; and destroyeth when he pleases, and is able to cast the soul down to hell.
5 Behold, I, the Lord, utter my voice, and it shall be obeyed.

Hell or Hades doesn’t always just mean the place of the departed; it more often means the evil place where Satan and the wicked are sent to be punished.

He has the keys to death and hell and has given them to his true church, so that the church has the power by the priesthood, to preach to the dead.

The true church has the “keys to the gates of Hades” and emulates the savior in teaching the dead the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 Pet. 4: 6

Again, nowhere in LDS scripture has the “keys of death and hell” been interpreted that way. The Church doesn’t “preach to the dead”. The Church does have the priesthood authority to redeem the dead by performing the required sacraments on their behalf in the temples, which is a different thing from either “preaching to the dead” or having “the keys of death and hell”. Those keys are held by Jesus when He decides whom to send to hell and whom to preserve.

THAT is why the true church has the keys to the gates of hell and the gates of hell “cannot prevail against it”.

Gates are passive things. They don’t jump out and “prevail” against a church- the only way gates can “prevail” is if YOU DON’T HAVE THE KEY!

The savior has given the keys to his church, so the gates can’t prevail’

Sorry mf, but you are mistaken here also. The meaning of the gates of hell “prevailing” against someone or something is clearly taught and clarified in so many places in LDS scripture. Here are some quotes, all coming from modern LDS scripture, where the meaning of the metaphor is made unmistakably clear:

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

2 Nephi 4:

32 May the gates of hell be shut continually before me, because that my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite! O Lord, wilt thou not shut the gates of thy righteousness before me, that I may walk in the path of the low valley, that I may be strict in the plain road

3 Nephi 11:

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

3 Nephi 18:

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

D&C 10:

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

D&C 17:

8 And if you do these last commandments of mine, which I have given you, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 18:

5 Wherefore, if you shall build up my church, upon the foundation of my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 21:

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

D&C 33:

13 And upon this rock I will build my church; yea, upon this rock ye are built, and if ye continue, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 98:

22 And again I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

The meaning becomes obvious from the context of these verses. By the “gates of hell” not “prevailing” against someone or something is meant that the powers of darkness or the devil will not prevail against them, or overpower them, or drive them down to hell.

Capeesh?

Saying that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is in no way some kind of guarantee that the church cannot fail, . . .

Well, yes and no. It certainly doesn’t mean that the Church couldn’t apostatize.

. . . what it is talking about is entirely different- it is saying that the savior gave the keys of hades to his church so it could preach in the realm of the dead- or “hades”.

THAT is what that phrase means!

Sorry mf, but that is the one thing that the phrase does not mean!

 

[flyonthewall]

/. . . Continued

2 Nephi 4:

32 May the gates of hell be shut continually before me, because that my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite! O Lord, wilt thou not shut the gates of thy righteousness before me, that I may walk in the path of the low valley, that I may be strict in the plain road

3 Nephi 11:

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

3 Nephi 18:

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

D&C 10:

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

D&C 17:

8 And if you do these last commandments of mine, which I have given you, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 18:

5 Wherefore, if you shall build up my church, upon the foundation of my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 21:

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

D&C 33:

13 And upon this rock I will build my church; yea, upon this rock ye are built, and if ye continue, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 98:

22 And again I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

The meaning becomes obvious from the context of these verses. By the “gates of hell” not “prevailing” against someone or something is meant that the powers of darkness or the devil will not prevail against them, or overpower them, or drive them down to hell.

Well, yes and no. It certainly doesn’t mean that the Church couldn’t apostatize.

Sorry mf, but that is the one thing that the phrase does not mean!

I think you may want to re-think your disagreement…
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=06e69209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

It is not surprising that Peter, later as senior Apostle, the equivalent of the President of the Church and possessing sacred priesthood keys and sealing power, was the Apostle who clearly spoke of Jesus’ mission to the dead in the spirit world. (See 1 Pet. 3:18–20.) President Harold B. Lee said: “The gates of hell would have prevailed if the gospel had not been taught to the spirits in prison and to those who had not had ample opportunity to receive the gospel here in its fulness. It would have prevailed if there was not a vicarious work for the dead … [or] other vicarious work pertaining to the exaltation which those who accept the gospel might receive, both ordinances for the living and for the dead.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1953, pp. 26–28.)

I think the phrase “gates of hell” may be used in different ways but the phrase from Matthew has been clarified by the church.

 

[mfbukowski]

Your interpretation of “the Keys of Heaven” and “the gates of hell” ( Matt. 16:18-19 ) are just that, an interpretation. How can the “keys of heaven” relate to Jesus having the keys to hell? And, do you really understand what was meant by “the gates of hell”?

As for the “keys”, the Bible says that Jesus gave the “keys of Heaven” ( authority ) to Peter alone. When did the LDS Church receive the keys from Peter. Also, when and where did the keys to hell come from? I find nothing of all you have said in the Bible. Can you please show me where and what I missed? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Of course it’s an interpretation, and so is yours. That’s the whole point- someone asked for another interp, and I gave them one. I am sorry if you find it threatening.

I don’t want to argue with you guys- I am out of here.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Of course it’s an interpretation, and so is yours. That’s the whole point- someone asked for another interp, and I gave them one. I am sorry if you find it threatening.

I don’t want to argue with you guys-** I am out of here**.

You keep saying that.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think the phrase “gates of hell” may be used in different ways but the phrase from Matthew has been clarified by the church.

 

[zerinus]

I think you may want to re-think your disagreement…
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=06e69209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I think the phrase “gates of hell” may be used in different ways but the phrase from Matthew has been clarified by the church.

That article does not substantially disagree with what I had said; it explores it from a slightly different angle. I had discussed this topic before in a couple of Blog posts which you can read here and here (scroll down to “Objection 6”).

 

[Javl]

Of course it’s an interpretation, and so is yours. That’s the whole point- someone asked for another interp, and I gave them one. I am sorry if you find it threatening.

I don’t want to argue with you guys- I am out of here.

I don’t want to argue either, just stating facts.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SteveVH]

Cute, but I don’t think you realized that you were thereby acknowledging that we received those from Jesus Christ and therefore are the true church.

I was acknowledging nothing. You made the statement, not me. The only thing I was acknowledging is your right to believe whatever you choose to believe. I don’t believe your church has receive any authority whatsoever, in any capacity whatsoever.

Hell of course is “Hades”- or what we refer to as Spirit Prison.

If Jesus had them, and now we have them, we must have gotten them from him.

That is the question isn’t it? You have absolutely nothing to stand on here other than a claim of a man who lived about 150 years ago. As I said before, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. I think your interpretation is absolutely flawed as to the meaning of Christ holding the keys of death and hell.

Next time read a little more carefully before you fire off a reply.

I didn’t mean to be insulting by saying “capeesh”? - I was simply explaining our position because you asked.

Sure you were.