Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[JonathanKinsman]

Now I haven’t heard that before. Can you tell me more about the bishops? Are they like stake presidents? Is a priest elected to become a bishop? What are their duties?

Gee, rmcmullan, you once said ( 4 Jan ) on “Any Former Mormons Out There?” thread that you were ‘raised’ Catholic.

I guess your immersion in that bronze bowl washed away all memories of your prior, Christian upbringing. Sorry you forgot such a simple, straightforward tradition of the Church.

The original Apostles and Disciples were the ones who laid hands on their successors (called presbytoi, or, priests; or diakanoi, or deacons). The ‘office’ (more of a job description than a title of honor or merit) of episcopos, or, bishop originally was voted by the members of the individual churches through acclamation. As the Church grew and grew and grew, a more formal procedure obtained.

However, like everything else involving humans (every nation, every religion, every political party, every organization) there were abuses in the centuries following the formation and growth of the early Church.

Any Catholic website (like this one) will give you descriptions of pastoral duties and responsibilities.

Now, I helped you so it’s your turn to give us Catholics a direct answer on “When did the Apostacy occur?”

Fair is fair.

 

[zerinus]

The bishops had only local jurisdiction over their own local area. They did not have jurisdiction over the whole church, or over a larger area than the one they were assigned to. The bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over Rome, the bishop of Antioch over Antioch, and the Bishop of Jerusalem over Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome could not go to Antioch and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do, and the bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to Jerusalem and tell the Bishop of Jerusalem what to do. Each had authority over his own assigned area. Only the Apostles had jurisdiction over the entire church, and could go to anywhere they liked, and ordain and depose bishops as they chose to. It was never part of the program that a bishop should preside over or govern other bishops, and call or ordain other bishops. This is another sign of the Apostasy that the bishops later on assumed a role that had never been assigned to them by the Apostles.

zerinus

If this is so why does Paul have to come down to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and Peter. He has just been appointing presbyters on his authority in Asia Minor when he returns to Antioch where he is confronted with the Judaiizers insisting on new converts being circumcised. Paul does not take care of this problem himself but feels he needs the counsel of the Apostles and Peter and travels all the way back to Jerusalem for the first council. It is Peter who officially rejects the obligation of gentile converts to observe the Mosaic law completely. Paul does not feel he has the independent authority to do this himself. Remember when he was in Lystra appointing presbyters he actually healed a man lame from birth and the crowds tried to offer sacrifices to them believing that Paul and Barnabas were Hermes and Zeus. Despite having the authority to set up churches and to appoint presbyters and having the power to perform great miracles to an adoring crowd Paul cannot resolve the problem. Paul knows he has the authority of a Bishop but knows that he must seek higher authority of these doctrinal issues. Later as the authority of Peter moves to Rome there are multiple historical evidences of Rome"s (Peter’s) authority correcting or guiding other Bishoprics. However I mention the Council of Jersusalem because it occurs prior to the supposed Apostasy you cite.
Saludos, cubalibre

Thanks for your comments. I fail to see what relevance this has to my previous post, which was about the limitations of the authority of the bishop. Paul was not a bishop. He was an Apostle. And it is not true that he did not deal with that problem himself. He did as far as he could. He was opposed to the idea from the start. But because it was a problem affecting the whole Church, not just a small province or locality, a more complete solution had to be found at the general leadership of the church; therefore all the Apostles met together in a council to make a decision on the issue for the whole church.

zerinus

 

[MrS]

Thanks for your comments. I fail to see what relevance this has to my previous post, which was about the limitations of the authority of the bishop. Paul was not a bishop. He was an Apostle. And it is not true that he did not deal with that problem himself. He did as far as he could. He was opposed to the idea from the start. But because it was a** problem affecting the whole Church, not just a small province or locality, a more complete solution** had to be found at the general leadership of the church; therefore all the Apostles met together in a council to make a decision on the issue for the whole church.

zerinus

Only the bishop can lay hands and ordain the selected disciples into the teaching ministerial duties. Paul did just that in ACTS. Today there are many bishops who do not have their own church/diocese, but they still perform the duties of the bishop.

Paul was certainly a bishop, elevated by Christ, or elevated by Peter… but elevated.

Good that you noticed that it is not up to the laity or any individual to make decisions that effect the whole Church. Jesus knew that you would want to see legitimate authority acting in His Name… so He instructed/authorized Peter, first and by himself, to have the powers to bind and loose. Then He further gives the same powers to Peter and the Rest of the Apostles,… but never to the laity.

Today, the Catholic Church still enjoys that gift which no other church has (after all, they are ALL man-made).

The Catholic Church determines the course of action,
…or the explanation of the Truth,
…or the proclaimation of doctrine
in those matters that effect the whole Church… which by the way includes all the members of the Body of Christ and all of whom are compelled to accept the Church’s instructions.

 

[majick275]

i believe we have the correct definition of the role of bishops in the catholic church in this thread now.

rmcmullen, do you agree or do i need to go into more detail for you?

wassup, I still don’t think you fully get the catholic definition of apostasy. but i think you did a good job defining the mormon view of it.

 

[wussup]

Majick, your obtuseness is very boring. I very carefully outlined the source for the definition. The philosophy of language is a complex subject, but I would reference you to the medieval philosopher Abelard’s writings on the subject. Human’s communicate via many different modalities, one of which is written language. Dictionaries, such as Random House’s Unabridged Dictionary, attempt to establish a general commonly used synonym in sentence format so we can have a common ‘operating system’. Dictionary’s are ‘non-proprietary’. The Catholic Encyclopedia does offer a legalistic definition; “The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate”. This would be a ‘proprietary definition’. The Catholic encyclopedia then goes on to define apostasy in terms of a cleric turning away from his vows, or a Christian turning away from their Faith. Thus, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, protestants, having not turned away from Christ, are not in a state of apostasy, but are rather heretics. The writer gets his definition from a more strict use of the word as it was defined by a Catholic Bishop to address wayward Catholics in the 1700s.
Talmage, the LDS, and most of the world use the term as found in the greek texts, ‘apostasia’, which means a falling away, departure, or defection from the Truth. Most of the earliest translations into English for the sole use of the word apostasia translate it as a departure from the truth. One can hate the word, but is in the transcripts. One can also attempt to redefine it, but that is not honest to the writers use of the word at that time. Interestingly, Greek has a version of that word, ‘apostasion’ that means a divorce or repudiation.
Clearly, the term apostasy cannot be applied to oneself, and would be an oxymoron. Catholics should take no offense at the term because per the Catholic definition of the term, it is etymologically impossible for a Catholic to be apostate.
Then again, if Catholics consider how Paul used the word (as witnessed by the etymologically translated English words, including the most recent RC bible, then yes. it would be a pejorative.
Noooo, I think I have a very clear understanding of how Catholics define apostasy.

Question: Are we going to approach this thread using the Catholic definition, or the one the Greeks (i.e., Paul) used? If you are going to insist on the Catholic definition, then clearly the discussion is over because, as has been stated both on this post and the one I made before, PRACTICING CATHOLICS CANNOT APOSTASIZE FROM ITS OWN CHURCH, and the question becomes ridiculous. On the other hand, if you are interested in knowing how the LDS feel the RC departed from the truth, well that would be an interesting discussion and both sides would benefit from the intellectual endeavor.

 

[rmcmullan]

rmcmullen, do you agree or do i need to go into more detail for you?

Majick, please note you have misspelled my name. It’s rmcmullan.

From what I can make out, the role of a bishop is different than an apostle and I think your claim to apostolic succession through the bishops is really far-fetched. If you want to claim authority and say well, we just tossed the apostles and decided that bishops were good enough I might buy it but you’re not claiming that. I thought you were claiming that everything was set up in Jesus time and there can be no further revelation but the church then was to me rather plainly overseen by the apostles. If you want to claim that there was an apostacy but Peter James and John restored it back in 90 AD and established a pope, okay I could buy that. But you’re not claiming that either.

Please note that all of Christianity except the Catholics believe in an apostacy. There’s no need to rehash what Martin Luther has already discussed or the many other dissidents from the Catholic church. Personally, I feel the Catholic church has been truer to the original intent of the gospel than most of the Protestant faiths. But as people began to read the Bible and become educated, they saw the obvious drift in the teachings.

So far as I’m converned, unless you have a Prohet, Seer and Revelator at the head of your church, this drift is inevitable.

 

[Allweather]

wassup, regardless of how you’re going to define “apostasy,” the fact remains that Mormons believe that divine authority was taken away from the Christian Church at some point. At least, this is what Zerinus has said, several times. I believe that this is the actual crux of the matter. If divine authority, ie that which was vested in the Apostles by Jesus, was actually removed, then the Church, surely, would have died. Perhaps not immediately, but it surely could not have survived, hierarchically intact, for 2000 years and still going. There’ve been too, too many stressful events to pass the Church’s way during those centuries. I mean, you take the corrupt popes of the Renaissance as just one in particular. How is it that the Church could’ve had that succession of bad popes and not lost the kernal of the Gospel? Unless God were taking care of things?

So, you will suggest that it is in the various pious behaviors of Catholics that the departure from Truth is evident. I’m anticipating that you’ll say that Catholic Mariology is defective, among other things. You’ll call that “apostasy.” So, the argument is over, as you say. You may disagree with Catholic Mariology, which puts you firmly into the Protestant Camp. But there is no way that Catholic Mariology, (again, I’m anticipating you) constitutes apostasy. It may be bad theology according to some heretical calculation, but it isn’t apostasy.

 

[Allweather]

There are no Apostles now. The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, and they are the holders of the Apostolic authority, which is also shared with the priests. There shouldn’t be any confusion over what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to Apostolic authority, who holds it, and how it is handed down. The Mormon Apostles are an invention of the Mormon church, plain and simple.

Please note that all of Christianity except the Catholics believe in an apostacy. There’s no need to rehash what Martin Luther has already discussed or the many other dissidents from the Catholic church. Personally, I feel the Catholic church has been truer to the original intent of the gospel than most of the Protestant faiths. But as people began to read the Bible and become educated, they saw the obvious drift in the teachings.

I know you addressed this to Majik, but please humor me by describing this “drift” in more detail. It is by no means “obvious” to us.

So far as I’m converned, unless you have a Prohet, Seer and Revelator at the head of your church, this drift is inevitable.

Apparently you get a lot of drift WITH one at the head of your church, as we can see by the variations along the Mormon way, since 6 April 1830. Are you saying that the Prophet, Seer and Revelator is what keeps Mormism anchored in doctrine?

 

[MrS]

Hey zzzzzzzzzz

you still around ? ?

Are you jumping for joy at the news released today about finding the burial vault for Jesus, His Mother, and His son…

and the DNA could show that MM was His wife…

Wow… mormons should be estatic that they could have a reason to believe that not only did an apostacy occur… but maybe there never was a Church with the Truth to begin with.

… idiots…

.

 

[rmcmullan]

There are no Apostles now. The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, and they are the holders of the Apostolic authority, which is also shared with the priests.

This is probably the most incredible claim next to the Trinity being one god who is really three. The Catholic Church does not claim the authority to depart from the teachings laid out by Jesus and the Apostles. So where did the Catholic Church get the authority to toss the Apostles?

 

[zerinus]

Hey zzzzzzzzzz

you still around ? ?

Are you jumping for joy at the news released today about finding the burial vault for Jesus, His Mother, and His son…

and the DNA could show that MM was His wife…

Wow… mormons should be estatic that they could have a reason to believe that not only did an apostacy occur… but maybe there never was a Church with the Truth to begin with.

… idiots…

Nutcase.

z

 

[majick275]

Majick, your obtuseness is very boring. I very carefully outlined the source for the definition. The philosophy of language is a complex subject, but I would reference you to the medieval philosopher Abelard’s writings on the subject.

abelard the morally bankrupt? the one who liked seducing young girls?

Human’s communicate via many different modalities, one of which is written language. Dictionaries, such as Random House’s Unabridged Dictionary, attempt to establish a general commonly used synonym in sentence format so we can have a common ‘operating system’. Dictionary’s are ‘non-proprietary’. The Catholic Encyclopedia does offer a legalistic definition; “The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate”. This would be a ‘proprietary definition’. The Catholic encyclopedia then goes on to define apostasy in terms of a cleric turning away from his vows, or a Christian turning away from their Faith.

yes yes!!! you do get it!

Thus, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, protestants, having not turned away from Christ, are not in a state of apostasy, but are rather heretics. The writer gets his definition from a more strict use of the word as it was defined by a Catholic Bishop to address wayward Catholics in the 1700s.

I wouldn’t paint with such a broad brush. the enaswer is it depends on which ones.

Talmage, the LDS, and most of the world use the term as found in the greek texts, ‘apostasia’, which means a falling away, departure, or defection from the Truth. Most of the earliest translations into English for the sole use of the word apostasia translate it as a departure from the truth. One can hate the word, but is in the transcripts. One can also attempt to redefine it, but that is not honest to the writers use of the word at that time. Interestingly, Greek has a version of that word, ‘apostasion’ that means a divorce or repudiation.

and if these terms were applied consistently I might agree with talmadge. especially the repudiation.

Clearly, the term apostasy cannot be applied to oneself, and would be an oxymoron. Catholics should take no offense at the term because per the Catholic definition of the term, it is etymologically impossible for a Catholic to be apostate.
Then again, if Catholics consider how Paul used the word (as witnessed by the etymologically translated English words, including the most recent RC bible, then yes. it would be a pejorative.
Noooo, I think I have a very clear understanding of how Catholics define apostasy.

well it appears to be debatable. a simple “falling away” or loss of divine authority is NOT it. absolute departure form truth or better a repudiatin of the truth? YES!!

Question: Are we going to approach this thread using the Catholic definition, or the one the Greeks (i.e., Paul) used? If you are going to insist on the Catholic definition, then clearly the discussion is over because, as has been stated both on this post and the one I made before, PRACTICING CATHOLICS CANNOT APOSTASIZE FROM ITS OWN CHURCH, and the question becomes ridiculous. On the other hand, if you are interested in knowing how the LDS feel the RC departed from the truth, well that would be an interesting discussion and both sides would benefit from the intellectual endeavor.

I think JS-H makes it crystal clear what the LDS position is. I agree with you on the above Catholic definition. What I am trying to show is that the Catholic position appears to have some historical and scriptural evidence whereas the LDS position does not. Once again where can you show that the early Christian church departed from the doctrines of the apostles? where can you show where the catechism of the catholic church today repudiates the teachings of the apostles? that’s just the apostasy side.

Where in the Bible or for that matter the BoM can you show that uniquely mormon doctrines taught by joseph smith were a restoration of the original christian church rather than something completely new? I believe I have shown where joseph smith repudiated the truth in the bible.

 

[majick275]

Majick, please note you have misspelled my name. It’s rmcmullan.

I apologize. I am a poor typist.

From what I can make out, the role of a bishop is different than an apostle and I think your claim to apostolic succession through the bishops is really far-fetched.

yet it has biblical support. the new testament is full of the apostles ordaining bishops to run the church. it gives precedent for councils to clarify matters of faith and doctrine. the only references to further ordination of apostles makes it clear that in the case of acts it had to be one who was involved in Christ ministry on the earth and personally witnessed the resurrection, pauls case is unique because Christ came in person to choose him.

If you want to claim authority and say well, we just tossed the apostles and decided that bishops were good enough I might buy it but you’re not claiming that.

well i sort of am. The apostles were unique to the time of Christ. They were personally taught by him and commissioned to teach others who they would ordain to run the church in perpetuity.

I thought you were claiming that everything was set up in Jesus time and there can be no further revelation but the church then was to me rather plainly overseen by the apostles.

pretty much but we consider the apostles to be telling us what jesus revealed so whatever they told us could be included in scripture as public revelation.

If you want to claim that there was an apostacy but Peter James and John restored it back in 90 AD and established a pope, okay I could buy that. But you’re not claiming that either.

of course not. Peter was pope. the “apostasy” can never be global in nature thus it doesn’t need a restoration. it started with heretics and went to schism, protestant reformation and all the splinter groups since. The Catholic church still teaches the same doctrine and thus the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Please note that all of Christianity except the Catholics believe in an apostacy. There’s no need to rehash what Martin Luther has already discussed or the many other dissidents from the Catholic church.

of course they do otherwise they would have to admit that THEY are apostate since they departed.

Personally, I feel the Catholic church has been truer to the original intent of the gospel than most of the Protestant faiths. But as people began to read the Bible and become educated, they saw the obvious drift in the teachings.

So far as I’m converned, unless you have a Prohet, Seer and Revelator at the head of your church, this drift is inevitable.

really, where in the new testament does it say that the true church must be led a prophet, seer and revelator? please show also just where teachings “drifted”. I can show from the didache that we have the same teaching as the primitive church and I think the NT shows it too. compare and contrast that with the LDS who claim to have an abundance of prophets, seers and revelators (15 right now) and we can see all kinds of drift. The nature of God, members of the godhead, what races can hold the priesthood, what is taught in the temple, necessity of plural marriage, eternal progression, priesthood organization. The list is long

 

[majick275]

This is probably the most incredible claim next to the Trinity being one god who is really three. The Catholic Church does not claim the authority to depart from the teachings laid out by Jesus and the Apostles. So where did the Catholic Church get the authority to toss the Apostles?

we didn’t “toss” the apostles anymore than we “tossed” the savior. They were called by Christ. he needed them once just like he needed to die for us once. apostles called bishops and gave them the authority to call other bishops, priests and deacons. What more do we need? Christ revealed the ENTIRE gospel to the apostles. they revealed it to us. other than what God STILL has them doing from heaven, their earthly ministry is complete.

 

[wussup]

Allweather-
Actually, I don’t have a problem per se with Mariology. It is a little different, but I do not think the general concept of asking for Mary’s intercession is any different from asking for your Bishop to pray for you. As LDS, we do honor and revere Mary for her special status as the literal Mother of God. I personally also recognize the sacred nature Catholics hold for other aspects of Mariology, so recogizing the differences, and out of respect for your profound faith, I will not address these.

Here are two examples of ‘drifting’…

1. One of the points of RC doctrine that is considered infallible and eternal is the Eucharist concept of the bread and wine actually turning into the physical body and blood of the Christ. The RC teaches this is original teaching, yet Clement says at the 8946 word point of Paedagogus, Book 1, ‘“Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle‘. You cannot get more explicit a teaching. Clement refers to the Sacremental bread and wine as a ’metaphore’ for Christ, not the actual body and blood.
2. Regarding the Sacrament of Baptism…contrary to what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, the Greek word Baptize means to immerse or submerge (see Strong’s Concordance), not to wash. For further clarification, there are four variances for the word:
   a. baptisma-as already discussed to submerge or immerse
   b. baptismos-relative to ceremonial washing
   c. baptist-as in John the
   d. baptizo-frequentative form of bapto, to dip; as in dip garments, drawing wine with a cup from a bowl, etc…
   The Israelites also had baptisms for various rites, they also had washings. John the Baptist baptized Christ by immersion. The Catholic.com website gives a very good case for sprinkling, but none of these excuses can make up for the absence of divine authority proclaiming that sprinkling is ok. As you may recall, John protested that he should be baptized of Jesus, but Jesus responded that it was vital that he be baptized the all rightousness be fulfilled. As the catholic.com website points out, the Dideche (actually, more likely written about ad 120) does give the ok for sprinkling. Makes me think of Paul commenting on ’how fast they were removed from the teachings’.
   Mcmullan, actually, the Catholic Church has not thrown out Apostles, they just don’t have any. Apostles are special witness of the resurrected Lord, chosen by other Apostles. These special witness’ are just that, they have received a personal witness (seen) the resurrected Lord and go forth to proclaim his divinity and sacrifice.

 

[Allweather]

This is probably the most incredible claim next to the Trinity being one god who is really three. The Catholic Church does not claim the authority to depart from the teachings laid out by Jesus and the Apostles. So where did the Catholic Church get the authority to toss the Apostles?

Didn’t you once say that you were raised Catholic? Seems to me I recall you going on at great length about your upbringing and training in the faith. Howbeit that you hadn’t been taught that the Apostles were a particular group of men who, though they be saints ('cept one) in heaven, are dead and gone from the Earth? Why doth this seem incredible unto thee?

 

[Chris-WA]

Mcmullan, actually, the Catholic Church has not thrown out Apostles, they just don’t have any. Apostles are special witness of the resurrected Lord, chosen by other Apostles. These special witness’ are just that, they have received a personal witness (seen) the resurrected Lord and go forth to proclaim his divinity and sacrifice.

So you’re saying that all the LDS apostles have personally seen the resurrected Jesus? Do they even make this claim? Or is this Mormon folklore?

 

[wussup]

They are apostles and make this claim. However, this is a very sacred event and they never talk about it. (Casting pearls to the swine thing, lets see how much **** is commented on it here to get an example). Note that others have also had a personal witness of Christ, not just the Apostles. This I also know as fact. My Mission President was J. Richard Clark (GA member of the Bishopric etc…), He confirmed this is the case to me personally.

 

[Allweather]

Here are two examples of ‘drifting’…

1. One of the points of RC doctrine that is considered infallible and eternal is the Eucharist concept of the bread and wine actually turning into the physical body and blood of the Christ. The RC teaches this is original teaching, yet Clement says at the 8946 word point of Paedagogus, Book 1, ‘“Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle‘. You cannot get more explicit a teaching. Clement refers to the Sacremental bread and wine as a ’metaphore’ for Christ, not the actual body and blood.

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church originally held the Blessed Sacrament to be metaphore ONLY? The Scriptural record is very clear. Jesus in John 6 went on at some length, and there was no question about metaphore among the hearers, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” v66. Undoubtedly, the nature of the Eucharist has been the subject of much theological rumination. But the teaching of the Church has not changed. I fail to see any “drift” from what you provide here.

1. Regarding the Sacrament of Baptism…contrary to what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, the Greek word Baptize means to immerse or submerge (see Strong’s Concordance), not to wash. For further clarification, there are four variances for the word:
   a. baptisma-as already discussed to submerge or immerse
   b. baptismos-relative to ceremonial washing
   c. baptist-as in John the
   d. baptizo-frequentative form of bapto, to dip; as in dip garments, drawing wine with a cup from a bowl, etc…
   The Israelites also had baptisms for various rites, they also had washings. John the Baptist baptized Christ by immersion. The Catholic.com website gives a very good case for sprinkling, but none of these excuses can make up for the absence of divine authority proclaiming that sprinkling is ok. As you may recall, John protested that he should be baptized of Jesus, but Jesus responded that it was vital that he be baptized the all rightousness be fulfilled. As the catholic.com website points out, the Dideche (actually, more likely written about ad 120) does give the ok for sprinkling. Makes me think of Paul commenting on ’how fast they were removed from the teachings’.

The Catholic Church has no objection to immersion baptism. Many are immersion baptized. It is an option. But neither does the Catholic Church reject what you call “sprinkling.” There are good arguments for each one. If you become a Catholic and simply MUST be immersion baptised, I’m quite sure you’d have no problem finding a parish priest who’d welcome you home in that very fashion. There is plenty of Scriptural evidence that many people who were baptized were not immersed. For instance, the 3,000 who were baptized as described in Acts 2:41. It isn’t likely that the population of Jerusalem would have tolerated that many dirty bodies being immersed in their drinking water supply in one day.

I must say, it seems odd to me that Mormons will make a big deal out of the Catholic thinking that leads to limbo for unbaptised babies who die, on ground that no loving God would consign innocent babies to Hell, and yet be so literal minded with regard to immersion baptism. Actually, though, this is just another finger pointing in the direction of a Protestant source for Mormon theology. Most Protestants think the same way.

 

[Allweather]

They are apostles and make this claim. However, this is a very sacred event and they never talk about it. (Casting pearls to the swine thing, lets see how much **** is commented on it here to get an example). Note that others have also had a personal witness of Christ, not just the Apostles. This I also know as fact. My Mission President was J. Richard Clark (GA member of the Bishopric etc…), He confirmed this is the case to me personally.

I saw Jesus this morning at 0500 in the Adoration Chapel at my parish. That doesn’t make me an Apostle. Catholics see Jesus all the time, in the flesh, and we don’t mind talking about it. It does bring on a bit of what you call **** from those who would have no problem at all believing that a man saw the resurrected Jesus in person, but would say that transsubstantiation is simply too hard to grasp, or believe.

Doesn’t that seem odd? That the same God who could enflesh himself as a human, suffer death, be resurrected and assumed bodily into Heaven, and then appear in the flesh to various men at various times, NOT be able to effect the transformation of bread and wine into his body and blood while retaining the accidents of the elements?