MORMONS (LDS) what is this "great apostasy" that you claim to have happened?

[Stephen168]

The 16 Apostles

The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. (Luke 6:14)
James the Just (Gal 1:19)
Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14).
Silas (1 Thess 1:1 & 2:6)

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’

 

[ricko]

The Catholic Church teaches that with the death of the last Apostle all public revelation. Only those who were appointed by Christ while he was alive can be called an Apostle.

The LDS may call their leaders Apostles but they are not. They have not been appointed by Christ as He picked only 12.

The most “damning” evidence that the Mormons do not have true Apostles is that they cannot make the lame walk, the blind see and they cannot raise the dead. The original Apostles could do these things, the Mormon “Apostles” cannot. Hence, they are not Apostles.

 

[Stephen168]

a) Every Priesthood holders would have to not pass on their authority
b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church

That is not a valid argument from an LDS point of view. We believe that with the death of the Twelve Apostles the keys of the priesthood authority of the church was lost or taken away, so that the passing of priesthood authority by ordination could no longer be effected.

My point is from the Mormon point of view because every male has priesthood authority; Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority and at almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church. Could you imagine this happening in the Mormon Church in 1843? Are there Bishops in the Mormon Church right now that don’t have the priesthood? Could you imagine that happening?

 

[Answersplease]

I think you are reading too much in the book of Revelation. The Revelation is a highly symbolic and allegorical book, with many strange events transpiring in it that can only be understood as metaphors and allegories of spiritual things. The verse you quoted was as follows:

Revelation 21:

14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

As an example, take the allegory of the “lamb” in this scripture. This metaphor occurs throughout the Revelation where Jesus is portrayed literally as a lamb. Here are a few highlights:

Revelation 5:

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Revelation 14:

1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

I don’t think that Jesus literally looks like a lamb! So you take a lot of that the way they were intended, as metaphors for spiritual things, not literally. As I said, I have no problem agreeing that the original Twelve should occupy a unique position in the theology of the New Testament by virtue of the fact that they were the first; but to rule out on that basis any perpetuation or continuation of that office in the church after the original 12 had died is just not logical, especially given that the examples of others having been ordained to succeed those who had died, such as Matthias and Paul.

Sorry, I had automatically assumed you are Catholic, since most people here are!

That is correct!

Well, we think that they have the same authority. They have the same priesthood. But whether they are “just as good” or not, I don’t think that any of them would want to aver!

That just is an illogical deduction—especially given the highly allegorical nature of the Revelation—and given the fact that we know that other Apostles were ordained after the first. See above.

Your assertation of allegory is correct, but it is your attempt at a diversion.
Jesus was not literally a “lamb” and the 12 special original Apostles were not literally “foundation stones”.

What does that have to do with whether or not your Quorum of the 12 are like Matthias?

Your diversion wont work.

Judas “TURNED ASIDE” from his Apostleship according to Scripture.
A vacant spot was among the special 12 Apostles.
Matthias met the REQUIREMENTS, and was chosen to be NOT the 13th, but ONE OF THE 12.
None of these 12 “TURNED ASIDE” from their Apostleship, therefore no more replacements were necessary in the special 12 Apostles.

Any later Apostles like Saint Paul are not to be included in the special 12, because no more of the special 12 “TURNED ASIDE” from their Apostleship like Scripture says Judas did. (You keep ignoring this part too.)

Matthias’ name (not Judas’ name) is most likely one of the “12 NAMES” on the “12 FOUNDATION STONES” in Heaven.

If your Quorum of the 12 are like Matthias, and took vacant spots in the special 12 Apostles,
then their names should be on the “12 foundation stones” in Heaven.

You can’t understand this logic due to your high loyalty to your church, in the same way you can’t understand the HUGE amount of scientific and logical evidence that discredits Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Example (only one of many): Joseph Smith translated a set of Egyptian papyri and it was later proved that his translation was completely wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham
mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm
bookofabraham.com/
bookofabraham.com/intro.html

 

[zerinus]

Your assertation of allegory is correct, but it is your attempt at a diversion.
Jesus was not literally a “lamb” and the 12 special original Apostles were not literally “foundation stones”.

What does that have to do with whether or not your Quorum of the 12 are like Matthias?

It has everything to do with the arguments you are bringing against it. It shows that your logic is flawed, and your arguments do not follow from your premises.

Your diversion wont work.

I think you are the one creating the diversion.

Judas “TURNED ASIDE” from his Apostleship according to Scripture.
A vacant spot was among the special 12 Apostles.
Matthias met the REQUIREMENTS, and was chosen to be NOT the 13th, but ONE OF THE 12.
None of these 12 “TURNED ASIDE” from their Apostleship, therefore no more replacements were necessary in the special 12 Apostles.

The replacement by Matthias was occasioned by a vacancy in the Twelve, occasioned by the death of Judas. That suggests a requirement to preserve the quorum intact when one of them died.

Any later Apostles like Saint Paul are not to be included in the special 12, because no more of the special 12 “TURNED ASIDE” from their Apostleship like Scripture says Judas did. (You keep ignoring this part too.)

That is a bogus and contrived argument, defeated by the fact on the ground that Paul was an Apostle (one of the Twelve), he considered himself as such, and was so regarded by others. I have already given scriptural verification for that, and don’t need to repeat it all over again.

Matthias’ name (not Judas’ name) is most likely one of the “12 NAMES” on the “12 FOUNDATION STONES” in Heaven.

How do you know there were any “stones” at all? If there was no real “lamb,” maybe there were no real “stones” either.

If your Quorum of the 12 are like Matthias, and took vacant spots in the special 12 Apostles,
then their names should be on the “12 foundation stones” in Heaven.

False argument based on false premises. See above.

You can’t understand this logic due to your high loyalty to your church, in the same way you can’t understand the HUGE amount of scientific and logical evidence that discredits Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Example (only one of many): Joseph Smith translated a set of Egyptian papyri and it was later proved that his translation was completely wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham
mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm
bookofabraham.com/
bookofabraham.com/intro.html

That is the real diversion you were accusing me of. You don’t have valid arguments for your case, and now you are trying to wriggle your way out of it by changing the subject. It won’t work.

 

[zerinus]

The most “damning” evidence that the Mormons do not have true Apostles is that they cannot make the lame walk, the blind see and they cannot raise the dead. The original Apostles could do these things, the Mormon “Apostles” cannot. Hence, they are not Apostles.

“A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, . . .” (Matthew 16:4)

 

[zerinus]

a) Every Priesthood holders would have to not pass on their authority
b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church

My point is from the Mormon point of view because every male has priesthood authority; Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority and at almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church. Could you imagine this happening in the Mormon Church in 1843? Are there Bishops in the Mormon Church right now that don’t have the priesthood? Could you imagine that happening?

You have not understood the LDS concept of the “Keys of the priesthood”. Because the house of God is a house of order and not of confusion, priesthood officers do not operate in the Church at their own whim and fancy. They operate only under the authority of a higher officer, and only according to the keys that are delegated to them under that authority. All the keys ultimately extend up the chain of priesthood to the Prophet and President of the Church. When the President dies the Apostles hold all the keys. If all the leadership of the Church were wiped out, the keys of the whole Church would be lost, and priesthood officers could not exercise their priesthood as officers of the Church until that Authority at the head of the Church was restored.

 

[Answersplease]

It has everything to do with the arguments you are bringing against it. It shows that your logic is flawed, and your arguments do not follow from your premises.

I think you are the one creating the diversion.

The replacement by Matthias was occasioned by a vacancy in the Twelve, occasioned by the death of Judas. That suggests a requirement to preserve the quorum intact when one of them died.

That is a bogus and contrived argument, defeated by the fact on the ground that Paul was an Apostle (one of the Twelve), he considered himself as such, and was so regarded by others. I have already given scriptural verification for that, and don’t need to repeat it all over again.

How do you know there were any “stones” at all? If there was no real “lamb,” maybe there were no real “stones” either.

False argument based on false premises. See above.

That is the real diversion you were accusing me of. You don’t have valid arguments for your case, and now you are trying to wriggle your way out of it by changing the subject. It won’t work.

Now you are grasping for straws.

No “real lamb”? I guess your saying Jesus the Christ did’nt exist or is’nt symbolized by anything in Heaven. The lamb is just symbolism for Jesus the Christ.

The stones are to symbolize the special Apostles and they HAVE 12 NAMES.
They don’t have to be real stones.

NONE of the members of your Quorum of the 12 are represented in Heaven by ANY symbolism because they ARE FALSE APOSTLES and your religion is FALSE.

Explain how SYMBOLISM has anything to do with a VACANCY in the special 12 Apostles being taken up by one of your Quorum of the 12.

Explain how Scripture (not Book of Mormon scripture) says that death neccessitates a replacement of one of the special 12 Apostles. Judas was replaced because he “turned aside” from his office and gave it up.

Here is the verse expaining that it was Judas “turning aside” from and giving up his Apostleship.
Acts 1:25
“to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas TURNED ASIDE to go to his own place.”

My purpose in bringing up the “Book of Abraham” was to show how you IGNORE PURE LOGIC and EVIDENCE.

Your loyalty to a FALSE PROPHET and FALSE book has blinded you to any LOGIC.

You can’t deal with the FACT that your Quorum of the 12 are NOT REPRESENTED in Heaven, just like you can’t deal with the FACT that Joseph Smith MADE UP his translation of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham
mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm
bookofabraham.com/
bookofabraham.com/intro.html

 

[Stephen168]

That is not correct. Jesus had many disciples; but He chose only Twelve whom He called Apostles:“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” (Luke 6:13).
It is true that “apostle” means “sent,” and the Seventy were also “sent”. But the term “apostle” became in a unique way the official title of the Twelve, which was not applied to anyone else. Anyone could claim to be “sent,” but not anyone claim to be an “Apostle”. Barnabas is referred to as an apostle, but not in the unique and consistent way in which Paul applied that title to himself, identifying himself with the original Twelve.

Christ called and sent The Twelve Apostles, then he sent the 70 Apostles. They didn’t ‘claim’ to be sent, they were sent. The New Testament lists more than 12 apostles by name all living at the same time.

These are invalid arguments that have already been addressed.

They are valid arguments you have not addressed. Paul was never one of the Twelve. He was not qualified to be one of the Twelve. No one after the first century would have been qualified to be one of the Twelve. It wasn’t Judas death which required his replacement it was his apostasy.

No need to repeat that all over again.

Which means you got nothing.

Jesus was not dead that He should be replaced. He was resurrected, appeared to His disciples and taught them, and ascended to heaven, where He continued to reign as the head of the church. The Apostles were in a different situation.

The Twelve are unique compared to the other Apostles who were never part of the Twelve like James, Barnabas, and Paul. (Rev 21:14, Acts 1:21-22)

 

[Zundrah]

Indeed.

Which, by the way, is why I don’t pay attention to what people who dislike a religion have to say about that religion.

Come to this thread please, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352674
And you Zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Come to this thread please, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352674
And you Zerinus

Your questions in that thread have already been addressed. There isn’t anything going on there at the moment that I feel I need to comment on. What did you want me to go there for?

 

[Zundrah]

Your questions in that thread have already been addressed. There isn’t anything going on there at the moment that I feel I need to comment on. What did you want me to go there for?

I’ve been reading the book of mormon.
I made the thread to see what other catholics and protestants thought of it if they have read it, but sadly most of them haven’t…
Can you give me some passages to read - I have the book with me now.

 

[Zundrah]

Put your barriers down Zerinus! I’m not geared up to attack the LDS beliefs!

 

[zerinus]

I’ve been reading the book of mormon.

You have? Good! I am glad to hear it!

I made the thread to see what other catholics and protestants thought of it if they have read it, but sadly most of them haven’t…

I am sorry you were disappointed!

Can you give me some passages to read - I have the book with me now.

Yes! You start with page one, and keep reading until you come to page end!

Put your barriers down Zerinus!

I have no barrers, I assure you!

I’m not geared up to attack the LDS beliefs!

I am sure you are not!

 

[Zundrah]

You have? Good! I am glad to hear it!

I am sorry you were disappointed!

Yes! You start with page one, and keep reading until you come to page end!

I have no barrers, I assure you!

I am sure you are not!

Come on to the thread Zerinus! forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352674 PLEASE!!!

 

[Zundrah]

You have? Good! I am glad to hear it!

Yes! You start with page one, and keep reading until you come to page end!

 

[zerinus]

Come on to the thread Zerinus! forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352674 PLEASE!!!

Sorry Zundrah, I don’t know what you want me to comment on in that thread. If there is a post in that thread that you would like me to comment on, tell me what it is and I will see what I can do. Your OP in that thrad has already been addressed.

 

[zerinus]

You have? Good! I am glad to hear it!

THIS IS FAR FROM HELPFULL! Try actually giving me a chapter or verse! Stop being funny!

I honestly believe that the best way to read the Book of Mormon is to read it from the beginning to the end. Other LDS may have different ides. They may be able to recommend you specific chapters or verses.

 

[Zundrah]

I honestly believe that the best way to read the Book of Mormon is to read it from the beginning to the end. Other LDS may have different ides. They may be able to recommend you specific chapters or verses.

Grrrrr… lol

I’m very sure that this is **not **how you convert your victims is it? Why are you being so shy?

 

[Jerusha]

Read it in the order in which it was written. Start at Omni or Mosiah, read to end, then resume at 1 Nephi. Then you will understand the difference between the two halves.