Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[saemo]

He was one of the Twelve and your failure to recognize him as such doesn't mean he wasn't what he was.

Nobody has said you didn't come up with some of your own ideas which you consider to be true. That's just not what the truth is.

I'm the one saying he was an apostle just as much as any other apostle, including today's apostles, while you deny that.

Testimony is evidence, and we have given you our testimony as well as the testimony of Jesus Christ in the spirit of prophecy.

You can keep saying that as much as you want but that doesn't negate the fact that you are rejecting a lot of the truth.

I've given you the evidence for reality. You just keep telling me stories, that have no evidence behind them, and frankly ignore the most obvious evidence. WHAT THE APOSTLES DID. You can imagine something different all you like, but when what you imagine doesn't match to reality, I'm not convinced.

[Ahab]

I've given you the evidence for reality. You just keep telling me stories, that have no evidence behind them, and frankly ignore the most obvious evidence. WHAT THE APOSTLES DID. You can imagine something different all you like, but when what you imagine doesn't match to reality, I'm not convinced.

What are you talking about, exactly? I think you're talking about what you THINK they did, rather than what they did.

You don't even know what the apostles WERE, if you think bishops in your church have the equivalent role and authority of the apostles. To see the difference between your ideas and reality all you have to do is see the difference between apostles in your church and apostles in our church, which is the true church of the Lord. You think your way is the right way, though, so what is right looks wrong to your eyes.

Oh well, I think I've tried often enough to help you see what I see. In the end our Lord's apostles will judge us, and that is as it should be.

[mathonihah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."^[2]

The quorum as defined in the D&C can have a maximum number and a minimum number. It cannot exceed the maximum number, nor drop below the minimum number to form a quorum. The members of the First Presidency have all previously been ordained Apostles, but they don't serve in the First Presidency as Apostles; they serve as High Priests. Neither are they members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles any more. When the President of the Church dies, his counsellors don't rejoin that quorum, although I suppose they can be invited to take part in the proceedings as a courtesy extended to them. But the quorum will always remain a quorum of twelve members, not 13, or 14, or 15.

[Robert F. Smith]

As I said, there is no evidence of the LDS claim in the ancient church.

You were provided with plenty of such evidence, and you chose not to refute it. Does this mean that you are now prepared to go back and reread those items and to respond to them the way 3DOP might? I am very disappointed in your failure to engage on serious, substantive issues, saemo. Do you consider this the sincere approach?

Just a suggestion: You might try reading some of the Roman Catholic experts in the area of early Christianity and New Testament times (most of them are priests).

[Robert F. Smith]

The quorum as defined in the D&C can have a maximum number and a minimum number. It cannot exceed the maximum number, nor drop below the minimum number to form a quorum. The members of the First Presidency have all previously been ordained Apostles, but they don't serve in the First Presidency as Apostles; they serve as High Priests. Neither are they members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles any more. When the President of the Church dies, his counsellors don't rejoin that quorum, although I suppose they can be invited to take part in the proceedings as a courtesy extended to them. But the quorum will always remain a quorum of twelve members, not 13, or 14, or 15.

You are wrong on nearly all counts, Mathonihah. There are currently 15 LDS apostles, and more can be appointed if desired. Serving in the First Presidency does not remove them from apostleship, and on the death of the prophet, all apostles rejoin the "Twelve" in order of seniority. Reminds me of the Twelve presbyters (or Fifteen, with the three priests) as the foundation wall of the NT and Qumran community (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Num 3:4, Mat 10:1-4, 19:28, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:13-16, Jn 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [Twelve Disciples of John rebaptized by Paul], Rev 21:14). The three Pillars (styloi) of the NT Church were Peter, James, and John.(Gal 2:9). In fact, Jesus was specifically stated to have been an apostle as well as high priest (Heb 3:1).

[mathonihah]

You are wrong on nearly all counts, Mathonihah.

I think that you are!

There are currently 15 LDS apostles, and more can be appointed if desired.

There are 15 who have been ordained Apostles, but only 12 members of the quorum. There cannot be more than 12 members of the Quorum (D&C 107:23–24). You can have a million apostles if you like; but only Twelve of them can form a governing quorum of the Church at any one time. And the minimum number that can still form a quorum is 7 (D&C106:6). You have no quorum below 7, and none above 12.

Serving in the First Presidency does not remove them from apostleship,

Yeah, but it doesn't make them members of the Quorum of the Twelve either. Members of the First Presidency do not serve in that capacity as Apostles, but as High Priests (D&C 107:22). They may be Apostles, but they don't serve as Apostles, they serve as High Priests. They don't even have to be Apostles. The First Presidency pre-dates the Apostles, and goes back to the days of Adam (D&C 107:29). There were no Apostles in the days of Adam, only High Priests.The Apostles are also High Priests (D&C 106:1). The High Priesthood is greater than any office within it, including the Apostleship. Adam was a High Priest, not an Apostle. So were Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, and Melchizedek.

and on the death of the prophet, all apostles rejoin the "Twelve" in order of seniority.

The rule of seniority is a convention, not an integral part of the quorum constitution or organization. An Apostle is an Apostle. There is no difference between an old Apostle and a new Apostle. LOL!

Reminds me of the Twelve presbyters (or Fifteen, with the three priests) as the foundation wall of the NT and Qumran community (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Num 3:4, Mat 10:1-4, 19:28, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:13-16, Jn 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [Twelve Disciples of John rebaptized by Paul], Rev 21:14). The three Pillars (styloi) of the NT Church were Peter, James, and John.(Gal 2:9). In fact, Jesus was specifically stated to have been an apostle as well as high priest (Heb 3:1).

That is speculation or an irrelevance, or a mixture of both.

Edited April 2, 2013 by mathonihah

[Alan]

Joining this discussion late.

There seems to be a question regarding Paul's status.

I am of the view (and I am not alone in this) that Paul was, in fact, a Seventy. In the early christian church the seventy were often referred to as the "seventy apostles". Therefore, Paul could legitimately claim to be an apostle, while not being equal in authority to Peter or John (he does not seem to be) or a member of the quorum of the twelve.

[saemo]

You were provided with plenty of such evidence, and you chose not to refute it. Does this mean that you are now prepared to go back and reread those items and to respond to them the way 3DOP might? I am very disappointed in your failure to engage on serious, substantive issues, saemo. Do you consider this the sincere approach?

Just a suggestion: You might try reading some of the Roman Catholic experts in the area of early Christianity and New Testament times (most of them are priests).

I don't view LDS claims of revelation as evidence.

I'm not 3DOP, but did answer what you asked. Could be that when LDS take the actions of the Apostle's seriously, maybe you'll see that my responses are serious.

[Robert F. Smith]

The rule of seniority is a convention, not an integral part of the quorum constitution or organization. An Apostle is an Apostle. There is no difference between an old Apostle and a new Apostle. LOL!

Glad to see that you now accept the apostles as such and have corrected your more egregious errors on the subject.

However, seniority among LDS apostles is not mere form. On the death of an LDS Church President, a president of the Twelve who has been serving in the First Presidency can return to the Twelve and immediately regains his place as president of the Twelve (bumping an acting president back into his proper place). All other apostles in the First Presidency also return and take their places in the line of succession according to seniority. Do they bump more junior members of the Quorum from membership in the Quorum? Of course not. All are now equals with one presiding Apostle, regardless of their number. Whatever decision is made must be by unanimity. Must a President of the Church be replaced immediately. No. After the death of Joseph, Brother Brigham spent a long time as President of the Twelve before he became President of the Church.

That is speculation or an irrelevance, or a mixture of both.

Speculative and irrelevant to you, of course, but not to the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars who study early Jewish Christianity. In their view, it is no accident that the organization of the Qumran sect, the Jewish synagogue, and the early Christian Church followed a common pattern.

[mathonihah]

Glad to see that you now accept the apostles as such and have corrected your more egregious errors on the subject.

What the #%€^$!*¥?& are you talking about? I haven't changed anything, accepted anything, rejected anything, nor denied anything. There is nothing in my last post that contradicts what I had said in the one before it.

However, seniority among LDS apostles is not mere form. On the death of an LDS Church President, a president of the Twelve who has been serving in the First Presidency can return to the Twelve and immediately regains his place as president of the Twelve (bumping an acting president back into his proper place). All other apostles in the First Presidency also return and take their places in the line of succession according to seniority. Do they bump more junior members of the Quorum from membership in the Quorum? Of course not. All are now equals with one presiding Apostle, regardless of their number. Whatever decision is made must be by unanimity. Must a President of the Church be replaced immediately. No. After the death of Joseph, Brother Brigham spent a long time as President of the Twelve before he became President of the Church.

That is still a convention. There is no way that you can cut that cloth so can end up with more than 12 Apostles in a quorum.

Speculative and irrelevant to you, of course, but not to the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars who study early Jewish Christianity. In their view, it is no accident that the organization of the Qumran sect, the Jewish synagogue, and the early Christian Church followed a common pattern.

Whatever it is, it has no bearing on what the Lord has revealed in modern scripture about the structure of a priesthood quorum. It applies to any priesthood quorum, not just the Twelve Apostles.

Edited April 2, 2013 by mathonihah

[Ahab]

What the #%€^$!*¥?& are you talking about? I haven't changed anything, accepted anything, rejected anything, nor denied anything. There is nothing in my last post that contradicts what I had said in the one before it.

That is still a convention. There is no way that you can cut that cloth so can end up with more than 12 Apostles in a quorum.

Whatever it is, it has no bearing on what the Lord has revealed in modern scripture about the structure of a priesthood quorum. It applies to any priesthood quorum, not just the Twelve Apostles.

I've already given you a reference to help you understand that a "quorum" refers to a minimum number, rather than a maximum. Are you still pondering on what quorum all of the Apostles of our Lord are members of at this time? There have been more than only 12 who have been called and ordained to the office of an apostle. You do realize that deceased apostles count too, don't you? So what quorum are they all in? And how many must there be before another quorum of twelve can be appointed? Hint: Remember quorum = minimum number. Answer: For there to be 2 quorums of twelve apostles there would have to be 24 apostles on the Earth at the same time. Can you think of a time when our Lord has called more than one quorum of apostles? Hint: There's a record of that event in the Book of Mormon.

[mathonihah]

I've already given you a reference to help you understand that a "quorum" refers to a minimum number, rather than a maximum.

And did you overlook what I said, that in modern revelation a priesthood quorum has a maximum number as well as a minimum number. That is true of all priesthood quorums, whether they be priests, teachers, deacons, elders, the First Presidency, or the Twelve Apostles. That is written in black and white in the D&C. That is where Mormon doctrine is, not in Wikipedia. The elders quorum has 96 elders. If there are more than 96 it has to be split up. The same is true of priests, teachers, or deacons. See D&C 107. The only difference is that whereas you can have more than one quorums of priests, teachers, deacons, or elders; you can only have one each of the First Presidency or the Twelve within the Church organization.

Are you still pondering on what quorum all of the Apostles of our Lord are members of at this time? There have been more than only 12 who have been called and ordained to the office of an apostle. You do realize that deceased apostles count too, don't you? So what quorum are they all in?

I have no idea what happens to the Apostles when they go to the other side of the veil. I am talking about the revealed Church organization here on earth. There can be only one Quorum of the Twelve in the Church here on earth at any given time, and it can have only 12 members, not more. If there are more, they cannot be members of the same quorum.

And how many must there be before another quorum of twelve can be appointed? Hint: Remember quorum = minimum number. Answer: For there to be 2 quorums of twelve apostles there would have to be 24 apostles on the Earth at the same time. Can you think of a time when our Lord has called more than one quorum of apostles? Hint: There's a record of that event in the Book of Mormon.

If you are referring to the twelve disciple whom Jesus called among the Nephites, first of all the Book of Mormon is very careful to designate them as “disciples” rather than as “Apostles”. It even goes so far as to say that they will be judged by Twelve whom Jesus called during his ministry in Palestinian. It is careful to relighted them to a secondary position. But even assuming that your theory is correct, that only would mean that there can be more than one Quorum of Twelve Apostles, not that there can be more than twelve in a quorum. Your claim that a (priesthood) quorum has a minimum number but not a maximum may be true according to the Wikipedia, but not according to the D&C. An elders quorum president presides over 96 elders and no more. If there are more you split it up, the same with any other priesthood quorum.

Edited April 2, 2013 by mathonihah

[Ahab]

I have no idea what happens to the Apostles when they go to the other side of the veil. I am talking about the revealed Church organization here on earth.

Okay. I'm pretty sure all of the apostles are still in some quorum of apostles, whether they are living or dead, but I concede your point that there is only one Quorum of Twelve here on the Earth now (as far as us mortals are concerned). I still say you're wrong though as far as it only being able to have only 12 members in that quorum, though. There are at least some times when it can have more than 12 members and it can stay that way for years and years, depending on whether or not the apostles form another quorum.

There can be only one Quorum of the Twelve in the Church here on earth at any given time, and it can have only 12 members, not more. If there are more, they cannot be members of the same quorum.

They can and have proven you wrong. I suggest you try a little harder to understand what Apostles can do when they work together as a quorum.

If you are referring to the twelve disciple whom Jesus called among the Nephites, first of all the Book of Mormon is very careful to designate them as “disciples” rather than as “Apostles”. It even goes so far as to say that they will be judged by Twelve whom Jesus called during his ministry in Palestinian. It is careful to relighted them to a secondary position. But even assuming that your theory is correct, that only would mean that there can be more than one Quorum of Twelve Apostles, not that there can be more than twelve in a quorum. Your claim that a (priesthood) quorum has a minimum number but not a maximum may be true according to the Wikipedia, but not according to the D&C. An elders quorum president presides over 96 elders and no more. If there are more you split it up, the same with any other priesthood quorum.

It's true according to the way things have worked before and will work again when the Quorum of the First Presidency is dissolved, again. There have been many times when that quorum has had more than only 12 apostles in it, and that proves it can have more than 12 apostles in it. It can stay that way for quite a while too, as it has before, but usually the apostles will go ahead and form another quorum and that quorum also has apostles in it who do the work which apostles do and they have been appointed by our Lord to do that work. They're not just acting as high priests, as you have claimed. High priests can't do what they do unless those high priests are also apostles and have been appointed by our Lord to that particular work.

We're in agreement more than we're in disagreement, I think, but still we're not in total agreement.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Ahab

[mathonihah]

Okay. I'm pretty sure all of the apostles are still in some quorum of apostles, whether they are living or dead, but I concede your point that there is only one Quorum of Twelve here on the Earth now (as far as us mortals are concerned). I still say you're wrong though as far as it only being able to have only 12 members in that quorum, though. There are at least some times when it can have more than 12 members and it can stay that way for years and years, depending on whether or not the apostles form another quorum.

They can and have proven you wrong. I suggest you try a little harder to understand what Apostles can do when they work together as a quorum.

It's true according to the way things have worked before and will work again when the Quorum of the First Presidency is dissolved, again. There have been many times when that quorum has had more than only 12 apostles in it, and that proves it can have more than 12 apostles in it. It can stay that way for quite a while too, as it has before, but usually the apostles will go ahead and form another quorum and that quorum also has apostles in it who do the work which apostles do and they have been appointed by our Lord to do that work. They're not just acting as high priests, as you have claimed. High priests can't do what they do unless those high priests are also apostles and have been appointed by our Lord to that particular work.

We're in agreement more than we're in disagreement, I think, but still we're not in total agreement.

I think you are confusing the idea of there being more than 12 Apostles, with the idea of them being part of the Quorum. I don't deny that there can be more than 12 Apostles at any given time, but I disagree that they can form part of the same Quorum. They can be invited to attend the meetings if need be; but they cannot form part of the Quorum. Elder Alvin R Dyer is a case in point. He was ordained an Apostle, but was never made a member of the Quorum.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't view LDS claims of revelation as evidence.

The LDS claim of revelation is probably not the best evidence of the antiquity of the LDS Church, since anyone can claim to have revelation. The structure and doctrine of the LDS Church is itself the best evidence that it is the authentic, restored Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth, with a Prophet at its head. I fully realize that, being Roman Catholic, you cannot accept that, and that you feel that the Roman Catholic Church is the authentic Church of Christ with the Pope at its head. I very much respect that, and find that Catholic scholarship is often worthy of my full attention. There is a great deal of truth in Roman Catholicism, but the priesthood power exercised by Roman Catholic priests is null and void -- despite the best of intentions of those acting in priesthood offices. It all comes down to authority from God.

I'm not 3DOP, but did answer what you asked. Could be that when LDS take the actions of the Apostle's seriously, maybe you'll see that my responses are serious.

I read no serious response or engagement from you with what I demonstrated. Of course you are not obligated to respond to anything. However, this is supposed to be a discussion board. Just now you are in attack mode. Not very kind, gracious, or ecumenical.

My suggestion to you is: Read more of your own Roman Catholic scholarship on the early Christian Church. See if what I am saying is not so. Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

[Ahab]

I think you are confusing the idea of there being more than 12 Apostles, with the idea of them being part of the Quorum. I don't deny that there can be more than 12 Apostles at any given time, but I disagree that they can form part of the same Quorum. They can be invited to attend the meetings if need be; but they cannot form part of the Quorum. Elder Alvin R Dyer is a case in point. He was ordained an Apostle, but was never made a member of the Quorum.

I agree that is the issue we're not in agreement on, each of us thinking our position is the correct one. The way I see it, a quorum is what a man is a member of as soon as he is ordained to a particular office, such that any person man who is ordained to the office of an elder is automatically part of THE elder's quorum, regardless of which part of that quorum he meets with. There is only one Elder's quorum, regardless of how many times that quorum has been divided into distinct groups. You seem to think each division of an elder's quorum is it's own separate quorum, as if there is more than only one quorum, and while it's often talked about in that way within THE Church, it's actually just another part of the same quorum all elders are members of. Similar to how each branch or ward in the church is part of the same Church, rather than being it's own separate church, as if there are 2 or more true churches, although people sometimes talk in those terms too.

I don't know much about Elder Dyer, but the way I see it, if he was ordained to the office of an apostle, then he was automatically admitted into the quorum all apostles are members of, even though he may not have become one of the (usually) 12 apostles directly under the First Presidency.

[mathonihah]

I agree that is the issue we're not in agreement on, each of us thinking our position is the correct one. The way I see it, a quorum is what a man is a member of as soon as he is ordained to a particular office, such that any person man who is ordained to the office of an elder is automatically part of THE elder's quorum, regardless of which part of that quorum he meets with. There is only one Elder's quorum, regardless of how many times that quorum has been divided into distinct groups. You seem to think each division of an elder's quorum is it's own separate quorum, as if there is more than only one quorum, and while it's often talked about in that way within THE Church, it's actually just another part of the same quorum all elders are members of. Similar to how each branch or ward in the church is part of the same Church, rather than being it's own separate church, as if there are 2 or more true churches, although people sometimes talk in those terms too.

Okay, here is a question for you. How many elders quorum presidents are there in the Church, one or many? And if all the elders in the Church form a quorum, then how come there are so many quorum presidents around? And why do they need keys to govern their own respective quorums?

Another question. How many members are there in the quorum of the First Presidency? If there can be more than three, where would they come from, and how would they get there? The First Presidency serve as high priests, not as Apostles. And the high priests of the Church don't have a quorum (unlike the elders). All the high priests of the Church form one quorum. So by that token there is no First Presidency either, because they are all a bunch if high priests, and a part of that greater quorum. And the Apostles are high priests too, so they are all part of the same high priests quorum, and the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are redundant; we just have a bunch of high priests running around doing what they want. Your theory if taken seriously would quickly dismantle the Church.

Edited April 3, 2013 by mathonihah

[Ahab]

Okay, here is a question for you. How many elders quorum presidents are there in the Church, one or many?

Many. Duh.

And if all the elders in the Church form a quorum, then how come there are so many quorum presidents around?

Because the Lord wants a President for each distinct group. They're all still part of the same collective Elder's quorum, though.

And why do they need keys to govern their own respective quorums?

So they can each do what they should do in their distinct group, They're all still part of the same collective Elder's quorum, though.

Another question. How many members are there in the quorum of the First Presidency?

3 living mortals + all who have ever served in that quorum who were not excommunicated from THE Church.

If there can be more than three, where would they come from, and how would they get there?

They come from where others came before them and they got there the way the others do. Divine appointment and authorization.

The First Presidency serve as high priests, not as Apostles.

High priests with something extra. Not all high priests have keys of the kingdom so they need something else to get those.

And the high priests of the Church don't have a quorum (unlike the elders).

Yes they do, and each Stake President presides over the high priest and all others with the Melchizedek order of priesthood in his stake.

All the high priests of the Church form one quorum.

Just as other offices of the priesthood are in one quorum.

So by that token there is no First Presidency either, because they are all a bunch if high priests, and a part of that greater quorum.

Most who hold the priesthood are in more than one quorum, and most meet with others in the highest order they've received. Someone who has been ordained to the office of a priest is still a part of the priest's quorum, if he is still a priest, even though he will usually meet with elders or high priests if he has been ordained to one of those offices. He doesn't lose his standing as a priest, in other words.

And the Apostles are high priests too, so they are all part of the same high priests quorum, and the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are redundant; we just have a bunch of high priests running around doing what they want. Your theory if taken seriously would quickly dismantle the Church.

Think about it some more a bit more seriously. You seem to have trouble understanding how it all works together.

[mathonihah]

Because the Lord wants a President for each distinct group. They're all still part of the same collective Elder's quorum, though.

Well that is your invention. The Lord has never called all the elders in the Church, or all the priests etc., a quorum. How many are there in a quorum of Seventy? How come there can be no more than seventy? There can be less than seventy, but not more. You can have seven times seventy, but you can't have ninty. How come? You are inventing doctrine as you go along.

[canard78]

Neither would I especially since the RLDS particularly disliked the nickname until we became more popular, and they no longer even use Latter-Day Saints in their Church name

Instead they reverted to the original name that was given to the 1830 church.

[Ahab]

Well that is your invention. The Lord has never called all the elders in the Church, or all the priests etc., a quorum. How many are there in a quorum of Seventy? How come there can be no more than seventy? There can be less than seventy, but not more. You can have seven times seventy, but you can't have ninty. How come? You are inventing doctrine as you go along.

Don't you see yourself contradicting yourself? I sure do. You say you can have seven times seventy - which equals 490 - but you can't have 90. Uh, hello!

What quorum is anyone in if they are in a quorum of seventy? A quorum of 70. How many people can there be in a quorum of 70? A heck of a lot more than only 70.

Now let's take another look at the quorum for apostles. How many apostles have there been in the Church? More than just 12, right? Right? Do you still think I'm just making this stuff up as I go along? Hello?

[mathonihah]

Don't you see yourself contradicting yourself? I sure do. You say you can have seven times seventy - which equals 490 - but you can't have 90. Uh, hello!

What quorum is anyone in if they are in a quorum of seventy? A quorum of 70. How many people can there be in a quorum of 70? A heck of a lot more than only 70.

Now let's take another look at the quorum for apostles. How many apostles have there been in the Church? More than just 12, right? Right? Do you still think I'm just making this stuff up as I go along? Hello?

Yes. You are using a definition of quorum that that has no basis in scripture.

Edited April 5, 2013 by mathonihah

[Monster]

You can look at all the sources and ancient works you can get your hands on, but until you receive a personal witness from and by the power of the Holy Spirit, those things will always just be things you have a difficult time reconciling.

It's the same way with any member of the Church who struggles with faith in certain principles or doctrines of the Restored Gospel, not just the Great Apostasy. Studying the logic and parameters and prophecies and whatever else won't mean anything without a personal testimony of the truth of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A well-nourished testimony is essential to our survival in the times in which we live, where the Enemy of our souls has more power now than he ever had in the past (imo).

Just my musings...

A testimony without using logic, reason, and study of all sides of the issue is just wishful thinking or believing. Anyone can claim they believe anything but that does not make it real. A true testimony has to stand up to the rigors of evidence and rationality.

As far as the ancient church is concerned I think you would find very little support outside of Mormonism that the current LDS church has any relation to what was practiced long ago. There is little to support that claim other than Mormons claiming it is so.

[MormonMason]

Someone besides the 12 were:

1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles

It would seem that there was "Cephas and the 12" and in a second group "all the apostles". Someone besides the 12 were "all the apostles".

Cephas was one of the original Twelve. Cephas is Peter. Yet, this passage can be taken as separating him from the Twelve with this above interpretation taken to its logical conclusion as a result of postulating separable groups of apostles in this fashion. The context is that of resurrection appearances and the list isn't even complete at that (Mary Magdelene is omitted from the list of those who saw the risen Lord).

[CASteinman]

Cephas was one of the original Twelve. Cephas is Peter. Yet, this passage can be taken as separating him from the Twelve with this above interpretation taken to its logical conclusion as a result of postulating separable groups of apostles in this fashion. The context is that of resurrection appearances and the list isn't even complete at that (Mary Magdelene is omitted from the list of those who saw the risen Lord).

I am a bit sick and feel dull minded. I am not sure of what your point is. I don't think that is your fault-- its my slowness right now.