Protestants/LDS: Isn't this proof that Peter was "set apart" from the other apostles?

[rinnie]

Mark
Chapter 16
1
1 When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him.
2
Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb.
3
They were saying to one another, “Who will roll back the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”
4
When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large.
5
On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed.
6
He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him.
7
But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’”
8
Then they went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

My proof was when Peter stood up and said Brothers and Sister the lord made his CHOICE AMONG US that through MY MOUTH the truth would be given to the gentiles.

If God did not make a Choice among the Apostles why did Peter say he did?

 

[TexanKnight]

John was given authority to govern within his realm of responsibility. However, Peter was given authority to lead and the entire church. As has been indicated on this very site, Peter was the chief apostle and made the final decision in matters pertaining to the church as a whole. In any event, this obviously isn’t a matter of what Christ can do, rather it is a matter of what he chose to do.

Additionally it is likely that John did not have authority to exercise all the keys because Peter, Moses, Elias, Elijah, Michael, Moroni, and Raphael (among others) all came and gave additional keys to Joseph Smith.

So, LDS not only believe Jesus lied when He said the gstes of hell would NEVER prevail against His Church, you believe He lied when He gave John the keys to go forth and baptize and use his “priesthood authority”.

It is truly sad that, for the LDS church to be true, Jesus has to be dishonest.

 

[truthsave]

So, LDS not only believe Jesus lied when He said the gstes of hell would NEVER prevail against His Church, you believe He lied when He gave John the keys to go forth and baptize and use his “priesthood authority”.

It is truly sad that, for the LDS church to be true, Jesus has to be dishonest.

Yes is sad. They prefer accepting the eventual dishonesty of Jesus Christ (of course not said like that but that a passage was missing or badly transleated) then not believing in J.S.

Living Waters 7 said: Now you have hit on the fundamental difference: the passing down of priesthood authority. I would guess this has been discussed many many times on this site so I probably don’t need to rehash. At the end of the day it may simply boil down to the fact that we believe Joseph Smith received instruction from God the Father and Jesus Christ to join none of the existing churches for they were all wrong. For us this seals the deal.

**It is interesting to understand and to develop why they prefer to believe this. **
My wife’s family they are all mormons. I have my own ideas.
It is not all based on I have prayed and I know that it is true.
There is something behind this attitude. It is obvious.
This is the only interesting point.

 

[KathleenGee]

Janderich…

I would re read the second letter of Peter.

The apostles were the actual witness of Christ…I think they had alot of gumption plus alot of grace far exceeding most of us before, now and into the future.

I would think it strange that the Apostles would appear to not care or be slacky or incompetent – in comparison to the Mormons who, 1800 years, had alot more stamina and determination without Christ, to set up their quorums and successors…

Think and reflect is how I go about such things to figure them out with alot of prayer to the Holy Spirit.

 

[TexanKnight]

Rebecca,
Now you have hit on the fundamental difference: the passing down of priesthood authority.

Why? when the Mormons pass it down in exactly the same way?

For example, MY old LDS Line of Authority:

Texan Knight was ordained an Elder on April 14, 1984 by.
was ordained a High Priest on November 23, 1969 by Gordon B. Hinckley
Gordon B. Hinckley was ordained an Apostle on October 5, 1961 by David O. McKay
David O. McKay was ordained an Apostle on April 9, 1906 by Joseph F. Smith
Joseph F. Smith was ordained an Apostle on July 1, 1886 by Brigham Young.
Brigham Young was ordained an Apostle on February 14, 1835 under the hands of the Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris.
The Three Witnesses were called by Revelation to choose the Twelve Apostles February 14, 1835 were blessed by the laying on of hands of the presidency, Joseph Smith, Jr., Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, to ordain the Twelve Apostles.
Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829 under the hands of Peter, James, and John.
Peter, James and John were ordained Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would guess this has been discussed many many times on this site so I probably don’t need to rehash. At the end of the day it may simply boil down to the fact that we believe Joseph Smith received instruction from God the Father and Jesus Christ to join none of the existing churches for they were all wrong.

That is not true, depending on which of the many versions of the First Vision you use…

For us this seals the deal. So how, and to whom, Peter passed authority is in some sense irrelevant. By the spring of 1820 authority did not exist in any church of the day. Of course, I understand you disagree and I’m fine with that.

So, for that to be true, Jesus would have to be dishonest, weak and cruel. How can you believe that? Also, it means that when Jesus sent out the Apostles, He excluded John, so as for John not to have the Priesthood as he STILL walks the earth today. Also, not likely.

 

[LDSfaqs]

Hi LivingWaters7 - I was told by several Mormons (missionaries included) that LDS believe that John *should have been/really was *the lead Apostle.

You must have been talking to an “apostate” branch of Mormonism, because Mormonism is completely clear that Peter was the Head Apostle, and led the Church after Christ.

Every Mormon knows this, or it must have been someone that’s gone off the deep end if they were missionary’s of the main Church.

Do you think that Peter was but it was a mistake and it should have been John?

Nope.

Also, are you saying that Jesus chose Peter to head up his Early Church knowing it was all going to end with the original apostles?

We don’t know what he knew in relation to how “soon” it would be, but I’m forgetting at the moment, but didn’t he say something to the effect that wolves would enter, scattering the flock, or something? I forget all that these days.

If Peter was the chief Apostle during the Early Church and did not pass on priestly authority, as Mormons believe, then why do you think Jesus would choose someone who was not able to handle the job?

It wasn’t a matter of him not able to handle the job, I would suspect it was a matter of the people themselves not being worthy to handle the job.

 

[LDSfaqs]

No my friend, the Apostles appointed and ordained successors. This is historical and ecclesial fact. The early church hierarchy was not organized like a modern day business, it was organized as you see in the Catholic churches, east and west.

You are in error… It is not historical and ecclesial fact because those individuals were ordained as BISHOPS, not Apostles.

The successor to Peter is the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope. All bishops have the authority to ordain, as this is what Apostolic succession means.

That is a belief, not a fact. There is no factual evidence of this.
If the Bishop of Rome was the successor, then why was not his Title changed to Apostle? After all, I forget the number now, but there was like what 4 Apostles called after the originals?

From the history the Bishop of Rome clearly usurped authority unto himself over the other Churches, because his was the most powerful. The position of “Pope” was manufactured after the fact. The Bishop of Rome was only ever given the authority to be a Bishop of the Church, not an Apostle or leader of the entire Church.

The only evidence the Catholic Church has that Peter bestowed his authority onto the Bishop of Rome is that Peter is thought to have been killed by Nero in Rome, as well that he lived there for some time.

Your Mormon ideas are just make believe from the mind of Joseh Smith and his associates.

Nope, they are entirely Biblical and latter-day revealed/verified.

Ireneaus knew Polycarp in his youth, and recorded that Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, and a disciple of John . He was ordained by John. So if you believe he had no authority to do so, you believe he was acting against the wishes of the Church, and of God.

All kinds of people were ordained by Apostles to the Work, but they were ordained as Bishops, Teachers, Deacons, etc. Not Apostles. There WERE however Apostles ordained, but that at some point stopped, and the Priesthood was lost.

A Bishop has no right to assume authority over the entire Church than a Deacon would, just because Peter or another Apostle “ordained” them to the Priesthood, and office in the Priesthood.

 

[LDSfaqs]

Does this mean that authority diminished slowly over 1700 years?

The full authority of the Key’s of the Kingdom that Peter had was lost immediately.
Other keys, authority, teachings etc. was it could be said lost gradually. But without the Keys, the chain is bound, thus the links in that chain would no longer have any power.

So, it’s likely a little of both. Because the Holy Spirit can never be taken away, good people tried to do their best. But, unfortunately, a lot of bad people entered the Church, and so things were lost. It could be said even that the bad entered immediately with the first Pope. Because from our perspective he assumed authority he was never given, and because he was the most powerful, he exerted that power to force most of the other Churches that would give in under his power. Note how not all the Churches would comply. This also gives indication that the Bishop of Rome was never given Peters Authority. If he had, all the Churches likely would have recognized it. History seens to actually show that there was a war between the various Bishops of the 7 Churches fighting for power and control of the Church.

 

[TexanKnight]

You must have been talking to an “apostate” branch of Mormonism, because Mormonism is completely clear that Peter was the Head Apostle, and led the Church after Christ.

Every Mormon knows this, or it must have been someone that’s gone off the deep end if they were missionary’s of the main Church.

Nope.

We don’t know what he knew in relation to how “soon” it would be, but I’m forgetting at the moment, but didn’t he say something to the effect that wolves would enter, scattering the flock, or something? I forget all that these days.

It wasn’t a matter of him not able to handle the job, I would suspect it was a matter of the people themselves not being worthy to handle the job.

Ah…so you believe Jesus chose people who were not worthy. Got it.

And as far as wolves scattering, that does NOT mean there was an Apostasy…it means that wolves would scatter…frankly, this sounds more like a warning against people like Joseph Smith than about an Apostasy.

Be Blessed

 

[TexanKnight]

You are in error… It is not historical and ecclesial fact because those individuals were ordained as BISHOPS, not Apostles.

Ah…so it is the TITLE giving you problems? If that is the case, kindly show me in the Bible where ANYONE was called a Stake President, or a First Counselor, or a Mission President…I truly do not recall seeing those titles in the Bible OR the Book of Mormon

That is a belief, not a fact. There is no factual evidence of this.
If the Bishop of Rome was the successor, then why was not his Title changed to Apostle? After all, I forget the number now, but there was like what 4 Apostles called after the originals?

No, it is fact. Any Priest can show you a line of authority that spans 2000 years. Mormons can’t.

From the history the Bishop of Rome clearly usurped authority unto himself over the other Churches, because his was the most powerful. The position of “Pope” was manufactured after the fact. The Bishop of Rome was only ever given the authority to be a Bishop of the Church, not an Apostle or leader of the entire Church.

He was the most powerful because he had the authority. Much like Joseph taking authority unto himself appointing himself General of an army and Mayor of towns and telling people that God told him to tell the people to build him (Joseph) a house.

The only evidence the Catholic Church has that Peter bestowed his authority onto the Bishop of Rome is that Peter is thought to have been killed by Nero in Rome, as well that he lived there for some time.

That and the whole “Jesus gave Him the Keys” fact…oh, and the fact it is documented. Oh, and the fact the Church exists to this day…

Nope, they are entirely Biblical and latter-day revealed/verified.

Really? So, God once being a sinful man in the Bible? Using magic rocks to read books is in the Bible? Conning people in a failed bank scheme is in the Bible? Prophets craving power is in the Bible? Men on moon dressed as quakers is in the Bible? Christians (New Testament) being allowed to have several wives is in the Bible? Adam being our God is in the Bible? The Angel Michael being Adam is in the Bible? Blood Oaths are in the Bible?

I respectfully request that you point these out by Bible Chapter and Verse. Thank you

All kinds of people were ordained by Apostles to the Work, but they were ordained as Bishops, Teachers, Deacons, etc. Not Apostles. There WERE however Apostles ordained, but that at some point stopped, and the Priesthood was lost.

How can the priesthood be lost if it was passed on for 2000 years? How can it be lost if John still walked the earth?

 

[garyo49]

I believe it is rather clear. Apostasy means there was no one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. Yes, John held the priesthood but he was not authorized to carry it forward.

We definitely believe, and revere, Peter as the head of the church in ancient times. This information about John is incorrect.

Tell us about the three nephite apostles who apostle Holland a few years ago in conference said that are still among us ministering to Jew and gentile. Jesus said that where three are gathered I am among them. Those three are still gathered and have been for 2000 years and Jesus never left them. He promised. Or did this great and complete apostasy occur while Jesus was looking the other way, kind of snuck up on him. Jan show us where it says that John was not authorized to “carry it forward”, outside of Joseph Smith scriptures, of course…signofcross:

 

[pablope]

Rebecca,
Now you have hit on the fundamental difference: the passing down of priesthood authority. I would guess this has been discussed many many times on this site so I probably don’t need to rehash. At the end of the day it may simply boil down to the fact that we believe Joseph Smith received instruction from God the Father and Jesus Christ to join none of the existing churches for they were all wrong. For us this seals the deal. So how, and to whom, Peter passed authority is in some sense irrelevant. By the spring of 1820 authority did not exist in any church of the day. Of course, I understand you disagree and I’m fine with that.

So let me ask you…in addition…who do you think is the great abominable church?

1Nephi13:
3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the aGentiles the formation of a bgreat church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a achurch which is most abominable above all other churches, which bslayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a cyoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this agreat and babominable church; and I saw the cdevil that he was the founder of it.