J
jane_doe
Guest
Incorrect, His influence can be felt everywhere.
KJ English was the dominate religious language of the day.
- Status
T
Tarquin
Guest
I believe the issue is not the existence of photographs or documents, but reasonable testimony. For example, if we believe Jesus lived, and we believe Jesus ordained Peter, Matthew, and others; and persons named in the New Testament who identified as having been instituted by those Apostles as bishops, teachers, elders, presbyters, etc.; and besides those specified central Apostles - second only to Jesus Christ - and there were another sort of general apostles - “first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28), as there also were general prophets ("Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets " - Acts 13:1), and not as in the Mormon Church - “first a single Prophet, second Counselors to the Prophet, third Apostles . . . and not until around seventh place teachers…” In the New Testament, and corroborated by historical documents, we see Jesus, his Apostles, their disciples, and we read later that their successors were documented by church writers and historians. Over the passage of years, many of those have been lost, and for some it seems impossible to trace the transfer of authority from one generation of church leaders to the next. But other documents refer to them, and some documents contain partial lists. There is sufficient evidence in the reports of historians, and in the very fact that where a church is identified in the New Testament, such as at Rome or Antioch or Corinth, there is today a church there so that one could hardly imagine that there was no continuous bishopric in those places: to persuade non-Christians that there was a continuity of office. Continuity of office was indeed broken in some areas, but then reestablished through the authority of responsible bishops whose line of succession had not been broken or had been broken and similarly restored.
For the LDS Church, the situation is notably different. Jesus Christ was not alive in the sense he was 2000 years ago. He did not call twelve different men separately, bring them together, teach them personally. walk with and minister to them and let them see him minister to others. He was not opposed by local ministry - neither by American Jews nor by rival Christians. He was not brought to trial by Jewish leaders, nor persecuted by Romans. There was one man who claimed that Jesus had appeared to him. That man did not follow Jesus as the latter walked the land ministering and teaching. That man claimed personal (private, nonpublic) revelation (a type of teaching), and that man passed on that alleged teaching. Jews and Romans knew of Jesus, some met him. They met his Apostles, who could tell them what Jesus had taught them, and what they had seen Jesus do. Mormon apostles cannot tell what Jesus taught them, they are afraid even to ask each other if they even saw Jesus! Mormon apostles cannot tell what Jesus did in front of them, to feed thousands or teach thousands, because they never personally saw that, neither yesterday nor today.
It is true that a Mormon can show a list of names purporting to be his line of authority, from whoever ordained him all the way back to Jesus. But beyond Joseph Smith, there is no corroborating witness that Jesus even appeared to ordain Joseph Smith as an Apostle. Jesus appointed and laid his hands on twelve Apostles two thousands years ago. He allegedly laid his hand on one man’s head, who was called “First Elder” not “First Apostle.” I do not believe Jesus ordained anyone 2000 years ago to be a Prophet. Joseph Smith may claim to have been ordained a prophet by Jesus. But when has a Prophet’s role included ordaining apostles? - among LDS, yes; but in Jesus’ time and in Jesus’ way, no.
There may be exceptions to what I have said,
but the general principles are true.
T
Tarquin
Guest
There are several reasons that Mormon apostles are not successors of Christ’s apostles. As for 1 Corinthians 12:28, those apostles are listed as “first” and prophets come “second”. The order is reversed in the Mormon Church. Therefore, it would seem that Mormon Apostles are not the same as the apostles in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Also the claim of leadership by a Prophet (Joseph Smith, etc.) in the Mormon Church is contrary to the order established by Christ, which would mean that the Mormon Church is in apostasy. They have changed the ordinances, the order of the priesthood, the offices, the government, and the teachings of the Church established by Christ.
If it is true that the LDS Prophet is also an Apostle, it is also true that an LDS Apostle is a Prophet. Since a prophet can be an apostle, and an apostle can be a prophet, why does the LDS church have such a hard time understanding that an elder can be an apostle, a bishop can be an apostle, and that from Apostle to elder to teacher to bishop to presbyter to overseer - all continue the authority - the apostolic succession? What’s good for the Mormon goose, they deprive the Catholic gander, thereby cooking their own goose.
T
Tarquin
Guest
And when Joseph Smith the Prophet died, the authority was again restored through angelic authority, to James Strang. His followers continued the line of apostolic succession, accompanied with testimonies, miracles, revelations, and a fuller restoration of church organization than was able to be instituted during the life of Joseph Smith. At least that is what I have read. I wasn’t there myself, and there is no historical corroboration written by Jews, Romans, Protestants, or U.S. government historians, comparable to the historical corroboration written by Apostles, Christians, and Romans on the spread of Christianity.
Why did John confer his authority? Why did he give up his authority? Didn’t he want to follow Jesus any more? In fact why would Peter and James do that? Why didn’t they confer their authority on some worthy person in their own lifetime - like Paul or Timothy or Sylvanus? Dying, Peter and James might have thought to do that, or the surviving apostles as each of them was killed. John should not have given it any thought of all, however, since he never died, according to Mormon teaching.
T
Tarquin
Guest
Are you saying you do not believe Prophet Spencer Kimball’s report: At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Kimball referenced 2 Nephi 30:6 saying that Indians “are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. … The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation” (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3). Kimball gave an example of a sixteen-year-old Mormon Indian girl whom he described as “several shades lighter than her parents” He exultantly concluded, “These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness."
And you obviously disregard Brigham Young’s stern warning that Mormon apostates would turn "gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.” (Journal of Discourses 5:332)
Another Mormon, George Edward Clark, explaining why he absolutely believes the Mormon Church to be true, gives as one reason the differences in skin color between good people and bad. After saying that most of the Catawba tribe of Indians of South Carolina are Mormons. Those who were Mormon were "were white and delightsome, as white and fair as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment.” I personally have heard stories almost equally astounding. However, I have never seen a person’s skin-color change from “white” to “black” or “black” to “white” other than by environment or disease.
H
Horton
Guest
So the Holy Ghost can only be in one place at a time but his influence can be felt everywhere? This makes no sense at all. If the Holy Spirit can’t be in more than one place then how exactly does that work?
It appears Luke tells it a bit different. The bolding is Jesus telling the 12 “the promise of my Father” which is the Holy Spirit. He is telling them to take what they had learned to the nations. They could only be done if the Holy Spirit is with them. We can only live Christian lives when we have the Holy Spirit with us, not just his influence.
Luke 24:45-49
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
46 And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day
47 and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
**49 And [behold] I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
**
Your last sentence also makes no sense. If JS was writing from ancient tablets the language would have been of that ancient time. If JS was translating as he went, he would have translated it into the common language of the time, American 19th century English, not 17th century British English.
H
Horton
Guest
I know the LDS are not a true religion. gazelam made a claim to apostolic succession and I just wanted to see some evidence other than LDS writings to prove his claim. I knew he wouldn’t be able to.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Right, my best friend at the time was a Navajo, a “Lamanite”, who was in the LDS Indian Placement program that Kimball is referencing. I never believed she was cursed. The rest of your quotes was the standard stuff taught to all Mormons. Today Mormons call these teachings “opinion”. But back then it was the word of God.Are you saying you do not believe Prophet Spencer Kimball’s report: At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Kimball referenced 2 Nephi 30:6 saying that Indians “are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. … The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation” (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3). Kimball gave an example of a sixteen-year-old Mormon Indian girl whom he described as “several shades lighter than her parents” He exultantly concluded, “These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness."
And you obviously disregard Brigham Young’s stern warning that Mormon apostates would turn "gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.” (Journal of Discourses 5:332)
Another Mormon, George Edward Clark, explaining why he absolutely believes the Mormon Church to be true, gives as one reason the differences in skin color between good people and bad. After saying that most of the Catawba tribe of Indians of South Carolina are Mormons. Those who were Mormon were "were white and delightsome, as white and fair as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment.” I personally have heard stories almost equally astounding. However, I have never seen a person’s skin-color change from “white” to “black” or “black” to “white” other than by environment or disease.
Stephen168
New member
19th century “Religious English” was not the same as 17th century “Religious English.” It is also scary how similar “Religious English” has been to regular English since the 16th century.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Except it doesn’t go back to the Savior, it goes only as far back as Joseph Smith.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
The biggest difficulty I have with the Holy Spirit in an LDS context is what members themselves say. The absolute leaden take away is that the Holy Spirit is chased away by everything. Irreverent behavior, in that if someone next to you is speaking irreverently, the Holy Spirit will abandon you and not return until you part company with your companions, instead of standing by you. Other things that if done by those around you will chase away the Spirit, questioning, laughter, immodest dress (shoulders, knees) alcohol, coffee, tea, swearing, and just lately Queen. I’m used to a much stronger, always in your corner, stand by you in trying times Spirit:shrug:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
This makes no sense whatsoever. Due to the earth’s rotation, at any and every moment, half our planet is not feeling the heat of the sun.
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
I was just about to say this!
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Gosh, historical fact is historical fact. If the Twelve had intended there to always be Twelve, certainly we would see that they set the LDS model of a perpetual 12-ish in motion. They did not. They in fact ordained their successors, which were and are many more than twelve men.
The so-called restoration is just making stuff up, outside of history, and rests on a claim that the Twelve were so derelict in their duty to Jesus. Christ, or maybe indifferent to spreading the Gospel as they see commission by Jesus Christ Himself, that they didn’t bother to ensure they had successors. We have a higher view of the Apostles than that. We view them as committed to giving everything, including plans for the perpetuity of the function of their office.
We can by reason, see that the LDS claim is utterly false.
The Holy Spirit does indeed gift each of us in different ways. We don’t view the gift of the Apostles, to Christ’s Church, as a gift that has expired. The gift of our foundation is present to this day. I’d say that is a major difference between Mormonism and Catholicism, that is, that the LDS view the gifts God has give to His Church will fade away or are out rightly removed by God. Our belief is in a God who is loyal to us, as He said He is and whose gifts last through ages.
I don’t understand your question about Protestantism.
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
I’m not entirely sure I understand my question
I guess realising I had the concept of the Apostolic Succession from a Catholic perspective wrong has confused me. Although I probably never thought about it before. I know the Catholic’s don’t have “12 Apostles” and have Bishops but I had never really out much thought into why. I had assumed that the 12 Apostles had passed on their full authority and office not that they were sending out “messengers” with a different definition of the word Apostle.Some Protestant denominations don’t believe in apostolic succession and Catholics use it as a way to determine the truth and thereby say that those church’s aren’t fully correct. However if apostolic succession is not apostolic in the fullest sense but a different definition, why is it such a determining factor if truth, why is lineage important since even the Protestant denominations have messengers of the gospel? And are therefore “Apostles” in that sense?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You almost understand the Catholic position. Let’s look at the symbols the Church uses and maybe that will help. Jesus said to Peter, “feed my sheep”. And so we understand the Apostles were commissioned by Jesus to care for the Shepherd’s flock. In liturgical settings and sometimes in official media, you will see our Bishops carrying a crozier. That long staff with a shepherd’s crook. This symbolizes the Bishop’s office is the same as the office of the Apostle’s in every way but one. The Twelve were the foundation that Jesus laid, for his Church. The foundation is laid but once for Christ’s Church.I’m not entirely sure I understand my question
Some Protestant denominations don’t believe in apostolic succession and Catholics use it as a way to determine the truth and thereby say that those church’s aren’t fully correct. However if apostolic succession is not apostolic in the fullest sense but a different definition, why is it such a determining factor if truth, why is lineage important since even the Protestant denominations have messengers of the gospel? And are therefore “Apostles” in that sense?
Our Bishops are successors to the office the Twelve were given by Christ. They cannot be one of the actual Twelve because they do not meet the criteria as explained from the Book of Acts. When we say our Bishops are successors to the Apostles, we mean the office. Our Bishops hold the same office of the Apostles. Mormons get hung up on titles. Which, happens, we can all get Pharisaical at times.
We distinguish between the Twelve and our Bishops because the Twelve were unique in human history, and in God’s work in human history. They hold a special place in our identity as Catholics and as a Church. We completely view our Bishops as successors to them. Mormonism is based on a POV that Catholicism doesn’t have. So first they have to redefine history and Catholic doctrine, in order to create a problem that needs fixing. It is a problem of imagination only.
H
Horton
Guest
The Apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Church, and entrusted Christ’s church to bishops. Early in the Church there were only a few bishops as the world appeared smaller then. Over the many years since as new lands were discovered and settled more bishops were need. I’m not an expert in early church history so it may be bishops may have been called by another name early in the church. I’m sure someone here can clarify that for us bothI’m not entirely sure I understand my question
Some Protestant denominations don’t believe in apostolic succession and Catholics use it as a way to determine the truth and thereby say that those church’s aren’t fully correct. However if apostolic succession is not apostolic in the fullest sense but a different definition, why is it such a determining factor if truth, why is lineage important since even the Protestant denominations have messengers of the gospel? And are therefore “Apostles” in that sense?
When comparing Catholicism and the LDS you have to understand words are used differently by the LDS. In the Catholic Church a Bishop is a priest who has been raised up to a Bishop. A Bishop is the leader of a diocese, which is a geographical area of parishes. In some large cities there may be several Bishops and possibly an Archbishop. Here is a link that explains it better than I can.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_the_Catholic_Church
For the LDS a bishop is a man chosen to lead ward for a period of 5 years. This man typically has no special religious education.
So a bishop in the Catholic Church, who is a priest and has an extensive education, both religious and secular, really can’t be compared to a LDS bishop. They’re just not the same thing.
So yes we do claim apostolic succession. I think this may be more of a language issue in that the LDS have take many Catholic terms, changed the meaning of those terms, and then claim the Catholic Church is false as we use the wrong terms for things.
I hope this help clarify things a bit.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
As for why the number 12, as in replacing Judas. There are meanings that Jesus tied to Israel and that symbolism is strongly present in the Book of Revelations. There are 12 tribes of Israel, which are based on the 12 sons of Israel.
Jesus is the fulfillment of all the prophecies and laws that were given to the Israelites. Each of the 12 Apostles represents many things in this context. For example, each tribe has a symbolic representative for the New Covenant that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The continuity of the Old Covenent for a chosen people, setup by God in giving Israel 12 sons, now fulfilled in a New Covenant for a chosen people by God and made perpetually present via 12 Apostles. Etc etc. as this relationship between the Old and New covenants, the Church and the sacraments can be delved into at length.
Twelve sons are twelve sons and Twelve Apostles are Twelve Apostles. Just as Judaism doesn’t maintain a quarum of the 12 sons of Israel, we don’t maintain a quorum of 12 Apostles.
Jesus is the fulfillment of all the prophecies and laws that were given to the Israelites. Each of the 12 Apostles represents many things in this context. For example, each tribe has a symbolic representative for the New Covenant that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The continuity of the Old Covenent for a chosen people, setup by God in giving Israel 12 sons, now fulfilled in a New Covenant for a chosen people by God and made perpetually present via 12 Apostles. Etc etc. as this relationship between the Old and New covenants, the Church and the sacraments can be delved into at length.
Twelve sons are twelve sons and Twelve Apostles are Twelve Apostles. Just as Judaism doesn’t maintain a quarum of the 12 sons of Israel, we don’t maintain a quorum of 12 Apostles.
T
Tarquin
Guest
When Jesus died, why wasn’t a new Christ, cornerstone, ordained? Everyone knows a typical building has at least four corners. Is it because he returned bodily? If so, then Mormons know that at least one Apostle continues bodily today, according to their teachings, and four if you include “the Three Nephites.” So, according to self-contradicting Mormon teachings, there never was an apostasy because there have always been prophets and apostles on the earth, from the time of Jesus until today! They did not “all die”.
Perhaps a Mormon can provide evidence that John and the Three Nephites either died or went into apostasy themselves. And why does the Mormon Church have twelve “Apostles” - have they excommunicated the Apostle John? Or did the news about John never having died come out only after the number of twelve (Mormon apostles) had already been set up?
Perhaps a Mormon can provide evidence that John and the Three Nephites either died or went into apostasy themselves. And why does the Mormon Church have twelve “Apostles” - have they excommunicated the Apostle John? Or did the news about John never having died come out only after the number of twelve (Mormon apostles) had already been set up?
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
My mother is a mixed-blood Indian and so was my father so you can see how I might find this offensive.
- Status