The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

  • Thread starter Thread starter darcee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
darcee:
Please read Mathew 8:5-13. Pay special attention to verse 11.

You comment "I am aware that CATHOLIC historians have postulated at least two causes for Tertullain’s split. " Is really quite funny. I guess if you can’t find history to agree with you just propose that the history that is there has been fabricated.

-D
Click to expand...
First, Dr. Paul is absolutely correct. Peter was an apostle and the person who ordained the Bishop of Rome (as well as at least another Bishop too, and prolly before in time). This is what I would believe were I a Catholic. This is the conclusion I came to as the best response to position #3. I still think that the early church pointed to the Bishop of Rome’s authority as derived from the primacy of Peter and Peter’s charisma as the head of the church. Then Catholic’s suggest that the decision from Peter to extend the gospel to the gentiles was part of his authority as the head of the church. Never have I seen a Catholic apologist say, Peter’s authority was used to extend the gospel to the gentiles, but it was done in a fundamentally different way than the Pope uses his authority. This is a weakness not a fatal flaw.

Now, Darcee, Dr. Paul’s is the only conclusion a Catholic examining the evidence can come to. You may continue to question my statement that Peter is unequal to Pope, or you can agree with Dr. Paul that Peter as an Apostle is certainly unequal to Pope.

I am glad you are amused by me suggesting that Tertullian’s rejection of the developed authority of the Pope is something that could have affected his acceptance of the apostolic authority. If you can stop laughing for a few minutes you can recognize that I acknowledge that I have no way of showing this as a cause of his departure. What I say is that he recognizes apostolic authority (an important thing), he recognizes the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome, and he left the church which has apostolic authority. All of these are true. It is also a weakness in the Catholic position. It is one of 4 that I list. Tertullian is intelligent, perhaps even brilliant. He was on the scene as the authority of the Bishop of Rome was developed/created. He thought it was usurpation.

And lastly, I am aware of Matt 8:5-13. I still do not think this trumps the clear statements from our Lord forbidding the taking of the gospel to the gentiles. And I still do not think you have dealt with the fact that supernatural public revelation was the method God used to communicate the course of the church to Peter. This is not the method that Popes claim.

Charity, TOm
 
One more thing.
Why is it that Mormons are so quick to “percieve” minor changes to doctrine in Catholicism while ignoring wholesale changes to Mormon doctrine over the last 150 years??? Somehow they believe their church is immune from apostasy yet the church Christ himself established is not!!! A few of the changes:

Temple ceremonies
Polygamy
Blacks and the priesthood
Temple garments(which Brigham Young said would never be changed)
The word of wisdom
The Book of Mormon has been changed DOCTRINALLY dozens of times(the most perfect book ever according to Jospeh Smith)
…just a few reasons to claim the current LDS church is in a state of apostasy from it’s original state
 
40.png
Tmaque:
Speaking as an ex-mormon I find it incredible that for 20 years I actually believed that Joseph Smith succeeded where Jesus FAILED. How arrogant can a religion be? Joseph Smith himself WAS just that arrogant. He himself made note of the “fact” that even “Christ himself hadn’t been able to keep a whole church together as I have done”. That must have been the point at which he invented the notion of “eternal progression”. That way he could be a God too. No objective person could believe that Joseph Smith was anything but a self-obsessed, sex-obsessed scheister.
Click to expand...
I have addressed this before and this is not the thread for it. If you have something to comment relative to the apostasy then I welcome your thoughts. If you want to go beyond my small response I would request that you start another thread.

Do you believe Jesus failed because he was crucified? No! Neither do I.
I just carry the logic of this one step forward. The plan was that Christ would be born, would be crucified, and would be resurrected. The plan was the Bride of Christ would be established, would become apostate, and would be restored. God did not fail in either instance. His perfect plan was perfectly carried out.
Charity, TOm
 
There is nowhere in the Bible that claims a total apostasy. But even if there was. To claim that Joseph Smith is the man that restored the church is laughable. “By their fruits ye shall know them” JS “fruits” stink to high heaven.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
One more thing.
Why is it that Mormons are so quick to “percieve” minor changes to doctrine in Catholicism while ignoring wholesale changes to Mormon doctrine over the last 150 years??? Somehow they believe their church is immune from apostasy yet the church Christ himself established is not!!! A few of the changes:

Temple ceremonies
Polygamy
Blacks and the priesthood
Temple garments(which Brigham Young said would never be changed)
The word of wisdom
The Book of Mormon has been changed DOCTRINALLY dozens of times(the most perfect book ever according to Jospeh Smith)
…just a few reasons to claim the current LDS church is in a state of apostasy from it’s original state
Click to expand...
Again, please take this question to another thread if you want more than this brief answer.

The reason is that the CoJCoLDS does not deny that supernatural public revelation guides the church through the prophet of God.

The Catholic Church denies that supernatural public revelation exists on the earth. The Catholic Church does not believe the Pope has the authority to bring forth anything not in accordance with tradition. There are a number of questionable developments within the Catholic Church based on these restrictions. To examine the developments is important to determine if the Catholic Church is internally consistent.

The CoJCoLDS does not place these restrictions on itself.

And as you might expect I do not see reality in all the “changes” you mention.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
Tmaque:
There is nowhere in the Bible that claims a total apostasy. But even if there was. To claim that Joseph Smith is the man that restored the church is laughable. “By their fruits ye shall know them” JS “fruits” stink to high heaven.
Click to expand...
For the third time I have nothing to respond to you relative to this thread. The CoJCoLDS does point to a number of scriptures that suggest their will be an apostasy. But since the Bible is open for intepretation I HAVE NOT INCLUDED THIS IN MY EVIDENCES OF THE APOSTASY.

You either need to find someone who puts forth this Biblical position (which is not a bad argument just not one of mine) or you are tilting at windmills.

Charity, TOm
 
How can Peter be teaching a new doctrine when Jesus himself said to go and teach all nations? That would surely include more than just the House of Israel.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
How arrogant can a religion be? Joseph Smith himself WAS just that arrogant.
Click to expand...
Tmaque, Peace! You are right, but we should go easy on those people brave enough to come here. Let us be charitible to our guests.

Javelin
 
TOm maintains in his first discussion point that:

“#1 The first Bishops, Clement (the 4th Bishop of Rome) included, had no concept of the primacy of Rome.”

I scanned the thread and did not see where anyone has taken exception to this statement. Certainly Peter had a concept of primacy. That is beyond question. We do not really know enough about Linus and Cletus to know what thier “concepts” were. However, we have clear evidence of primacy from the fouth Bishop of Rome (Clement) in his Epistle to the Corinthians. This is one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament.(about 96 AD). The tone is definately authoritative and primal.

Tom, have you read Clement’s Epistle? Do you deny its tone? Two out of four when we know nothing about the other two is not bad evidence.

Tom Govern
 
TOm, I am not arguing th Peter wasn’t an apostle nor that the roles of apostle and Pope are different. I am saying that what he was teaching is not evidence that he was teaching something that was NOT in accordance with what Christ taught which seems to be EXACTLY what you claim.
I did read where you acknowledged that you have nothing saying Tertullian left because of the Primacy question. And yet you include that in your point #2 as though his leaving substantiated your claim which it does not.
-D
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
How can Peter be teaching a new doctrine when Jesus himself said to go and teach all nations? That would surely include more than just the House of Israel.
Click to expand...
Only to Jews:

Matthew 10:5-6

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

All nations or all world:

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

**Mark **16:15

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

We also have the fact that Peter was so reluctant to CHANGE and preach the gospel to the gentiles. Peter clearly thought this was a change.

I am thinking that when Darcee said that she is not suggesting that Peter was not an apostle she is at least recognizing that Peter is unequal to Pope in at least some way.

Perhaps we can recognize that when Catholic apologists point to Peter’s extending of the gospel to the gentiles during their primacy of Peter AND primacy of Pope apologetics that they are pointing to a different way of communicating with God than what the Catholic Church claims for the Pope (due at least to the supernatural public revelation aspect if we cannot agree upon the new and different aspect). This is a subtle miss, but it clearly is a miss that I have seen frequently.

To me that the Pope derives his authority from Peter and yet the authority is different and thus far I have never seen a Catholic in history (or even a modern apologist) identify this difference and explain it is a very real weakness.

Please make your comments on the Supernatural Public Aspect of this and we will move on to other things.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
· #1 The first Bishops, Clement (the 4th Bishop of Rome) included, had no concept of the primacy of Rome.

· #2 The primacy of Rome was put forward around 200AD and Tertulian left the church.

· #3 The authority initially proposed in 200AD solidified into an authority fundamentally different than the authority possessed by the person pointed to as the source of the authority. Peter unequal to Pope.
Click to expand...
Tom, thanks for your response. Here is a link to an article from Catholic.com that discusses the primacy of Rome, including evidence much earlier than 200AD. Check it out and let us know what you think:

catholic.com/library/authority_of_the_pope_part_1.asp

Chris
 
Before the resurrection his disciples preached only to the Jews. Jesus foreshadowed the great commission several times in his own ministry and Matthew ends with the commandment to take the word to the world…
How does that prove your point? It rather seems to disapprove it.

While your theology is certainly creative it doesn’t seem really solid. What you have expounded upon shows absolutely no evidence for a great apostasy. At the close of the apostolic age the church continued, it continues today. You have shown no where that the rites of the Mormon Church are the rites of the early. You claim that the early Church knew their church would fall yet this is against scripture and you have shown no proof of it.

-D
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
I am thinking that when Darcee said that she is not suggesting that Peter was not an apostle she is at least recognizing that Peter is unequal to Pope in at least some way.
Click to expand...
Peter was the first Pope… he is equal to himself. He was also an apostle. Does that make it more clear 🙂

-D
 
Tom Govern:
TOm maintains in his first discussion point that:

“#1 The first Bishops, Clement (the 4th Bishop of Rome) included, had no concept of the primacy of Rome.”

I scanned the thread and did not see where anyone has taken exception to this statement. Certainly Peter had a concept of primacy. That is beyond question. We do not really know enough about Linus and Cletus to know what thier “concepts” were. However, we have clear evidence of primacy from the fouth Bishop of Rome (Clement) in his Epistle to the Corinthians. This is one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament.(about 96 AD). The tone is definately authoritative and primal.

Tom, have you read Clement’s Epistle? Do you deny its tone? Two out of four when we know nothing about the other two is not bad evidence.

Tom Govern

Oh, I have read it. I have also read all of Ignatius and Polycarp. After we finish with #3 and #2 I will post what I see from Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp that suggest to me that Clement had no idea he was the head of the Church, and that Ignatius and Polycarp also do not know the Bishop of Rome is at the head of the Church.

BTW, it is generally acknowledge that Clement of Rome wrote his epistle to the Corinthians in a simple and restrained way. It does not have a tone that is “definitely authoritative and primal” in my opinion or in the opinions of those who I have read discussing it. I guess that would be a yes, I do deny its tone is authoritative and primal. I will quote at least one Catholic source that also does not recognize this. But tone will be a hard thing to quantify.

Anyway, I would like to get a little more on #2 and #3 before I go on to #1.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
darcee:
Before the resurrection his disciples preached only to the Jews. Jesus foreshadowed the great commission several times in his own ministry and Matthew ends with the commandment to take the word to the world…
How does that prove your point? It rather seems to disapprove it.
While your theology is certainly creative it doesn’t seem really solid. What you have expounded upon shows absolutely no evidence for a great apostasy. At the close of the apostolic age the church continued, it continues today. You have shown no where that the rites of the Mormon Church are the rites of the early. You claim that the early Church knew their church would fall yet this is against scripture and you have shown no proof of it.
Click to expand...
I have claimed that in #5 I will show evidence of LDS beliefs in the Early Church that do not (generally) exist in the modern Catholic Church. This would be #5 and we can get to this after #2, #3, and #1.

What I have shown is that the event that is frequently pointed to by Catholic Apologist that shows Peter leading the Church and used as a foundation for the primacy of the Pope, was an event that is inconsistent with the way the Pope is able to behave today. When you say, “Peter was the first Pope… he is equal to himself. He was also an apostle. Does that make it more clear,” you are actually begging the question.
We both agree that Peter was the first mortal head of the post resurrection Church of Christ. So when you say he was the first Pope you mean something different than I mean when I say Peter was first and prime. What I question is, “Is the Peterine authority the same authority that the Pope possesses today.” You would say, “yes it is, but with the following qualifications.” I however would say you are mistaken and your “following qualifications” are evidence of a different authority. (my other points will show it was a developed authority too).

I hope I do not spin us out of control, but the CoJCoLDS believes that the prophet has the EXACT same authority that Peter did.

And concerning disproving my point, I was just putting forth the Biblical evidence in totality. So yes, the second two passages I quoted are against me. I just find the fact that Peter was so difficult to convince and the first two VERY SPECIFIC statements trump them.

Charity, TOm
 
They most certainly do NOT trump them. Peter was always stuborn and sometimes a little hard headed.

The order is clear. Before Christ’s death his followers were not commisioned to preach to the world afterwards they were.
Peter confirmed this he did not create it.

-D
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
I hope I do not spin us out of control, but the CoJCoLDS believes that the prophet has the EXACT same authority that Peter did.
Click to expand...
I find this very interesting in light of the HB Lee statment you like to quote.

-D
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
Check it out and let us know what you think:
catholic.com/library/authority_of_the_pope_part_1.asp
Chris
Click to expand...
Chris,

Thank you for the link. Dionysius of Corinth and The Martyrs of Lyons were new for me. I guess you will not be shocked that I was not moved too much. I would be interested if somehow I could address the translation issues associated with Ignatius that I will mention below (I will send a note to a Catholic friend of mine on this). This would change my ability to so easily dismiss Ignatius as saying that Rome is wonderful rather than prime.

The intro:

Ignatius’ words are mentioned and I will deal with them below. Irenaeus’ words are mentioned and these are the words that I have seen Protestants try to get around, but I point to as the first mention of the primacy of Rome. “We all must agree with Rome.” I will address the other earlier than Irenaeus statements.

Clement of Rome:

I have already explained that I do not see Clement in any way claiming to be in charge of the Church. In fact, I think his letter raises serious questions about if he knows that he is at the head of the church. I will elaborate greatly on this later.

Hermas:

Actually Hermas is quite confusing to date, but even if it were not it would not be much evidence. Catholic Answers I think does not adequately present this when they suggest that Hermas is affirming the authority of the Bishop of Rome because he is not. Perhaps they do not feel the need to acknowledge the confusion of date or Hermas’ location, but it pretty much wipes out Hermas as a person to be referenced here. The opinion of Hefele (Catholic Scholar) and the majority of current scholars is that Hermas was written after the generally accepted dates for Clements papacy. Two other dates are in question. One is much before Clements papacy. The other is the only one that would result in Clement as Pope to distribute the message. But Catholic Answers for some reason rejects the modern scholarship dating (for the Papacy and/or Hermas) they still neglect to mention that Hermas was a Roman. His selection of the Bishop of Rome (if this is the Clement he selected) is really not so extraordinary. If I am correct or if the Catholic Church is correct the Bishop of Rome would have ecclesial authority over Hermas anyway and would be a natural selection for the person to distribute.

BTW, we will be able to talk about Hermas a lot in #4 if that is interesting (and we ever get there). …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top