Apostasy Of Authority - How Do We Demonstrate?

[Calm]

You think it's incorrect based on...? I agree that untruths are dangerous (I disagree that this belief is one of them), but what is the danger in believing God has the ability to do such?

It is not so much about whether or not God has the ability to do such, it is what it establishes about the relationship between God and his creations. There is a significant difference, for example, between the idea that God formed spirits and bodies for eternal man so that man could progress and become one with him and the idea that God created man from nothing, that man is not eternal from the beginning with God, that all there is in man is from an act of God.

[seriously honestly]

It is not so much about whether or not God has the ability to do such, it is what it establishes about the relationship between God and his creations. There is a significant difference, for example, between the idea that God formed spirits and bodies for eternal man so that man could progress and become one with him and the idea that God created man from nothing, that man is not eternal from the beginning with God, that all there is in man is from an act of God.

So you think that if God created man from nothing, that must mean man is not eternal, yes? no? possibly?

[Calm]

Not eternal in the sense that he had a beginning as a unique being at some time, he could be eternal in the sense that he will never cease to be.

I can see some forms of creation where God takes a part of his own eternal self to form man with where man would be eternal, but I don't see that as creation ex nihilo, which is specifically creation out of nothing, not creation out of God or something else eternal.

[The Nehor]

You think it's incorrect based on...? I agree that untruths are dangerous (I disagree that this belief is one of them), but what is the danger in believing God has the ability to do such?

Based on revelation. I am not even going to try to discuss what God can or can't do as that is not the issue. The question is what He actually did.

[LDSToronto]

Except that the concept of having a pope is a late invention and they also rely on a supernatural jump (Jesus giving divine authority to Peter). They are also very stretching the evidence in suggesting that Peter gave any kind of papal authority to Linus.

Papal lineage stretches back to St. Peter. Call it what you will, lineage is traceable. Now, if you are going to call into question whether Peter passed authority to Linus, it's reasonable to call into question whether a resurrected Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Melchizedek priesthood.

H.

Edited April 25, 2012 by LDSToronto

[The Nehor]

Papal lineage stretches back to St. Peter. Call it what you will, lineage is traceable.

Not in the same way. There is even disagreement as to how many 'popes' there were in the First Century. The line is not clear.

Now, if you are going to call into question whether Peter passed authority to Linus, it's reasonable to call into question whether a resurrected Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Melchizedek priesthood.

Of course it is.

[Tepui]

Papal lineage stretches back to St. Peter. Call it what you will, lineage is traceable. Now, if you are going to call into question whether Peter passed authority to Linus, it's reasonable to call into question whether a resurrected Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Melchizedek priesthood.

H.

No it's not. Mark 9. It's in the Bible, friend. And modern religions have built shrines/churches on this very mountain to commemorate the Savior receiving priesthood keys from Moses and Elias - though they don't entirely understand the reason behind the event. Moses and Elias also appeared to Joseph Smith as well as Peter, James and John.

[BCSpace]

But in regards to an apostasy of authority, Catholics have the names of the bishops succeeding the apostles. How do we show a break in the succession?

Just as you did. By showing the wholesale change in doctrine. Also, the universal apostasy is predicted in verses like Rev 13:7 and the early Christians thought it would be soon (Pastor of Hermas). Long range, the fact that there are christian denominations also shows it did occur. The most accurate date range though is going to be that 100 year or so span from late first to late second century. One could slide it a little later or earlier as needed, but that is where it's going to be.

Edited April 25, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

But in regards to an apostasy of authority, Catholics have the names of the bishops succeeding the apostles. How do we show a break in the succession?

Easy.

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and … the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

“That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:36–37).

Edited April 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Yirgacheffe]

Easy.

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and … the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

“That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:36–37).

So authority is based on the righteousness of individual men, it they are unrighteous they lack the needed authority? The D&C quote looks like it could apply to just about any person, any where, any time.

[mfbukowski]

So authority is based on the righteousness of individual men, it they are unrighteous they lack the needed authority? The D&C quote looks like it could apply to just about any person, any where, any time.

Well the last line applies to priesthood authority.

According to that scripture, one corrupt Pope would end the line of succession, one Bishop in each succeeding line, etc. The "tree" dies one branch at a time.

[Yirgacheffe]

So would any unrighteous man in the priesthood line.

[3DOP]

Hi mfbukowski,

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and … the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

“That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:36–37).

You quoted the passage above to prove that one bad pope would disqualify any successors. Yirgacheffe proposed that it would apply to priests as well. Do you agree?

Can you see any problems for for the LDS community with this interpretation of the passage from D&C? Do you see any conflicts with the way priestly continuity was maintained in Scripture?

For the record, I would not suggest that there is necessarily a problem with the passage, but possibly with your interpretation.

Thanks,

3DOP

Edited April 25, 2012 by 3DOP

[Senator]

Since we have been thoroughly taught on this board that the LDS are not in the business of tearing down the faith of others, I would suggest that you cease and desist from this attack on the Catholics.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Senator

[Hamilton Porter]

Just as you did. By showing the wholesale change in doctrine. Also, the universal apostasy is predicted in verses like Rev 13:7 and the early Christians thought it would be soon (Pastor of Hermas). Long range, the fact that there are christian denominations also shows it did occur. The most accurate date range though is going to be that 100 year or so span from late first to late second century. One could slide it a little later or earlier as needed, but that is where it's going to be.

No, I don't think that is sufficient. If it were, then you got the sermon in the grove, Adam-God, etc.

I don't think arguing it from scripture would suffice either, they have Matt. 16:15-19.

Thanks for referencing the Pastor of Shermas though, I will check it out.

[cdowis]

Since we have been thoroughly taught on this board that the LDS are not in the business of tearing down the faith of others, I would suggest that you cease and desist from this attack on the Catholics.

I agree, but we should look to the Council of Nicea where the Bishop of Rome (his representative) was treated by the other church leaders as a peer, with no special authority. Constantine was running the show, and banished anyone who voted against the creed that he supported.

The Bishop of Rome was clearly not in authority above the other church leaders.

[shalamabobbi]

So would any unrighteous man in the priesthood line.

There is a distinction between priesthood and priesthood keys. Without the keys the work cannot be directed. And though one may lose their individual priesthood through unrighteousness(though they can repent) yet their ministrations are binding if performed under proper direction through those who hold the keys.

[TAO]

Senator be right, let's keep to the defensive apologetics.

I don't think that finding a 'break in the chain' is going to make them any more convinced that the apostasy occurred. They are going to believe what they are going to believe, and we will believe what we will.

-TAO

[3DOP]

Somebody is always bringing up how Pope Sylvester sent representatives to Nicea, and that he exerted no influence on the Council documents. So what? Apostasy? The argument for apostasy because of the pope's lack of participation shows no understanding of the way papal and episcopal authority interrelate.

THAT is the way Councils worked then and now. If it is warranted, the pope can and has expressed himself definitively without a Council. At the last Council, the two popes who were alive during the council were footsteps from the meeting place but didn't go. Why? Because an ecumenical council is an exercise of the bishops of the world. The bishops make proposals, and the pope approves or disapproves. Pope Paul made one little, but important clarification in regards to the documents of Vatican II. Even then, it was inserted like an appendix at the end of Lumen Gentium. The pope's contributions to conciliar documents will always be minimal. It doesn't matter where the pope is during Council because it is a time when the popes want the bishops to speak.

Edited April 25, 2012 by 3DOP

[Log]

I think Dan Peterson said it best when he said the Restoration is the best evidence for the apostasy.

[3DOP]

Hebrews 10 quotes Jer. 31, where we are told that Jesus is the mediator of a new testament built on better promises.

But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises.

---Heb. 10:6

From Aaron, to Eli and his sons, to Caiphas, we have one long history of infidelity resulting in repeated punishments from God that twice resulted in the Temple being removed and being rebuilt. But the priestly line continued. Prophets came and went, but none declared the wickedest of high priests to have forefeited their office.

If the unrighteousness of a priest disqualifies from office, how does one explain that the priest who sought to put Jesus Christ to death retained the gift of prophecy? Why. Because the priestly office is NOT interrupted by the worst kinds of villainy and real or spiritual adultery:

What do we, for this man doth many miracles? If we let him alone so, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.

---John 11:47-51

Under the Old Covenant, based on worse promises (if we believe the letter to the Hebrews), we see what priests can do and retain the priesthood. King Achaz, who believed in human sacrifice, having let his own child be a victim in the heathen fires, had observed a pagan altar in Damascus and encouraged the high priest to make a model of it to adapt for the Temple worship at Jerusalem:

And king Achaz went to Damascus to meet Theglathphalasar king of the Assyrians, and when he had seen the altar of Damascus, king Achaz sent to Urias the priest a pattern of it, and its likeness according to all the work thereof. And Urias the priest built an altar according to all that king Achaz had commanded from Damascus, so did Urias the priest, until king Achaz came from Damascus.

---4 Kings 16:10, 11 (I think you call this Second Kings)

So the priesthood is not lost when the high priest perverts the true worship into a model taken from pagans, because the king, who was an idolater wanted it. Can anybody possibly think that this is not gazillions times worse than making a mistake and thinking that God was so great that he made the world out of nothing? You say that the bishops shouldn't have heeded Constantine's call for a Council, even in light of the need to clear up the dissension over the Arian teachings. The king has no business getting involved in religion you say. How were these bishops supposed to know that? Did not the kings of the Old Testament often rightly involve themselves in upholding the true religion even finanacing the buildings needed for the true worship? Even when the kings meddled wrongly and even when priests compromised, it never results in the loss of the priesthood. In light of this, even if we were to grant that the early Christians made doctrinal blunders, what confidence can you have for saying that the priesthood has to be gone?

When Jesus came, He worshipped in a Temple built by the government, called Herod's Temple. Jesus also called it "my Father's House". Whatever you might wish to assume, no one for the first 1800 years of Christianity thought that kings cannot be involved in the faith. Such a drastic separation of church and state is a novelty that has no biblical foundation. In spite of everything, including the plot to kill the Messiah, until His Passion and Resurrection, when the Veil of the Temple was rent in two, Christ fully recognized and honored as authoritative, a priestly line that continued uninterrupted from the days of Moses through every imaginable scandal, disaster, apostasy, and turmoil. Because there were those in His day who could not imagine that the priestly line could have remained valid through all those tumultuous centuries, He sent healed lepers to the priests. Why? For a testimony unto them, we read.

Who would have remained in the religion that Christ grew up in if they used the same rigor in presuming a priestly line to be discontinued, as gets used by LDS when proclaiming the priesthood to be dead in the early church? I have said many many times that the LDS faith makes a lot of sense, IF they could prove that the priesthood was lost. My reluctance to acknowledge the arguments offered by LDS as to why my faith has lost the Holy Ghost follows from how we got an earthquake, three hours of darkness, a veil rent in twain, and dead bodies of the saints walking through a city the first time this happened in Christ's day. God has warned us in the Old Testament that we can never judge by appearances or use ordinary human reasoning in presuming a need to replace the true faith, with the true sacraments, and the true priesthood, no matter how that religion may appear at any given moment of history.

3DOP

Edited April 26, 2012 by 3DOP

[LDSToronto]

I think Dan Peterson said it best when he said the Restoration is the best evidence for the apostasy.

That's like saying the Easter Bunny is the best evidence for the resurrection.

H.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

You quoted the passage above to prove that one bad pope would disqualify any successors. Yirgacheffe proposed that it would apply to priests as well. Do you agree?

Can you see any problems for for the LDS community with this interpretation of the passage from D&C? Do you see any conflicts with the way priestly continuity was maintained in Scripture?

For the record, I would not suggest that there is necessarily a problem with the passage, but possibly with your interpretation.

Thanks,

3DOP

The question is what we call "Priesthood Keys" which are independent from the Priesthood itself. The keys for succession are held by the first presidency and quorum of 12- all are "prophets, seers and revelators".

According to LDS doctrine, any one of these brethren could "restore" all the keys necessary to run the church. In other words, all 15 would have to apostatize or do something major, or be killed, in order to lose the keys.

The loss of the priesthood by an individual priesthood holder would of course not affect the succession of the church- just his personal authority for his individual calling.

The flaw in the ointment as I see it, for Catholic doctrine, is that a Catholic priest is regarded still as a priest regardless of what he has done. There are tales, probably spurious, of evil priests consecrating the host specifically to use in Satanic rituals etc.

I don't believe that has necessarily ever happened, but it could not happen according to our beliefs, because such an attempted act would instantly negate the priesthood of the person who tried it, according to our beliefs.

So that doctrine gives us an "escape valve" doctrinally which is, I believe, not available in Catholic doctrine.

Furthermore as a restorationist church, we believe that God could restore the church again if needed. In fact the existence of various fundamentalist "Mormon" churches alone indicates that this belief is prevalent. Theoretically, anyone could declare himself "prophet" of his own little sect, and indeed this has happened. There are and have been posters here who have been members of groups like these who have "new scriptures" they consider additions to the D&C for example.

The bottom line is that we believe that we have the right to revelation about which church is true, and this direct experiential revelation is what allows us to "verify" any such succession claims. For better or worse, this is not an option for Catholics, and they must believe that their succession claims are the will of the Lord, regardless of what individual leaders have done through history.

So this question- about whether or not one remains a priest regardless of what one has done- is crucial to both church's succession claims.

If God doesn't care what a priest has done and he remains a priest regardless, then Catholic succession claims could theoretically be valid. If on the other hand, as in the D&C quote states, if unrighteousness ends a priest's priesthood, AND if one believes there have been unrighteous popes and bishops in Catholicism, then the true priesthood would be lost.

I would argue also that the form of ordination is also very important, that one state that one is being ordained to the "Melchizadek Priesthood" or words including that intent, or the ordination is invalid. That is what we believe doctrinally- those words MUST be stated for a valid priesthood ordination.

Of course Catholics don't use those words, so that alone would negate the ordinance from our pov.

That is similar to the Catholic belief that the "form" of our baptism is not valid and so they do not recognize our baptisms.

So we don't recognize their priesthood for those reasons, and they don't recognize ours. No surprises here.

[mfbukowski]

Since we have been thoroughly taught on this board that the LDS are not in the business of tearing down the faith of others, I would suggest that you cease and desist from this attack on the Catholics.

In that case, the thread itself should not exist. The OP is about Apostasy of Authority and that is what we are discussing!

[mfbukowski]

There is a distinction between priesthood and priesthood keys. Without the keys the work cannot be directed. And though one may lose their individual priesthood through unrighteousness(though they can repent) yet their ministrations are binding if performed under proper direction through those who hold the keys.

Got it! Yep!