Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Apostasy

[zerinus]

I have been following this thread intently, and have been doing research of my own about the Mormons.

I wish to say my opinion, and please bear in mind that I live in Melbourne Australia, and will give my opinion as an Australian, who does not wish to offend any Americans, as you guys are our mates.

It appears to me, and I have stepped back from my Catholic faith, and read this thread from a logical viewpoint, that it is so highly illogical that Jesus would set up His church on earth, telling His Apostles that He would never leave us, and then change His mind, and leave us for 1800 years.

The Apostles were killed for preaching the Word of Jesus, so I find it so illogical that they would set themselves up for early deaths, if they had no plan as to how the church was going to continue.

It seems to me, and this is where I may offend some Americans. and that is not my intention, that an American named Joseph Smith decided, after reading the Bible, that he didnt want to be loyal to “Rome”, so made up his visions and revelations, and started his own “American” church, so that he could proudly boast that Jesus chose an American to be the new leader of the “proper” church.

Therefore giving another facet of power to America, in the way of the “correct” religion.

I know America has lots of power, and I applaud all you guys do in being at the forefront of technology and economic strength, but to think Jesus chose an American to rebuild His church with is truly laughable.

Maybe Jesus tried to reveal Himself to an Aussie, but couldn’t understand our accent

So you are now blaming Mormonism on America! Well one thing is true for sure. America has given a lot of good things to the world (a lot more than Australia) and Mormonism will yet turn out to be the best of them all!

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Please don’t think amgid/zerinus is in any way representative of Americans. One of the things you have to accept in a free society is the occassional crackpot screeching on the street corner.

I am very proud to be an American but I appreciate the MANY contributions that Australia has made to the world. I apologize for the many nutty cults that we seem to have inflicted on the world. Yes Mormonism is very much an American religion that for years made it very clear that America was the promised land and only Gods favorite people would end up here. They used to immigrate their converts over here as a “reward” for converting. They aren’t as vocal about that anymore as they are seeking growth from the world since the American fields are pretty much picked clean.

 

[PaulDupre]

The process was complete when the Apostles died. From that point of view, the Apostasy was an event, not a process. As I have previously explained, by the Apostasy we mean the loss of priesthood and divine authority of the church. That event took place, and was complete, when the last Apostle died, or ceased to be in charge of the governance of the church.

Strictly speaking, the Apostasy did not begin, but was complete with the death of the last Apostle. How do we know that? Because by the Apostasy we mean the loss of the priesthood and divine authority of the church, and that divine authority was lost when the last Apostle died.

zerinus

But the apostles ordained bishops with the laying on of hands. St. Paul instructed Timothy to pass the faith on to others who would teach it faithfully. What apostacy? The bishops are the successors of the apostles. The Apostolic Fathers knew this, and wrote about it often. Until you have read their writings, you have no credibility on this issue.

Paul

 

[kellie]

Kellie: Good post, and you would be showing courtesy and kindness to we Americans if you forebore pointing out that American archeology shows that the whole early American context of Mormon history could not possibly have existed.

Let alone the substantive DNA evidence.

Hi Maxply,

Yes, sorry I should of included that too. I did read all that throughout this thread.

It’s another illogic point I can’t quite fathom.

 

[kellie]

Please don’t think amgid/zerinus is in any way representative of Americans. One of the things you have to accept in a free society is the occassional crackpot screeching on the street corner.

I am very proud to be an American but I appreciate the MANY contributions that Australia has made to the world. I apologize for the many nutty cults that we seem to have inflicted on the world. Yes Mormonism is very much an American religion that for years made it very clear that America was the promised land and only Gods favorite people would end up here. They used to immigrate their converts over here as a “reward” for converting. They aren’t as vocal about that anymore as they are seeking growth from the world since the American fields are pretty much picked clean.

Hi majick275,

It’s quite ok I have been reading his posts, and do not think all Americans are like him
Every country has their own nutters, we even have them downunder
His response to my post proves what I thought of him

 

[kellie]

Just a quick sidestep to the whole apostasy debate …

Are the Osmonds still Mormons?

Growing up in Australia, Donny & Marie Osmond on TV is how I heard that there was a religion called Mormonism, and how I heard about Salt Lake City, Utah

Just thought you guys would like to know the punishment I suffered as a child :crying:

 

[majick275]

yes they are.

 

[PaulDupre]

President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church said:

“As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off” (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213).

How could that be true of the LDS Church today and not have been true for the original church after which the LDS Church claims to be patterned?

NDM has admitted that there were righteous clergy left even after the apostles were killed off. If they were really Mormon elders, then God would undoubtedly have raised one of them up as prophet or whatever and kept the church going.

The LDS story just doesn’t add up.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

But the apostles ordained bishops with the laying on of hands. St. Paul instructed Timothy to pass the faith on to others who would teach it faithfully. What apostacy? The bishops are the successors of the apostles. The Apostolic Fathers knew this, and wrote about it often. Until you have read their writings, you have no credibility on this issue.

Paul

There is absolutely no biblical support for believing that the bishops were successors to the Apostles. That has been discussed and prooved time and time again here, and need not be discussed again. As for the continuation of authority by the “laying on of hands,” see my post here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1601734&postcount=119

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church said:
How could that be true of the LDS Church today and not have been true for the original church after which the LDS Church claims to be patterned?

NDM has admitted that there were righteous clergy left even after the apostles were killed off. If they were really Mormon elders, then God would undoubtedly have raised one of them up as prophet or whatever and kept the church going.

The LDS story just doesn’t add up.

Paul

I don’t have the source of that quote, so I can’t check its acuracy or its context; but it does not seem right to me. An elder would not have the “keys of the kingdom” to be able to reorganize the Church, or to confer those keys on others. The only way he could do that would be if he had sufficient faith and virtue to be able to obtain it by direct revelation and communication from God—and if that were to be the case, he wouldn’t even need to be an elder of have any priesthood at all. God could bestow all of those upon him from scratch, and enable him to reorganize the Church, as He did with Joseph Smith.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

But the apostles ordained bishops with the laying on of hands. St. Paul instructed Timothy to pass the faith on to others who would teach it faithfully. What apostacy? The bishops are the successors of the apostles. The Apostolic Fathers knew this, and wrote about it often. Until you have read their writings, you have no credibility on this issue.

Paul

This thread has really helped me appreciate the tradition, the beauty and the truth of the Catholic Church. When I began looking for churches over a decade ago, I never thought I would wind up Catholic, but here I am. Thank goodness we have the scriptures and the teachings of the Church Fathers to help us actually know that the church Christ founded did not die, but continued through the authority passed on in the Catholic Church.

Last night I was reading this quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was an early martyr and a disciple of the Apostle John. He said:

Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount–the greatest blessings in the world. Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.

From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.

Those who deny that the Eucharist is the actual flesh of Jesus and cause division are condemned. The best evidence that Jesus’ church continues through the Catholic Church is the continued witness of the Eucharist. While everyone else except the Eastern Orthodox deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Catholic Church continues the tradition handed from the Apostle John to people like Saint Ignatius. The authority and the truth were both handed down and remain today. To deny the Real Presence is to deny Christ’s continued ministry to his people! I am so grateful for the Catholic Church because it offers me Christ in the Eucharist everyday.

 

[christianley]

By the way, you might enjoy this entire web site on Saint Ignatius:

eucharisticlife.com/ELimages/Timeline/200/Ignatius.html

 

[PaulDupre]

zerinus:

There is absolutely no biblical support for believing that the bishops were successors to the Apostles.

Actually, there is. The bible is clear that the apostles had two roles - as bishops and as eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ (called “apostles”). The 11 remaining apostles knew that it was Jesus’ will that there be 12 witnesses to his resurrection. When choosing a successor for Judas, Peter described his office as “bishop”.

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

The apostles ordained others to succeed them - not as apostles but as bishops. No man after the apostles was qualified to be an apostle because their was no one who had “companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us”. For this same reason, there are no apostles today because no one fulfills the requirements of an apostle as described in Acts 1.

The LDS misunderstand the purpose of an apostle. The apostles were special witnesses to Christ’s resurrection. The authority to govern the Church has always rested in the bishops. I think the confusion arises because the first bishops also happened to be the 12 apostles.

Apostle = witness
Bishop = Keys

Paul

 

[christianley]

Actually, there is. The bible is clear that the apostles had two roles - as bishops and as eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ (called “apostles”). The 11 remaining apostles knew that it was Jesus’ will that there be 12 witnesses to his resurrection. When choosing a successor for Judas, Peter described his office as “bishop”.

The apostles ordained others to succeed them - not as apostles but as bishops. No man after the apostles was qualified to be an apostle because their was no one who had “companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us”. For this same reason, there are no apostles today because no one fulfills the requirements of an apostle as described in Acts 1.

The LDS misunderstand the purpose of an apostle. The apostles were special witnesses to Christ’s resurrection. The authority to govern the Church has always rested in the bishops. I think the confusion arises because the first bishops also happened to be the 12 apostles.

Apostle = witness
Bishop = Keys

Paul

I guess I would call that absolute Biblical support. Thanks for the quote – it will help me with certain members of my family. This thread has absolutely demolished the LDS arguments about the apostasy.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

The LDS misunderstand the purpose of an apostle. The apostles were special witnesses to Christ’s resurrection. The authority to govern the Church has always rested in the bishops. I think the confusion arises because the first bishops also happened to be the 12 apostles.

Naturally, I disagree.

The scripture does not equate bishops to apostles thought it is clear the an apostle can also be a bishop. The scripture says the Apostles had a bishopric (a duty to oversee the churches), but that does not mean all bishops of local churches held all the keys as the Apostles. The writings of Paul, John, and Peter would seem to keep us from equating bishops and apostles in that respect.

The Catholic Church seems to differentiate the authority of the two as well saying bishops are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, ch. iv; can. vi, vii.

I also applaud your argument, though, Paul.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I guess I would call that absolute Biblical support. Thanks for the quote – it will help me with certain members of my family. This thread has absolutely demolished the LDS arguments about the apostasy.

Hmm. Let’s hope so. So far no one has made any argument against the LDS postition (expecting Paul’s recent well stated post) except to say the LDS view is not the Catholic view. That is a given. The object is to show that, from truths the LDS accept, an apostasy could not have occurred. So far, only Paul has attempted it. And come awfully close, too, I might add.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

On the delegation of keys and priesthood:

"Often we speak of keys of priesthood authority. Fifteen living men—the First Presidency and the Twelve—have been ordained as Apostles and have had all keys of priesthood authority conferred upon them. President Gordon B. Hinckley recently explained that “only the President of the Church has the right to exercise [those keys] in their fullness. He may delegate the exercise of various of them to one or more of his Brethren…

Under assignment from the First Presidency and the Twelve, General Authorities confer the appropriate keys upon presidents of stakes and of missions, who in turn confer the needed keys upon bishops and upon quorum and branch presidents.

Assigned to each one who bears the priesthood is a loving leader, because “mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.” (D&C 132:8.)

That order also defines bounds of revelation. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves.” That same principle precludes receiving revelation for anyone outside one’s defined circle of responsibility." Russell M. Nelson, “Honoring the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 1993, 38

 

[majick275]

that quote sure seems to negate the need for a Quorum of Apostles or any other “body”. It is quite specific that the “president” of the church has all the keys and can delegate any or all of them to a single individual.

I still am waiting for the answer to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotreDameMormon View Post
Brother. I appreciate you restating the challenge. Unfortunately, you are still asking me to show, in the Bible, how the restored knowledge of the initial Church and its teachings, that were lost, are evidenced in scripture (the Bible) that was pieced together after they were lost!

no I am NOT! The JST is supposed to overcome the translation errors and restore the “plain and precious things” that are attributed to the “apostate” bible. That would appear to overcome your limitations of “the bible”. More importantly I invited you to use the BoM for this as well. The chief piece of the “restoration” according the the LDS church is the BoM. That is NOT the bible and it has been touted since Joseph Smith as having the “fullness of the gospel”. So once again show me what was restored please.

 

[christianley]

On the delegation of keys and priesthood:

"Often we speak of keys of priesthood authority. Fifteen living men—the First Presidency and the Twelve—have been ordained as Apostles and have had all keys of priesthood authority conferred upon them. President Gordon B. Hinckley recently explained that “only the President of the Church has the right to exercise [those keys] in their fullness. He may delegate the exercise of various of them to one or more of his Brethren…

Under assignment from the First Presidency and the Twelve, General Authorities confer the appropriate keys upon presidents of stakes and of missions, who in turn confer the needed keys upon bishops and upon quorum and branch presidents.

Assigned to each one who bears the priesthood is a loving leader, because “mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.” (D&C 132:8.)

That order also defines bounds of revelation. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves.” That same principle precludes receiving revelation for anyone outside one’s defined circle of responsibility." Russell M. Nelson, “Honoring the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 1993, 38

The trouble is that the LDS don’t have any proof they have received any keys beyond the say so of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey’s questionable claim to angelic ministration. The Catholics have authority passed down from real human beings since the time of Christ. Do I accept the questionable angelic ministration or the historic Christian church? Hmmmm … quite a no brainer if you ask me. The LDS priesthood has no keys from anyone real.

 

[christianley]

Hmm. Let’s hope so. So far no one has made any argument against the LDS postition (expecting Paul’s recent well stated post) except to say the LDS view is not the Catholic view. That is a given. The object is to show that, from truths the LDS accept, an apostasy could not have occurred. So far, only Paul has attempted it. And come awfully close, too, I might add.

This is old LDS straw. You have to prove a negative which of course can’t be done. Catholics can show you a line of authority back to Christ. You can’t show us a line of authority back to anyone beyond Joseph Smith.