When is the Mormon Prophet Speaking as a Prophet?

[SirThomasMore]

“Christ, the great Prophet, who proclaimed the Kingdom of His Father both by the testimony of His life and the power of His words, continually fulfills His prophetic office until the complete manifestation of glory.” (Lumen Gentium, 35)

We have our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our prophet priest and king. What exactly would a prophet provide that Jesus Christ has not? Through His words, His life, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, He gives us everything. He did not leave us as orphans, as LDS would like us to believe.

Very nice

 

[zerinus]

Of course my argument is valid as I have expressed it, since it is obviously the view of the Catholic Church on her own authorities. The Catholic Church believes that bishops are the successors of the apostles, with the Bishop of Rome being the successor of St. Peter.

I know they do; except that there is a problem with that. To be a successor of the Apostles you have to be an Apostle. If you are not, then you cannot be a successor either. And an Apostle is also a prophet (Acts 15:32).

Bishops are not apostles.

I agree! Which means they can’t be their successors either! LOL!

And the Pope is not a prophet, and does not function as a prophet.

I agree that he isn’t. But for his claims to be true he would have to be.

Though it is very interesting to see Mormons claim that their President, who is supposed to be a prophet just like the Biblical ones, functions like the Pope, who is not a prophet.

Not exactly. The claims made for the Pope are the claims of a prophet, whether he is in fact one or not.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi CatholicGuyNY!

King Follet’s Discourse is a discourse that Joseph Smith gave at the burial of his good friend, King Follet. As such, he was speaking as a friend of the deceased and not as a prophet of God.

This is absolutely untrue. The discourse is printed in the History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 302-317. It was also reprinted in the April and May issues of The Ensign. According to both printings, the King Follet discourse was delivered by Joseph Smith at the Sunday afternoon session of the April 1844 General Conference of the LDS Church in front of 20,000 members.

The president and quorum of the twelve speaking in General Conference talks and writing in the Ensign Magazine are touted by the LDS church as prophetic organs, through which the prophetic word of God is communicated to the saints,

I know, Pinay, that your leaders tell you (these days) that the KFD was just a eulogy at a funeral, but the History of the Church and the Ensign say differently.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I know they do; except that there is a problem with that. To be a successor of the Apostles you have to be an Apostle. If you are not, then you cannot be a successor either. And an Apostle is also a prophet (Acts 15:32).

Really? So, then a Bishop cannot be a successor to a Stake President…good to know

I agree! Which means they can’t be their successors either! LOL!

Are you serious? Just because they do not have the names you think are best? Then I am guessing none of your offices like President are any good…right? You MUST agree

I agree that he isn’t. But for his claims to be true he would have to be.

Not exactly. The claims made for the Pope are the claims of a prophet, whether he is in fact one or not.

Nope

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
I think you have pointed in the direction I was pointing in your responses here.

He says the Lord had asked Hosea to take unto him a “wife of whoredoms” (which may all be allegorical in these chapters, rather than literal). He differentiates between the “children of Judah” and the “children of Israel” meaning to make a distinction between the two tribes and the ten tribes, “Judah” and “Israel” being the broad group name for these two kingdoms which had separated after the days of David and Solomon. He says they will eventually have “one head” and will be called the “sons of the living God”.

Hosea provides important details in his prophecies, including that the “children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” (3:4,5)

I understand the meaning of the scripture. I don’t know why LDS have to re-live the OT when Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant??

Well, in this forum how many times are LDS told that people aren’t expected to really seek “perfection” or to really seek to become a “son of God” in the sense of being “like Christ” who is the divine Son of God and who clearly taught to become “one” with Him and “one” with the Father?

You have been told many times on CAF that we are not to strive to be Christ-like? Please provide examples.

The covenant gospel was directed towards a people becoming suited to live in the presence of God because they would do that worthily, after all their repentance and growth processes learning to do better and to be better. Where does that lead? It leads to really, truly becoming “like Christ”–not having to suffer like He suffered, but learning to have the great faith, the great wisdom and the great love that He had and still (of course) has.

So being “unfaithful” in the covenant making and covenant keeping processes, would mean to be distracted in some way that leads in a different direction or to a different destination than becoming “like Christ”, which is what He wants humankind to do: to become “like Him.” It means loving something (even things that may seem good) other than loving the pure covenants and pure doctrines that lead to becoming like Him, through a defined path.

Those mostly weren’t quotations by “LDS prophets”, but the sense conveys the same sense that Hosea conveyed–that any path of religious practice that doesn’t lead to becoming truly “one with Christ” and “one with the Father” through becoming truly “like Christ”, is a path that reflects being “unfaithful” to the pure covenant that was intended by God as noted by Hosea. So in essence those you quoted were really just repeating the teaching of Hosea, and also of John who wrote about the same thing.

Parker - Every quote was either from an LDS apostle or prophet. lds.org defines prophet as: “We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.”

John Taylor was an LDS prophet. I don’t know if the item you quoted was stated by him when he was the president of the LDS church. So, I don’t know, but it doesn’t really matter as I said because they would have been restating what Hosea and John already stated. In other words, they didn’t originate the idea, nor the manner of making such a comparison.

Why would a prophet “restate” anything? Isn’t a prophet one who brings something new into light? He is repeating OT scripture and why do we need him to do that?

If such a thing is ever said, then in the purest sense it would mean that whoever said such a thing is taking the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 and the prophecy of Revelation 13:5-7 and correlating those prophecies with specific religions or groups, but I think the crux of the matter has to do with what was in the leaders’ hearts at the time they taught their own followers–whether they taught the pure Biblical doctrines of salvation that lead to becoming like Christ, or taught some other “stray covenant” that was no longer the pure covenant.

Again, God’s intent is that everyone gain the pure doctrine and the pure covenant if they will desire and choose those with all their heart. Satan or those enticed by the worldly goals of “Babylon” always find ways to counterfeit the pure doctrine and pure covenants with something that leads somewhere else but is very appealing, and those prophecies say that they have been allowed to do this by God. So if religious leaders point in other directions than becoming like Christ in very deed, then it can rightly be said that that was exactly what Hosea and John were prophesying about.

Parker - again you have LDS prophets repeating scripture. It has already been said. It is not prophetic.
You are saying that God wants everyone to find the pure doctrine and the pure covenant of the LDS church because all other churches are of Satan?
When have Catholic leaders pointed the followers of Christ away from Him?

It came about whenever any leader or teacher, at any time, taught a doctrine and the making of covenants that weren’t pure and didn’t lead to becoming “like Christ”, worthy to be in the presence of God the Father completely pure and completely righteous with perfect faith, like Christ has.

Please provide specific examples from early Church history.

 

[PaulDupre]

Here is an interesting look at The Mormon Church vs. the New Testament Church from Richard Packham. Especially valuable is the chart near the bottom of the page.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) I understand the meaning of the scripture. I don’t know why LDS have to re-live the OT when Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant??

(2) You have been told many times on CAF that we are not to strive to be Christ-like? Please provide examples.

(3) Parker - Every quote was either from an LDS apostle or prophet. lds.org defines prophet as: “We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.”

(4) Why would a prophet “restate” anything? Isn’t a prophet one who brings something new into light? He is repeating OT scripture and why do we need him to do that?

(5) Parker - again you have LDS prophets repeating scripture. It has already been said. It is not prophetic.
You are saying that God wants everyone to find the pure doctrine and the pure covenant of the LDS church because all other churches are of Satan?
When have Catholic leaders pointed the followers of Christ away from Him?

(6) Please provide specific examples from early Church history.

(1) Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, but if you’re saying that everything prophesied in the Old Testament was fulfilled either before or during New Testament times, then I strongly disagree. (I assume you don’t mean that the Old Testament shouldn’t be studied at all. Peter quoted from the Old Testament in his epistles. Paul referred to Old Testament prophecies that were yet to be fulfilled.)

(2) Here was a quote from Catholic-rcia (his post #214 on the subject of “Mormon Claims”)

We will be in a place where no opposition will be able to enter. The choice that counts has been redeemed and we will praise Him forever and be happy to be with Him forever. No progression of any kind other than being with Jesus. Nothing else will matter or occupy our minds.

“Being with Jesus” is not “being like Jesus”. Jesus is “like God.” I’m sure you understand the implication. A is like B. B is like C. Therefore, A is like C. The word “like” can be replaced with the word “as”.

(3) So long as the context is clear, I am fine with what you wrote about apostles being “prophets.”

(4) We just have a far different view of the role of prophets and apostles than it appears you have. Joshus was told to teach the people what Moses had taught them. He didn’t have to come up with “new material” to be considered a prophet.

LDS consider Peter to have been a prophet, and John. Peter didn’t come up with new material, but he taught with conviction and testimony and the ability to say, “follow my example as we all follow Christ.” John did bring new material to the world. It just depends on the need–not on the definition of “prophet.”

(5) I said it depends on what the leaders teach–not on which church they belong to.
I pointed you to Hosea. You apparently think his prophecy was already completely fulfilled, and Isaiah’s, and Daniel’s. I don’t. Some Old Testament prophecies are about the Second Coming. They are also significantly about the time when all the tribes of Israel will be united as one covenant nation, and will know who they are (Ephraim will know of being descendants of Ephraim, for example.)

If the goal is less than becoming “Christ-like” or “like Christ” in every way except His suffering, then the goal has been changed than what He taught about, so from that standpoint, the adversary has trimmed the goal even though ultimately everyone will find and achieve what they really wanted. So even though the pure doctrine and pure covenants may be missing within a set of beliefs (and God allowed that to happen through other sources than Himself and Christ and the Holy Spirit), people following those beliefs will arrive at what they deeply desire, so it’s OK by me.

We already discussed the words “like Christ”, and what it means. That is the major “away from” situation. It changes the goal. Faith is intertwined with belief that such a goal is possible and is desired by Christ, for us. One cannot gain the faith necessary to be “like Christ” if they don’t have that as the goal. They are intertwined.

(6) Here are two:
Not considering John as the ranking leader of the earthly church after the deaths of the other apostles.

Any writing that suggested Peter held or holds the “key of David.”

Have a good day.

 

[SirThomasMore]

(1) Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, but if you’re saying that everything prophesied in the Old Testament was fulfilled either before or during New Testament times, then I strongly disagree. (I assume you don’t mean that the Old Testament shouldn’t be studied at all. Peter quoted from the Old Testament in his epistles. Paul referred to Old Testament prophecies that were yet to be fulfilled.)

(2) Here was a quote from Catholic-rcia (his post #214 on the subject of “Mormon Claims”)

“Being with Jesus” is not “being like Jesus”. Jesus is “like God.” I’m sure you understand the implication. A is like B. B is like C. Therefore, A is like C. The word “like” can be replaced with the word “as”.

(3) So long as the context is clear, I am fine with what you wrote about apostles being “prophets.”

(4) We just have a far different view of the role of prophets and apostles than it appears you have. Joshus was told to teach the people what Moses had taught them. He didn’t have to come up with “new material” to be considered a prophet.

LDS consider Peter to have been a prophet, and John. Peter didn’t come up with new material, but he taught with conviction and testimony and the ability to say, “follow my example as we all follow Christ.” John did bring new material to the world. It just depends on the need–not on the definition of “prophet.”

(5) I said it depends on what the leaders teach–not on which church they belong to.
I pointed you to Hosea. You apparently think his prophecy was already completely fulfilled, and Isaiah’s, and Daniel’s. I don’t. Some Old Testament prophecies are about the Second Coming. They are also significantly about the time when all the tribes of Israel will be united as one covenant nation, and will know who they are (Ephraim will know of being descendants of Ephraim, for example.)

If the goal is less than becoming “Christ-like” or “like Christ” in every way except His suffering, then the goal has been changed than what He taught about, so from that standpoint, the adversary has trimmed the goal even though ultimately everyone will find and achieve what they really wanted. So even though the pure doctrine and pure covenants may be missing within a set of beliefs (and God allowed that to happen through other sources than Himself and Christ and the Holy Spirit), people following those beliefs will arrive at what they deeply desire, so it’s OK by me.

We already discussed the words “like Christ”, and what it means. That is the major “away from” situation. It changes the goal. Faith is intertwined with belief that such a goal is possible and is desired by Christ, for us. One cannot gain the faith necessary to be “like Christ” if they don’t have that as the goal. They are intertwined.

(6) Here are two:
Not considering John as the ranking leader of the earthly church after the deaths of the other apostles.

Any writing that suggested Peter held or holds the “key of David.”

Have a good day.

It actually makes perfect sense that public revelation cease after Jesus. Christ was no dummy. He knew that, in the future, there would be many false prophets. He warned of them. He knew there would Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, White, Eddy, etc etc etc. They would all claim to authority. They would all claim to have revelations. The best way to prevent that is to be done with Public Revelations.

Heck, even in the LDS Church, there is disagreement on what is what from a “prophet”. BY says what he says is Scripture, later, when everyone realizes how crazy he is, they say it was just opinion. Joseph makes revelaiotns that never come to pass. He makes revelations about polygamy that members can;t accept, then it is reversed, despite revelations that it weould never end, it ended for money. Same with the Priesthood for Blacks. Look at comments by BY and others back in the day and it makes you wonder…

And revelations from Joseph make it clear that you either believe in the True God, or in Joseph…you can;t follow both.

I Choose God.

 

[catholic-rcia]

(2) Parker: Here was a quote from Catholic-rcia (his post #214 on the subject of “Mormon Claims”)

As to being like Jesus

Lets go to the source (,me) of what Catholic-RCIA meant about we will be like Jesus.

It’s really black and white. One accepts the fallen nature of mankind as if it is a good thing that happened in order to progress into becoming a god, to have wisdom in ones own rite.

While Christianity know the fall of mankind as exactly that and it is called original sin. Did it have to happen in order for creation to come to the understanding that playing God brings death to the world, to the whole human race? Possibly, why? Because the lesson learned is that we are not God, so we get a second chance before the door, just like the ark is closed. The second chance is found at the foot of the Cross. Where our Lord and God takes upon Himself what we all deserve. Wanting to possess the wisdom of God, to become not like Christ is, but rather a Christ is the fall of mankind. This is Satan’s game. Just re-read the account of the fall in Genesis. We took waht was already freely given to make it our own thing. Apart from God death eneterd in. And we all do die. Even Mormons. Only one way to live, again look towards the cross.

All of these postings will go no where because we are speaking about two different Jesus’s . Parker when I say I will become like Christ I believe you know what I mean. I know that you know the differences in our theology. When I am in heaven I will be content with being with Him forever, As the progression to Him since the fall will be back to what it could have been if we had never fallen. Living is His grace, in the fullness of Him will be awesome forever. Not worried about progressing further and or being bored.

I feel as if there needs to be a point where one can honestly say I believe Jesus is just another soul that came down from Heaven, one of many souls that came and did great things. That some day like a quarterback sitting on the bench I to will have the opportunity to do the same. That I can become great like Him if not greater.

Joe Montana and Steve young come to mind. Very American. It is an American religion.

Or you beleve that Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father. That there is One God, One Creator of all things, through out all of eternity having no beginning and no end, the Alpha and Omega. And this Godhead is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That all things were created by God through Jesus. You take the last place, in this you arrive next to the one who takes first place.

When I am in Heaven f course I will be like Christ because He is my life, he is my Creator. Because I will no longer have a sinful nature. I will be like Him but I will never be Him. Only Satan himself desires this. He will be our God and we will be His people. Perfection does not come from anything I can accomplish on my own, the Cross clearly shows us this. Only Jesus perfects any of us, its all through Him. He comes to us as we are and He transforms us from the inside out. All we have to do is choose Him, step aside ourselves and let Him be who he is in us.

 

[soren1]

I know they do; except that there is a problem with that. To be a successor of the Apostles you have to be an Apostle. If you are not, then you cannot be a successor either.

This argument stands on the assumption that Apostleship is a specific office in the Church. In fact, it is not. It is a personal designation that describes how a person holds their office, not what their office is. Before I show the evidence that supports this let me point out that either possibility is logically possible, so that neither one can be automatically preferred over the other at the outset. This means that you have just as much need to present evidence for your interpretation as I do. Having said that, here is the evidence:

The word apostolos mean “sent one.” (It has exactly the same meaning as its Latin counterpart missionarius, from which we get “missionary.”) Unlike other titles for leadership in the Church, apostolos is passive in its meaning. Other words like episcopos, “overseer,” or diakonos “servant,” or presbuteros “elder,” either indicate actively what the person in that office does, or, as in the case of “elder,” indicate something affirmative about the subject himself. Yet apostolos does not tell anything about what a person actually does - it tells only how he got the job he has: by being sent by someone else. Thus, the reason that “Apostle” is not, as it were, a job title is because it does not actually describe a specific office.

By itself, that might not sound like an overwhelming argument, but it grows on you if you start to look at specific passages and see how the literal definition of apostolos figures into its usage in the New Testament. In this respect, one of the most important passages is Hebrews 2:10-3:-6. I am quoting it here at length because the entire context functions in how we interpret “Apostle.” It is a complex passage, and you will understand my interpretation of it best if you read it through a few times before going on:

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying,
I will declare thy name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
And again,
I will put my trust in him.
And again,
Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Jesus is not one of the Twelve, but here St. Paul calls him an Apostle anyway. Why? The reason is implied in the preceding context: it is because God, “for whom are all things, and by whom are all things,” thought it fitting to send him into the world. For Christ to be an Apostle means nothing other than to assume flesh, to suffer, to be our brother and a sympathetic high priest - in short, it means to be Savior. This is not the same office that Peter, James, and John had!

In the second part of the text, Paul compares Christ favorably with Moses, showing how Christ is a more faithful housekeeper. Why does he make this comparison here? Why does the part about Moses begin with the word “for” linking it logically to the preceding claim that Christ is an Apostle? The author sees a connection between Christ and Moses because both of them were sent by God to deliver their people. The implication is that Moses was an Apostle too, because he was personally sent by Yahweh to act as deliverer. Admittedly, this is not explicit, but the implication flows from the line of argument used in the section. It is not after all the author’s purpose to explain what an Apostle is: he assumes his readers know that. He is using the already understood meaning of “apostle” as “sent one” as a device to interpret and compare the lives of Christ and Moses.

Moses, of course, was also not one of the Twelve. He was not even a bishop. He was a prophet only. But his specific office isn’t the point: the point is that he received his commission from a direct encounter with God himself. That is what makes an Apostle.

 

[soren1]

I agree! Which means they can’t be their successors either! LOL!

Because of what I have said above, we can see how a person can succeed an Apostle without being an “Apostle” in the strong form of the word. The first bishops encountered the living, resurrected Christ visibly, and were sent by him to all nations. Because Christ himself gave them their commissions, they are called “sent ones” in a special way. Later apostles were sent by Christ as well, but in a mediated way, through appointment by the other bishops. This would include Barnabas, who is called an Apostle in Acts 14:14. More often, however, the early bishops who received their appointment from the apostles were not called apostoloi, but apostolikoi, or “apostolic men.” This name is meant to indicate that they received the same authority as their predecessors without implying that the resurrected Christ had personally appeared to them.

In the same way, if Moses appointed another prophet to succeed him, then that prophet would have exactly the same office that Moses did: a prophet. But he would also not be an Apostle in the strong form.

And an Apostle is also a prophet (Acts 15:32).

The verse you cite reads, “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” This says nothing about whether all prophets must be Apostles. No Christian denies that the Apostles had prophetic gifts, but it does not follow that those gifts are inherent in Apostleship as such. The fact that Silas along with Judas has prophetic gifts, shows the distinction between prophecy and apostleship. That Judas is a prophet “also” means that prophecy is a gift that he possesses in addition to his Apostolic authority. Thus your text argues against your position, not for it.

I agree that he isn’t. But for his claims to be true he would have to be.

Not exactly. The claims made for the Pope are the claims of a prophet, whether he is in fact one or not.

This is what you have continually asserted, but we await any real evidence or argument to defend it. Given that you have not interacted with most of the responses that have been made in answer to this claim, you are not in a position to assert it in a responsible way. You criticize us by assuming something that in fact remains to be proven.

 

[DCNBILL]

I know they do; except that there is a problem with that. To be a successor of the Apostles you have to be an Apostle. If you are not, then you cannot be a successor either. And an Apostle is also a prophet (Acts 15:32).

I agree! Which means they can’t be their successors either! LOL!

I agree that he isn’t. But for his claims to be true he would have to be.

Not exactly. The claims made for the Pope are the claims of a prophet, whether he is in fact one or not.

Note that this statement represents a serious misunderstanding of what is meant by apostle. If one reads Acts 1:15-26, one can see that to be a “apostle” one had to be with Christ as He walked amoung the world of men. When the replacement for Judas was done this was the criteria that was stated. The bishops and popes may be chosen by God as successors of these men but certainly can not be called apostles.

 

[zerinus]

This argument stands on the assumption that Apostleship is a specific office in the Church. In fact, it is not. It is a personal designation that describes how a person holds their office, not what their office is.

You are very much mistaken. Although the literal meaning of the word apostle is “sent,” the scriptures make it clear that the word also applies to a certain office in the Church:

Luke 6:

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.
Jesus had many disciples, all of whom could be described as having been “sent”. But there were only twelve ordained Apostles at any one time.

 

[zerinus]

The verse you cite reads, “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.”

Sorry, I meant Acts 13:1. Jesus also was a prophet, and Calls Himself such (Luke 13:33).

 

[zerinus]

Note that this statement represents a serious misunderstanding of what is meant by apostle. If one reads Acts 1:15-26, one can see that to be a “apostle” one had to be with Christ as He walked amoung the world of men. When the replacement for Judas was done this was the criteria that was stated. The bishops and popes may be chosen by God as successors of these men but certainly can not be called apostles.

Paul was an Apostle but he had not been “with Christ”.

 

[DCNBILL]

Paul was an Apostle but he had not been “with Christ”.

The number of apostles was 12, that is why there was a selection of Matthias to take the place of Judas, at no point was Paul one of the “12” and with the death of John thus ends the time of The Apostles and the fullness of revelation is completed. This is the Christian view, I do grant you that, other religions may have other terminology and/or beliefs.

 

[ParkerD]

The number of apostles was 12, that is why there was a selection of Matthias to take the place of Judas, at no point was Paul one of the “12” and with the death of John thus ends the time of The Apostles and the fullness of revelation is completed. This is the Christian view, I do grant you that, other religions may have other terminology and/or beliefs.

DCNBILL,
Then with what you have written the view you have presented is not Peter’s view, since he wrote of Paul as an apostle just as though he was one of the Twelve Apostles, nor made any distinction.

 

[DCNBILL]

DCNBILL,
Then with what you have written the view you have presented is not Peter’s view, since he wrote of Paul as an apostle just as though he was one of the Twelve Apostles, nor made any distinction.

Please provide Scriptual reference to where Peter describes Paul as one of the “Twelve”

 

[SirThomasMore]

He can’t. Nor can he provide Scriptural Reference that there was the President and two counselors and then 12 more Apostles.

The LDS Church makes claims that they have the same organization of the early Church, yet a brief examination of their organization shows it looks NOTHING like the early Church

 

[ParkerD]

Please provide Scriptual reference to where Peter describes Paul as one of the “Twelve”

DCNBILL,
Please see the following passages:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,…

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
…
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

Romans 1: 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:

Peter and Paul use the same introduction patterns, and Peter refers to Paul’s “epistles” as though they are “scripture” although he says they are sometimes “hard to be understood”. He does not differentiate that his own personal use of the word “apostle” to describe his own calling is any different than the introductions Paul used in his epistles. They both consider themselves “called of God, and not of men” with a calling that is specific–that of being an “apostle”.

Have a good day. It appears that Peter and Paul were good friends, and respected each other greatly.