The Most Widespread Form of Idolatry Today

[saemo]

And don't both claim to be the head of Christ's church on Earth?

How is that fundamentally different from the LDS prophet?

The head of Christ's Church is Jesus Christ.

Prophecy Jason, was the subject. The head of Christ's Church is not required to be a prophet. Some Popes have had this gift, as have others, but there is no requirement that a prophet head Christ's Church.

[saemo]

I can answer those questions.

1) Yes, under the personal direction of Jesus Christ.

Who guides the Pope, and all our bishops, with the Holy Spirit.

There is also a difference in the matter of truth, because while both may claim to be true Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ and under his personal direction the head of Christ's church on Earth, one actually is and the other one isn't, even though the one who isn't is claiming to be.

I never claimed the Pope is an Apostle. The Apostles appointed presbyters (bishops) as their successors.

There is no one alive today who meets the requirements of an Apostle (one of the Twelve), as described in Acts 1:

21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

So there you have an easy test of the claim to Apostelship.

[LeSellers]

The Apostles appointed presbyters (bishops) as their successors.

A "presbyter" (????????????) is an "elder", an "episcopos" (??????????? overseer) is a "bishop", or what we call a stake president in Christ's restored church.

Lehi

[saemo]

A "presbyter" (????????????) is an "elder", an "episcopos" (??????????? overseer) is a "bishop", or what we call a stake president in Christ's restored church.

Lehi

Episcopos is a synonym of presbyter. See Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1. Also the early Church, which was led by Bishops, who universally claimed succession to the Apostles, and still do.

[William James]

My meetings with my neighbor continue, and I am absolutely blown away with how respectful he has been of our differences of belief. One phrase that he used regularly and that I have heard many time concerns me though. You could summarize this stand as, "No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Bible IS the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Bible determines what is true."

When was God replaced by the Bible? I see this as a graven image, where God is literally standing there waiting to speak to his children, and like the Pharisees and Sadducees, THE LAW has become preeminent above God himself, while in this case it is "The Word."

The parallels are striking IMHO.

While this is a keen observation, what it really highlights is the human tendency to want a simple answer to what are in effect very complex questions. Whether you are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant and complete word of God, or whether you are a conservative LDS member who believes that a Church President's sermons are the inerrant word of God which must be followed without exception or question, you have something in common: you are looking for a simple answer about how to know the truth. History has taught us that theology is not an exact science, that people's acceptance of various theological doctrines depends largely upon subjectively-chosen methodologies and assumptions, and that for millenia, reasonable minds have disagreed over such fundamental questions as the existence of God, etc. Attractive as it might seem to be able to solve all of life's questions by an appeal to canonized scripture, or by reliance upon the words of an imperfect human being (even a prophet) who has his own fears, prejudices, ignorance, motives, and weaknesses, we must accept that the discernment of truth is not, and likely never will be, so simple.

For my part, I see no reason to assume that the Bible (or any other canonized scripture) is either inerrant or complete. Nor do I see any evidence to suggest that purported prophetic utterances are the inerrant word of God. God commands us to pray, study, and ponder for a reason; only by being forced to grapple with uncertainty and imperfect evidence will our spirits, intellect, and faith mature. Sure, we will necessarily make some mistakes and poor choices as a result, but we will grow more. God generally does not spoon-feed us the truth. He commands us to study things out in our minds. Even when we have done so, our ability to obtain revelation may be hindered to some degree by our continued ignorance and the unavailability of information. I believe that is why God give us wisdom "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little." There are truths that we will never grasp until our minds are sufficiently prepared.

[Vance]

The head of Christ's Church is Jesus Christ.

True, but not what Jason is saying.

And don't both claim to be the head of Christ's church on Earth?

How is that fundamentally different from the LDS prophet?

See the distinction?

[saemo]

True, but not what Jason is saying.

See the distinction?

I see that LDS make a distinction, yes. Catholics, and most Christians, do not. The Pope is never called the "Head of Christ's Church", that title is given to Jesus Christ, alone. The Church is His, and belongs to no other, on earth or in heaven.

[Vance]

I see that LDS make a distinction, yes. Catholics, and most Christians, do not. The Pope is never called the "Head of Christ's Church", that title is given to Jesus Christ, alone. The Church is His, and belongs to no other, on earth or in heaven.

Ok, so the Pope is NOT the head of Christ's Church on earth. Good to know.

[saemo]

Ok, so the Pope is NOT the head of Christ's Church on earth. Good to know.

Yes, you should know that Jesus Christ is the head of His Church. LDS seem to make a broader line of demarcation between earth and heaven than Catholics do. This is not a criticism, just a observation.

The title most often given to the Bishop of Rome, besides Pope, is "Vicar of Christ". We view it as a matter of jurisdiction, primacy and authority. But not as a replacement of Christ.

[Jason]

Ok, so the Pope is NOT the head of Christ's Church on earth. Good to know.

Well I'M certainly relieved.

[Ahab]

Episcopos is a synonym of presbyter. See Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1. Also the early Church, which was led by Bishops, who universally claimed succession to the Apostles, and still do.

The early Church was led, generally, by Apostles, not Bishops, and the fact that Bishops in your Church claim to be the successors of the Apostles doesn't mean their claim is true.

[saemo]

The early Church was led, generally, by Apostles, not Bishops, and the fact that Bishops in your Church claim to be the successors of the Apostles doesn't mean their claim is true.

Read your NT.

[Ahab]

Read your NT.

I have, and I still do.

Apostles wrote letters to the different wards/congregations to try to correct them on doctrine when they began to go astray, even while they had bishops, and full-blown apostasy resulted from the members thinking they didn't need any more letters from any more Apostles and while some of those members became the bishops.

[saemo]

I have, and I still do.

Apostles wrote letters to the different wards/congregations to try to correct them on doctrine when they began to go astray, even while they had bishops, and full-blown apostasy resulted from the members thinking they didn't need any more letters from any more Apostles and while some of those members became the bishops.

Who, Paul? He was not one of the Twelve.

[LeSellers]

The title most often given to the Bishop of Rome, besides Pope, is "Vicar of Christ". We view it as a matter of jurisdiction, primacy and authority. But not as a replacement of Christ.

And vicar means "proxy, stand-in". We Saints use the term all the time in a slightly differing form: as in vicarious work for the dead.

So the Pope is, in the Catholic view, the proxy, substitute for Christ.

Lehi