The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

[darcee]

Honestly I don’t view this as MY thread. I just put it here because I knew a couple of people were thinking the same question and it seemed good to pull it out of the BoM fraud thread.

It is the nature of threads to wonder off topic. Maybe papal authority or succession would be good separate topics.
-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

I can really identify with that. I remember being there. I remember how I basically ended up settling that God loved me and would forgive me if I was in the LDS church and was wrong. I had my mind very well trained at one point to INSTANTLY dismiss anything I read that didn’t fit within the LDS paradigm. The doubts lingered but were well submerged in the back of my mind.

I NEVER had those same issues when I converted to the Catholic Church. I never found myself having to question the teachings or the dogma. While on occasion I might question one or another practice there is not the homogenous cultural belief structure not just on dogma but on everything telling me how wrong it is to question… hold to that iron rod, sustain the priesthood thing.

Maybe being LDS for a women is even harder. When you are male you are part of God’s exalted priesthood. Even in the temple, as a women, you are taught that it is through your husband’s exaltation that you are exalted. Maybe that is why they so strongly discourage women getting their endowments until they are going on a mission or getting married. Who wants to loose future hopes and plans just because they have been completely thrown for a loop in the temple.

It has been a goal and continues to be a goal to explain to all LDS that women are prolly above men to begin with, but this is off topic too. I agree it is generally harder in many ways for women, but still they seem to succeed more readily than men (in my observations).

darcee:
I have said it before, but I HOPE and PRAY that some day you find your way OUT of the LDS church.

-D

I see sincerity and love in your hope and prayers. I thank you for this. Might I offer a suggestion?

Please pray that I become a Catholic, a Protestant, a Bahai, a Moslem, … Please do not pray for me to leave something. I ask this because I think it will lift you up more if you pray that I become a Catholic. I believe God will aid as he sees fit, but you will be blessed more if you pray for my salvation rather than my departure from Mormonism.

I usually just pray that God will lead those who I interact with and care about. This I will pray for you. (It is true that I do not have conviction of the magnitude that demands that you would be better off than you are if you become a LDS. Perhaps this is a weakness in my testimony).

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

No, TOm

I have no doubt from what you have written that you would become Catholic.

I will PM you something. Hand on.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

No, TOm

I have no doubt from what you have written that you would become Catholic.

I will PM you something. Hand on.

-D

Well, you are correct on that.
Unless the burning bush it might take told me not to be Catholic

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

So Tom, were you done with your point #2 or do you have more?

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

I see that I am entering this thread late. But it seems to be widely accepted that Peter was a pope, even though I cannot find that information in the Bible. I do not see how we can really discuss an apostasy, without first proving that the church was built upon Peter. Jesus never said, “Peter, you are the rock I am going to build my church on.” Jesus had just previously asked Peter if Peter could identify who Jesus was. Changing the subject after Peter identified him in order to refer to Peter as a rock would be totally out of context. Why would Jesus want Peter to identify him if He was going to reveal something about Peter? It makes no sense.

 

[darcee]

ROI??
What did you just say? That made absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

rod of iron:

I see that I am entering this thread late. But it seems to be widely accepted that Peter was a pope, even though I cannot find that information in the Bible. I do not see how we can really discuss an apostasy, without first proving that the church was built upon Peter. Jesus never said, “Peter, you are the rock I am going to build my church on.” Jesus had just previously asked Peter if Peter could identify who Jesus was. Changing the subject after Peter identified him in order to refer to Peter as a rock would be totally out of context. Why would Jesus want Peter to identify him if He was going to reveal something about Peter? It makes no sense.

ROI,

I am not aware of what the RLDS church taught for many years, but LDS have taught two interpretations of “The Rock,” regularly.

I would say the most common LDS interpretation is that the Rock is Revelation. This I believe is superior to the Rock is Jesus interpretation postulated by Protestants in that it links to Jesus’ statement that Peter new Jesus was the Christ by not flesh and blood but by the Father. This I think grammatically connects better than the Christ interpretation.

Poetically, I think the Catholic and second most popular interpretation that Peter is the Rock is best. The poetry is just to strong in my opinion and even though this is a secondary LDS explanation, I think it is strongest. Kelpha is Kelpha. What else do you want?

Now, ROI, did the RLDS reject the ordination of Joseph Smith by Peter, James, and John? I would have thought this was not the case. (I know you are not a RLDS, but I understand that you split from the RLDS when they ordained women so your genealogy seems to point to RLDS views).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

point #2

I think I put forth most of the important stuff, but I will start at separate churches and go to Irenaeus then Tertullian.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians – Chapter XV- Salutations:

The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.”

This is one of many examples where the Churches are called separately vice collectively as one Church. Most of the titles of the letters we have are to a Church from a person in another Church. It is true that unity is often called for as Christ’s Church, but no unity under the Bishop of Rome is ever mentioned until Irenaeus.

Irenaeus says agree with the Bishop/Church of Rome due to his/its joint lineage linking him/it to Peter and Paul.

Irenaeus was the Bishop of Lyons. This work 180-200AD.

Irenaeus Against Heresies – Book III, Chapter III.-A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up:

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

…

 

[TOmNossor]

Ireanaeus is the earliest historically to point to the authority in Rome to attempt to squelch heresies. Much discussion has been had about the appropriateness of this translation (our translation is from Latin, but it was originally written in Greek). Some have suggested that Rome is the mirror of Catholicism as the most perfect of churches, but not the sun from which other churches receive light. Based on the next quote from a contemporary, it seems like the above translation is saying what it means to say: The Bishop of Rome is the final authority for Christianity.

Tertulian, On Modesty Chapter XXI.-Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys:

"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed.”

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tertulian who wrote btw 190-220AD seems to be responding to the authority of Peter being declared in effect in the church of his day. It seems likely the above was written before 206AD when Tertulian began to show Montanist opinions (the Montainists were originally not in schism with the church, and Tertulian formally left around 211-212AD). Tertulian was a respected member of the Catholic Church and an ordained priest. He was in a position to observe the CHANGE that occurred. This CHANGE is that no writings before Ireneaus claimed the Bishop of Rome had the authority of Peter. After Ireanaeus these claims became more and more prevalent until the whole church generally accepted the Primacy of Rome.

Some suggest that Tertulian left the Catholic Church for the Montanists due to his observation of greater Spiritual gifts possessed by the Montanists than by the Catholic Church. Others suggest that Tertulian was a fan of the more strict teachings of the Montanists. In any case, Tertulian was quite logical and was in a position to observe the foundation of the Primacy of Rome doctrine. He seemed to understand keys and authority and yet he chose to schism with the Church. His followers where ultimately accepted back into the Church so obviously he didn’t wander too far. If his reason for leaving had anything to do with the changing position of the Bishop of Rome it is doubtful that this would be the official position of Catholic historians, but it appears from his writings (most likely while he was an Catholic priest in full fellowship with his Bishop and his Church) that he was concerned with people claiming Peter’s authority.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

It seems this thread has lost much of its previous interest which is quite fine. I have prepared most of what I will say for #4, but would need to do a fair amount (mostly gathering stuff from things I have written in the past so it would not be too crazy) of preparation for #5. If anyone is interested in #4 or #5 then please ask me to post and I will.

Here is #1 (it will take a lot of posts, but I know not how to cease to be longwinded).

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

To show why I believe this to be true, I will quote a number of passages from Clement of Rome’s epistle to the Corinthians and Ignatius’ epistles. I will also mention the general feel of Polycarp’s statements.

…

 

[TOmNossor]

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians – Chapter LIII & LIV:

The Love of Moses Towards His People.

Ye understand, beloved, ye understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and ye have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount, and abode there, with fasting and humiliation, forty days and forty nights, the Lord said unto him, “Moses, Moses, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people whom thou didst bring out of the land of Egypt have committed iniquity. They have speedily departed from the way in which I commanded them to walk, and have made to themselves molten images.” And the Lord said unto him, “I have spoken to thee once and again, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: let Me destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make thee a great and wonderful nation, and one much more numerous than this.” But Moses said, "Far be it from Thee, Lord: pardon the sin of this people; else blot me also out of the book of the living."O marvellous love! O insuperable perfection! The servant speaks freely to his Lord, and asks forgiveness for the people, or begs that he himself might perish along with them.

He Who is Full of Love Will Incur Every Loss, that Peace May Be Restored to the Church.

Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? Let him declare, “If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.” He that acts thus shall procure to himself great glory in the Lord; and every place will welcome him. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.” These things they who live a godly life, that is never to be repented of, both have done and always will do

.

If one reads these two paragraphs assuming that Clement, the author, knows that he is sitting in Peter’s Chair which is the New Testament equivalent to Moses Chair, it is quite confusing. Why does Clement use an Old Testament example to point to how someone might raise themselves up to take responsibility as Moses did and then shift gears radically and point to someone who has no similarity to Moses at all to be this person, when Clement himself should know that he is the equivalent of Moses. At the very least this peculiar two paragraphs would warrant some explaining, but Clement feels no need to explain. Does Clement know he is the closest thing in the world to the Old Testament Moses?

 

[TOmNossor]

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians – Chapter XLII – The Order of Ministers in the Church:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

The Bishop of Rome has just explained the “Order of Ministers in the Church.” Why does he not mention anything about his position as the head of all the church? He mentions Apostles and Bishops, but he doesn’t point to himself (or the Bishop of Rome in general) as the head of the church on earth. Did Peter take this office with him without passing it on to the Bishop of Rome?

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians – Chapter I:

The Chruch of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth…

This is a very neutral, equal, and none authoritative opening. In fact calling Rome and Corinth as separate churches supports my view that Clement was in charge of the Roman Church and that there was a separate head of the Corinth Church (I do not construe this as meaning that there was not a unity in belief and … I just say that after Peter the unity of authority was no where evident). The purpose of this letter is to tell the Corinthians that they are again (Paul counseled them once or twice) behaving inappropriately. Clement, who should know he possesses authority over this church, does not mention it here or throughout the very long letter. He gives examples, quotes scriptures, and attempts to persuade the Corinthians to repent; but he never mentions his authority. He even spends two paragraphs talking about authority in general, but never mentions he has any specific authority outside of Rome (Chapt 27-28). Why?

 

[TOmNossor]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter IV – Allow me to Fall a Prey to the Wild Beasts:

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.

Many things can be observed from this statement. First, as will be shown by Ignatius below, he as a bishop is not equal to an apostle. Next, he felt compelled to tell the Roman Church who is headed by the Bishop of Rome that he is not issuing “commandments.” How could anyone who knows of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome feel it necessary to point out that he is not issuing commandments? Lastly, Ignatius specifically mentions Peter in a letter he is writing that will go to the Bishop of Rome. As he mentions Peter he is talking about authority to command, and he seems oblivious to the fact that the Bishop of Rome has this authority. Does this make sense if the Bishop of Rome was establish by the Apostles as the head of the Church on Earth?

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians – Chapter III – Exhortations to Unity:

I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person. For though I am bound for the name [of Christ], I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you as fellow-disciples with me. For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken27

upon me first to exhort you that ye would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.

Here Ignatius is talking about unity. He specifically says he is not speaking as if, “some great person.” Should he have not said he is not speaking as if he was the Bishop of Rome? If he chose to devote a paragraph to unity, why would he neglect to mention the head of the unity, the Bishop of Rome?

 

[TOmNossor]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians – Chapter VI – Preserve Harmony:

I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons,…

The bishop is not in the place of the apostles. God is superior to the apostles. The Bishop is superior to the presbyters, but this becomes confusing if the bishops ordained by the Apostles has the same authority. There are a few more of these from Ignatius in his other letters.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans –Chapter VIII – Let Nothing be Done Without the Bishop:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institutions of God.

Again in this statement if the bishop holds the office of an apostle the above comparison becomes quite confusing.

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

Polycarp talks of duties and doesn’t mention Bishops or the Bishop of Rome. He mentions people who are examples to the Philippians, but doesn’t mention any of the Bishops of Rome. He calls on the Philippians to pray for saints, kings, … but not the Bishop of Rome. This is an argument of absence and thus evidences very little, but it does remain that Polycarp didn’t speak of any Primacy.

 

[TOmNossor]

I believe it is pretty clear from Cardinal Newman that he is well aware that the Papacy developed. I do not even think he would be too put off by the suggestion that Clement of Rome and the early Bishops of Rome had no idea they were at the head of the world church and not just at the head of the Church of Rome.

What I put forth here (and actually throughout this thread) does not create what I call a “fatal flaw” for the Catholic Church. I apparently am “convoluted” and generally confusing, but I really think that to be Catholic and “deep in history” is to recognize development as Newman delineates in his essay. BTW, Newman also lists seven characteristics through which true developments shine and ultimate heresies fall. This is a pretty amazing apologetic in that these seven characteristics seem to be pretty universal throughout 2000 years of history, despite the fact that neither St. Vincent de Lerins nor any other ancient Catholic had a clue they were guiding rules.

The more common belief that tradition has been held always, everywhere and by all is not what I see in history. The insufficiency of St. Vincent de Lerins rule is a fatal flaw only for those who fully embrace some doctrinal developments while totally rejecting others. For me the fact that the Papacy was not something Peter communicated clearly to Linus, Cletus, and Clement is not the way I see authority passed Biblically or modernly, and it is part of how I see an apostasy in history.

Charity, TOm

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

TOm,

Here is what the Catholic response to a supposed apostasy is in the words of Early Church Fathers.

“We are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times.”
-St. Irenaeus from "Against Heresies, circa A.D. 180

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”
-St. Irenaeus from "Against Heresies, circa A.D. 180

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us”
-St. Irenaeus from "Against Heresies, circa A.D. 180

more . . .

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

continued . . .

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . "
-Poem Against the Marcionites, A.D. 267

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all”
-Optatus from “The Schism of the Donatists”, A.D. 367

“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people”
-Pope Damasus I from “Decree of Damasus 3”, A.D. 382

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which [Pope] Anastasius sits today?”
-St. Augustine from Against the Letters of Petilani, A.D. 402

“Like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter . . . Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date-for they are being established daily-and whose founder is not from the among the Apostles nor from among the apostalic men.”
-Tertullian from “The Demurrer Against the Heretics”, circa A.D. 200

“Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church!”
-Origen from “Homilies on Exodus”, circa A.D. 244

“to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God…to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love…”
-St. Ignatius of Antioch from “Letter to the Romans”, circa A.D. 110

conclusion . . .

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

For more, check out the book “Faith of the Early Fathers” by William Jurgens. As you can see, many of these quotes are taken after a supposed apostasy.

Finally, I ask any Mormon (again) why do you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? There is some hypocrisy in believing in an apostasy that destroys the central leadership of the Church and acknowledging an infallible decision by that same Church over 300 years after the aforementioned apostasy.