Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MiserereNobis

Apostasy and the Removal of the President

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, PacMan said:

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. 

I posted this earlier. The bishop of Rome isn’t given primacy because of Peter dying there. He is given primacy because Peter founded the Roman episcopate and Peter had primacy. Of course you disagree, but I wanted to clarify the Catholic position. It’s not about the location of death. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 1:13 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'm wondering what a wider audience thinks of it, especially the subtleties, like to what degree of fallibility and what does astray mean.

I started a topic in 2007 titled No Prophet Is Perfect. I think you'll find that LDS admit to a prophet's fallibility generally, but have a difficult time admitting to any specific fallibility, especially on doctrinal matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I started a topic in 2007 titled No Prophet Is Perfect. I think you'll find that LDS admit to a prophet's fallibility generally, but have a difficult time admitting to any specific fallibility, especially on doctrinal matters.

For me the bigger concern is that we only have hindsight on this.

We are only willing to attribute fallibility to a prophet after he passes on.  The living prophet is always infallible until the next one comes along.

No faithful member would say "President Nelson is wrong on this."  But as soon as his successor contradicts him they'll be happy to say "he was wrong".

Such lack of principle is heartbreaking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I started a topic in 2007 titled No Prophet Is Perfect. I think you'll find that LDS admit to a prophet's fallibility generally, but have a difficult time admitting to any specific fallibility, especially on doctrinal matters.

I can admit their fallibility and even believe I know where some of their specific fallibilities lie but it is not my job to enumerate, preach, or share them. In fact, that is likely to lead my damnation and I do not need another tick mark on my “Reasons I am going to be Damned” list.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/26/2019 at 10:09 AM, Gray said:

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.

Acts was written by Luke, not Paul, Others observations of us are invariably different than our own, so one should expect some difference in the depiction of Paul. That does not change the fact that at some point Paul recognized Peter, James and John as the three pillars of the Church - probably before he got a more inflated picture of himself - or his role to the Gentiles. Of course the apostles had authority to enact. I already pointed out several things they enacted, which the Churches still follow to some extent. Did they have the ability to enforce? 

Acts 5:

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

That sounds more serious than excommunication. You are still trying to defend your indefensible statement. You should have just recognized that the original Church did have a central authority, but that it was later lost.

Quote

Even at the congregation level there was no central leadership.

The word bishop means judge. Timothy recognizes that the apostles appointed bishops in the Church to govern the local Churches, and the earliest patristic evidence certainly supports that. We see that about 270 AD bishops convened in a council which decided to discipline a bishop for insisting the Godhead had homoousios (which later was accepted by the Nicene Council although it is maintained by Catholics that Paul used the term incorrectly). So both scripture and history again show you to be wrong. At first there just was no discipline for adopting various views about the nature of the Godhead. That seemed to start with the aforementioned council of Antioch, which deposed Paul of Samosata. However, I am sure bishops from time to time had to discipline their local congregants - those just didn't require a council.

Quote

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,.

Although I disagree with you somewhat these are getting off topic, and have nothing or little to do with whether the Church had a centralized authority. We have no idea of whether John, the son of Zebedee, was a Jew or not. He may have been of another tribe, and therefore a little put out by the Jews who got Yeshua killed - and not particular beholden to the tribe of Judah. I can especially understand this attitude if the book was written after the ill advised rebellion of the zealots got Jerusalem and the temple destroyed( I do believe the book of Revelation was written during the 7 year war which tells us John was still alive). Your assumption that the book of John speaks of the Jews in a negative fashion meaning the book was written by a Christian community is just one of those modern scholarly guesses.

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

For me the bigger concern is that we only have hindsight on this.

We are only willing to attribute fallibility to a prophet after he passes on.  The living prophet is always infallible until the next one comes along.

No faithful member would say "President Nelson is wrong on this."  But as soon as his successor contradicts him they'll be happy to say "he was wrong".

Such lack of principle is heartbreaking.

Well, I think the Church has a certain history of putting dissenters up on the excommunication block. I have said all along I did not understand the November policy, and therefore did not support it, but I consider myself to be a faithful member (even if I do disagree with certain Mormon doctrines). As President Nelson does hold the keys, he is empowered to make changes like this, and it is refreshing to me to actually see acknowledgment that something can be handled better. I give him kudos for that. I believe he is trying to do what the Lord is directing for the Church, and I currently see no reason not to support the changes he has made, and at least one I have advocated for a long time. I think it took some guts to come out and tell the Church we need to stop using Mormon this and Mormon that so that the Church may stop getting called the Mormon Church. If a leader has been confirmed by the body of the Church, I think we owe a certain deference to them to follow to the extent we can. Not everyone is always going to agree with everything leaders do or have done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

For me the bigger concern is that we only have hindsight on this.

We are only willing to attribute fallibility to a prophet after he passes on.  The living prophet is always infallible until the next one comes along.

No faithful member would say "President Nelson is wrong on this."  But as soon as his successor contradicts him they'll be happy to say "he was wrong".

Such lack of principle is heartbreaking.

We have had examples here of faithful members saying the prophet was wrong when the apostasy/child's blessings policy came out in 2015.

Do you consider yourself faithful?  Have you said it?

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

We have had examples here of faithful members saying the prophet was wrong when the apostasy/child's blessings policy came out in 2015.

Do you consider yourself faithful?  Have you said it?

I don't think I can claim the label of faithful member any more.  I am still a believer in the restored gospel but I see too much wrong to be fully faithful.

And I'll say it right now, what President Nelson changed in the endowment is wrong.  So are the changes made by President Hinckley, President Benson, and others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I think the Church has a certain history of putting dissenters up on the excommunication block.

Well I'm grateful I don't rise to the level of dissenter.  I attend my meetings, pay my tithing, and keep my mouth shut in the ward about the troubling things I see.

The Lord will eventually correct the errors of men that keep creeping in.  Of that I am certain.  The Church may be out of order in many ways but it's still His Church and the last dispensation.

Total apostasy and loss of priesthood will never be permitted.  But fortunately a lot of "progress" will eventually be reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 3:24 PM, RevTestament said:

Yeah. The Church still does not get it. Christ clearly did away with animal sacrifice - this is clear in the BoM, but still misinterpreted by the Church. Christ will not be reinstituting any animal sacrifice. It was done away in Him - like physical circumcision. Let's see. Was Peter a sacrifice or not? What says the Church?

Zechariah 12:8
8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

How do you reconcile the statements by Joseph?  Or do you just consider them wrong? (Which is fair too).

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 3:43 PM, SouthernMo said:

There is also no proof that Peter, James, & John gave priesthood to Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery.

There are accounts of just that, but they don't fit before April 6, 1830.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I'm grateful I don't rise to the level of dissenter.  I attend my meetings, pay my tithing, and keep my mouth shut in the ward about the troubling things I see.

The Lord will eventually correct the errors of men that keep creeping in.  Of that I am certain.  The Church may be out of order in many ways but it's still His Church and the last dispensation.

Total apostasy and loss of priesthood will never be permitted.  But fortunately a lot of "progress" will eventually be reversed.

I just want to say that I consider you to be a faithful member, and I enjoy your posts. I thought you would have liked the de-emphasis on the correlated materials. I think the Church does allow some difference of opinion as long as one is essentially quiet about it, and doesn't insist on being right or teaching things their way.

To me you seem to be "old school" and so are troubled by some of the changes you see - that is only natural. However, for me I like some of the changes, and the rest I am really sort of ambivalent about. 

Church history seems fairly clear that the temple endowments were not finished under Joseph Smith. If you believe this Church is preparing us for the Latter Days, and is a Church of continuing revelation - that God will unseal things sealed from old, and bring forth more scripture, it makes sense that some things about the ordinances will be changed to teach the people more fully things that were hid.  I believe I have told you before that I like the endowment more than that of say 40 years ago. I see in it totally appropriate scriptural preparation and teaching. The most recent changes to me are fine. I view it as symbolic and preparatory anyway. I personally had no problem with the shield, because I view the nakedness as spiritual - knowing that our hearts and deeds are open to God. But some modern people are very timid about certain things. My Father in law told of his first temple experience where he didn't get all the instruction I guess, so came out of his stall stark naked asking what to do next. ;) I'm OK with the most recent change too as I view both Yeshua and the Church as being subordinate to Heavenly Father, so it is with the woman and the man. Let's face it, men are just takin' it on the chin from a societal standpoint. Anyway, even though I may not share all your concerns, I have faith that things will end up where they need to be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, jpv said:

How do you reconcile the statements by Joseph?  Or do you just consider them wrong? (Which is fair too).

You will have to be more clear. Is it an interpretation of something he said, or something he wrote you are speaking of? I do know he said that sacrifice is not done away - it is integral to the priesthood.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

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.

 

I am not challenging you. I believe you about your reviewing books by members of the Catholic Church that dealt with historical details that you found to be "untidy". I would be interested in some titles if it would not be too much trouble.

Thanks,

Rory

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I am not challenging you. I believe you about your reviewing books by members of the Catholic Church that dealt with historical details that you found to be "untidy". I would be interested in some titles if it would not be too much trouble.

Thanks,

Rory

Capel, Thomas. The Pope: The Vicar of Christ; the Head of the Church (Fr. Pustet &
Co., NY. 1885)

Grisar, Hartmann, S.J. History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages (Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co. London 1912).

Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta (Apud Burns et Oates, London 1891)

The Papal Encyclicals 1878-1903 (McGrath Publishing Co. 1981)

Pastor, Ludwig. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (B. Herder
Book Co., St. Louis, Mo. 1952).Brief of Approval from Leo XIII.

Tanner, Norman, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Sheed & Ward, 1990)

Walsh, Michael. An Illustrated History of the Popes (S. Martin's Press, NY. 1980)

 

Most of these have also received the Nihil Obstat of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 1:31 PM, snowflake said:

There never was an apostasy, the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ. 

Interesting statement.  But your assertion the "There never was an apostasy", is not supported by "the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ", even if that were true.

Hitchens's razor can be applied here.  "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

AND, quite frankly, the fact that two distinct and separate entities (often at conflict with each other),  BOTH (claiming to) "have clear lineages to the time of Christ", is prima facie evidence that having a clear lineage to the time of Christ is not a bulwark against apostasy.

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/26/2019 at 12:17 PM, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Too bad that neither Peter nor Paul, both capable of doing so, wrote any letters to the church in general, nor to the Romans in particular, that they had done so.

 

This reminds me of a line from a movie, that goes something like this, "If it isn't documented, then it didn't happen."

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 12:11 PM, MiserereNobis said:

There's a discussion on the gay marriage policy thread that touches on issues of apostasy. I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience because it is of interest to me. This thread isn't about the gay marriage policy, so take that topic over there. Thanks!

Here are some questions I have. Answer any you'd like :) 

I've heard that the LDS church will not be allowed to go into apostasy. Why? Why would the original church be allowed to but not the restored church?

What would constitute apostasy in the LDS church? Any specific examples would be great.

How would you know the LDS church has gone into apostasy? Of course, the president wouldn't tell you; he would tell you the opposite.

How can the president be removed? There was mention in the other thread that God would kill him before he went into apostasy. There was also mention that he can be removed. What is the procedure for removing the president?

If God would kill the president before he led the church astray, doesn't that mean de facto that he is infallible?

Add any other questions/answers you'd like related to the topic. Thanks!

All churches are in apostasy to the degree that their policies and practices aren’t aligned with the values and principles that represent their core ideas.  To assert that any institution is immune from error is an error in judgement.  To assert that any institution is led by actors who are unable to make serious mistakes that might offend God or some divine will is also a mistake.  

The problem for the Mormon tradition that occurs comes from historical periods of time when church leaders have felt extremely defensive because of external criticism and they have made statements articulating theologically shallow appeals to authority.  It’s wise to evaluate these events in the context of what was happening historically to better understand why leaders have felt compelled to make these proclamations.  It helps a person understand the humanity of the circumstances at play. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Capel, Thomas. The Pope: The Vicar of Christ; the Head of the Church (Fr. Pustet &
Co., NY. 1885)

Grisar, Hartmann, S.J. History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages (Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co. London 1912).

Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta (Apud Burns et Oates, London 1891)

The Papal Encyclicals 1878-1903 (McGrath Publishing Co. 1981)

Pastor, Ludwig. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (B. Herder
Book Co., St. Louis, Mo. 1952).Brief of Approval from Leo XIII.

Tanner, Norman, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Sheed & Ward, 1990)

Walsh, Michael. An Illustrated History of the Popes (S. Martin's Press, NY. 1980)

 

Most of these have also received the Nihil Obstat of the Church.

Thank you Rev! I am somewhat familiar with the Encyclicals of Leo XIII, (1878-1903). Do you remember anything from those? I know I don't object to any decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (except one...which would require too much explanation). Anyway, I am more than ever curious as to what these authors admit that would be damaging to Catholic claims...But only if you have time. Thanks again. I sure can't think of anything Leo might have said that would be disturbing.

Regards,

Rory

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vance said:

AND, quite frankly, the fact that two distinct and separate entities (often at conflict with each other),  BOTH (claiming to) "have clear lineages to the time of Christ", is prima facie evidence that having a clear lineage to the time of Christ is not a bulwark against apostasy.

Just saying.

The problem with your reasoning here is that the Catholic Church does not call the Orthodox Churches apostate, and the Orthodox Churches do not call the Catholic Church apostate. Both the Western Church and the Eastern Church (the two lungs of Christianity, as Pope John Paul II called them) recognize the valid priesthood of the other. The sacraments (ordinances) of each is accepted by the other. So it's not prima facie evidence, because neither the Western or Eastern Churches are in apostasy.

Just saying :) 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vance said:

Too bad that neither Peter nor Paul, both capable of doing so, wrote any letters to the church in general, nor to the Romans in particular, that they had done so.

 

This reminds me of a line from a movie, that goes something like this, "If it isn't documented, then it didn't happen."

I like this example of antimetabole:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I'm grateful I don't rise to the level of dissenter.  I attend my meetings, pay my tithing, and keep my mouth shut in the ward about the troubling things I see.

The Lord will eventually correct the errors of men that keep creeping in.  Of that I am certain.  The Church may be out of order in many ways but it's still His Church and the last dispensation.

Total apostasy and loss of priesthood will never be permitted.  But fortunately a lot of "progress" will eventually be reversed.

My husband and I have a couple that are our ministering teachers and he is a CES teacher at the LDS Business college and knows all of the warts in the church. I believe that is why the bishop or ? had them come to my husband and I. She is also my ministering sister, all this time I thought no one comes to visit and now I finally found out why, it's because they are doing double duty.

Anyway back to why I'm commenting on your post. They know why both my husband and I struggle and he wanted us to feel open to ask them anything about those warts. But I told him I've no need since I post on this board and get it all out here.

And then the wife brought up the temple changes and that she was very excited about them. And he said that it doesn't change the doctrine whatsover etc. 

So why does he not believe there is a problem and you do? I wonder what the difference is? But more power to you JL.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And then the wife brought up the temple changes and that she was very excited about them. And he said that it doesn't change the doctrine whatsover etc. 

So why does he not believe there is a problem and you do? I wonder what the difference is? But more power to you JL.

The difference is as it usually is in such situations - the starting point.

Not a big fan of the buzzword "paradigm", but I can only see based on my experience and understanding of these things.  The same can be said of him, or indeed you.

Perhaps I just understand the endowment differently than he does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The problem with your reasoning here is that the Catholic Church does not call the Orthodox Churches apostate, and the Orthodox Churches do not call the Catholic Church apostate. Both the Western Church and the Eastern Church (the two lungs of Christianity, as Pope John Paul II called them) recognize the valid priesthood of the other. The sacraments (ordinances) of each is accepted by the other. So it's not prima facie evidence, because neither the Western or Eastern Churches are in apostasy.

Just saying :) 

The fact that they ARE separate entities IS prima facie evidence that one (or both) are in apostasy, whether either one of them acknowledge it or not.

Just saying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I'm grateful I don't rise to the level of dissenter.  I attend my meetings, pay my tithing, and keep my mouth shut in the ward about the troubling things I see.

The Lord will eventually correct the errors of men that keep creeping in.  Of that I am certain.  The Church may be out of order in many ways but it's still His Church and the last dispensation.

Total apostasy and loss of priesthood will never be permitted.  But fortunately a lot of "progress" will eventually be reversed.

Much like torture and that everyone breaks or dies eventually, so with beliefs such as these. Everyone believed them until there was too much to the contrary, then they no longer believed them. The question is just how much does it take to disqualify those beliefs, what has already been done, or what is yet to be done.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...