The Body of Christ

[LeSellers]

I've answered this question. Where appropriate, prots certainly do have these offices.

And just who is it who decides "[w]here [it is] appropriate"? Your adaptation is, after all, not in the Bible.

But for you to admit that Peter was presidential in the sense of being a prophet, then, by your reasoning, the RCC should suddenly become replete with lds [sic].

This is a non-sequitor.

There is, as you know, a great apostasy that overwhelmed any post-petrine authority among the Catholics, even assuming, which we do not, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that the bishop of Rome was legitimately the first among equals. No such position was his, and no such legitimate case exists.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

Am I allowed to respond?

[LeSellers]

Am I allowed to respond?

Assuming you mean "to [my] post #26", then yes, you may. (Your snip is somewhat ambiguous, doncha know.)

I would appreciate it, though, were you to address the issue and not tap dance around it.

We ask how you can

• Deny that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an organization that is similar to that of the Primitive Church
  
• Portray your current "body of believers" as having such an organization, when it is missing the vast majority of the offices identified in your very own Bible.
  

We recognize that the names may have changed between the eras. We are looking for

• Apostles, chosen by God by His remaining Servants
  
• A group of three Apostles that presides over the church
  
• Prophets, chosen by God, not themselves
  
• Elders
  
• Pastors (whom we call Bishops and Branch Presidents)
  
• Evangelists (whom we call Patriarchs)
  
• Seventy, who serve under the direction of the leadership of the church, primarily as missionaries and representatives of Chirst (as you noted, this quorum was flexible, and even though it traces its history back to the seventy elders of Israel, was not always a functioning group until the size of the church required it)
  
• Deacons who serve the material needs of the Saints
  
• Bishops (whom we call Stake Presidents)
  
• etc.
  

While we have different names for some of these positions, we have them all, and you all have only sporadic samplings of them. And, to be quite clear, anyone who calls himself is immediately under suspicion since "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Any LDS Priesthood holder can identify the man who called him, just as Aaron could identify Moses as the one who called him, by revelation, and trace his Priesthood lineage back to Jesus Christ in an unbroken line of authority.

Lehi

[Cold Steel]

Yes, I'm anxious to hear you respond to the three questions I posed, though I don't blame you for not answering. They are fairly self evident.

Question 1: Which Christian church today has the greatest resemblance to the ancient church?

Question 2: What officers of the "body of Christ" can reach between parts of the body and resolve issues?

Question 3: Does the LDS church operate in a way very similar to that of the ancient church?

[LeSellers]

duplicate, sorry.

Lehi

[paulhadik]

my biggest concern with your equating the Body of Christ with an earthly organization (be it LDS or RCC) is this.

If I join the LDS church, get baptized and all are you stating that I am now automatically a member of Christ's body? If I do this simply because my parents make me or because of any other reason non-faith based, does it carry weight?

For those of us who hold that the act of adoption that makes us a Child of God, begins with God (see Ephesians 2) continues through the work of the Spirit, we then see the Body not as some organization but as a faith structure. This does not have to be a rigid organization.

Example, if I am deserted on one of my pacific islands and the BOM washes ashore and I read it and believe it with all my heart, but am never rescued and never go through the temple, am I a member of the Body of Christ?

And to refresh a favorite question of mine that I haven't asked in several years...if you make this body based on an earthly organization and structure, then does that mean if a plane carrying the LDS leadership crashes into the Pope's plane killing everyone do we now have apostasy?

And if you are arguing that Peter was a "president" (and there are weaknesses here in the idea that he alone received the call to preach to the Gentiles, so did Paul, and Paul much moreso) how do you handle Paul's rebuking Peter? Can that be publicly done before the LDS church as Paul did to Peter?

paul

[Hoops22]

Assuming you mean "to [my] post #26", then yes, you may. (Your snip is somewhat ambiguous, doncha know.)

Not a snit, I thought this was the thread where I was asked to bow out for not being on topic.

I would appreciate it, though, were you to address the issue and not tap dance around it.

We ask how you can

Deny that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an organization that is similar to that of the Primitive Church

I do deny it. And, even if it were similar, you do not make claims of similarity. You make claims that the LDS church is a restoration of the early church. To my ear, there's a lot more going on here than mere similarity.

Portray your current "body of believers" as having such an organization, when it is missing the vast majority of the offices identified in your very own Bible.

If you mean my church, then we have the offices described in The Bible that would be applicable today. If you mean Protestantism, of which you are a part btw, then we have the Holy Spirit.

We recognize that the names may have changed between the eras. We are looking for

LDS have coopted the Biblical names - possibly to sound as orthodox as possible - and placed upon those names duties of an office that at best have a vauge similarity to their Biblical ancestors and at worst have no dualit whatsoever.

Apostles, chosen by God by His remaining Servants

The Bible is clear that Apostles are to be those that served with them during Jesus ministry and witnessted the resurrected Christ. They will also be accompanied by signs and wonders. I don't think any of your apostles can fulfill these requirements.

A group of three Apostles that presides over the church

LDS will claim that Peter, James, and John are their model. Scripture supports the idea that Peter was uniquely commissioned to have a special office among the apostles. Scripture does NOT support the idea that James and John had any particular office.

Prophets, chosen by God, not themselves

Has the LDS ever had chosed a prophet who has not been the oldest among Quorom? Surely, you will claim that the twelve are merely ratifying the man God has already chosen by virtue of the fact he IS the oldest. However, considering the age that some are elected one must consider that God has chosed a prophet who has diminished capacities due to age.

Elders

The LDS Elder is about 18 years old, correct? Sure, they remain elders throughout their lives, but they become elders at that age (or thereabouts). Clearly un-Biblical

Pastors (whom we call Bishops and Branch Presidents)

The fact that LDS "Pastors" - Bishops and their two counselors - are, I believe, the "common Judges of Israel". They will determine the worthiness of ones possiblity of entering the temple. There is no new testament equivalent for this function.

Evangelists (whom we call Patriarchs)

I'm not sure.

Seventy, who serve under the direction of the leadership of the church, primarily as missionaries and representatives of Chirst (as you noted, this quorum was flexible, and even though it traces its history back to the seventy elders of Israel, was not always a functioning group until the size of the church required it)

I've found not biblical nor exta-biblical evidence that this group did, in fact, maintain as a body. NOr is there any Biblical evidence that they should.

Deacons who serve the material needs of the Saints
Bishops (whom we call Stake Presidents)

Not sure.

etc.

While we have different names for some of these positions, we have them all, and you all have only sporadic samplings of them.

My church has all the ones required by scripture. I imagine most do. Perhaps all do.

And, to be quite clear, anyone who calls himself is immediately under suspicion since "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

This is a common canard. LDS seem incapable of understanding that RCC Priests and a great majority of Prot pastors are simply responding to God's call for them to serve. Additionally, the fact that LDS "pastors" have no formal training in scripture study or the way by which one may care for one's flock seems to be a point of pride. In fact. RCC Priests and Prot Pastors, during the years of study, are encouraged to pray and seek God's will on their appointment.

Any LDS Priesthood holder can identify the man who called him, just as Aaron could identify Moses as the one who called him, by revelation,

I would guess that the vast majority of Prot pastors can pinpoint the exact point in time when God called them to service. I would guess as well that the vast majority of RCC Priests can tell us of their experience during their formal training when they prayed for their understanding of God's calling. Perhaps an RCC can help me here.

and trace his Priesthood lineage back to Jesus Christ in an unbroken line of authority.

Impossible. A case could be made for an RCC Priest - but not LDS.

[Hoops22]

how do you handle Paul's rebuking Peter? Can that be publicly done before the LDS church as Paul did to Peter?

paul

Good point.

[David T]

how do you handle Paul's rebuking Peter? Can that be publicly done before the LDS church as Paul did to Peter?

Anyone who reads the history of the early Restored Church will see that it happened all the time, in the years directly analogous to the times of Peter and Paul. Joseph even encouraged it if he felt he deserved it.

[LeSellers]

Impossible. A case could be made for an RCC Priest - but not LDS.

I was ordained a High Priest by Alan Douglas, who was ordained a High Priest by Michael Douglas.

He was ordained a High Priest by Jay V. Christensen who was ordained a High Priest by Floyd H. Gowans.

He was ordained a High Priest by Richard L. Evans who was ordained a High Priest by David O. M^cKay.

He was ordained an Apostle by Joseph F. Smith who was ordained an Apostle by Brigham YOUNG.

He was ordained an Apostle on under the hands of the Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer.

They were called by revelation to choose the Twelve Apostles, and were â??blessed by the laying on of hands of [Joseph Smith, Jr., and his counselors]" to ordain the Twelve Apostles. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, pp 187, .

Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829 under the hands of Peter, James and John.

Peter, James and John were ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ (John 15:16).

You see, an unbroken line of authority, just as I claimed. The only way you could claim that it is "impossible" is if you reject the resurrection of the dead, and of the Saints in particular. But that would be unbiblical, would it not?

Since there is no definitive line of authority for the Roman Catholic Church back to Peter, as they claim, your assertion is questionable, at best. And, moreover, since there was a period that there were three or even four simultaneous Popes, we are left to wonder which of the Roman churches have, if ever they did, any authority at all. Maybe it was one of those who left no "priesthood issue" that was the rightful heir to the supposed "See of Peter".

Lehi

[Cold Steel]

my biggest concern with your equating the Body of Christ with an earthly organization (be it LDS or RCC) is this. If I join the LDS church, get baptized and all are you stating that I am now automatically a member of Christ's body? If I do this simply because my parents make me or because of any other reason non-faith based, does it carry weight?

Yes, you are a member of the body of Christ. Membership in Christ's church makes you a member of the body of Christ and subject to the officers and leaders of the church. This is not new doctrine, but doctrine as it existed in anciently. The apostles did NOT celebrate diversity in beliefs, but condemned them. There were those who were of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephus and of Christ; but they were not celebrated as being part of the body of Christ, but as deviations.

The body of Christ was composed of 1) officers such as apostles, priests, deacons, teachers, evangelists (patriarchs) and so on, and 2) individual members who had been baptized and had the gift of the Holy Spirit conferred upon them. Thus, no one diverse part of the body could say to the other, "I have no need of you." In modern Christendom, officers are unique only to the individual churches. No one officer has a whit to say about a church with whom they are not affiliated. None of these churches would be inclined to accept any living apostles if the Lord determined to send them, primarily because they have their own leaders. Thus, if the Lord wished to send an apostle, he would have to send one to the Baptists and one to the Methodists and one to the Episcopalians, and so on. Why? Because the whole world has become divisive. All churches have become like those of Paul, those of Apollos, those of Cephas and those of Christ, and the true church established by Christ has no hold on them.

For those of us who hold that the act of adoption that makes us a Child of God, begins with God (see Ephesians 2) continues through the work of the Spirit, we then see the Body not as some organization but as a faith structure. This does not have to be a rigid organization.

By rigid you mean that Christ's church need not be one organization, but many. You may believe this, but it isn't consistent with early Christianity, where there was only one church with common officers. Yes, there were different congregations, but each congregation had the same general authorities as another, and in this way they were but one church.

Example, if I am deserted on one of my pacific islands and the BOM washes ashore and I read it and believe it with all my heart, but am never rescued and never go through the temple, am I a member of the Body of Christ? And to refresh a favorite question of mine that I haven't asked in several years...if you make this body based on an earthly organization and structure, then does that mean if a plane carrying the LDS leadership crashes into the Pope's plane killing everyone do we now have apostasy?

Actually these are good points, but again, look at the ancient church for your answers. No, you would not be part of the body of Christ unless you were a member of the church Jesus organized and empowered. Does this mean you're eternally lost, or damned? No. The gospel makes provisions for the salvation of all men. Being part of the body of Christ only means that you're a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ. Christ has no control over the churches today that bear his name, for they have all gone their own ways after their own beliefs. One reason the Lord was unable to restore his church to the Earth before the establishment of the U.S. is because any apostles or prophets he called would have immediately been killed by the established power structures of the day.

The Lord has in place a kingdom that will "never be destroyed." Thus, it is not possible for all the leaders to be killed or to crash in an airplane. The Lord has all things in his control and all things are subject to his power.

And if you are arguing that Peter was a "president" (and there are weaknesses here in the idea that he alone received the call to preach to the Gentiles, so did Paul, and Paul much moreso) how do you handle Paul's rebuking Peter? Can that be publicly done before the LDS church as Paul did to Peter?

Well, Orson Pratt rebuked Brigham Young on a few occasions. Today this doesn't happen, as the church has become exceedingly united. General authorities report that the unity among the leaders of the church has never been greater.

Please notice that no one wants to answer the question as to which church today bears the most resemblance to the ancient Church of Jesus Christ. This is because the answer is, unavoidably, the LDS church. We may not be an exact match as far as they can tell from the Bible, but you'll see that it's very close. And if you read the Book of Mormon, where the prophets write concerning the growth and progress of the latter-day church, that the LDS church is fulfilling those prophecies literally. Keep in mind that it was published the same year the church was organized. How did Joseph Smith (if he wrote the Book of Mormon) know that the church would one day be an international church and that the gospel would be carried to the entire Earth? How did he know that the church he was authorized to build and further would ever amount to anything? You can't just say, "self fulfilling prophecy" because, well, do you realize how difficult living up to such prophecies would be? Most other frontier-created churches withered away and vanished, their leaders falling away into obscurity. But Joseph was told that his name would be had for good and for evil throughout all the world. That's an ambitious prophecy to fulfill.

[paulhadik]

Cold Steel:

I am not ignoring your question, just haven't gotten around to answering it yet.

But I am intrigued by your argument of the two people

1: does not believe the church but goes through the motions, gets baptized does the Temple ceremony and IS a member of the Body of Christ

2: completely believes the BoM is God's revelation yet due to circumstances beyond his control never attends a service and is not baptized and therefore is NOT a member of the Body of Christ

you have completely removed Faith from the equation, yet due to an organizational structure you claim that the LDS church is the true church

[Cold Steel]

Yes, but faith has nothing to do with it.

Body of Christ ≠ Christians

Christians ≠ Saints

(In modern terms, Christians are anyone who believes in Christ as the Son of God. Saints are those who are baptized members of the church Jesus established)

Saints = Members of the Church

Body of Christ = Saints and Officers

The Church of Jesus Christ was, and is, a single entity. Entry to the church is through baptism and the conferral of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by legal administrators of God's Kingdom.

Daniel, looking through the corridors of time, saw that the Kingdom of God would be established in the days of the independent kingdoms following Rome. It would not be left to other men, meaning that it would be divine happenstance, and it would be as a stone cut without hands (meaning that man would not create it). Joseph Smith, on his own, had no authority and no claim on any priesthood keys. He had to have these conferred upon him.

Not everyone who saith, "Lord, Lord..." will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. You look at the Protestant churches of today and they're all manmade entities. Not one of them claims to be organized by anything but man. This was always the thing that bothered me when I was a Protestant. Catholicism, with its veneration of Mary and the virtual deification of saints, baptism of infants, papal robes and...history...also was not an option. Luther was right to balk at all that, but he and other reformers had a problem. That problem is that they had no claim to divine authority. They could launch competing churches, but they had to make long and untenable grasps to claim authority to act in God's name. Besides, how does one reform something to a pristine state when a pristine state required gifts of the Spirit, which were lost ages ago.

As I see it, the passages of scripture foretelling a cessation of such spiritual gifts merely foretold the apostasy. They did not presage them as things that were supposed to happen. To gain legitimacy, Protestantism had to denounce what was to justify what is. Meanwhile, the "marvelous work and a wonder" burst upon man at the right time and in the right place. Like the ancient churches of the past, it also produced witnesses. And instead of Joseph Smith saying, "I am the LAST of the prophets" (like Muhammad and the Bab), he said, "I am the FIRST of what will be a glorious future." Far from being a single man who suppressed all others to his will, he surrounded himself with other prophetsâ??men who shared his visions and ability to prophesy.

The Restoration has all the earmarks of the real deal. And while one may say, "Yes, but don't all counterfeits?" â?? it also raises the question of, if God doesn't speak through the LDS, then whom does he speak through? If the LDS faith were eliminated from the list, then Christianity is hopelessly limited to whatever's left. Since the Restoration was established, Christian religions have increasingly accepted premortal existence and more equitable paths to salvation than what existed beforehand.

The thing to note, though, is that no one's left out if "Mormonism" turns out to be of God. It's just as it was anciently: churches established throughout the world with a governing body of apostles who lead and guide the churches by revelation. What Protestants do in the meantime is to read the writings of the New Testament epistles and act as though they're open letters to all believers, when they were really to leaders and members of the Christian church.

[mfbukowski]

I hate to see what could be a very instructive thread get hijacked by EV's with an axe to grind.

To me, this concept of the Body of Christ is the essence of the Church of JCLDS. We are admitted to the savior's family by baptism when we take his name upon us.

We renew those covenants with the sacrament. When we do that, symbolically, the body of Christ is within our bodies as we partake of the bread and water, and as members of a ward group, the body of Christ is also all around us. So that body is both within us and without us at the same time.

The endowment reminds us of the resurrection and symbolically takes us through that process of re-birth into becoming Christ-like beings if we are worthy- and He as the father of the resurrection becomes in a real sense the father of our resurrected bodies.

When we are sealed, we become one flesh with our spouses, as described so well by Paul. That family as one flesh is also a part of the Body of Christ through the Patriarchal Order, which seals us all together as one body, all the way back to Adam, as "one flesh", with Adam as our physical father, Christ as our spiritual father and Christ as the "second Adam" also the father of our resurrected bodies.

This of course relates directly to the idea of the Church of the Firstborn as discussed thoroughly in the D&C.

It seems clear to me that the Church of JCLDS is really the ONLY church which even "has a clue" about what is really meant by the idea of the Body of Christ. Every ordinance we perform is directly related to demonstrating and clarifying what exactly that means.

I am not interested in debating with EV's, thank you, but if anyone wants to take this thread in a different direction for TBM's, I'd love to go that way.

[paulhadik]

mfb:

my most humble apologies if you sense any of us are trying to hijack a thread or grinding an axe. The opening post had some statements that I, at least, felt weren't accurate and wished to respond to.

I also disagree with the basic premise that Christ established an organization (which lasted all of about 30 years or so after he left, doesn't say much for the Spirit's power), that to be a part of that Body/organization there are certain "rituals" that must take place

I read Ephesians 2: 1-2 wherein it states that God (all by Himself) quickened me from death to life....am I then still not part of His body?

[mfbukowski]

mfb:

my most humble apologies if you sense any of us are trying to hijack a thread or grinding an axe. The opening post had some statements that I, at least, felt weren't accurate and wished to respond to.

I also disagree with the basic premise that Christ established an organization (which lasted all of about 30 years or so after he left, doesn't say much for the Spirit's power), that to be a part of that Body/organization there are certain "rituals" that must take place

I read Ephesians 2: 1-2 wherein it states that God (all by Himself) quickened me from death to life....am I then still not part of His body?

No problem. I just wanted to take the thread in a different direction, and if I respond to your question, I will be denying my avowed purpose, so I will not respond. You would have me discussing the apostasy instead of what I want to talk about! Ephesians says what it says, I have no problem with what it says, though of course my interpretation might be different from yours. Start another thread it you want and I will respond there. Edit: to me, "all" that scripture says is that the savior brings us life out of death, which agrees perfectly with my previous post. And I said nothing about other christians NOT being part of the Body of Christ. I just said we understand it better.

[Hoops22]

I was ordained a High Priest by Alan Douglas, who was ordained a High Priest by Michael Douglas.

He was ordained a High Priest by Jay V. Christensen who was ordained a High Priest by Floyd H. Gowans.

He was ordained a High Priest by Richard L. Evans who was ordained a High Priest by David O. M^cKay.

He was ordained an Apostle by Joseph F. Smith who was ordained an Apostle by Brigham YOUNG.

He was ordained an Apostle on under the hands of the Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer.

All well and good, but my catholic friends have a much stronger case. Assuming yours and theirs view of "the keys" scripture is correct (I do not believe it is), they have the added advantage of being able to trace their Pope directly through Peter with no interruption and, as the kicker... wait for it.... they have historical evidence of unbroken succession to boot.

Since there is no definitive line of authority for the Roman Catholic Church back to Peter, as they claim, your assertion is questionable, at best.

I believe there is. The line is direct.

[LeSellers]

[Roman Catholics] have historical evidence of unbroken succession to boot.

...

I believe there is. The line is direct.

I responded to your implied CFR.

Here is an explicit CFR. Show me.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

St. Peter (32-67)

St. Linus (67-76)

St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)

St. Clement I (88-97)

St. Evaristus (97-105)

St. Alexander I (105-115)

St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I

St. Telesphorus (125-136)

St. Hyginus (136-140)

St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Anicetus (155-166)

St. Soter (166-175)

St. Eleutherius (175-189)

St. Victor I (189-199)

St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)

St. Urban I (222-30)

St. Pontain (230-35)

St. Anterus (235-36)

St. Fabian (236-50)

St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)

St. Lucius I (253-54)

St. Stephen I (254-257)

St. Sixtus II (257-258)

St. Dionysius (260-268)

St. Felix I (269-274)

St. Eutychian (275-283)

St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius

St. Marcellinus (296-304)

St. Marcellus I (308-309)

St. Eusebius (309 or 310)

St. Miltiades (311-14)

St. Sylvester I (314-35)

St. Marcus (336)

St. Julius I (337-52)

Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)

St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)

St. Siricius (384-99)

St. Anastasius I (399-401)

St. Innocent I (401-17)

St. Zosimus (417-18)

St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)

St. Celestine I (422-32)

St. Sixtus III (432-40)

St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)

St. Hilarius (461-68)

St. Simplicius (468-83)

St. Felix III (II) (483-92)

St. Gelasius I (492-96)

Anastasius II (496-98)

St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)

St. Hormisdas (514-23)

St. John I (523-26)

St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)

Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)

John II (533-35)

St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I

St. Silverius (536-37)

Vigilius (537-55)

Pelagius I (556-61)

John III (561-74)

Benedict I (575-79)

Pelagius II (579-90)

St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)

Sabinian (604-606)

Boniface III (607)

St. Boniface IV (608-15)

St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)

Boniface V (619-25)

Honorius I (625-38)

Severinus (640)

John IV (640-42)

Theodore I (642-49)

St. Martin I (649-55)

St. Eugene I (655-57)

St. Vitalian (657-72)

Adeodatus (II) (672-76)

Donus (676-78)

St. Agatho (678-81)

St. Leo II (682-83)

St. Benedict II (684-85)

John V (685-86)

Conon (686-87)

St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)

John VI (701-05)

John VII (705-07)

Sisinnius (708)

Constantine (708-15)

St. Gregory II (715-31)

St. Gregory III (731-41)

St. Zachary (741-52)

Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him

Stephen III (752-57)

St. Paul I (757-67)

Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)

Adrian I (772-95)

St. Leo III (795-816)

Stephen V (816-17)

St. Paschal I (817-24)

Eugene II (824-27)

Valentine (827)

Gregory IV (827-44)

Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)

St. Leo IV (847-55)

Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)

St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)

Adrian II (867-72)

John VIII (872-82)

Marinus I (882-84)

St. Adrian III (884-85)

Stephen VI (885-91)

Formosus (891-96)

Boniface VI (896)

Stephen VII (896-97)

Romanus (897)

Theodore II (897)

John IX (898-900)

Benedict IV (900-03)

Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)

Sergius III (904-11)

Anastasius III (911-13)

Lando (913-14)

John X (914-28)

Leo VI (928)

Stephen VIII (929-31)

John XI (931-35)

Leo VII (936-39)

Stephen IX (939-42)

Marinus II (942-46)

Agapetus II (946-55)

John XII (955-63)

Leo VIII (963-64)

Benedict V (964)

John XIII (965-72)

Benedict VI (973-74)

Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)

John XIV (983-84)

John XV (985-96)

Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)

Sylvester II (999-1003)

John XVII (1003)

John XVIII (1003-09)

Sergius IV (1009-12)

Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)

John XIX (1024-32)

Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored

Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope

Benedict IX (1045)

Gregory VI (1045-46)

Clement II (1046-47)

Benedict IX (1047-48)

Damasus II (1048)

St. Leo IX (1049-54)

Victor II (1055-57)

Stephen X (1057-58)

Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)

Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)

St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)

Blessed Victor III (1086-87)

Blessed Urban II (1088-99)

Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)

Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)

Callistus II (1119-24)

Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)

Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)

Celestine II (1143-44)

Lucius II (1144-45)

Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)

Anastasius IV (1153-54)

Adrian IV (1154-59)

Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes

Lucius III (1181-85)

Urban III (1185-87)

Gregory VIII (1187)

Clement III (1187-91)

Celestine III (1191-98)

Innocent III (1198-1216)

Honorius III (1216-27)

Gregory IX (1227-41)

Celestine IV (1241)

Innocent IV (1243-54)

Alexander IV (1254-61)

Urban IV (1261-64)

Clement IV (1265-68)

Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)

Blessed Innocent V (1276)

Adrian V (1276)

John XXI (1276-77)

Nicholas III (1277-80)

Martin IV (1281-85)

Honorius IV (1285-87)

Nicholas IV (1288-92)

St. Celestine V (1294)

Boniface VIII (1294-1303)

Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)

Clement V (1305-14)

John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)

Benedict XII (1334-42)

Clement VI (1342-52)

Innocent VI (1352-62)

Blessed Urban V (1362-70)

Gregory XI (1370-78)

Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)

Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes

Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes

Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes

Martin V (1417-31)

Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)

Nicholas V (1447-55)

Callistus III (1455-58)

Pius II (1458-64)

Paul II (1464-71)

Sixtus IV (1471-84)

Innocent VIII (1484-92)

Alexander VI (1492-1503)

Pius III (1503)

Julius II (1503-13)

Leo X (1513-21)

Adrian VI (1522-23)

Clement VII (1523-34)

Paul III (1534-49)

Julius III (1550-55)

Marcellus II (1555)

Paul IV (1555-59)

Pius IV (1559-65)

St. Pius V (1566-72)

Gregory XIII (1572-85)

Sixtus V (1585-90)

Urban VII (1590)

Gregory XIV (1590-91)

Innocent IX (1591)

Clement VIII (1592-1605)

Leo XI (1605)

Paul V (1605-21)

Gregory XV (1621-23)

Urban VIII (1623-44)

Innocent X (1644-55)

Alexander VII (1655-67)

Clement IX (1667-69)

Clement X (1670-76)

Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)

Alexander VIII (1689-91)

Innocent XII (1691-1700)

Clement XI (1700-21)

Innocent XIII (1721-24)

Benedict XIII (1724-30)

Clement XII (1730-40)

Benedict XIV (1740-58)

Clement XIII (1758-69)

Clement XIV (1769-74)

Pius VI (1775-99)

Pius VII (1800-23)

Leo XII (1823-29)

Pius VIII (1829-30)

Gregory XVI (1831-46)

Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)

Leo XIII (1878-1903)

St. Pius X (1903-14)

Benedict XV (1914-22)

Pius XI (1922-39)

Pius XII (1939-58)

Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)

Paul VI (1963-78)

John Paul I (1978)

John Paul II (1978-2005)

Benedict XVI (2005â??)

"The List of Popes." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 30 Jun. 2009

And, of course, the ecf recognized the supremacy of each successor to Peter.

[LeSellers]

St. Peter (32-67)

So, where in the Bible do we read that Peter was the Pope? Moreover, when did he name "Pope" become a synonym for "Bishop of Rome?

Since you omitted it, I will supply the fact that Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ.

St. Linus (67-76)

Do we have a record of his ordination, and particularly of his ordination by Peter, who may or may not have been the first "Pope"?

...

St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)

Who's to say that St. Hippolytus was not the authorized Pope? After all, history is written by the victors.

...

St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)

Again, why Cornelius and not Novatian?

...

Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)

St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)

...

St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)

...

St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)

...

Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)

...

St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)

...

Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)

...

Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)

...

Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)

...

Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)

...

Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)

...

Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)

...

Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)

...

Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored

Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope

Again, the same question. However, we see here the possibility, even in the official record, that one of the Popes may have been a usurper himself.

...

Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)

Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)

St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)

Blessed Victor III (1086-87)

Blessed Urban II (1088-99)

Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)

Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)

...

Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)

Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)

...

Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes

...

John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)

...

Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)

Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes

Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes

Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes

...

Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)

...

"The List of Popes." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 30 Jun. 2009

We see an awful lot of "opposed by Xyyz". How does one reconcile the fact of schisms in the church of Rome with an "unbroken line of Popes back to Peter" (who was not ever called "Pope", nor was he ever the Bishop of Rome)?

They missed Pope Joan. (Yes, I know.)

They also do not see any problem with either Stephen VII (896-97) nor Alexander VI (1492-1503) (counted as one of the most evil men of the XVI). Alexander turned the Vatican into a giant brothel for clergy only, nuns supplying the, er, "entertainment", and murdered hundreds of innocent people, even, the claim goes, cannibalizing them.

Luther, in Rome, lamented the sexual misconduct of the entire Roman Clergy in the city; it was one of the catalysts that made him into a Reformer (not knowing, or at least not recognizing, that "reform" is not the way God re-establishes His church).

Of course, this doesn't support the idea of the Apostasy, does it?

And, of course, the ecf recognized the supremacy of each successor to Peter.

The researcher, Drake, disagrees with this assertion. I find no strong evidence, much less proof,

• That Peter was ever (much less the first) Bishop of Rome
  
• That he ordained Linus to replace him
  
• That the Bishop of Rome was superior to other Bishops until the IV or V
  
• That the Bishops were ever designated to replace the Apostles as ultimate leaders of the Church.
  

Finally, I find it odd to the point of ridiculous that you would be bothered to proved that Rome has authority while you, personally and as Protestants, reject the need for any specific authority (having none of your own).

Lehi

[Cold Steel]

Showing priesthood (and other) lineages generally is problematic. Joel and Ervil LeBaron also had priesthood lineages. LDS lineages that are endorsed and legitimized by the LDS church and its records, which comprise some of the books out of which we will be judged. If the apostasy happened, as prophesied in the Old and New Testaments, then a lineage isn't going to do anyone a particle of good. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not receive the priesthood from John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, then that lineage isn't going to do anyone a particle of good.

If the Restoration of the Gospel, as foretold by the scriptures and as seen by Isaiah, Daniel and other prophets, is of God, then what of the lineages of the popes? All too often, the lineage is marred by assumptions. If an apostle ordains a bishop, did he ordain the bishop a bishop or an apostle? If Peter served as bishop of Rome, and he ordained a successor, did the successor have his apostolic keys as well? No one can demonstrate this at all. Not all bishops are apostles, nor were all apostles bishops. And if an apostle ordained a bishop, did the bishop have power to ordain another bishop? It was Pope Leo I, the Great (440-461) who first claimed that the bishops of Rome were, according to Dr. Lynn Harry Nelson, "the heirs to Peter, who had died in the city, and so had inherited Peter's preeminence in spiritual affairs, which Jesus had granted in the famous words 'Thou art Peter and on this rock, I will found my Church,' going on to grant Peter the power to 'bind and loose' in both Earth and heaven. Later popes would use this principle, known as the 'Petrine Doctrine,' to claim a supreme position among all other churchmen." Nelson also explained that "Constantine attempted to create a Christian Church that would be a unifying force within the empire. For it to be so, the Church had to be universal, and so Constantine began dismantling the old state religion and turning its buildings, assets and functions over to the Christian Church. As an aside, however, he confiscated the gold owned by the other religions and used it to restore the gold currency, a reform that Diocletian had attempted but failed to institute. With its greatly expanded material base, the Church needed more financial and administrative skill than its personnel was able to provide."

In 1378, Pope Gregory XI moved the papacy back to Rome and France declared Clement VII pope in Avignon. For close to 40 years, in what became known as the "great schism," there were competing popes. And this reminds me, does France or any other political power have any authority to choose popes and priests? Where could the great secular leaders who chose church leaders over the years have gotten the authority to appoint them to ecclesiastical positions?

As I said, it's all pointless.

[Hoops22]

We see an awful lot of "opposed by Xyyz". How does one reconcile the fact of schisms in the church of Rome with an "unbroken line of Popes back to Peter" (who was not ever called "Pope", nor was he ever the Bishop of Rome)?

I'd imagine the same way lds reconcile the schisms in their own church.

True, that Peter was not called Pope. Nor was Peter called President, nor Peter, James, & John called the first presidency.

They also do not see any problem with either Stephen VII (896-97) nor Alexander VI (1492-1503) (counted as one of the most evil men of the XVI). Alexander turned the Vatican into a giant brothel for clergy only, nuns supplying the, er, "entertainment", and murdered hundreds of innocent people, even, the claim goes, cannibalizing them.

The list of grievances against the RCC is long, to be sure. I'm not so sure it's that long when one considers the length of time one must consider to address these grievances.

Luther, in Rome, lamented the sexual misconduct of the entire Roman Clergy in the city; it was one of the catalysts that made him into a Reformer (not knowing, or at least not recognizing, that "reform" is not the way God re-establishes His church).

God didn't need to re-establish His church. There is ample Biblical evidence that was not necessary.

[*]That Peter was ever (much less the first) Bishop of Rome

It is without question (if one believes the Bible) that Peter was the leader of the first church.

[*]That he ordained Linus to replace him

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul (2Tim 4:10), but Linus, whom he mentions in the second Epistle to Timothy (2Tim 4:21) as his companion in Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement, also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow soldier (Phil 4:3). Eusabius, Church History, 3:4:9-10

[*]That the Bishop of Rome was superior to other Bishops until the IV or V

[*]That the Bishops were ever designated to replace the Apostles as ultimate leaders of the Church.

"The blessed apostles having founded and built up the church commited into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him in the third place, Clement was allotted the Bishopric. In this order and by this succession the eccliastical tradition from apostles and the preaching of the truth has come down to us." Iraneus, Against Heresies 3.3.3

Finally, I find it odd to the point of ridiculous that you would be bothered to proved that Rome has authority while you, personally and as Protestants, reject the need for any specific authority (having none of your own).

From what I understand, they claim the same intepretaion of the "keys" scripture that you do. I disagree with both of you. Nevertheless, IF your interpretation is correct, the RCC has a stronger case than do you.

[Cold Steel]

The Lord said, "By their fruits, you shall know them."

Although the conduct of Catholicism has been violent, treacherous, obstinate, unholy, impure and bloodyâ??and though it has tortured the innocent, murdered the rebellious and wallowed in iniquity, it was still the only link between modern man and Christ. The question is, does the blood on the church's hands negate that claim and, if so, where does the Bible give anyone the authority to "reform" the holy work? Indeed, do the scriptures foretell such an event?

Hoops and others believe the reformation of Christianity is eminently biblical. The LDS, on the other hand, says, examine the scriptures. Where in the history of the church has reform been recognized by God? Where has the Lord ever sanctioned the changing of ordinances and the breaking of the everlasting covenant in order to reform what he, the Lord, has given us?

Daniel, on the other hand, said that God would be the one who would establish the latter day kingdom (Daniel 2), and Isaiah said the Lord's hand in establishing his work would be a "marvelous work and a wonder." (Isaiah 29)

One looks through the prophetic books in the Bible and there's not a word about reformations, nor is there anything that indicates that the Lord's work would be through Rome. Instead, the gospel would go forth into all nations, and then the end. If Amos was correct about God doing nothing save he reveal it to his servants the prophets, then where did the prophets foretell the Reformation? Where did it speak of Luther or of the church being in Rome?

Protestantism seeks to establish its own legitimacy through loud proclamations and an exegesis that puts the emphasis on reading the epistles of old as though they were written to them, instead of the saints at the time. That's where everything falls apart. It's like the old song where the guy finds a diary by the girl he longed for and thought, the entire time reading it, that it was talking about him.

I found her diary underneath a tree.

and started reading about me.

As he reads on, however, he learns it's talking about someone else.

The words began stick and tears to flow.

Her meaning now was clear to see.

The love she'd waited for was someone else, not me...

This will be the fate of the Protestants, for so sure are they that it is they who are being addressed by the apostles that they never slow down to think that their words were intended for someone else.

Wouldn't you know it! They didn't show it!

The meaning now was clear to see.

The stuff they were writing, it wasn't fer me....

Although this is facetious, of course, there's a lot of truth there. You can't yank scripture out of context, and the epistles in the First Century A.D. were intended for the Body of Christ, those members who believed and had been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were not open letters to believers at large.

[Hoops22]

The Lord said, "By their fruits, you shall know them."

Although the conduct of Catholicism has been violent, treacherous, obstinate, unholy, impure and bloody

Kinda like Israel - and they managed to find God's favor.

â??and though it has tortured the innocent, murdered the rebellious and wallowed in iniquity, it was still the only link between modern man and Christ. The question is, does the blood on the church's hands negate that claim

No, it doesn't. Even accepting your premise it does not.

and, if so, where does the Bible give anyone the authority to "reform" the holy work? Indeed, do the scriptures foretell such an event?

I don't understand.

Hoops and others believe the reformation of Christianity is eminently biblical.

As you put it, no we don't. We do, however, believe that The Body of Christ is constantly striving to His best representative. Sometimes that involves doing something else/different.

The LDS, on the other hand, says, examine the scriptures.

So do I.

Where in the history of the church has reform been recognized by God?

Considering there was no church until after His death/resurrection - you must be asking us to examine post gospel scripture. Let's do.

Where has the Lord ever sanctioned the changing of ordinances and the breaking of the everlasting covenant in order to reform what he, the Lord, has given us?

The only everlasting covenant that applies to me is the Noahic covenant. Have I missed one?

Daniel, on the other hand, said that God would be the one who would establish the latter day kingdom (Daniel 2), and Isaiah said the Lord's hand in establishing his work would be a "marvelous work and a wonder." (Isaiah 29)

One looks through the prophetic books in the Bible and there's not a word about reformations,

Nor is there one about Jesus establishing His church, messing it up, then having to start it all over again. Leaving millions floundering with no direction in the mean time.

nor is there anything that indicates that the Lord's work would be through Rome.

It's locale is indifferent. Peter is the key (my RCC friends can help out here, as I'm toting water that is not for me)

Instead, the gospel would go forth into all nations, and then the end. If Amos was correct about God doing nothing save he reveal it to his servants the prophets, then where did the prophets foretell the Reformation? Where did it speak of Luther or of the church being in Rome?

I don't recall the prophets EVER speaking of the church. Can you cite a verse for me?

Protestantism seeks to establish its own legitimacy through loud proclamations

I disagree with your premise.

and an exegesis that puts the emphasis on reading the epistles of old as though they were written to them, instead of the saints at the time.

Is there some reason why I should not read them as if they were for me? I am, after all, just a believer just like them.

That's where everything falls apart. It's like the old song where the guy finds a diary by the girl he longed for and thought, the entire time reading it, that it was talking about him.

Was that by ACDC? I don't recall that one and I have all their stuff.

I found her diary underneath a tree.

and started reading about me.

As he reads on, however, he learns it's talking about someone else.

The words began stick and tears to flow.

Her meaning now was clear to see.

The love she'd waited for was someone else, not me...

Of course, it's nothing like that.

This will be the fate of the Protestants, for so sure are they that it is they who are being addressed by the apostles that they never slow down to think that their words were intended for someone else.

And yet you can't get the distinction between Jesus addressing The Nation and Jesus addressing the gentiles. Odd.

Although this is facetious, of course, there's a lot of truth there.

Actually, there's no truth whatsoever.

You can't yank scripture out of context, and the epistles in the First Century A.D. were intended for the Body of Christ, those members who believed and had been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were not open letters to believers at large.

Then of what use are they? Is this your way of saying that post gospel writings are useful in their own way but what we really need is lds scripture?

[Cold Steel]

Instead of saying I'm right or wrong, please tell me why.

Every time we try to discuss the matter of the legitimacy of the Protestant movement, we end up only with unfounded blanket statement. So if you believe that the Body of Christ embodies all of Christendom, then kindly explain what you're talking about. Instead of telling me where I'm wrong, please state your case.

Anciently, the church of Jesus Christ had common officers. The apostles ordained bishops and other leaders and likened the people and church officers as the Body of Christ. It was a single body of diverse parts. But it didn't include the schisms. It did not include those of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas or of Christ. But today, the Body of Christ is supposed to include those of Luther, and of Calvin, and of Knox and of King Henry VIII, and many others. Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists all believe different doctrines and have different concepts of God. So who speaks for God in this hodgepodge? And how does God make his will known?

Going back and reading all of your post, Hoops, I come away having to guess what you're talking about. Here we have a thread dedicated to what the Body of Christ is and what do we see? One to two sentences in reply to any given observation. A discussion needs to be more than, "I disagree with your premise" or "no, it doesn't." So c'mon, Hoops. Tell me how the church was and how it's supposed to be today. Tell me how the church today is like the church anciently. You keep getting stuck up with words like "church" and "president." There was a church and presidents long before the names came along. What is a church? It's a congregation. What is a president? It's one who presides. Moses was a president and his people were a church:

He [Moses] brought them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received the lively oracles to give unto us.

(Acts 7)

The Lord has always had a people, a church, on the Earth. I've asked you repeatedly to tell me which church on Earth is most like the ancient church and there was silence. I asked you how the modern church is like the ancient church and, again, there was silence.

You made a mistake by leaving the church, Hoops. You've traded a great heritage for a bunch of pottage. You've also lost the ability to defend what you believe, if you ever had it.