Stephen168
New member
Mormonism teaches it was 570
Revelation 12:5 JST:
Restoration of all Things; Joseph Fielding Smith:
Times and Seasons Vol.5:
Times and Seasons Vol. 6 pg 858:
To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?
- Status
Revelation 12:5 JST:
Z
Z_Ninja
Guest
There are numerous instances where Jesus gave authority and power to the apostles, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” “he who hears you, hears me,” “he who receives anyone I send, receives me.” So, by that end, anyone the Apostles would have ordained, would receive the power and authority and would be coninued to be sanctioned by The Lord. So, there was no need for a restoration.
So, if the the keys (power and authority) were removed from the Earth, then Jesus lied to the Apostles and Hell did prevail.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
- The ‘Gates of Hell’ quote comes from Matthew 16:18
‘And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ - Latter-day Saints believe that the rock here is revelation, and that even though the church fell away into apostasy, revelation is the key to having the true church upon the earth, as shown in the previous three verses. Catholic belief is that Peter was the rock, and that direct succession to his leadership exists to the current day.
- I think you are referring to one of several instances where the president of the LDS church or other leaders taught, formally or informally, some doctrine that we simply do not believe.
LDS thought includes three different interpretations for “Rock.” All of them are of value IMO.
Rock = Peter.
Rock = Revelation to Peter
Rock = Christ
After Vatican I as I read that document, the Pope is infallible concerning faith/morals when speaking from the Chair of Peter. I believe before this it was well established that the Ecumenical Councils were/are infallible.
From the beginning Joseph Smith AND our scriptures suggested that there was no infallible/inerrant principle upon which to test the CoJCoLDS.
So, while one could plum Catholic history for evidence that an EC contradicted/changed a previous EC. Or a Pope attempted to bind the church to a changed doctrine; such a test will not have the same impact upon the CoJCoLDS. It just will not.
And BTW, the Peter=Rock is not the only Matthew 16:18 interpretation within Catholic thought.
Also, I do not wish to suggest that I can show where Popes / ECs fail the “Infallibility test,” I just suggest such a test upon the CoJCoLDS is of significantly less impact.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
When did this “apostasy” occur?
So you admit that the doctrine of the mormon church changes, based upon who the leader is?
What if the verse means Peter’s faith not revelation to Peter? Do you see that as a valid interpretation?
Hint, you should, the Pope does.
I will say a little about “when apostasy” if you like, but it will be my opinion.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
You could but you will not find it. You like to suggest things about the Catholic Church but fail to prove them.
was “Kepha,” a word meaning “rock.” In the Bible, this name, this term, “rock,” referred to God. Jesus attributes this name to Simon not for his own personal qualities or his human merits, but on account of his genuine and firm faith, which comes from on high.
M
MacQ
Guest
That is a very charitable response to (what I consider) a most UNcharitable question. Embarrassingly uncharitable.
Bless you for your Christian patience.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
When did this “apostasy” occur?
First, concerning Matthew 16:18. LDS have not just missed this in their Bibles, they just do not think “will not prevail” or “gates of hell” means the same thing Catholics ascribe to those terms.
One of the simple things I like to offer is that the Romans/Jews did not “prevail” against Jesus Christ. They killed him, but He was resurrected.
When the Greek is examined I also understand it is clear that the Romans/Jews may have ended the mortal life of Jesus, but they never ended the eternal life of Jesus.
Both of the above IMO offer ways to understand Matthew 16:18 that do not align with the view Catholics prefer.
As I mentioned above Catholicism can be tested by an appeal to the infallibility test in a way that LDS cannot. If Catholicism fails to be what it claims to be because history demonstrates that doctrines changed in ways that do not allow for the “no revelation” principle within Catholicism this is a problem for the Catholic Church. As a LDS who rejects infallibility of the early church and the restoration church, this test is only valid to test if the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. Folks smarter than I am believe that Catholic Church fails this test. Folks smarter than I am believe the Catholic Church passes this test. But, it is not IMO a strictly LDS test.
Christ’s authority passed through Peter to a living figure to lead the entire church on the earth is a concept that both the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS recognize. I see two issues with locating the Petrine authority within the Pope.
First, I do not see Pope’s acting like the head of the entire church for a long time. I do not believe Clement of Rome did (and many Catholic scholars agree with me). I see in history the Apostles and Bishops acting within distinct spheres until the Apostles were gone. Gradually the Bishops began to act within a sphere that filled the void left by the Apostles (except for …). Gradually the Bishop of Rome began to act within a sphere that filled the void left by Peter the head apostle (except for …). This DEVELOPMENT in a Catholic paradigm of Father Sullivan might be a valid development. This DEVELOPMENT in a LDS paradigm is clearly usurpation (Tertullian’s word BTW).
Here are some other areas for exploring this:
LDS - Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops
Catholic - Father Sullivan’s **From Apostles to Bishop **
Catholic - Robert Eno’s Rise of the Papacy
Two threads at CtC are also very good:
calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/
calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/
Second, from a LDS perspective, it is obvious that the successor of Peter does not act like Peter in that he cannot received supernatural public revelation for the entire world/church. Vatican I is clear this is not something the Pope does. LDS claim the leader of God’s church did in the Old Testament, did in the New Testament, and should today.
One additionally thing.
I often hear that God just would not start his church with Peter for it to “die out.” A few things here:
How do you know what God would and would not do?
The church Christ started like the Church of the Old Testament didn’t “die” it fulfilled Gods purpose for it (the Jews prepared for Christ and then sacrificed Him. The pre-restoration church preserved the Bible and the witness of Christ).
Finally, the Jewish leaders failed to recognize Christ was the Messiah so the folks that Peter and the Apostles left as Bishops were surely fallible men who like God’s leaders of old could drop the ball, add non-divine laws, pervert the faith, … It would seem history and the Bible tell us that just because God starts a line of authority its ending does not mean “God failed.”
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
So you got nothing
T
TOmNossor
Guest
If I was not clear enough let me be more clear.
I do not see any evidence that Linus, Cletus or Clement thought they could do the things the Peter did to lead the church. This is the most clear authority that needed to be restored.
Peter could write scripture, Peter could receive supernatural public revelation, and Peter was the head of the Apostles
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to write scripture. Catholics agree with me here.
The Bishop of Rome never has been able to receive supernatural public revelation. Catholics agree with me here.
The Bishop of Rome in the earliest days of the church appeared no different than the other Bishops left behind by the Apostles. Over time certain seas rose to prominence and Rome was one. Over time among these seas, Rome rose to a primacy (called first among equals to this day by some EO Christians). But this was development. The day before the last act of an Apostle we know about the Bishops were local leaders under the authority of Apostles. The day after this, the Bishops were just the same, but over time this developed into something different/new. Informed Catholics agree with me here too, but they consider it a “valid development.” Tertullian and I consider the Roman primacy a “usurpation.”
If Catholics and LDS are correct and there is a human who leads God’s church on earth, then the void left by the Apostles was either validly filled over a few centuries of development or not validly filled until the restoration. So this is the most clear date of the apostasy.
None of this means that Father Serapion or any 4th century (or later or earlier) Christians were not Christians. Just that in God’s time the authority to lead the world wide church was absent until it was restored. To believe that God cannot lead a church without a man who stands at the head of it is to believe there was no God lead church for centuries until the Pope emerged as the one who leads the Catholic Church. To believe that God’s church shouldn’t have a leader is to be Protestant. I choose neither of those paths, and were I to believe the CoJCoLDS was not a restoration, I would believe there was A LOT of development in the early church (and a good deal at Vatican I and Vatican II) to get us to the Catholic Church today. For me the restoration makes a stronger case.
Charity, TOm
P
pablope
Guest
No…but this kind. Notice the task after the name change:
Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.
Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
That is God’a way…so can you point to the name change given to Joseph Smith, as asked previously?**
Stephen168
New member
No you were not clear, and you still are not clear. To answer a question that starts with the word ‘when,’ the answer would require a date. You have no date, so you have not answered the question. You can see a date in post #22 which is taught my Mormonism.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Bingo!!
Also, we have been told by other mormons that the apostasy supposedly occurred after the death of the last Apostle. However, mormons believe that John is still walking the Earth, so, again, no date.
Hmmmmmmm
S
Seraphim73
Guest
A large number of Church Fathers thought that the “rock” was Peter’s confession.
Not all of course but the idea that it is something other than Peter himself certainly is nothing new.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Well, it is indicative of what I think leads to a departure from the CoJCoLDS that you seem to think the year 570 was taught as you say by “my Mormonism” meaning your Mormonism.
“My Mormonism” is built upon Christ and …, but surely is not shaken by research into the year 570.
The intellectual foundation of my faith does contain evidence associated with the year 67AD or perhaps 100AD. The need for a restoration was set in this timeframe. I only mention this in response to your “when” question, but truth is I could be wrong.
In what I believe to be a contrast to how you engaged Mormonism, I can tell you a story. In response to challenges from Catholics on ZLMB, I went looking for the apostasy in the ECF. Before I looked, I expected to find evidence that the successors of the Apostles were writing and being written about in the early church. Then sometime later there were problems. Before my time in the church it was common to locate those problems in the middle ages or even post the Council of Chalcedon, but I truly cannot remember how much of such I had imbibed of before I set out to learn for myself.
What I found was not what I expected. Had I felt that what I expected was “my Mormonism” I could have responded quite differently than I did. Instead, what I expected was just what “TOm expected.” When TOm didn’t find what TOm expected I decided I needed to modify what I thought happened.
Now my findings were not very faith shaking here at all. I found that my reading of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius did not support the idea that Bishops were to have the same authority Apostles did AND that the Bishop of Rome was somehow acknowledged as the one who possessed Peter’s authority. This did not require me to re-examine my assumptions, but other things I have found since then have.
Long before DNA was an issue in the BOM, I thought the BOM spoke of a group of folks who populated all of North and South America. When I read Brant Gardner’s work (long before he published his books BTW) I came to realize that he didn’t believe that and I found his reasons compelling. I CHANGED my view. So when DNA came up I relied upon Simon Southerton’s statement that if the BOM was what I thought it was his DNA arguments didn’t impact it. Dr. Southerton invited me to re-re-examine the BOM so I could decide that it must be what he claimed it to be and then I could lose my faith just like he did (and become an Atheist of course). I was not particularly interested in following his prescription and I didn’t.
Long ago on ZLMB we called such things as your 570 and things like infallible prophets, “the fallacy of fundamentalist assumptions.” I think Kevin’s essay here talking about Jeff Lindsey and Jeremy Runnells is an even better explanation of why I find your invitation to 570 and Dr. Southerton’s invitation to a hemispheric geography model unconvincing.
mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/
For whatever reason my group of Catholic friends includes more Ultra-Trads than folks like Jimmy Akin. Hearing them speak places your 570 requirement in context. You are welcome to it, but I could not be a Catholic and think like that, like Simon Southerton, like Jeremy Runnells, or … Thinking like I do, I must agree with your statement here:
I do not see proof the way you see proof. My Ultra-Trad friends have PROVEN to their satisfaction time and time again that Vatican II was not the 21st EC of the Catholic Church and/or Pope Francis is not the Vicar of Christ. I am very sympathetic to their views and find their “proof” faith promoting. But I do not find they have proven what they claim they have proven. I find instead that they like Dr. Dollinger have a “failure in imagination” (Newman’s words). You evidence that you too have a “failure in imagination” and if you consistently applied this mindset to a church that has an infallibility principle, it would be unfortunate.
Charity, TOm
K
kimg901
Guest
But didn’t your leaders say that John still walks the earth with 3 nephites? So if that is true how did an apostacy occur? If i’m correct your church said the Great Apostacy occurred when the last Apostle died. So did Jesus lie and let the gates of hell prevail?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Honestly there is so much doctrinal consistency from that time to the Protestant Reformation they can’t really choose any other date. It would be too easily disproved by history.
Stephen168
New member
I agree. You are comfortable making up stuff about the Catholic Church without anything anyone would consider proof. Then when you present the stuff you make up, you present it in a way that you could not be called a liar. For example: You might say, “We could look into Catholic history to find examples of the Pope beating baby seals but it would not prove anything.” Or just as common, “Some say the Pope beats seals, but I don’t believe it.” What is being suggested is false but you have stopped short of saying that the Papacy is known to beat baby seals, so we really can’t say you lied, but it is just as dishonest.
I have seen other Mormons use the same writing style that you used in your statement, so it must be “faith promoting” to Mormons at large, with an attempt to seed doubt in Catholics, without the speaker having to prove anything if cornered to do so.
Of course you don’t, just like you would deny the Pope beating baby seals after bring it up.
No, I meant that Mormonism, as in the leaders of Mormonism in the mid-19th century taught that the apostasy took place in the year 570 due to Joseph Smith’s exegesis of Revelation 12:6.
While you provided no proof to counter mine, it does seem fair that while you don’t require proof in statements against the Catholic Church you don’t need proof in your support of Mormonism.
What is the official “revelation” of the Mormon Church in regard to 67AD or 100AD? Does it trump of the “revelation” of Joseph Smith or Joseph Fielding Smith? The only intellectual foundation to move the date of the apostasy from 570 to 67AD to to erase the history that discredits Mormon claims.
Is this your answer or a Mormon answer?
You have given me quotes of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius in the past, taken out of context, as “faith promoting” for you but, I quickly pointed out how wrong you were about what the ECF’s were actually teaching.
Yes, science proves that Joseph Smith was wrong about the Book of Mormon, so following Southerton would not be “faith promoting.”
Stephen168
New member
Southerton, Runnells and myself require the inclusion of the claims of Joseph Smith; the founder of the latter-day-saint movement. The man who claims to have talked with God and restored Christianity. Mormon Apologists must try to erase the claims of Joseph Smith, but if you deny Joseph Smith how can you not deny Mormonism itself? The cognitive dissonance must cause a Mormon to choose between Joseph Smith or the current President because they both can not be correct. Runnells and Southerton chose Smith.
I have just shown how Mormon “revelation” is not secure at all.
P
Phntm
Guest
That does not answer my question. How do you know you have revelation from the Lord that sanctions a church/followers? I believe I have revelation, you believe you have revelation, other folks believe they have revelation, who is right? How are we to know?
Joseph Smith has “revelation” that sending the boys to Canada to sell the rights to the BoM would procure the ability to print the book in the U.S. He was wrong and noted such by saying ‘revelation’ can be from God, Man, or Satan. Did he identify how one would know the difference?
M
mayogirl25
Guest
Science Fiction!
- Status