Mormons and the 12 (or 15?) Apostles

[Chris-WA]

Mormons, in a recent conversation with a local stake president it was explained to me that the LDS church has the same structural heiarchy as the early Christian Church. The LDS church is headed by the First Presidency, consisting of the prophet and his two counselors, and under those three there is the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Mormons believe the early church had the same structure–that Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency (I guess that makes Peter the “prophet”), and that the rest made up the Quorum of the 12. But there is one huge problem I cannot reconcile. We seem to be missing three Apostles here.

The New Testament shows us that Christ chose 12 Apostles to head the church, not 15. In order to have the same structure as the LDS church, Christ would have had to name 15 individuals (3 for the First Presidency and 12 more for the Quorum). But Peter, James, and John were members of the twelve, so how can Mormons say they have the same structure as the church Christ established? Who were the additional three Apostles, and how did we end up with a “First Presidency” separate from the “Quorum of the Twelve.”

 

[Alma147]

I think the first thing to recognize is that the New Testament isn’t a complete account of everything that occurred. While I’m not sure I agree with that stake president that the New Testament Church exactly mirrored today’s LDS ecclesiastical structure, there is an indication that Peter, James and John held positions of trust or confidence above that of the other apostles. Additionally, while it’s clear that there were more than 15 New Testament apostles, it’s impossible to demonstrate whether additional apostles were called each time to fill vacancies created by death among the twelve (as in Matthias) or if additional apostles were called due to the formation of an additional quorum such as a first presidency above the 12 as occurs in the LDS Church. When, for example, were Judas Barsabas, Silas, Paul and Barnabas called? No one can tell and a suggestion would largely be an argument from silence.

I personally think that the New Testament Church was led by 12 apostles just as the LDS Church was led by 12 apostles from 1844 to 1847.

Alma

It’s possible that Paul and Barnabas

 

[Chris-WA]

Additionally, while it’s clear that there were more than 15 New Testament apostles…

Besides Matthias (who replaced Judas), who else besides Paul was called an ‘Apostle?’ To my knowledge, the other names you mentioned were called as “disciples.”

 

[zerinus]

Mormons, in a recent conversation with a local stake president it was explained to me that the LDS church has the same structural heiarchy as the early Christian Church. The LDS church is headed by the First Presidency, consisting of the prophet and his two counselors, and under those three there is the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Mormons believe the early church had the same structure–that Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency (I guess that makes Peter the “prophet”), and that the rest made up the Quorum of the 12. But there is one huge problem I cannot reconcile. We seem to be missing three Apostles here.

The New Testament shows us that Christ chose 12 Apostles to head the church, not 15. In order to have the same structure as the LDS church, Christ would have had to name 15 individuals (3 for the First Presidency and 12 more for the Quorum). But Peter, James, and John were members of the twelve, so how can Mormons say they have the same structure as the church Christ established? Who were the additional three Apostles, and how did we end up with a “First Presidency” separate from the “Quorum of the Twelve.”

I am inclined to agree with Alma on that. Although some LDS gospel scholars have suggested that Peter James and John held the keys of the First Presidency in ancient times, it is not absolutely clear to me from the Bible that that was the case; neither is it necessary that it should have been. In the Doctrine and Covenants it is stated that the quorums of the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy are all of “equal authority” with one another in the government of the Church (see D&C 107:22-27). That means that if one or either of the top quorums was absent, the next one in line would have the full priesthood authority, and all the necessary keys to govern the Church, and to organize the other quorums if need be. Therefore it is not necessary that the First Presidency should have been instituted in the early Church for it to have been properly organized.

According to modern revelation, the First Presidency is a very ancient institution, and existed in the most ancient times (D&C 107:29), going back as far as Adam. Elder Mark E. Peterson said in an area conference (I think in Mexico) many years ago that the keys of the First Presidency was restored to Joseph Smith by Adam, thus implying that those keys were not inherent in the Apostleship which was restored through Peter, James and John. The offices of the Twelve Apostles and the Seventies appear to be more recent institutions, and were inaugurated for the first time by the Lord during His mortal ministry. It is not necessary that all these offices and quorums should have existed in the early Church for it to have been properly organized; but in this dispensation, designated by the Lord as “the dispensation of the fullness of times,” all these institutions should exist and be fully operational, because this is intended to be the summation of all previous dispensations (D&C 112:30; 128:18), and one in which the Lord is even going to reveal things that have never been revealed before, or been “hid from the foundation of the world” (D&C 124:41).

zerinus

 

[Alma147]

Besides Matthias (who replaced Judas), who else besides Paul was called an ‘Apostle?’ To my knowledge, the other names you mentioned were called as “disciples.”

Barnabas (Acts 14:14)
James (brother of Jesus) Galatians 1:19

Alma

 

[majick275]

well if amgid is right then it brings further doubt to the apostasy theory. Reason being apostles weren’t needed. The seventy should have taken over. Of ourse we know now that there was no office of seventy and the basis for that term was a mistranslation.

In any case, there seems to be a consensus here that the number isn’t fixed at twelve. I believe that supports the case against the LDS showing their unique structure as evidence of their “restored truth”.

 

[Alma147]

In any case, there seems to be a consensus here that the number isn’t fixed at twelve. I believe that supports the case against the LDS showing their unique structure as evidence of their “restored truth”.

If Mormons don’t believe and have never believed that the number was “fixed” at twelve, how does such a view support a case against Mormonism that the number 12 is fixed?

Alma

 

[majick275]

If Mormons don’t believe and have never believed that the number was “fixed” at twelve, how does such a view support a case against Mormonism that the number 12 is fixed?

Alma

my bad. The LDS as a church don’t seem to fixate on the number twelve(well…). amgid/zerinus seemd to fixate on the LDS number being twelve. syntax error on my part. my point is specific to amgid/zerinus being wrong about this.

 

[Chris-WA]

From the above discussion, I think it reasonable to say that the Mormon church is somewhat misleading when it claims to have the same structure as that of the church Christ originally established. It appears we agree that Christ established the Church with the 12 Apostles, and I think even LDS would support the notion that Peter was ultimately the head of the twelve. So adding a leadership level separate and above the Apostles is not consistent with the structure of the early church. I will not get into a discussion of the “First Presidency” being an ancient institution as it is totally unsupportable from the bible and I do not accept the D&C as modern revelation.

Though Paul and Barnabas were called “apostles,” they were not members of the twelve. Paul did not fill an empty office of one of the twelve, and we have no indication that Barnabas did either. If they were members of the twelve the scriptures would have identified them as such.

Scripture does, however, indicate what it took to be one of the twelve. In Acts Chapter 1 vs 21 Peter says regarding Judas’ successor:
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. (emphasis added)Peter and the eleven could have picked anyone to fill Judas’ vacant office, but instead he set very specific requirements for the position as shown above. It had to be someone who was with the twelve the whole time during Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection. That’s what it took to be one of the twelve. That’s why the early church so revered the twelve–because they were actual first-hand witnesses of Christ. No modern-day man meets the specific criteria stated by Peter, so to insist that the organization of the 12 Apostles continue in perpetuity seems fallacious.

 

[zerinus]

From the above discussion, I think it reasonable to say that the Mormon church is somewhat misleading when it claims to have the same structure as that of the church Christ originally established. It appears we agree that Christ established the Church with the 12 Apostles, and I think even LDS would support the notion that Peter was ultimately the head of the twelve. So adding a leadership level separate and above the Apostles is not consistent with the structure of the early church. I will not get into a discussion of the “First Presidency” being an ancient institution as it is totally unsupportable from the bible and I do not accept the D&C as modern revelation.

Though Paul and Barnabas were called “apostles,” they were not members of the twelve. Paul did not fill an empty office of one of the twelve, and we have no indication that Barnabas did either. If they were members of the twelve the scriptures would have identified them as such.

Scripture does, however, indicate what it took to be one of the twelve. In Acts Chapter 1 vs 21 Peter says regarding Judas’ successor:
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. (emphasis added)Peter and the eleven could have picked anyone to fill Judas’ vacant office, but instead he set very specific requirements for the position as shown above. It had to be someone who was with the twelve the whole time during Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection. That’s what it took to be one of the twelve. That’s why the early church so revered the twelve–because they were actual first-hand witnesses of Christ. No modern-day man meets the specific criteria stated by Peter, so to insist that the organization of the 12 Apostles continue in perpetuity seems fallacious.

As I recall, all of this has been discussed and answered before. If you insist on burying your head in the sand, you are free to do so, but don’t expect me to do the same in order to carry on with you a dialog of the deaf.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

As I recall, all of this has been discussed and answered before. If you insist on burying your head in the sand, you are free to do so, but don’t expect me to do the same in order to carry on with you a dialog of the deaf.

zerinus

I thought that’s exactly what you were doing.

 

[Chris-WA]

As I recall, all of this has been discussed and answered before. If you insist on burying your head in the sand, you are free to do so, but don’t expect me to do the same in order to carry on with you a dialog of the deaf.

You know, if you don’t have something of value to say or something substantial to add, why not just keep your petty comments to yourself? Your post is completely meaningless and absolutely no help to this thread.

 

[PaulDupre]

I think the Mormon doctrine of the First Presidency comes from a misreading of the NT. Whenever Jesus did something amazing that he did not want the world to know about until after he was raised from the dead, he took only Peter, James and John with him.

Examples of this are the transfiguration (Matt: 17:12) and raising the daughter of Jarius from the dead (Mark 5:37-43). Jesus took only Peter, James and John with him on these occasions. Mormons think it is because Peter, James and John constituted a “first presidency”, but (as always with LDS bible interpretations) there is a much simpler explanation.

St. Paul taught in 2 Cor 13:1 that “In the mouths of two or three witnesses shall all things be established.” Peter, James and John were the three witnesses that Jesus chose to testify of these extraordinary events.

The idea of a “First Presidency” was a modern invention of Joseph Smith.

God love you,
Paul

 

[majick275]

I think it more the iinvention of Sidney Rigdon. Prior to his arrival Joseph seemd to content to run the church with Olivewr as first and second elder.

 

[zerinus]

You know, if you don’t have something of value to say or something substantial to add, why not just keep your petty comments to yourself? Your post is completely meaningless and absolutely no help to this thread.

My friend, I am not here to bury my head in the sand along side you to carry on the dialog of the deaf. The questions you are raising have already been discussed by me at length in many posts in these threads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115490

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111484

I don’t see the need to rehash the same things over and over again.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

I think it more the iinvention of Sidney Rigdon. Prior to his arrival Joseph seemd to content to run the church with Olivewr as first and second elder.

Yes, you’re right. In fact, there is very good evidence that Sidney produced the Book of Mormon from the Spaulding manuscript and his own sermons, then brought it forth through a young man (Joseph Smith) who was supposed to be nothing but the translator. Rigdon was supposed to be the prophet and leader of the church, but he didn’t count on Joseph’s ego and thirst for power or the magnetism of Joseph’s personality. The 1st Presidency idea was probably a compromise so that all three of the original conspirators could be presidents of the church.

 

[perez639]

Sorry to get a little off the topic everybody…BUT Zerinus why such rude and immature comments all the time?!! If being LDS is the one true religion of the entire world I would think you would never get tired of repeating things…It wouldnt annoy you so much.

 

[christianley]

Yes, you’re right. In fact, there is very good evidence that Sidney produced the Book of Mormon from the Spaulding manuscript and his own sermons, then brought it forth through a young man (Joseph Smith) who was supposed to be nothing but the translator. Rigdon was supposed to be the prophet and leader of the church, but he didn’t count on Joseph’s ego and thirst for power or the magnetism of Joseph’s personality. The 1st Presidency idea was probably a compromise so that all three of the original conspirators could be presidents of the church.

Here’s a fascinating article about your theory:

mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#35

 

[PaulDupre]

Yes, thanks, I’ve read that study. Very impressive work.

We should discuss the changes from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants. In a BofC revelation, Joseph is told that he will be given no other gift but to translate the Book of Mormon, and Joseph is cautioned not to pretend to any other gifts, for none will be given to him. Apparently Sidney was dominant at this time.

By contrast, when Joseph revised that revelation years later (after Sidney was lone gone) for publication in the D&C, it suddenly said that Joseph should not pretend to any other gifts but translating the BofM until after the BofM translation is completed. Then he would be given many gifts.

Joseph re-wrote many of his revelations to change or, frequently, to completely reverse the meaning of the original revelation.

In Mormonism, truth changes often.

Paul

 

[Alma147]

Yes, thanks, I’ve read that study. Very impressive work.

We should discuss the changes from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants. In a BofC revelation, Joseph is told that he will be given no other gift but to translate the Book of Mormon, and Joseph is cautioned not to pretend to any other gifts, for none will be given to him. Apparently Sidney was dominant at this time.

By contrast, when Joseph revised that revelation years later (after Sidney was lone gone) for publication in the D&C, it suddenly said that Joseph should not pretend to any other gifts but translating the BofM until after the BofM translation is completed. Then he would be given many gifts.

Joseph re-wrote many of his revelations to change or, frequently, to completely reverse the meaning of the original revelation.

In Mormonism, truth changes often.

Paul

I think you’re entitled to our own opinion, Paul, but not necessarily your own facts. The revelations were edited after the 1832 Book of Commandments for the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. However, Sidney Rigdon was a member of the First Presidency until Joseph Smith died, (1844) so it could hardly be true that Joseph Smith re-wrote the revelations after Rigdon was “long gone” could it? Additionally, the text of the revelations of the D&C of today (except for additional sections added after Joseph Smith’s death) is the same as the text of the 1835 edition.

Perhaps you could give an example of truth changing in Mormonism? Since you say it changes often, I’d like an example. Just so we’re clear, the fact that my grandfather was a polygamist and I am not isn’t an example of a change of “truth” any more than the example of Jesus telling His disciples to go out and preach and not to preach to the Samaritans and later modifying that command is a change of “truth;” or do you think it is?

Alma