The Great Apostasy

[Casen]

ben_dy:

And the description in 1 Nephi of 13 “a church which is most abominable above all other churches” has always seemed to me to be a direct attack against the Catholic church…

Although my LDS friends are quick to deny that this - and other references - are specific to the Catholic Church, save for Orthodox, Anglican, etc., what other church liturgy does, indeed, include “gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing” (although not harlots - unless this was some sort of early trad reference to female EM’s and lectors!).

Some LDS authorities including McConkie have indeed stated they thought these verses were referring to the Catholic Church. However, others have interpreted these verses as a reference to symbolic Babylon (as in Revelations) meaning the wicked world, in other words, any who fight against God’s people. I don’t think these verses are p(name removed by moderator)ointing a particular church but rather the wicked of the world who persecute the saints of God.

Interestingly, just last Sunday I attended an LDS fireside meeting and the speaker, Calvin Stevens, an LDS historian, said we of the LDS faith should not criticize the Catholic Church but rather should thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible. He said it was the Gnostics and Sadducees that were responsible for changing scriptures to match their beliefs but the Catholics were responsible for preserving them. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

Well if the apologists would actually make a verifiable claim I would rebut it. The problem is that Jefflindsay and FARMS and FAIR just deal in “plausibilities”. They claim that it “could have happened” so it must be true. how about michael coe and thomas stuart ferguson. those are good references. BYU’s own Ray matheny. and this:/QUOTE]
Chris Jodrey:

So, you want us to try to prove the BoM true? It can’t be done, just as you can’t prove Catholicism true, and you’re a fool if you think you can.

I don’t think anyone is asking for any ‘proof’ as you imply - in saying that no one can prove “Catholicism true” you must be speaking of the doctrines - the beliefs - of the Church, for it would be ridiculous to posit that no one can prove the historicity of the Catholic Church. And that - some kind (any kind) of historicity that would ‘prove’ simply the antiquity of the BoM is the kind of proof that I believe that majick is speaking of. All one need do to prove the historicity of the Catholic Church is to read a single volume history such as A Popular History of the Catholic Church with citations that allow you to go back and read works of the Church that date from Apostolic times to the present. The ‘proof’ of the historic Catholic Church has never been really questioned, to my knowledge.

Yet ‘proofs’ for the various histories of the BoM - the historicity which would ‘prove’ it an ancient work - do seem to be sorely lacking. I think any of us - save for perhaps the most vehement ant-Mormon - would re-consider our views if just one proof that would pass scholastic scrutiny were found.

majick is right - the FARMS and FAIR apologetics is very poor and only postulates possibilities and all that I’ve read there (save one that I’ve read) is so very stretched that, were I a believing LDS, I would be more apt to doubt the veracity of the antiquity of the BoM than I would be inclined to continue in the church. The one exception that I mention comes from an article on the Book of Abraham in which the author basically says that his only genuine proof for the authenticity of the BoA is that he believes it to be truth - that he believes it a true translation from papyrus writ by Abraham’s own hand only because he has faith that Joseph Smith said that was it was, Since all sciences prove the BoA to be other than what it purports to be, the author relies solely on faith. That’s not the way my faith ‘works’ but if it works for him, fine.

I, personally, believe that for the sake of the LDS church, those church authorities who have suggested that abandoning the search for proof is the wisest course is, in fact, the wisest course. It seems that the the deeper into scientific explanation individuals delve in attempting to verify the history of the BoM, the more they are apt to fall away - as many have - from actual belief in the LDS church (although many admit that they stay because of the social acceptance and/or because leaving BYU academia leaves no positions open in other university environments.

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

I would say that the Apostasy has everything to do with the “Apostolic succession,” but nothing to do with the “lineage of the Papacy”. The Pope cannot act as the Twelve Apostles. The Twelve Apostles form a quorum that acts as the governing authority of the Church. That quorum was intended to continue in the church. The Pope cannot single-handedly act as, or replace that quorum—assuming that he did have genuine apostolic authority, which we do not believe he has.

Chris-WA:

That’s absurd! Peter did not require a “quorum” to make a decision. And you have no evidence that a “quorum” was to continue in the church as a governing authority. Even Joseph Smith didn’t require a “quorum” to act. Where are you getting this stuff from?

The notion that the Apostles should, in any manner, maintain a quorum of twelve can readily be disproved by Christ’s instructions to the Apostles in Acts 1, as a matter of fact.

Christ enjoined the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem as a group only until they had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit"
Acts 1:

4 And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Which occurred and is recorded in Acts 2. After they received the Holy Spirit, however, some were to remain in Jerusalem, some to depart - even “to the end of the earth” to preach the Gospel:
Acts 1:

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth."

Christ’s command to be witnesses “to the end of the earth” precludes the Apostles forever participating - pr even remaining - as a ‘a quorum of twelve’ could not have ‘stuck together’ with equal authority whilst traveling to the ends of the earth. The idea also excludes Paul as being an Apostle, as well as others who enjoyed Apostolic succession in the New Testament.

Obviously, the LDS doctrine would like to see all Biblical references to Peter as head of the visible Church removed, as well as those passages dealing with the primacy of Peter throughout the New Testament, but I find it difficult to believe, even in the vague theory of a “Great Apostasy” that they would put preeminence on ‘a quorum of twelve’ to govern the Church: that undermines Christ direction completely. Or maybe - who knows? - the LDS believe that the “Great Apostasy” occurred when the Apostles did begin to travel outside of Jerusalem, which would have ended any notion of ‘a quorum of twelve’? Who knows? The single LDS document that I’ve read attempting to explain the theory (from FARMS, I believe) was so full of holes that it would have sunk leaving dry dock had it been a water craft.

 

[Tmaque]

Casen:

Some LDS authorities including McConkie have indeed stated they thought these verses were referring to the Catholic Church. However, others have interpreted these verses as a reference to symbolic Babylon (as in Revelations) meaning the wicked world, in other words, any who fight against God’s people. I don’t think these verses are p(name removed by moderator)ointing a particular church but rather the wicked of the world who persecute the saints of God.

Interestingly, just last Sunday I attended an LDS fireside meeting and the speaker, Calvin Stevens, an LDS historian, said we of the LDS faith should not criticize the Catholic Church but rather should thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible. He said it was the Gnostics and Sadducees that were responsible for changing scriptures to match their beliefs but the Catholics were responsible for preserving them. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

A couple things here…
The Catholic Church didn’t just preserve the Bible, the Church actually compiled the Bible as well. The Church chose which books to include in the New Testament and which to leave out. Have you ever wondered how a church that had lost all inspiration and authority could have the discernement to compile the Bible?The NT canon was not set until the 4th century, long after LDS claims of apostasy took place.

Mr Stevens was quite correct when he said that the Catholic Church has preserved the Old Testament. It’s interesting to note however, that LDS use a version of the OT that has not been preserved and is not the OT of the apostles and the early church. Catholics use the septuagint OT which is quoted by the authors of the NT. LDS(and protestants) use a later version of the OT compiled by the very people that rejected Jesus. It begs the question, if the Catholic Church did a good job preserving the Bible(which it did), then why don’t LDS use the preserved version?

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

I wish what-now? I never said that not being able to prove the BoM false means it’s true, neither do I believe that. I never claimed that I could prove the apostasy either. Neither do I blindly accept that apostasy because the Prophet said so. True that he did, and his testimony is vital, but I also believe in it because it makes logical sense to me, because of my study of the Bible and because of the moral and philosophical concepts it presents, and because it makes a lot of other stuff fit. Many intelligent and informed people I know share my beliefs. It makes sense to me. If you think I’m throwing all reason out the window when I believe in it, think again. I don’t intent to try to prove it to you, but I do intend to help you and the other Catholics here understand what bases the doctrine has in the LDS faith. Feel free to join in the discussion me and Ben are having, but behave.

I can’t get to answer the other posts right now, but I’ll try to later tonight.

Thus far, this is what I can gather about Mormon apologetics.

First, presuppose the Mormon position to be true.

Next, read all available data in the light of your presupposition.

Finally, when doubt enters your mind, take out a copy of the BoM, pray for the burning in your bosom.

Once this is received, repeat first step.

Peace

 

[catholic-rcia]

“because of my study of the Bible and because of the moral and philosophical concepts it presents, and because it makes a lot of other stuff fit.”

Once again Christ (God, the eternal Son) is the fulfillment of all the ancient prophecy regarding mans Salvation. (Biblical) God is no longer at a distance, He is in us. We do not look upon Christ as a great man, that other stuff is needed to be saved. We look upon Christ as sinners seeing Our God and Redeemer. He has conquered our fallen nature for us; That which strives to be a god in our own right. We as Catholics climb aboard His Cross in order to be carried home, we have a free pass given to us lost lambs. He is the fulfillment plain and simple. Without Christ there would be absolutely no Hope. Christ is Hope. Without Christ we would have no truth, Christ is not just a great man, Christ is Truth. Without Christ there would be no true love, it would all be self serving. Christ is Love, we on the other hand are different, we can only come to find this love and live within it, share in it. Do we have revelations? You bet we do, what is most amazing is that we find that it is nothing new. It the same revelations passed on by the Mass, the real presence of Christ that all others have received. One by one.

God Bless

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

That’s absurd! Peter did not require a “quorum” to make a decision. And you have no evidence that a “quorum” was to continue in the church as a governing authority. Even Joseph Smith didn’t require a “quorum” to act. Where are you getting this stuff from?

Jesus ordained twelve Apostles, and their number was fixed at twelve. He also ordained seventy others to assist Him in preaching the gospel; but the Twelve were set at twelve, and their number was neither increased nor diminished. The fact that that institution of the Twelve was intended to remain as the Twelve in perpetuity, and form the governing authority of the church, is demonstrated by the fact that when Judas transgressed, and his life came to an end, Matthias was ordained to replace him (Acts 1:15-26). That is what we mean by a Quorum—i.e. a body of men whose number is fixed at a certain figure, and a minimum number of whom must be present for their decisions to be authoritative and binding. Peter didn’t need a “quorum” to make his own personal decisions in his personal ministry; nether did any of the other Apostles. But when it came to making “policy decisions” binding on the whole church, they met together to act as a quorum, as was the case in settling the “circumcision” controversy for the whole church, as recorded in chapter 15 of the book of Acts. If it were possible for one Apostle to make that decision for the whole church by himself, Paul was already in the field, and familiar with situation, and could have settled it by himself. Why did he have to travel to Jerusalem to confer with the rest of the Twelve? (See Acts 15:2.)

The notion that the Apostles should, in any manner, maintain a quorum of twelve can readily be disproved by Christ’s instructions to the Apostles in Acts 1, as a matter of fact.

Christ enjoined the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem as a group only until they had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit"…

Which occurred and is recorded in Acts 2. After they received the Holy Spirit, however, some were to remain in Jerusalem, some to depart - even “to the end of the earth” to preach the Gospel: …

Christ’s command to be witnesses “to the end of the earth” precludes the Apostles forever participating - pr even remaining - as a ‘a quorum of twelve’ could not have ‘stuck together’ with equal authority whilst traveling to the ends of the earth.

LDS Apostles travel the globe every day of the week to preach the gospel and set in order the affairs of the Church; but they meet together in council to form a quorum when making policy decisions binding on the whole Church. Of course modern Apostles enjoy the advantage of modern fast communication and travel; but even in those days it was not such an impossible task for the Apostles to meet together as required to resolve an important issue for the whole Church, when it was required.

The idea also excludes Paul as being an Apostle, as well as others who enjoyed Apostolic succession in the New Testament.

Not correct. Paul was ordained an Apostle probably to succeed another Apostle who had died, perhaps James, who was beheaded by Herod (Acts 12:1-2).

Obviously, the LDS doctrine would like to see all Biblical references to Peter as head of the visible Church removed, as well as those passages dealing with the primacy of Peter throughout the New Testament,

Peter was the chief Apostle, and the presiding officer over the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In the council of Jerusalem mentioned above, Peter acted as the spokesman, and delivered the final verdict; but he could not single-handedly override or form the quorum.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

but I find it difficult to believe, even in the vague theory of a “Great Apostasy” that they would put preeminence on ‘a quorum of twelve’ to govern the Church:

I assure you that that is the case:

D&C 107:

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world–thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world–thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other–

28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise–

that undermines Christ direction completely. Or maybe - who knows? - the LDS believe that the “Great Apostasy” occurred when the Apostles did begin to travel outside of Jerusalem, which would have ended any notion of ‘a quorum of twelve’? Who knows? The single LDS document that I’ve read attempting to explain the theory (from FARMS, I believe) was so full of holes that it would have sunk leaving dry dock had it been a water craft.

No comment.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

catholic-rcia.com/pages/Apostacy.html

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

Peter didn’t need a “quorum” to make his own personal decisions in his personal ministry; nether did any of the other Apostles. But when it came to making “policy decisions” binding on the whole church, they met together to act as a quorum, as was the case in settling the “circumcision” controversy for the whole church, as recorded in chapter 15 of the book of Acts. If it were possible for one Apostle to make that decision for the whole church by himself, Paul was already in the field, and familiar with situation, and could have settled it by himself. Why did he have to travel to Jerusalem to confer with the rest of the Twelve? (See Acts 15:2.)

Incorrect. Peter did make the decision for the whole church, and the others accepted it because of his primacy. Notice that after he proclaimed the policy there was not one word of dissent–merely acceptance. It was Peter that had the final say. Now of course the Apostles met together to discuss these things, because they all had apostolic authority, and they want to make sure the church acts as one, but Peter’s apostolic authority is prime over that of the others. What Peter says goes.

Peter was the chief Apostle, and the presiding officer over the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In the council of Jerusalem mentioned above, Peter acted as the spokesman, and delivered the final verdict; but he could not single-handedly override or form the quorum.

Of course he could. He had prime authority over the whole church!

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Incorrect. Peter did make the decision for the whole church, and the others accepted it because of his primacy. Notice that after he proclaimed the policy there was not one word of dissent–merely acceptance. It was Peter that had the final say. Now of course the Apostles met together to discuss these things, because they all had apostolic authority, and they want to make sure the church acts as one, but Peter’s apostolic authority is prime over that of the others. What Peter says goes.

I am afraid you are very much mistaken. The decision was a collective decision, and all of the Apostles made an (name removed by moderator)ut into the decision:

Acts 15:

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Here we have a clear statement that the Apostles and elders met together to “consider this matter”. If what you said was true, all of the rest of the Apostles who went to that meeting, apart from Peter, were simply there to sit and look stupid, while Peter made all the decisions, and told the rest of them what to do. That was not the case. First we have Peter’s (name removed by moderator)ut:

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
After that Paul and Barnabas made their (name removed by moderator)ut, while the rest “kept silence, and gave audience” to them:

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after that James made his (name removed by moderator)ut:

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

---

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
And finally we have this collective decision made by the Apostles:

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
And the content of the letter consisted more of the verdict of James that of Peter. And note especially the emphasis in the letter first that it was a collective decision, and second that it was an inspired (revelatory) decision made by the Apostles:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto US, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, (i.e. inspired/revelatory decision) and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things (i.e. James’s (name removed by moderator)ut);

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Peter was indeed the chief Apostle, and presided over the quorum. Every quorum must have a president. I never disputed that. But the decision was collectively made by all the council. If that were not the case, why did all the Apostles gather together (from such long distances) to make a decision? Peter might just as well have made the decision himself, and conveyed it to them by letter or by authorized messengers. All the Apostles in fact possessed the same keys of the sealing power that was given to Peter. He was alone in possessing those “keys of the kingdom”:

Matthew 18:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

John 20:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
If the rest of the Apostles were not necessary, why did God call Twelve Apostles in the first place? Why did He not just call one Apostle, and put him in charge of everything? Peter was ONE of the Twelve Apostles. You can’t do away with the Twelve, and then keep Peter. That is like blowing out your house, and keeping the dining room. If the Twelve are gone, then so is Peter, because Peter in one of the Twelve.

Where does it say in the Bible that God has decided to do away with the Twelve, and just keep Peter? On the contrary, the scripture says that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles {plural!} and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). It does not say “the foundation of Peter and prophets”. It says “apostles and prophets”. If you blow away the foundation, you blow away the whole house.

The bottom line is that the whole of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles acted collectively as the governing body of the Church. God never intended that that governing body should cease to function in His church, any more than the office of Peter should cease to function. The bishop of Rome did not and never could have the same authority that Peter or the other Apostles had.

Of course he could. He had prime authority over the whole church!

It might be a good idea if you read your Bible before deciding to comment on it. It might save you putting your foot in it next time.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

Meet the Bishop of Utah

http://www.utahcatholicdiocese.org/...hp?PHPSESSID=918a7dd983115d2b979d791a190f0303

Why did Jesus only have a few loaves of bread and a few fish? Did he not feed the thousands with it? He started with little and out of that came a lot. This proceeds the giving of the Eucharist in John 6. He feeds us still, His sheep are well fed.

We are of the Apostolic faith amgid, we hold fast to our Apostolic Tradition. From the Apostles we have the Word of God to each of us. From this Word we have the Bishops who like the bread and the Fish, that which started with 12 has now spread to every corner of the earth and they because of the Holy Spirit and the binding of our doctrine are spreading this word to the world through the priest, the sisters and the laity. If you were to go to the Mass today you would be listening to the same scripture that is being proclaimed around the world today. You would be partaking in the living word of Christ and in His real presence, then sent out to proclaim Jesus to others just like the Apostles and the Bishops. You seem to be hung up on that which appears to be made up laws and regulations that never did exist. Really, only to make the LDS church stand apart from the Church that Christ established. This is very familiar.

Jesus came and turned the Laws upside down. He wants your heart without the burden. We have been given this heart; the burden is light for many of us. Because we accept that we are sinners, and we know that Christ is our only hope in escaping it. In essence we have given up trying to do good, we rely only on His goodness. The mission of the Apostles, the Bishops and the laity is to show others the Yoke of Christ, so that they to can come to the table of our Lord and receive an abundance of forgiveness and reconciliation so we can all love one another and spread the good news to each other.

Reading** I**
Mal 1:14b-2:2b, 8-10

A great King am I, says the LORD of hosts,
and my name will be feared among the nations.
And now, O priests, this commandment is for you:
If you do not listen,
if you do not lay it to heart,
to give glory to my name, says the LORD of hosts,
I will send a curse upon you
and of your blessing I will make a curse.
You have turned aside from the way,
and have caused many to falter by your instruction;
you have made void the covenant of Levi,
says the LORD of hosts.
I, therefore, have made you contemptible
and base before all the people,
since you do not keep my ways,
but show partiality in your decisions.
Have we not all the one father?
Has not the one God created us?
Why then do we break faith with one another,
violating the covenant of our fathers?

Gospel
Mt 23:1-12

Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying,
“The scribes and the Pharisees
have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,
but do not follow their example.
For they preach but they do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry
and lay them on people’s shoulders,
but they will not lift a finger to move them.
All their works are performed to be seen.
They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’
You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Call no one on earth your father;
you have but one Father in heaven.
Do not be called ‘Master’;
you have but one master, the Christ.
The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled;
but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

 

[JohnnyR]

** writes,**
The basic doctrine is that the Church of the New Testament eventually was taken up, or dissolved, or ceased to be some time after the NT comes to a close.

The Church of the New Testament was not “taken up, or dissolved”. The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” which faithfully guards “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”.

It is for that reason that the restoration was necessary.

The Bible does not support a restoration as described by the LDS church.

Also, I’m a little curious as to what these Catholics can give as far as evidence against the apostasy.

The best evidence is the Bible and the teachings of the Early Fathers The apostasy as described in the Bible best fits Mormonism. Mormonism is an example of apostasy from the truth. The Bible reveals false prophets and religious deception.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

I am afraid you are very much mistaken. The decision was a collective decision, and all of the Apostles made an (name removed by moderator)ut into the decision:

Acts 15:
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Here we have a clear statement that the Apostles and elders met together to “consider this matter”. If what you said was true, all of the rest of the Apostles who went to that meeting, apart from Peter, were simply there to sit and look stupid, while Peter made all the decisions, and told the rest of them what to do. That was not the case.

First of all, I don’t deny that the Apostles met and considered the matter together because they shared authority for the church, but what you must understand is that one man, Peter, had the final authority in matters under dispute. Now, as a good leader, of course he would listen to the others and consider their (name removed by moderator)ut, but ultimately Peter has been singled out by Christ with a singular overall authority over the workings of the church.

Notice what’s happening in this story. It begins with the Apostles and presbyters debating the matter. Then what happens? It is Peter who stands up settles the matter. And here is the clincher. After Peter speaks his piece, what happens?
12 The whole assembly fell silent and they listened while Paul and Barnabus described…

The key here is that after Peter speaks, the whole assembly fell silent. This is not an accidental phrase. It emphasizes a point regarding Peter. The others recognize his authority on the matter and submit to it. The dispute and debate is over. Now, instead of further debate, the others speak up in support of what Peter just said. Why James in particular? Because James is the bishop of Jerusalem, which is the location of this first church council. He is the local authority, and goes on to describe how Peter’s declaration will be applied.

What you need to learn from this is that Peter is the one who settles disputes within the church, even between the Apostles. He excercises the authority of his office to do this. The others recognized it and “fell silent” after Peter spoke. That’s the same authority every bishop of Rome since Peter has held. The bishop of Rome certainly seaks the (name removed by moderator)ut of his fellow bishops, but only he can settle any disputes between them.

And again, like always, this is the unanimous testimony of the Early Chruch Fathers. The bishop of Rome’s primacy is taken for granted. Disputed matters are sent for him to settle.

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

First of all, I don’t deny that the Apostles met and considered the matter together because they shared authority for the church, but what you must understand is that one man, Peter, had the final authority in matters under dispute. Now, as a good leader, of course he would listen to the others and consider their (name removed by moderator)ut, but ultimately Peter has been singled out by Christ with a singular overall authority over the workings of the church.

I don’t dispute that Peter held the presidency over the Twelve, and hence over the Church. What I dispute is your contention that just because Peter was at the head, the rest of the Twelve was (and is) no longer necessary. That is like saying that just because we have the President of the United States, the rest of the cabinet, the Whitehouse, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are not necessary. Peter was ONE of the Twelve. If you do away with the Twelve, you also do away with Peter. Where are the Twelve Apostles in the Catholic Church today?

The key here is that after Peter speaks, the whole assembly fell silent. This is not an accidental phrase. It emphasizes a point regarding Peter. The others recognize his authority on the matter and submit to it.

They also “fell silent” when Paul and Barnabas spoke, and also when James spoke.

Why James in particular? Because James is the bishop of Jerusalem, which is the location of this first church council. He is the local authority, and goes on to describe how Peter’s declaration will be applied.

That sounds like a forced argument to me. James was an Apostle. He was not the bishop of Jerusalem.

What you need to learn from this is that Peter is the one who settles disputes within the church, even between the Apostles.

That is where you have made your biggest mistake. The “dispute” was not “between the Apostles”. The Apostles were pretty much agreed over the issue. They had enough inspiration and revelation of the Holy Ghost to know for themselves what the correct position was. The dispute was between them and some Jewish converts who believed (sincerely) that the Gentile needed to be circumcised. There were lots of people present at that meeting, not just the Apostles. The whole object of the exercise was to settle the dispute between those influential Jewish converts who believed that the Gentiles should be circumcised, and the rest of the leadership of the church who had different ideas.

He excercises the authority of his office to do this. The others recognized it and “fell silent” after Peter spoke. That’s the same authority every bishop of Rome since Peter has held. The bishop of Rome certainly seaks the (name removed by moderator)ut of his fellow bishops, but only he can settle any disputes between them.

Peter didn’t consult “his fellow bishops,” he consulted his fellow Twelve Apostles. Peter was ONE of the Twelve. Where there is no Twelve, there is no Peter. Where are the Twelve Apostles in the Catholic Church?

amgid

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

The twelve apostles are at the foundation of the Catholic Church … the church is “built upon” (Eph 2:20) on the apostles.

 

[amgid]

Transrerred from the “Mormon Apologetics” thread to here…

Just a summation of past debates with Mormons. What is your case for the “great apostasy?” I know there is a thread already dedicated this topic, but could you provide a concise argument that contradicts what I have just posted?

Yes, my concise argument for the Apostasy is best summarized in the following scripture:

2 Tim 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, …

---

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Verse 5 is a perfect description of the apostate condition of present day Christendom. They have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. They pretend to have religion, but deny the most fundamental of its attributes: the ability to commune directly with God, and to lead and direct the church by direct revelation form God. That is what makes Christendom apostate.

I have also noticed that you have dug up the old thread: “Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?”, and started commenting on my posts there. That thread has run its course. It has run out of steam. If you are really that keen to discuss the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy with me, as you appear to be, we had better start afresh. You can start right here! I have quoted above my scriptural justification for why I believe there was an Apostasy. If you disagree with that, feel free to argue against it if you wish.

amgid

 

[majick275]

I still find it significant that in the Bible the Apostles never tell us that the church will require a “first presidency” or a prophet at it’s head nor do they tell us that when they die the churhc will lose it’s authority. What we actually see them writing is quite the opposite.
They ordain bishops and priests and deacons with a confidence and faith that they will “feed my sheep”. They act in a manner consistent with their belief that the church will never fail. They dutifully warn about harmful individuals both within and wihtout the church but do so in a way that teaches us that the church itself will not fall. There is no scriptural basis for a universal apostasy that would take ecclesiatical authority off of the earth as JS claims.

We have the historical proofs that the same fundamental doctrines and sacraments exist in the RCC as in the early church. The evidence is overwhelming.

Contrast this with the LDS history of altering their own scriptures and doctrines and sacraments just during the few years they have been around.

 

[dennisknapp]

Transrerred from the “Mormon Apologetics” thread to here…

Yes, my concise argument for the Apostasy is best summarized in the following scripture:

2 Tim 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, …

---

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Verse 5 is a perfect description of the apostate condition of present day Christendom. They have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. They pretend to have religion, but deny the most fundamental of its attributes: the ability to commune directly with God, and to lead and direct the church by direct revelation form God. That is what makes Christendom apostate.

I have also noticed that you have dug up the old thread: “Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?”, and started commenting on my posts there. That thread has run its course. It has run out of steam. If you are really that keen to discuss the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy with me, as you appear to be, we had better start afresh. You can start right here! I have quoted above my scriptural justification for why I believe there was an Apostasy. If you disagree with that, feel free to argue against it if you wish.

amgid

I don’t see words all or everyone in those passages.

You judge whether or not a Church is apostate based on whether or not they adhere to Mormon practice. How is this so, Mormonism came on the scene in the 19th century? Again, where is the evidence.

I have looked at your previous posts and have not found any references to evidence that support this apostasy, aside from the testemony of Joseph Smith. Are we just expected to take his word for it.

Don’t you see, starting with a conclusion and infering your premises from said conclusion is begging the question and circular reasoning.

Peace