Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[TOmNossor]

I don’t think there are any ECFs that denied the Real Presence, or taught a symbolic interpretation as LDS understand the Sacrament.

That no Catholic has suggested that there are heretical expressions of the Eucharist by the ECF is further evidence that it is clear enough that Newman’s theory is necessary, but nobody wants to embrace it (or even read it). Newman lists, I think 5 ECF who do or may speak of the Eucharist heretically, including folks who claim John 6 must be understood figuratively. Contrast an ECF urging us to take John 6 figuratively with these words from Brigham Young:

…we are here today, engaged in the administration of the ordinance of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. How does it appear to you, and what are your sensations, when the servants of the Lord present to you the emblems of His body? Do you believe you receive life? Do you realize that you receive any benefit? Do you feel that you will receive fresh strength, or additional, knowledge, through this holy ordinance? Or, do you do it because others do it? Do you partake of these tokens of the love of the Redeemer because it is a mere custom?..

When we obey the commandments of our heavenly Father, if we have a correct understanding of the ordinances of the house of God, we receive all the promises attached to the obedience rendered to His commandments. Jesus said—Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Again, “He that eateth me,” “shall live by me.” Again, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh, my blood, hath eternal life.” “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Can you understand these sayings of the Saviour?..

I will now tell you what the Saviour meant by those wonderful expressions touching his body and blood. It is simply this—“If you do not keep the commandments of God, you will have no life of the Son of God in you.” Jesus, as they were eating, took the bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” What were they required to drink it for? What are we partaking of these emblems for? In token of our fellowship with him, and in token that we desire to be one with each other, that we may all be one with the Father. His administering these symbols to his ancient disciples, and which he commanded should be done until he came, was for the express purpose that they should witness unto the Father that they did believe in him. But on the other hand, if they did not obey this commandment, they should not be blessed with his spirit.

It is the same in this, as it is in the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins. Has water, in itself, any virtue to wash away sin? Certainly not; but the Lord says, "If the sinner will repent … earth and buried, and again be delivered from the water, in the likeness of being born-if in the sincerity of his heart he will do this, his sins shall be washed away. Will the water of itself wash them away? No; but keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin.

In this light do I view all the ordinances of the house of God. I do not know of one commandment that may be preferred before another; or of one ordinance of the house of God, from the beginning to the end of all the Lord has revealed to the children of men, that is not of equal validity, power, and authority with the rest. So we partake of bread and wine, obeying the commandments of the Lord; and by so doing we receive the blessing.

I think it very easy to parse the above and take away what Brigham Young taught here, and perhaps Newman’s scholars do this to some of the ECF he sites, but I think it is harder with the above than for Newman’s scholars.

I think the real presence has solid foundations in the Bible and the ECF. The development of this teaching except for the word “Transubstantiation” IMO is quite solid (I do not have huge problems with the word “Transubstantiation,” but a modern person cannot imbue it with the meaning it had for the Catholics who declared it. The word becomes a symbol for an idea not a metaphysically precise thing).
So, I have in the past collected statement by ECF that do not support modern belief in Transubstantiation, but I was suggesting I didn’t want to delve into this.
I think the Trinity is a development too and it is much more windy and problematic. There is nothing illogical about miraculously partaking of Christ’s body and blood. And as I said, it is quite beautiful.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

That no Catholic has suggested that there are heretical expressions of the Eucharist by the ECF is further evidence that it is clear enough that Newman’s theory is necessary, but nobody wants to embrace it (or even read it). Newman lists, I think 5 ECF who do or may speak of the Eucharist heretically, including folks who claim John 6 must be understood figuratively.

List three of them with references

and on the other hand

I think the real presence has solid foundations in the Bible and the ECF.

and on the other hand

So, I have in the past collected statement by ECF that do not support modern belief in Transubstantiation, but I was suggesting I didn’t want to delve into this.

The belief in transubstantiaton is not the same as the belief in the real presences of Christ in the Eucharist as taught by Christ and the ECF

 

[Robyn_p]

Hi LW!

Ok I haven’t read through every post on this thread, so sorry if someone already brought this up. You can just ignore me if they have.

Anyway, two things I thought of as I was reading a few posts(again, not every single one):

The first thing, I remember you mentioning that the only part of the great apostasy you would agree with is the restoration of the office of apostles and prophets am I right? Please correct me if that isn’t true.
As others have probably already mentioned, the office of bishop and apostle are actually synonymous. We can see this in Acts 1:20-26, when the Apostles are looking to replace Judas. Peter says, “His office let another take.” (Acts 1:20) That word, office, in Greek, is actually episkopoi which is where we get the term episcopal office. Interestingly, the King James Version actually uses the word “bishopric” in that verse, which is kind of ironic. But it is more accurate. The episcopal office is the office of bishop as you know.

But here Peter is applying that word to the office of apostle, which we see plainly in verses 24-25 which say,

Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry * and apostleship * from which Judas turned aside.

The office of bishop and apostle here are synonymous it seems. : So the apostolic office IS still alive and with us through the successors of the apostles, the bishops.

As far as prophets go, you’re right, Catholics do believe God does still speak to us via private revelation, that’s certainly a function of prophecy. But actually, the function of prophet is much broader than that. It means literally to speak forth the mind of God! So whenever the priest proclaims the Gospel at Mass, or the lector at the readings, they are acting as prophets too! (The bible being the Word of God after all) A prophet doesn’t necessarily have to be saying anything new or revolutionary to be prophesying, only the truth. So actually the Church has never lost the gift of prophecy either. Just a thought.

My second question would be how does the LDS see Ephesians 3:21 in light of the great apostasy:

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory * in the church * and in Christ Jesus to * EVERY GENERATION for ever and ever.* Amen.

How could the church be glorifying God in every generation if it quickly fell away and abandoned him completely?? This text seems to imply that such a complete falling away could never happen, not even for one generation, let alone 1800 years.

Anyway, just wondering what your take is on these? Again I hope I’m not just repeating what someone else has already said, if I have feel free to ignore me

 

[Robyn_p]

I also believe that sustaining leaders who receive revelation to guide the church is a more solid foundation than the scholastic arguments and politicking that we see at Nicea.

Funny though, that “arguing” you mention is exactly the way the New Testament describes the very first Church council that dealt with the first heresy that threatened to tear apart the Church.

the apostles and elders gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been * MUCH DEBATE*

I love that. Proves the early Church really was Catholic Anyway, continuing on:

after there had been much debate, Peter arose and said, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between them and us, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor us have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as they will.”
And all the assembly kept silent.(Acts 15:6-12)

This is really interesting, it was Peter who settled the question ultimately. That’s how it’s been in every ecumenical council by the way. All the bishops have their say, but it’s the successor of Peter who has the final say. He has to confirm an ecumenical councils decisions for it to be considered binding and infallible.

But here I think is the most important part in reference to your point, skip down to verse 28, where the official declaration of the council is being sent to all the church’s

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to lay on you any greater burden than these necessary things…

The Holy Spirit was guiding the Church even during the council!! Where they were arguing and politicking! And he continues to do that even today. You’re right, it seems confusing why he would use broken human vessels, but that’s what God does! He respects human nature. Grace builds upon nature as St. Paul said, it doesn’t overpower or destroy it.

 

[Stephen168]

Nicea, I specifically remember, and the other councils were about excluding the heretics from communion. Proposals of Bible based passages were satisfactory to some of the folks that the “orthodox” knew were heretics and this resulted in their rejection.

Barker was wrong.
What Bible was being used during the Bishop’s debate about Arianism, the date of Easter, or which Bishops were Metropolitan?

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Robyn p,
Hopefully this will be your statement and a quote of me:

TOmNossor;10575363:

I also believe that sustaining leaders who receive revelation to guide the church is a more solid foundation than the scholastic arguments and politicking that we see at Nicea.

Funny though, that “arguing” you mention is exactly the way the New Testament describes the very first Church council that dealt with the first heresy that threatened to tear apart the Church.

I love that. Proves the early Church really was Catholic Anyway, continuing on

I had to re-look at what I wrote, because in a first cut I had specifically commented on the fact that I have been told that there is spirited debate within the Quorum of the Twelve, but that was not in my comment. What was in my comment was here (a little more context for my statement).

Nicea, I specifically remember, and the other councils were about excluding the heretics from communion. Proposals of Bible passed passages were satisfactory to some of the folks that the “orthodox” knew were heretics and this resulted in their rejection. I do not believe the CoJCoLDS has perfectly followed Joseph Smith’s directions on this, but I do believe there is significantly less of this in the CoJCoLDS. I also believe that sustaining leaders who receive revelation to guide the church is a more solid foundation than the scholastic arguments and politicking that we see at Nicea. Certainly there have been times when folks thought the leaders didn’t received the revelation they claimed (ending Polygamy or ending the Priesthood ban), but I see little reason to reject the idea of inspired leadership in those decisions.

The word “passed” should have been “based;” I hope that didn’t cause too much confusion.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Now, let me be a little more explicit. I do not believe receiving revelation from God is frequently a new answer to a question that you have not been thinking and even debating. God could surely and may sometimes inspire leaders (and individuals, me included) to do things, declare things, and/or go in directions they never supposed; but most of the time God inspires in the midst of consideration and conflicting ideas.
What I see in the Biblical debate was a decision that answered a question that was debated. But, we see no evidence that the decision involved an appeal to Constantine, an enforcement of the decree by the state, and other back channel maneuvering. More significantly IMO we see no evidence that the decision was worded and declared for the purpose of ensuring the losing side would either acquiesce or be withdrawn from communion. At Nicea the result was enforced by Constantine, did result in folks who acquiesced but continued the debate for decades, and those who refused to acquiesce and were excommunicated then and there. And I would suggest that the orthodox at Nicea would not have been orthodox at the conclusion of Constantinople (which was not an Ecumenical Council with the acceptance Nicea received for many years after its conclusion – if I remember correctly later Popes didn’t include Constantinople as an EC- but the Fathers at Constantinople thought they could correct / interpret / develop Nicea).

This is really interesting, it was Peter who settled the question ultimately. That’s how it’s been in every ecumenical council by the way. All the bishops have their say, but it’s the successor of Peter who has the final say. He has to confirm an ecumenical councils decisions for it to be considered binding and infallible.

As a LDS, I have no problem with the view that Peter was the head human in the early church. That being said, “James ruled” if I remember correctly would be a better Bible based solution to who was in charge at this “council.” Peter in some ways could be the Athanasius of that council. His thoughts carried the day. After Athanasius spoke Arius was done. But Athanasius was not even a Bishop.

It takes some big leaps to believe that Popes ruled the early councils of the church. They didn’t attend many of them. How could anyone say the Pope ruled the Council of Constantinople. This is from Catholic priest and scholar Leo Donald Davis:

It was never intended to be an ecumenical Council: the Bishop of Rome was not invited; only 150 Eastern bishops were present; only one by accident from the West. Only at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 did it begin to rank in the East with the Council of Nicaea as more than a local council. Because of the schism at Antioch, its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. Strong doubts were later expressed about the authenticity of its creed. Its canons were rejected in the West for nine hundred years.

So, do you really believe that history evidences that the Pope ruled the Ecumenical Councils of the church?

The significance of councils and which were local and which were robber and which were EC’s IMO can only be defined by looking back at history. Nicea was a big deal for the attendees (Constantine was much of the source of the contemporary big deal and Eusebius gives him credit for this), but councils to be declared “robber councils” had more contemporary pedigrees than Constantinople.

So, do you really believe that history evidences that the Pope ruled the Ecumenical Councils of the church? Does reason point us to this view? (I had thought of starting a thread on reason within Mormonism before ElizaSnow did, and I may still).
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

(I had thought of starting a thread on reason within Mormonism before ElizaSnow did, and I may still).
Charity, TOm

Gonna be a very short post…

 

[Stephen168]

Gonna be a very short post…

I was hoping for a thread to defend the President of the Mormon Church heading the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

Or a Mormon who can defend Mormonism.

 

[TOmNossor]

Barker was wrong.

What Bible was being used during the Bishop’s debate about Arianism, the date of Easter, or which Bishops were Metropolitan?
I will need to look into the precise wording as there was not a canonized New Testament at this time per say. My guess is Barker was referencing a quote from a French or Spanish Catholic scholar.
It was the debate about Arianism / the Trinity.
Would you suggest that if it was a proposal to use words from texts that were generally accepted to be inspired at this time (and in the future would be canonized as part of the New Testament) that “Barker was wrong?”

Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Tom,

There is another book out by Peter Madrid that does demonstrate that the earliest of Christianity did believe in the sacred meal of the Lord, and that the great heresy in ancient times was not believing in the Eucharist.

I don’t have the exact title right with me, ‘The Mass in the Early Church’, by Peter Madrid is close.

St. Justin the Martyr described what the Mass was, its parts, tone and spirit at request of the Roman Emperor in 155 AD. The Mass had its essentials by around 100 AD throughout the entire Christian world.

As Catholics, we not only look to Sacred Scripture to find the truth of Jesus Christ, but we look likewise at Sacred Tradition that reveals to us how faith was believed and practiced since its beginnings.

If it were not for Sacred Tradition…how Christ is revealed in His Church He instituted, then we would hear all sorts of takes on how people really believed in the past that would not reflect the One Bread, One Body…One Faith, One Baptism in the Lord.

The Sacraments are the means we enter into Jesus Christ, the Living Church. Our buildings are just reflections, but reveal the inner reality of Jesus Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are alive in each one of us. We can still go on without the Vatican or church buildings.

Jesus Christ is the New Temple. He takes very good care of us.

 

[Stephen168]

I will need to look into the precise wording as there was not a canonized New Testament at this time per say. My guess is Barker was referencing a quote from a French or Spanish Catholic scholar.
It was the debate about Arianism / the Trinity.
Would you suggest that if it was a proposal to use words from texts that were generally accepted to be inspired at this time (and in the future would be canonized as part of the New Testament) that “Barker was wrong?”

Charity, TOm

Does that mean you in fact do not have a list of five ECFs that denied the Real Presence, or taught a symbolic interpretation as LDS understand the Sacrament?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Does that mean you in fact do not have a list of five ECFs that denied the Real Presence, or taught a symbolic interpretation as LDS understand the Sacrament?

Along with references to the relevant quotes from them supporting this.

 

[KathleenGee]

I never heard before that the early church fathers did not believe in the real presence.

We have to be discerning and even weary of recent writers, especially those who are dissenting from the truth of faith.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I read Barkers books as the course of study for 1952-1954 in the church manuals (and no, I am not that old). I have friend who read both and suggested they were quite similar. Nicea, I specifically remember, and the other councils were about excluding the heretics from communion. Proposals of Bible passed passages were satisfactory to some of the folks that the “orthodox” knew were heretics and this resulted in their rejection. I do not believe the CoJCoLDS has perfectly followed Joseph Smith’s directions on this, but I do believe there is significantly less of this in the CoJCoLDS. I also believe that sustaining leaders who receive revelation to guide the church is a more solid foundation than the scholastic arguments and politicking that we see at Nicea. Certainly there have been times when folks thought the leaders didn’t received the revelation they claimed (ending Polygamy or ending the Priesthood ban), but I see little reason to reject the idea of inspired leadership in those decisions.

I don’t necessarily see what the issue is with having Church councils to, derivatively, exclude heretics. I say derivatively because the purpose of Nicaea, Chalcedon, etc was not specifically to exclude heretics, but to presumably formally define beliefs, formalize definitions through the Spirit, etc. Naturally such things would exclude heretics who were corrupting influences and changing the pristine doctrines and sacraments/ordinances of the true Church. Such a concept should sound familiar to a LDS positing a Great Apostasy which resulted, in part, to a corrupting influence of non-revelatory and non-true beliefs and practices, including changing of the ordinances. Why include deliberate and obstinate heretics in the Church if they are corrupting its true doctrines and practices with the philosophies of men mingled with scripture?

Well, just to add a little more to your thought process. Newman’s theory was met with great resistance. Many INFORMED Catholics thought it quite appalling. Where I Catholic I would need to decide if the SSPX apologetics against development and Vatican II are solid pre-Newman Cathoilc teaching. Or the Orestas Bronson responses to Newman (supposedly at the request of Catholic Bishops) were more solidly Catholic than Newman. I am convinced Newman is absolutely necessary, but is his development theory sufficiently Catholic to be the salvation of Tradition in light of changing teachings evidence in history?

Suffice it to say that SSPX apologetics aren’t necessarily focused on the unchanging or non-developing nature of Catholic doctrine and practice, but that certain changes and developments can be taken too far, and lose the context and point of the previous practices (i.e. purportedly losing the sacrificial teaching and context as relates to the Mass).

You made some comments on deification and on God always being God. As you know I embrace Ostler’s thought on God always being God,

It seems like the vast majority of LDS disagree with Ostler’s rationalizations as to why it is possible for an LDS to believe that God has always been God (including the article you had cited). Instead, it seems like most LDS, who actually think about these things and are aware of them (noting that I was never taught the God once a man doctrine by the missionaries, nor has it really come up in my years as a member) would say that it has been taught by multiple prophets and apostles, including Joseph himself, that God was not always God, and that He progressed to Godhood, and we are following His example. They also would prefer to follow what the prophets and apostles have taught on this, instead of the musings of a philosopher (ironic isn’t it).

but I also think Catholic deification is not faithful to the witness of the ECF. No pre-Athanasius ECF expressed any limitation on the FINAL state of deified man. Combine this with the less solid, but I believe well argued (see non-LDS scholar Gerard May’s book I expect you have heard of) view that Creation ex Nihilo was a post Biblical doctrine, I think the ECF support LDS thoughts on deification better than modern Catholic thoughts. I very much recommend Deification and Grace by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating. He argues for a limited deification only be making the ECF twist words they could never belief would be properly understood.

Why don’t you cite the relevant Catholic quotes to show that Catholic teaching posits a “limitation” on the final state of deified man. What do you mean by “limitaton”? I think it would be laughable to Catholics and Orthodox (Orthodox especially) to think that the LDS view is supported more than their view in the ECFs. If Deification and Grace provides examples of your understanding, please post the relevant quotes from it (it’s better to do that so everyone can discuss instead of saying “go read this book”).

 

[LivingWaters7]

I believe that Christ was subordinate to God the Father pre-Nicea (and post Nicea for a while). As the church came to realize Christ’s divinity they stripped the teaching that Christ became what we are so we could become what He is of its real meaning. Christ became homoousian with mankind completely and totally. But we are not really to become gods?

Subordinate in what? Traditional Christians would say that Christ and the Holy Ghost are subordinate in the sense that, while they are all fully God (and none are less God or were created/organized), the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, while only the Father is unbegotten and non-proceeding, and He is the “fount” of Divinity, as is clearly taught in traditional Christianity. This is different than believing that the Son and the Holy Ghost were organized by the Father (and Heavenly Mother), and therefore did not always exist as such.

Please provide evidence that the Church stripped the teaching that Christ became what we are so we could become what He is of its real meaning (what is the “real meaning”). This is of course found clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for one. Which Catholic/Orthodox theologians or official Church teachings claim that we are not really to become gods? The difference between the LDS and Catholic/Orthodox is on what it means to become gods, or to be homoousian with God (a concept that LDS would reject, since LDS do not believe that the 3 Persons are homoousian with each other, since They did not eternally exist as a Godhead, for one).

Indeed, Jordan Vajda’s paper Partakers of the Divine Nature is all about the LDS view in contrast to the patristic view, which is what the Catholic/Orthodox view is (I’ll post relevant quotes later on).

I’m going to work now, I’ll check in later on.

 

[KathleenGee]

When we become adopted sons and daughters of God through Jesus Christ, it does not mean we become gods some day or work on our eternal progression where focus is essentially back to self.

To become sons and daughters of God in authentic sense, is to share in the divine adoption where we are being freed from sin and corruption.

We are already made in the image of God given an immortal soul, have free will and intellect. What we need is restoration and communion with God through His Son in the Holy Spirit.

In this communion with Him, we are freed from the power of sin and death, where death itself loses its sting as we are living now in Christ through the Word and Eucharist.

 

[Stephen168]

God is uncreated. He created man (Adam and Eve) as sinless beings who had eternal life and able see God; they were gods. They sinned against God and brought death and sin upon mankind. God humbled himself and became man. Christ took away the sins of the world and over came death. This gives mankind the opportunity to become gods just like Adam and Eve were gods; with eternal life we can see our creator, God.

The limit to deification (becoming gods) is God. God is uncreated and everything else is created. Part of the divine nature is eternal life. We will share/participate in God’s nature but we will never be God.

I believe this is a brief general explanation of divination as taught by the early church fathers.

What did the early Mormon Church mean by “becoming gods?” What does the current Mormon Church mean by becoming gods?

Tom never answer these questions either

 

[Stephen168]

In 1830, Joseph Smith started the Latter-Day-Saint Movement by making himself First Elder and Oliver Cowdery ‘Second Elder.’ They both claimed to be given the ‘Keys.’ Smith established the First Presidency, Jesse Gause*and Sidney Rigdon, to run the Church in 1832. This High Council was the chief judicial and legislative body of the church supervised by the First Presidency. The Presiding High Council was established in 1834 by the First Presidency. In 1835, Smith told Oliver Cowdery,Martin Harris, andDavid Whitmer,*to select the Twelve Apostles to head the missionary work of the Church. The first apostles were: Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Lyman E. Johnson, David W. Patten, Orson Hyde, William E. M’Lellin, Luke S. Johnson, William Smith, John F. Boynton, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt,**Thomas B. Marsh.
By the end of 1835, the Church was run by the Elders in the First Presidency who was over the Elders in the Presiding High Council who was over the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. ‘The Keys’ were held by the First Presidency three years before there were ‘Apostles;’ meaning at this point Key had nothing to do with being an apostle.
In 1837, thefailure of the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank founded by church leaders, led to widespread dissent.
In 1838, Thomas Marsh, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, William M’Lellin, and John Boynton were excommunicated. And John Patten was killed. They were replaced by John Page, and John Taylor leaving the church with eight apostles.
In 1839 Wilford Woodruff, and George Smith were added to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to make the total number ten.
In 1840, Willard Richards made the number of apostles eleven.
In 1841, Lyman Wight was added to restored the number of apostles to twelve.
In 1842 Orson Pratt was excommunicated and replaced by Amasa Lyman.
At the time of Joseph Smith’s death the First Presidency included: Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. The head of the Presiding High Council was William Marks. The head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Brigham Young. After the Smith’s were killed, only Sidney Rigdon remained in the First Presidency.
As the member of the First Presidency (holder of the keys) Rigdon claimed to be guardian of the church and Apostle John Page and Elder William Marks supported him in that claim.
Brigham Young as the head Apostle claimed Joseph Smith was an Apostle and held the keys. Because Young was the head Apostle he claimed to replace Smith as the holder of the keys. This was the first time any Mormon thought of an Apostle as being a key holder.
The Church membership voted for Young, as leader of the third level church council, to lead the church; and raise the Quorum of Twelve Apostles over the Presiding High Council while taking over the First Presidency.
To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

That is why I believe Joseph Smith never believed Apostles were required to have priesthood authority. St. Peter said the Apostles unique roll was to be a witness to the resurrection. Catholic Bishops have all the authority Christ gave to the Apostles.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Hi LW!

Ok I haven’t read through every post on this thread, so sorry if someone already brought this up. You can just ignore me if they have.

Anyway, two things I thought of as I was reading a few posts(again, not every single one):

The first thing, I remember you mentioning that the only part of the great apostasy you would agree with is the restoration of the office of apostles and prophets am I right? Please correct me if that isn’t true.

Hi!

Yes, one of the things that I find compelling with the LDS view of a Restoration is that of having apostles and prophets to guide and lead the Church, and that such leading and guidance is provided through the inspiration/revelation of the Spirit. Ironically, I find that holding to such a belief would call into question the inspiration/revelation of the Spirit and guidance of Christ’s Church by Christ Himself at its head anciently, if it failed.

As others have probably already mentioned, the office of bishop and apostle are actually synonymous. We can see this in Acts 1:20-26, when the Apostles are looking to replace Judas. Peter says, “His office let another take.” (Acts 1:20) That word, office, in Greek, is actually episkopoi which is where we get the term episcopal office. Interestingly, the King James Version actually uses the word “bishopric” in that verse, which is kind of ironic. But it is more accurate. The episcopal office is the office of bishop as you know.

But here Peter is applying that word to the office of apostle, which we see plainly in verses 24-25 which say, The office of bishop and apostle here are synonymous it seems. : So the apostolic office IS still alive and with us through the successors of the apostles, the bishops.

Thank you. Yes, I have seen the “his bishoprick let another take” verse, and I do find that very compelling to the traditional Catholic/Orthodox view. What I then wonder about is, if apostles and bishops are mentioned separately in the Bible, then were there “levels” of bishops, if the office of the apostles was bishop? Perhaps “apostle” was merely a title and bishop was the priesthood office?

As far as prophets go, you’re right, Catholics do believe God does still speak to us via private revelation, that’s certainly a function of prophecy. But actually, the function of prophet is much broader than that. It means literally to speak forth the mind of God! So whenever the priest proclaims the Gospel at Mass, or the lector at the readings, they are acting as prophets too! (The bible being the Word of God after all) A prophet doesn’t necessarily have to be saying anything new or revolutionary to be prophesying, only the truth. So actually the Church has never lost the gift of prophecy either. Just a thought.

Yes thanks, I think it’s clear that the Catholic Church has always had prophets and revelation, and has never taught that the “Heavens are closed” as LDS tend to characterize traditional Christianity. It seems that the oldest Christian churches have always had instances of prophets and people receiving revelations and visions.

In my view, at least at this point, the people we LDS sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators (as we will do this weekend during General Conference) do not do any of those things we sustain them as being, and don’t really function any differently from leaders of other churches. It seems like the days of profound visions, revelations, angelic ministrations, etc, at least when they are openly talked about (as we see not only in the Bible but in the beginnings of the Restoration), are over. Instead we have “well who’s to say that they didn’t have those things? maybe they are too sacred to talk about. maybe they talk about them in private settings. etc”.