Mormonism-The Benefits of "Living Prophets and Apostles"

[TOmNossor]

What I am trying to understand is why the LDS, believing that the Catholic Church is apostate, would accept any document coming out of that church.

I fully believe that the Church is and always has been guided by the Holy Spirit and that Holy Scripture is the work of God through the Catholic Church but cannot understand why the LDS would also believe this of an apostate church.
DCNBILL,
Hello. Your belief that the Bible came from the Catholic Church seems to be a bit overstated. Clearly the Bible comes through the Eastern and Western Churches. Clearly the Old Testament comes through the Jewish Church.
I believe that to dogmatically assert that the Bible is inerrant and complete is to lean heavily upon an authority structure that existed in the fourth century. But to claim that the Bible is God-breathed and sufficient while not being absolutely inerrant or necessarily complete is to recognize an absence of absolute authority in this fourth century group. I do not believe the work of any council (other than the Council of Jerusalem) was inspired. I do not believe the decision to include certain books and exclude other books in the Bible was sealed from error due to the infallible authority claimed by the Catholic Church. I do believe the Bible is sufficient and wonderful. Further I see no need to point to “translation” errors. Further still, I do not know if I would include books like 1st Clement or the Pastor of Hermas within the cannon (there was dispute solved theoretically without inspiration, but I lean away from including either of these books). Finally, I believe the CoJCoLDS chose a common Bible with apostate Christianity for pragmatic and God-inspired reasons, not as a profession of absolute faith in the inerrancy of the Bible or the infallibility of the 4th century authorities who choose to include and exclude various books.

Can you see how I as a LDS can value the Bible, chose not to focus on what I consider to be minor “translation” errors, and still reject the authority of 4th century councils?

Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

Having read Early Christians in Disarrray, I recall a number of arguments being made. One of the essays even traced various beliefs in apostasy as presented in the CoJCoLDS from its early days to Nibley and now beyond Nibley. So, it would seem that you have chosen to attack one of the premises offered in that book and one that no LDS here has chosen to offer as the strongest case for the apostasy (or for the importance of having Apostles/Prophets at the head of ones church).

The only reason why I brought up that book was in reference to the title (i.e. that many LDS claim that without living apostles and prophets, Christianity fell into “disarray”). However yes, that book, among others, advances the idea that once the original Apostles were gone, Christianity fell into apostasy, priesthood authority was lost, competing “sects” were formed, ordinances changed, etc.

And I nowhere claimed that any LDS here either supports this view or thinks that it is the strongest case for an apostasy. This thread is simply about the argument advanced. If you do not hold to it, then it is not addressing you.

Your thesis was/is that LDS cannot claim that the splintering of Christianity was the product of an absence of Apostolic leadership because with what LDS claim is Apostolic leadership we have what you claim is splintering.
I told you that while not granting the validity of your thesis, I thought the presence of Apostles/Prophets was a MARK of the true church in that God leads His church via INSPIRED …

Yes, my thesis for this thread is that those that advance the argument that without living apostles and prophets, Christianity felt into disarray cannot validly claim such a thing, because the same situation has occurred subsequent to the restoration of Joseph Smith within his movement, with the living apostles and prophets on the earth.

As for the presence of apostles and prophets being a mark of the true church, please do start a separate thread on that topic if you would like to discuss it. I will participate.

Now, IMO it is impossible to assess you thesis without setting it into a historical context. The Church we both believe was led by Christ (and Apostles) chose as an Apostle someone who betrayed Christ. The Bible when read critically presents great conflict and splintering in the Apostle lead church. Paul resists the so-called “Pillars” in Jerusalem. More than half the letters in the Bible are devoted to correcting errors in local churches. In fact errors aside if you read only half of the New Testament you would get little evidence there was any single church but rather a handful of churches. The other half IMO (and presumably in yours) makes the case for One Church, but the case has not been so compelling that the majority of New Testament believers think Oneness is a mark of the true church.

So, lest what I call “setting in a historical context” is interpreted by you as attacking the disarray in other traditions in response to your accusation that may tradition is in disarray let me just say this.

If any current LDS, or any former LDS other than you, believes that the existence of Apostles/Prophets at the headship of God’s church will prevent any splintering; they are wrong. If any current LDS believes that an absence of perfect unity within a church purportedly lead by Apostles/Prophets is absolute evidence of no valid Apostles/Prophets and they refuse to re-evaluate this belief, the evidence indicates they should cease to be a LDS.

Catholics look at the Bible and see what we see today: multiple local churches united under apostolic leadership. Letters are sent and Councils are held to correct errors and expound on the Faith. I see the same thing in the Catholic Church.

I do agree that those LDS that advance the above argument are wrong, hence why I started this thread. I have seen the argument given many times, and perhaps I was reading a thread over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board where I saw it again that subconsciously motivated me to post this thread.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Let me make another positive claim about the UNITY of the CoJCoLDS, the contrast will likely be obvious to those who have any historical sense at all. Your link of folks who split from the CoJCoLDS contains a number of churches that recognize Joseph Smith as a Prophet on some day in 1830 and fail to recognize Thomas S. Monson as the Prophet in 2015. That being said, easily 95% of the folks who currently believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet on some day in 1830 belong to the CoJCoLDS with Thomas S. Monson at its head. So while in our fallen world there are many folks who choose to believe many things, the church I believe is headed by God’s Prophet is in the minds of most believers the valid and unified successor of the Prophet Joseph Smith. And IMO 95% is a good unity indicator.

The Bible presents approvingly the words of Rabbi Galaliel:
“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
I suggest that most of the organizations you have in your link have suffered “this work be of men, it will come to nought.” But the CoJCoLDS has 95% of the folks who believe Joseph Smith was a prophet on some day in 1830 as members, and is a long way from “coming to nought.” If one were to base their decision upon the Biblical premise of Rabbi Galaliel, I submit one must conclude that the CoJCoLDS “be of God.” And the unity of the CoJCoLDS as the successor of Joseph Smith is positive evidence for this assessment IMO.

I don’t think the number of people who subscribe to the various LDS-related churches changes the invalidity of the argument I am addressing.

Also, I completely agree with the Rabbi. “If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it”. That’s how I view the original Church established by Jesus Christ. It was never overthrown, and is still here: the Catholic Church.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t think the number of people who subscribe to the various LDS-related churches changes the invalidity of the argument I am addressing.

Also, I completely agree with the Rabbi. “If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it”. That’s how I view the original Church established by Jesus Christ. It was never overthrown, and is still here: the Catholic Church.

Arguably, it WAS overthrown.,…corruption, splintering, more splintering, more corruption…

What exists now is not the same Church. Continued changes, like Vatican II emphasize that.

Does the original still exist?

Parts maybe…

 

[SteveVH]

Arguably, it WAS overthrown.,…corruption, splintering, more splintering, more corruption…

Well, one can make any argument they choose, but that does not mean that the argument is credible. The point is, even though the Church has had corrupt clergy, schisms and all the rest, it still stands and has guarded the truth given once to the Church by the Apostles for 20 centuries. This was true even when a majority of the bishops of the Catholic Church supported the heresy of Arianism. Our dogmas and doctrines remain unchanged. We will always have corruption and we will always have people who reject the truth as long as there are people on the earth. This says nothing of the truth possessed and guarded by the Catholic Church and it ignores those within the Church who have lived holy lives, submitted their lives to the truth the Church proclaims and who have remained faithful.

What exists now is not the same Church. Continued changes, like Vatican II emphasize that.

The Church is not stagnant. Growing in understanding of our faith does not equate to not being the same Church. It is the same Church, now and forever, and hopefully, even greater insights into will come to light as the Church further explores the mystery of Christ and his mystical body, the Church.

Does the original still exist?

Yes. Most definitely.

So what brought about your flip-flop? I use to think that you treated our Mormon friends unfairly on this forum and now it appears that only your target has changed.

 

[TexanKnight]

Well, one can make any argument they choose, but that does not mean that the argument is credible. The point is, even though the Church has had corrupt clergy, schisms and all the rest, it still stands and has guarded the truth given once to the Church by the Apostles for 20 centuries. This was true even when a majority of the bishops of the Catholic Church supported the heresy of Arianism. Our dogmas and doctrines remain unchanged. We will always have corruption and we will always have people who reject the truth as long as there are people on the earth. This says nothing of the truth possessed and guarded by the Catholic Church and it ignores those within the Church who have lived holy lives, submitted their lives to the truth the Church proclaims and who have remained faithful.

Actually, this is not entirely true. If you look at certain counsels and what came from them are different that what was before…certain things regarding Mary, for example. And corruption always detract from what is. To say that corruption changed nothing is naive at best. The OT is replete with God pulling His Spirit from corruption.

And one can look at the last 15 years and see how corruption ate away at the Church until scandal after scandal broke out. It is difficult to see God in that. Read “Goodbye, Good Men” and you will see what I mean.

The Church is not stagnant. Growing in understanding of our faith does not equate to not being the same Church. It is the same Church, now and forever, and hopefully, even greater insights into will come to light as the Church further explores the mystery of Christ and his mystical body, the Church.

Ah…yet when the LDS Church claims that, they are derided for changing. It cannot be both ways. And yes…the Church WAS different after Vatican II. It was not growth…it was wholesale change.

Yes. Most definitely.

I disagree.

So what brought about your flip-flop?

Flip Flop? Hmmmm. I do not see a “flip flop”. I have always wanted to be where God wants me. And the last 8 months has seen an incredible set of miracles and amazing events to bring about a different direction. Who can argue with God?

 

[DCNBILL]

The Bible did not come from the Catholic Church. It was ORGANIZED by the Catholic Church. The Bible came from God.

I can believe, for example, that my wife was an awful wife and never truly loved me, but that there are things she taught that I will carry forward.

Sorry that I got a part of the thread off topic but I still have a hard time reconciling this. I believe that your statement above is true," The Bible came from God." I just can not understand, from your perspective, why you believe that God would give “His Word” to an apostate church.

With all due respect to TOmNossor, for his comments I believe that a bit of study on the Liturgy, the Early Fathers and how Holy Scripture developed within the Church woud reveal that the Bible did indeed come from the Catholic Church and that the church could only produce such a work if the Holy Spirit guided it.

Again sorry for the derailment.

 

[TexanKnight]

Sorry that I got a part of the thread off topic but I still have a hard time reconciling this. I believe that your statement above is true," The Bible came from God." I just can not understand, from your perspective, why you believe that God would give “His Word” to an apostate church.

With all due respect to TOmNossor, for his comments I believe that a bit of study on the Liturgy, the Early Fathers and how Holy Scripture developed within the Church woud reveal that the Bible did indeed come from the Catholic Church and that the church could only produce such a work if the Holy Spirit guided it.

Again sorry for the derailment.

Who better for God to give His word to? Jesus dines with sinners.

Organizing books into a compilation does not mean it came from the Catholic Church.

It came from God. Organized by the Catholic Church.

That does not mean that the Catholic Church did not later lose its way.

 

[Stephen168]

I have had Mormons claim that splintering and changing doctrine were signs of the Great Apostasy but they fail to notice the same failings in their own church.

I have read that Catholics claim all the splintering in their Church means nothing,

Yes, the Catholic Church does not make that claim. It is irrational and unbiblical to think that someone leaving the church has anything to do with the church.

and fail to see that as a possibility in the LDS Church

We are not talking about a possibly that Mormons and their ‘Apostles’ make the claim, it is a fact that they do.

Mormon reasoning used on itself brings an assault on Mormonism because it does what they claim the pre-apostasy (570AD) Mormon church did.

So, you discount guidance from the Spirit on this? Are you saying the only way to determine is the way that YOU accept?

Mormons have to reject reason and claim the Holy Spirit because of hypocrisies like the one listed above.

TexanKnight:

Every time you question a Mormon and show the error of their teaching, they change the facts a little more to make it work again.

And this is how a guy can have 9 versions of a vision

And they have to deny Mormon teaching and/or invent Catholic teaching.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes, the Catholic Church does not make that claim. It is irrational and unbiblical to think that someone leaving the church has anything to do with the church.

Ah…but if the reasons they leave is the corruption that has caused the Spirit to withdraw…then it is neither irrational or unbiblical. Though, it IS Biblical for God to withdraw when his Word and ways are corrupted.

We are not talking about a possibly that Mormons and their ‘Apostles’ make the claim, it is a fact that they do.

Mormon reasoning used on itself brings an assault on Mormonism because it does what they claim the pre-apostasy (570AD) Mormon church did.

And that very argument condemns the Catholic Church

Mormons have to reject reason and claim the Holy Spirit because of hypocrisies like the one listed above.

Which hypocrisy? The one where you claim to be speaking for God then selling an indulgence to the highest bidder? And even I will not enumerate the hypocrisy of clergy over the last 30 years. What does that say?

And they have to deny Mormon teaching and/or invent Catholic teaching.

Really? Like what?

 

[SteveVH]

Who better for God to give His word to? Jesus dines with sinners.

Organizing books into a compilation does not mean it came from the Catholic Church.

And can you tell us when God gave us the list of the texts that were to be included, so that the Church could just organize them. How did that work, if it was not the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that actually determined what was and what was not the inspired word of God? In the New Testament only 27 texts out of over 400 that were considered were chosen. How did God tell the Church what was and was not written under his inspiration so that when they organized it they knew they were organizing the word of God? And what does that even mean? - to organize the Bible?

That does not mean that the Catholic Church did not later lose its way.

So, the apostasy occurred sometime after the Bible was canonized? It didn’t happen after the death of the last Apostle, or at least the one before him ('cause I guess John is still running round somewhere)?

 

[SteveVH]

TK,

It would really help if you would not respond to my post by including your comments in the “quote box”. It makes it difficult to respond. Unless that was your goal.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP and stay there.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP and stay there.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, this is not entirely true. If you look at certain counsels and what came from them are different that what was before…certain things regarding Mary, for example.

Wrong. Not different from before. Only officially stated, usually for the express purpose of preserving what was given by the Apostles and always believed. Please point me to a Catholic dogma or doctrine that has changed since first proclaimed?

And corruption always detract from what is.

Not sure what you mean by that.

To say that corruption changed nothing is naive at best.

I don’t think I said that at all. If so, then give the quote. What it has not changed is the teaching of the Church, its dogmas and doctrines. It has not changed the truth and the authority that the Church possesses. Corruption destroys faith and causes great scandal, providing fodder for people like you. It is a terrible thing. And it has been happening for the last 2000 years, and before. And still, it has not destroyed the Church Christ promised to build and protect. The Church continues to grow.

And one can look at the last 15 years and see how corruption ate away at the Church until scandal after scandal broke out. It is difficult to see God in that. Read “Goodbye, Good Men” and you will see what I mean.

This is really becoming nothing more than an ad hominem attack in which you attempt to simply discredit the validity of the Catholic position by pointing to those who violate its very principles. Can’t listen to them… they have had corrupt people in their ranks.

Ah…yet when the LDS Church claims that, they are derided for changing. It cannot be both ways.

It’s not both ways. Not even close. Our doctrines do not change. LDS doctrines change on a regular basis.

And yes…the Church WAS different after Vatican II. It was not growth…it was wholesale change.

Different liturgically, yes. So what? Please give an example of one doctrine, one Catholic belief , one Catholic teaching that was changed by Vatican II?

Flip Flop? Hmmmm. I do not see a “flip flop”. I have always wanted to be where God wants me. And the last 8 months has seen an incredible set of miracles and amazing events to bring about a different direction. Who can argue with God?

 

[twopekinguys]

Arguably, it WAS overthrown.,…corruption, splintering, more splintering, more corruption…

What exists now is not the same Church. Continued changes, like Vatican II emphasize that.

Does the original still exist?

Parts maybe…

Does this look familiar? Pick a side.

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

For ANY total Apostasy to have occurred where a “restoration” was needed, three things would have to be true:

1. Jesus would have to be incredibly weak. This is because it would mean that man could undo what Jesus set up. Further, it would mean Satan won, even if for only 1800 years. I could not follow a Jesus that weak.
2. Jesus would have to be dishonest. Jesus was clear that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Further, Jesus said He would be with us ALWAYS. Not for a short time and then, again, in 1800 years. ALWAYS. I could not follow a Jesus who was dishonest.
3. Jesus would have to be incredibly cruel. Jesus knew the future (assuming He was God, which I do). So, Jesus knew the fate of the Apostles. Now, assume there was a total Apostasy (which I don’t). That would mean that Jesus, KNOWING there would be an Apostasy, STILL sent his very best friends out to die incredibly horrible deaths for a Church that would die within a few years and be gone for 1800 years. That is the cruelest thing I have ever heard. I could never follow a Jesus that cruel.

 

[SteveVH]

Eric_Hilbert:
Sorry, Eric, Point taken.

 

[TexanKnight]

Does this look familiar? Pick a side.

Yes…it looks very familiar.

I imagine Paul was faced with the same thing.

I imagine he responded as I will: I was wrong.

How is that?

 

[SteveVH]

Yes…it looks very familiar.

I imagine Paul was faced with the same thing.

I imagine he responded as I will: I was wrong.

How is that?

I would be better to give a reasonable argument against the points you once supported. Paul certainly did.

 

[Stephen168]

The OP states that Mormons teach that a reason to become Mormon is the stability provided by “living apostles and prophets.” The examples of stability given by Mormons are unchanging doctrine and no splintering in the church. He then points out that there is in fact splintering and changing doctrine in Mormonism. Therefore stability is not in fact provided by “living apostles and prophets.”

I have seen the argument raised by Mormons in every discussion of the Great Apostasy.

Posts 28, 31, 33 presumes The Catholic Church makes the same claims as the Mormon Church. Which is false:
The Catholic Church/Christianity as never claimed to be led by a prophet.
The Catholic Church and Catholics do not claim that splintering or changing doctrine is a sign of not having “living prophets and apostles.”

TexanKnight invented catholic teaching which is not true.

I have read that Catholics claim all the splintering in their Church means nothing, and fail to see that as a possibility in the LDS Church

Now in post 53, you come clean and have to admit that the Catholic Church does not teach what you claimed, but then you try to deny Mormon teaching by making a statement which presupposes Mormons not teaching what the OP and several of us know to be a belief held by Mormons.

The belief outlined in the OP does much to condemn Mormonism but I’m not sure if there would be any other benefits to having “ living apostles and prophets."