Apostasy and the Removal of the President

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's not because he died there. It's because the episcopate of Rome was founded by Peter who gave the Bishop the apostolic keys he received from Christ.

Now, you obviously disagree that this happened. I just wanted to clarify the Catholic argument doesn't rest on Peter's location of death.

I guess that depends on who you read. Can you point me to the earliest Catholic position on this issue?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I somewhat disagree with this. The Acts shows there was central authority. Paul seemed to recognize a presidency if you will in what he called the three pillars. Yet, many Christians have moved to make their interpretations of Paul more authoritative. The apostles decided several things for the Church as a body 1) whether it was necessary to be circumcised under the new covenant. 2) whether Jewish dietary laws applied to Christians. 3) some other matters of doctrine, succession, etc. (they picked at least some apostles by lot). To characterize this as "no central authority" is simply not accurate. It was only after the apostles were apparently killed off in the 7 years war, (or being spread far and wide without choosing successors) that the lack of central authority becomes apparent with only the bishops left to try to organize the Church.  I don't characterize this as apostasy at this point, but the Church went through 300 years of intense persecution by the Romans who outlawed their religion, and so records of exactly what happened to the Church do not seem to survive, but the next thing we know we see a bunch of bishops gathering to decide matters for the whole Church. It seems to be just assumed by people like Snowflake that they had the authority to do this, when there is really no scriptural precedent for it, so we get things like Peter died there so that bishop has supremacy. I believe that is where/when apostasy crept in. I do recognize that before that there were differences of belief about the nature of the godhead and other matters, and that with the lack of central authority which had come into being, differences of opinion had spread. It is clear to me that during this period, contrary to what the orthodox churches would lead us to believe, there was no doctrine of the trinity - not even the alleged father of Latin orthodoxy, Tertullian, really supports a trinitarian doctrine - he just is known for coining the word. He actually wrote that there was a time when the Son was not - forbid!! - notice he is not "sainted" by the Church. So yes, the second and third centuries of the Church were characterized by a number of opinions about the nature of the Godhead - some were monarchists, some were Unitarian (or Arian) in belief, etc. The Catholic attempt to isolate Arius as some isolated believer is belied by the existence of whole councils which popped up to reinstate him as a bishop, etc. I believe this lack of unity is exactly why the Nicene Council was convened - to impose some kind of centralized doctrine on the Church - which is what happened. Indeed, after Constantine it was made mandatory for the creeds to be read in the state churches of the empire. So yes, unity if you will call it that was achieved again, by oppressing the other councils which popped up (notice the Catholic churches speak of only the ecumenical councils - as if there were no others - try to read about them online, ha). When unity is imposed, it seems to always be the case that it won't last - and we see that it didn't - as we see that the question of who got to be the unifying factor almost immediately came into play because there were no "apostles" anymore - just thousands of bishops. Did Yeshua know this would happen? 

John 9:4
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

Exactly at what point an apostasy occurred is debatable, but it is clear that by the 4rth century different Church structures had come into being. It is also clear that a somewhat centralized doctrine was imposed for a brief time under the coercion of Roman law. This is "orthodox truth." My 20,000 cents....

Acts' depiction of Paul disagrees with his own depiction of himself. While the apostles could of course take positions on things they had no authority to enact or enforce anything across the various diverse congregations out there. Even at the congregation level there was no central leadership. The four evangelists have different views on atonement, Christology and the law of Moses.

There is no historical information about how or when the apostles died.

John was the product of a highly sectarian community of Christians,.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Gray

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I guess that depends on who you read. Can you point me to the earliest Catholic position on this issue?

I'll let you do the historical research  I'm just telling you what the Catholic Church teaches today. I'm not trying to convince you that it's true, I'm just pointing out that the Catholic position is that the Pope is Peter's successor not because Peter died at Rome but because Peter (and Paul) founded the Roman episcopate.

[Storm Rider]

18 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I think it is a very good question to ask how the LDS Church authorities and membership would respond to a President that has gone off the tracks (without medical excuse) given the issue of apostasy being easily claimed against any who try to question the leadership in any effective (public/beyond your own head) way.

I have not read the entire thread, but I have thought on this question by MiserereNobis since I first read it. 

It would seem that any leader in the First Presidency or a member of the Quorum of the Twelve would be replaced in the same manner that has taken place previously for an issue of morality. Elder Richard Lyman, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, was found to be committing adultery by a member of the First Presidency, J. Rueben Clark. Clark. The Quorum of the Twelve called a disciplinary council, found Lyman guilty of the accusation and he was excommunicated.

I would expect the Twelve would act in the same same manner for any leader in the FP or the Qof12 should their actions be for heresy or a violation of our moral code.

Lyman was eventually re-baptized after a few decades passed. 

This type of action - excommunication - would seem to be a process the Catholic Church should employ more often for priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes that go off the rails for moral issues or heresy. 

[Metis_LDS]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I would expect the Twelve would act in the same same manner for any leader in the FP or the Qof12 should their actions be for heresy or a violation of our moral code.

I am not the best church historian, do you or anyone else know of any counselor in the First Presidency starting with Brigham Young that has been released for any reason.  I do not count when the President passes away and new counselors are chosen. Such as we just saw with President Nelson wanting Elder Oaks as First Counselor.  Thank You All.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

The President has to work through the disciplinary councils, and those who are being judged therein have due process as described in D&C 102.

I don't know the history of using "quorum" to describe the organized body of individuals sharing the same priesthood office. I know that general authorities have faced disciplinary councils throughout our history.

The First Presidency would be removed if a disciplinary council determined that was the best course of action. Their council is administered the Quorum of Twelve, and if the Twelve were disbanded for any reason, I imagine the Seventy would replace them.

According to the Church Handbook the First Presidency is the final arbiter of all church discipline and is not bound by the conventions in the handbook in terms of procedure in administering discipline. That being said they would probably follow procedure if they had to remove an apostle.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

It's one of the great ironies in the Church that the Church today differs from the Church Joseph Smith restored almost as much the Catholic Church differs fromthe Church Jesus and Peter established.

Yet the same member that decries the changes made in the early Church after Christ and the Apostles somehow sees no similarities in today's Church.

I think the question is more as to whether changes are instituted through revelation. Then again I gave up Catholic bashing a long time ago.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I think it is a very good question to ask how the LDS Church authorities and membership would respond to a President that has gone off the tracks (without medical excuse) given the issue of apostasy being easily claimed against any who try to question the leadership in any effective (public/beyond your own head) way.

The apostles are not a bunch of patsies. They would not need the help of the membership to deal with the problem.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am pretty sure this was just a policy statement, that had he lived a few years longer would have been reversed.

And if he was going to reverse it maybe that would be leading us astray and is why he died........

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I am not the best church historian, do you or anyone else know of any counselor in the First Presidency starting with Brigham Young that has been released for any reason.  I do not count when the President passes away and new counselors are chosen. Such as we just saw with President Nelson wanting Elder Oaks as First Counselor.  Thank You All.

None come to mind immediately, but I want to say that it has occurred and my memory is not so good. I will say that not keeping the counselors of the previous president is unusual and an exception to the common process. Hugh B Brown was released Joseph Fielding Smith was called after serving some 22 years in the First Presidency.  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

This type of action - excommunication - would seem to be a process the Catholic Church should employ more often for priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes that go off the rails for moral issues or heresy.

Excommunication in Catholicism is a little different I think. There is no removal of baptism or kicking you out of the church (we ARE a cult... you can never leave us, muahahaha!). Excommunication means that the person is no longer able to receive any of the sacraments (ordinances) except for confession. Most excommunication occurs automatically -- there is no judgement needed, the act itself causes the excommunication. The two act that require judgement are pretending to be a priest and celebrating mass, and breaking the confessional seal by someone other than the priest or penitent (like an interpreter or someone eavesdropping).

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Excommunication in Catholicism is a little different I think. There is no removal of baptism or kicking you out of the church (we ARE a cult... you can never leave us, muahahaha!). Excommunication means that the person is no longer able to receive any of the sacraments (ordinances) except for confession. Most excommunication occurs automatically -- there is no judgement needed, the act itself causes the excommunication. The two act that require judgement are pretending to be a priest and celebrating mass, and breaking the confessional seal by someone other than the priest or penitent (like an interpreter or someone eavesdropping).

I have often read about this type of instantaneous self-excommunication. It may appear that excommunication within the LDS community is more complete, but that appears to be a semantic issue than reality. For example, this statement, "Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. There can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, and interdict. Excommunication, however, is distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such." (This was copied from Wikpedia's article on excommunication) I think almost all LDS see the effects in both forms to be similar. 

It is true that a LDS who has been excommunicated may be re-baptized should they choose to rejoin the community of saints, which differs in the same process of Catholicism. However, the effect appears to by highly similar. 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Storm Rider

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And if he was going to reverse it maybe that would be leading us astray and is why he died........

Maybe all presidents died because they were about to lead the church astray?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe all presidents died because they were about to lead the church astray?

Exactly.

By this same "reasoning" we can also conclude that the reversal revelation on baptizing the children of gay people is actually what God wanted since President Nelson is still alive.

 

[Calm]

Came across an informative summary (no names) on excommunication of apostles on quora

Quote

There have been 102 members called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Of that group, 13 have been excommunicated.

As for the reasons why, 11 were excommunicated for apostasy, and 2 for violations of the law of chastity.

• 8 of those excommunicated for apostasy wrote or publicly preached that they did not follow the prophet.
• 3 repeatedly disobeyed instructions from the prophet.

If you’re interested in the situations that prompted these behaviors:

• 5 became disillusioned after the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society.
• 3 either rebelled against or struggled with the succession in Church leadership to Brigham Young.
• 3 struggled with polygamy, either it being started or ended.
• 1 believed the atonement was not essential for salvation and preached that doctrine openly despite clear instructions not to do so.
• 1 repeatedly committed adultery.

As for when these took place:

• 9 of the 13 excommunications were between 1838 and 1848.
• The last excommunication of an apostle took place in 1943 because he was practicing polygamy

While most people see excommunication as a punishment, Latter-day Saints really honestly believe it is the first step back. And we can see that among the apostles who were excommunicated:

• 6 were rebaptized and remained members for the rest of their lives.
• 2 were rebaptized posthumously at the direction of the prophet.

We can learn many lessons from the apostles, most of them are positive, but we can also learn lessons from their failures about what to avoid, and that redemption really is available to all.

Not sure how to ink to specific post, but it comes up as first answer for me.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-high-ranking-Mormon-officials-have-been-ever-disfellowshipped-excommunicated-etc-and-for-what-reasons

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I am not the best church historian, do you or anyone else know of any counselor in the First Presidency starting with Brigham Young that has been released for any reason.  I do not count when the President passes away and new counselors are chosen. Such as we just saw with President Nelson wanting Elder Oaks as First Counselor.  Thank You All.

This should have the info, I may not have time to check myself (dog wants attention for something):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_First_Presidency_(LDS_Church)

add-on:  if I read it correctly, no counselor post JS was released outside of reorganization, using the far right column giving reasons

Edited April 27, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe all presidents died because they were about to lead the church astray?

No, that only happened once.

[member10_1]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, that only happened once.

...which one?

....asking for a friend...

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, that only happened once.

😂

30 minutes ago, member10_1 said:

...which one?

....asking for a friend...

President Nelson...🌩️

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, member10_1 said:

...which one?

....asking for a friend...

It is a secret to everybody.

[Lemuel]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, that only happened once.

Just speculating, but I don't think HB Lee would have ever ended the priesthood ban.  ETB might not have either, which would take us to 1994 before ending it, and by then, there wouldn't be much of a church left.

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

Just speculating, but I don't think HB Lee would have ever ended the priesthood ban.  ETB might not have either, which would take us to 1994 before ending it, and by then, there wouldn't be much of a church left.

What a great insight. Thank you. Had never put that all together.

[3DOP]

On 4/26/2019 at 10:45 AM, RevTestament said:

I guess that depends on who you read. Can you point me to the earliest Catholic position on this issue?

St. Irenaeus was 2nd Century: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

-------------------

This doesn't prove anything except that the Church wasn't Evangelical. Evangelicals have a hard time with explaining how it took until Luther's day for the Church to have become really bad. LDS claims are much stronger, for instance, because you can go with an earlier apostasy and bypass trying to explain how a Catholic Council of bishops who didn't even teach the Gospel, correctly formulated the Nicene Creed. Reformed Christianity is historically untenable. Restored Christianity is historically debatable. It is more difficult to dismiss. If I were LDS I would understand Irenaeus was an apostate and helped start the pope thing. He appeals to the way St. Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthians arguing for the authority of the successor of Peter, but that won't work if you accept that the teachings of the Catholic Church are responsible for countless atrocities over two thousand years of sordid history with maybe an odd good person here or there. (They were probably good in spite of their Catholic beliefs!)The only way Irenaeus works is if you already believe that Catholic teaching is beautiful and will make one more holy and good.

In other words, "By their fruits", we all identify true shepherds and false prophets. It always amazes me that non-Catholics assume I agree with them about how horrible the Catholic Church has been historically. Like I am okay with being Catholic now in modern times, but wow, I know the Church really stunk it up century after century until just recently. No. That isn't this Catholic. I have read and believe how thoughtful Catholics have replied to historical allegations laid against the Catholic Church and her teachings. I agree with anyone who holds that Catholicism is incompatible with the lies/truths of historians who correctly or incorrectly perceive the Catholic Church as a mostly institutional villain for most of her history. To accept Protestant or secular histories of the Catholic Church is in my opinion, to cease to be Catholic, because if true, they demonstrate that the fruits of Catholic teaching are corrupt. The only reason the Catholic Church is now finally harmless would be because she has had to modify and adapt to modern times. There would not be anything uniquely good, or true, or beautiful that actually came to us from the Apostles through the Catholic faith. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

St. Irenaeus was 2nd Century: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

Yes, I'm aware that Irenaeus is the best early evidence for the authority of the RCC - or at least what we have of his letter, etc. I am willing to accept that he said something very much like this.

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

This doesn't prove anything except that the Church wasn't Evangelical. Evangelicals have a hard time with explaining how it took until Luther's day for the Church to have become really bad. LDS claims are much stronger, for instance, because you can go with an earlier apostasy and bypass trying to explain how a Catholic Council of bishops who didn't even teach the Gospel, correctly formulated the Nicene Creed. Reformed Christianity is historically untenable. Restored Christianity is historically debatable. It is more difficult to dismiss. If I were LDS I would understand Irenaeus was an apostate and helped start the pope thing. He appeals to the way St. Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthians arguing for the authority of the successor of Peter, but that won't work if you accept that the teachings of the Catholic Church are responsible for countless atrocities over two thousand years of sordid history with maybe an odd good person here or there. (They were probably good in spite of their Catholic beliefs!)The only way Irenaeus works is if you already believe that Catholic teaching is beautiful and will make one more holy and good.

In other words, "By their fruits", we all identify true shepherds and false prophets. It always amazes me that non-Catholics assume I agree with them about how horrible the Catholic Church has been historically. Like I am okay with being Catholic now in modern times, but wow, I know the Church really stunk it up century after century until just recently. No. That isn't this Catholic. I have read and believe how thoughtful Catholics have replied to historical allegations laid against the Catholic Church and her teachings. I agree with anyone who holds that Catholicism is incompatible with the lies/truths of historians who correctly or incorrectly perceive the Catholic Church as a mostly institutional villain for most of her history. To accept Protestant or secular histories of the Catholic Church is in my opinion, to cease to be Catholic, because if true, they demonstrate that the fruits of Catholic teaching are corrupt. The only reason the Catholic Church is now finally harmless would be because she has had to modify and adapt to modern times. There would not be anything uniquely good, or true, or beautiful that actually came to us from the Apostles through the Catholic faith. 

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I do not rely mostly on Protestant sources for my history. The early Protestants took to referring to the roman pontiff as the anti-Christ. I do not feel that he rises to that level. While I feel the Roman Church has committed and is responsible for atrocities, that is not the measure of truthfulness - when the Saints got the upper hand, they were capable of their own atrocities - vis a vis the Mountain Meadow Massacre. It is just the nature of men to give in into fear and hold grudges. I do feel that the RCC lost the Way, however, and because of its teaching led others from the Way. So if I were to consider the roman pontiff as antiChrist, I would consider the other Protestant leaders the same, as they adopted false notions of the Catholic Churches. Yet, they generally teach of Christ, and although they may lack the correct path, they have by and large striven to follow Christ. They do not deny Christ or particularly preach against Him, so I just don't feel they are anti-Christ. However, I have reviewed a good number of historical works which have received the imprimatur of the RCC, which do detail some rather untidy facts in the Church's history, and I know her to be the woman who rides the beast of prophecy. I do not rail against her because men get carried away, and will rail against very good people, who have simply not found the true path of worship yet. My call  is for the good people of the world to come out of her. I cannot and will not throw rocks at them for being lost, even as I was once lost. I only needed for the truth to be taught to me to find the path, and so that is what God will do. He will teach truth out of love - His truth, and His way.

Isaiah 30:

19 For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: thou shalt weep no more: he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; when he shall hear it, he will answer thee.

20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:

21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

 

[PacMan]

On 4/25/2019 at 12:53 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Ha. I'm with you on this one, buddy  

Not exactly. According to the Constitution of the Apostles, Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. And Paul ordained Linus and Cletus. Peter (I believe) ordained Clement, but he quit. And given the apostolic authority, succession would have passed to John. As set forth abundantly in Numbers and Hebrews, authority must pass by the laying on of hands - not simply by dying someplace. That never happened with the early popes.