Infant LDS vs. Infant Catholicism

[Quiddity]

Davycrocket,

To answer your question regarding St. Paul (same goes with Matthias) and the office of apostle...first....it is important to keep note that in the apostolic age, all of the terms now attached to Catholic clergy...episkopos (overseer, bishop), presbuteros (elder, priest), diakonos (servant, minister, deacon)...were fluid in meaning and could apply to different offices. Anyone who had an oversight role could be called a bishop, anyone who was an elder in the community could be called a presbyter, and anyone in the community who served or ministered could be called a deacon. It was more a descriptor then an actual defined office. Not that the offices didn’t exist, it’s just that Christianity was just getting rolling and people didn’t exactly have a detailed job description.

This was true even if the person in question had the highest office of all: that of apostle. The apostles Judas and his successor Matthias could be described as having a "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The apostle Peter could describe himself as a "fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1); and the apostle Paul could describe himself as a "servant" or "minister" (diakonos, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23, 25). So, the terms had not acquired the technical senses they did over the course of the first century.

 

[Quiddity]

Basically...

If the LDS claim that the apostasy took place is true, then we would expect to see differences between the church today and the early church. We do see differences, so the LDS claim isn't disproven right off the bat.

The fact that there are changes doesn't mean the the LDS claim it true though - and a lot of LDS people miss this essential point. In all actuality, since the world today is a different place than it was 2000 years ago, I would fully expect that even if the Catholic church was the true one there would be changes. Churches evolve along with the people that make them up.

Yes...this is missed. That's why I've never understood the LDS arguing against early Church "changing". I always said to myself "wait a minute...aren't you guys ok with change?". Sounds like a self-defeating argument...

The question then becomes, then, were the people and processes involved in making the changes authorized to make them? That question is what the apostasy debate actually centers on.

Does this include the Apostles? If not, why not?

The councils tended to be collections of politicians and philosophers. They were not prophets, and, we believe, they were not authoritative figures as far as God was concerned. Could God still work through politicians and philosophers rather than Prophets and Apostles? Sure. We don't believe he did though - I'm not sure what the reason for this is, other than possibly that they wouldn't let Him.

See Acts 15...there were certainly Apostles there and they certainly didn't defer to no politicians or philosphers. I'm guessing LDS has a tendency of focusing on latter Councils which were more politically driven, but nonetheless does nothing to disprove the process itself. At no point in the NT do they defer to some sort of prophet either.

When an LDS person quotes someone from the early centuries of the church it is mostly to point out that an idea that was restored in the latter days existed in the primative church - and depending on how well known that fact is, that Joseph Smith probably didn't come up with it by reserching the writings of early Christians. We don't quote them as authoritative sources, but as sources that were familiar with a church that had been less "tainted" by the apostasy.

The apostasy was well underway by the end of the first century. After all - fighting off apostasy was the purpose of most of the epistles that make up the New Testament.

I'm still not clear on why the question of "whom gave them authority?" even pops up if it's not about doctrine? I'm not understanding this.

 

[Quiddity]

Okay, I got lost somewhere along the line. Victor, you said, "In otherwords, having the LDS hierarchy in place in early times wouldn't of made a difference." I replied, "Not if they'd been killed, it wouldn't." There seemed to be some confusion as to what I meant. Let me see if I can clarify. I believe that if the LDS hierarchy had been in place in the first century instead of the Apostles we both agree Jesus called to serve with Him, the Apostasy would have occurred just as it did. I'm assuming that it wouldn't have mattered much who had been leading the Church in that period of time. There were simply too many factors why, despite their best efforts, they were unable to hold the Church together any better than they did. There were external causes (i.e. Judiastic and pagan persecution, etc.) and internal causes (dissentions, heresies and rebellion against the Church's legitimate leadership) for the Church to have survived in its original form. No group of men could have tried harder or done a better job than the Apostles did. It's just that in the end, the forces working against them were too much.

If this is the case, is it then fair to say that it can still occur within the LDS Church? After all, just increase the external factors and forces and what Church can survive?

 

[Katzpur]

If this is the case, is it then fair to say that it can still occur within the LDS Church? After all, just increase the external factors and forces and what Church can survive?

By all indications, the external factors are not decreasing at all. They were at the beginning, no doubt, but the Church has grown from 6 members in 1830 to 13.5 million today (roughly 180 years later). Today, there are roughly 900 convert baptisms each and every day, and two-thirds of the membership of the Church are first-generation converts. People have asked me why Jesus Christ would have waited until 1830 to restore His Church and why in America of all places. I believe He knew when the time and the place were both right. There is no way the Church would have survived had it been restored even a hundred and fifty years earlier or in any other part of the world.

 

[painted wolf]

By all indications, the external factors are not decreasing at all. They were at the beginning, no doubt, but the Church has grown from 6 members in 1830 to 13.5 million today (roughly 180 years later). Today, there are roughly 900 convert baptisms each and every day, and two-thirds of the membership of the Church are first-generation converts. People have asked me why Jesus Christ would have waited until 1830 to restore His Church and why in America of all places. I believe He knew when the time and the place were both right. There is no way the Church would have survived had it been restored even a hundred and fifty years earlier or in any other part of the world.

that is a very valid point... the LDS started at a time when new faiths were, if not welcomed with open arms, generally tolerated and not exterminated. (not that it was easy going either)

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

By all indications, the external factors are not decreasing at all. They were at the beginning, no doubt, but the Church has grown from 6 members in 1830 to 13.5 million today (roughly 180 years later). Today, there are roughly 900 convert baptisms each and every day, and two-thirds of the membership of the Church are first-generation converts. People have asked me why Jesus Christ would have waited until 1830 to restore His Church and why in America of all places. I believe He knew when the time and the place were both right. There is no way the Church would have survived had it been restored even a hundred and fifty years earlier or in any other part of the world.

Was that a "no"? I'm not sure.

I'm guessing you'd almost have to believe the "restored" church is immune to the very same destruction the early church was, right? Not because it's got it easier (coming to be in the 1830's), but because it's got valid authority, while the early Church didn't because...umm...I'm still not sure why exactly, because I used to think it was because of false doctrine, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Quiddity]

that is a very valid point... the LDS started at a time when new faiths were, if not welcomed with open arms, generally tolerated and not exterminated. (not that it was easy going either)

wa:do

With that logic (IMO) it would have been better if it came to be in the 1900's as it was even more tolerant and could spread quicker.

There is something to be learned about going through struggles IMO...

 

[SoyLeche]

With that logic (IMO) it would have been better if it came to be in the 1900's as it was even more tolerant and could spread quicker.

Or it could just be that it came "as soon as it could"...

There is something to be learned about going through struggles IMO...

I agree - there definitely is.

I believe that the world is a better place because of the Catholic church. It might even be that 2000 years of apostate Christianity was a necessary step to prepare the world for non-apostate Christianity..

 

[SoyLeche]

Was that a "no"? I'm not sure.

I'm guessing you'd almost have to believe the "restored" church is immune to the very same destruction the early church was, right? Not because it's got it easier (coming to be in the 1830's), but because it's got valid authority, while the early Church didn't because...umm...I'm still not sure why exactly, because I used to think it was because of false doctrine, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

I've said before, and I still believe that it is probably the case, that the church today has a pretty major advantage over the primative church - it's much easier to diseminate information today than it was then. By the time Joseph Smith came around we had the printing press, and a good part of the population knew how to read. Not long thereafter we had the telegraph, the railroads, telephone, radio, etc.

If I have a question about a doctrine I can go to the internet and find out what the Prophets and Apostles have said on the subject within a couple of minutes, and I can be reasonably confident that the information that I am receiving is credible. They weren't able to do that in 100AD.

 

[SoyLeche]

Does this include the Apostles? If not, why not?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I think we can both agree that the Apostles were authorized to lead the church.

See Acts 15...there were certainly Apostles there and they certainly didn't defer to no politicians or philosphers. I'm guessing LDS has a tendency of focusing on latter Councils which were more politically driven, but nonetheless does nothing to disprove the process itself. At no point in the NT do they defer to some sort of prophet either.

The presence of Apostles differentiates this particular council from those that came later. I'm not trying to disprove the process - I know where the church got the idea for the councils - and it's a pretty good idea, one of the best ways for an organization of men to run. The process is worthless without authority though - as I'm sure you would agree. If you and a couple hundred of your Catholic friends got together and had a "council" following the process perfectly, do you think that what you decided would be binding in any way upon the church?

I'm still not clear on why the question of "whom gave them authority?" even pops up if it's not about doctrine? I'm not understanding this.

I don't know that it was worth it to the author to bring that up - I would assume it was

 

[painted wolf]

With that logic (IMO) it would have been better if it came to be in the 1900's as it was even more tolerant and could spread quicker.

There is something to be learned about going through struggles IMO...

exactly.. and that time period gave them those struggles without the timing issues of being overly vulnerable to early extinction.

I think the timing of it all, while not miraculous was very fortunate for a young faith to hit the ground running. The migration of Easterners into the rest of North America also helped, but loosening the grip of the major religions on the scattered frontier population.
It was a boom time for small tent revival and other unorthodox religious practices.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

I've said before, and I still believe that it is probably the case, that the church today has a pretty major advantage over the primative church - it's much easier to diseminate information today than it was then. By the time Joseph Smith came around we had the printing press, and a good part of the population knew how to read. Not long thereafter we had the telegraph, the railroads, telephone, radio, etc.

If I have a question about a doctrine I can go to the internet and find out what the Prophets and Apostles have said on the subject within a couple of minutes, and I can be reasonably confident that the information that I am receiving is credible. They weren't able to do that in 100AD.

This.....then becomes an argument of the times and circumstances rather then authority. I'm trying to figure out how authority has any bearing on LDS claim.

For example:

"The early church didn't have any authority because......."

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not sure what you are asking. I think we can both agree that the Apostles were authorized to lead the church.

You said:
"were the people and processes involved in making the changes authorized to make them..."
If you're going to pose such a question; why do you not question the authority of the Apostles and the people they appointed?

The presence of Apostles differentiates this particular council from those that came later.

This is still how we do it to this day...:yes:

Its the politics involved in it all that I'm guessing bothers you guys.

I'm not trying to disprove the process - I know where the church got the idea for the councils - and it's a pretty good idea, one of the best ways for an organization of men to run. The process is worthless without authority though - as I'm sure you would agree.

Actually...no I don't. Truth can come out of any organization, whether it's got "proper authority" or not. However, the difference comes in whether it can teach falsehood.

If you and a couple hundred of your Catholic friends got together and had a "council" following the process perfectly, do you think that what you decided would be binding in any way upon the church?

Not at all...here we agree.

I don't know that it was worth it to the author to bring that up - I would assume it was

Well, this also came from you...(see the quote on this post).

Now, I'm not sure if you think the early church teaching error was relevant or not.
As, I may be getting conflicting answers here, hopefully we can clear this up.

 

[SoyLeche]

You said:
"were the people and processes involved in making the changes authorized to make them..."
If you're going to pose such a question; why do you not question the authority of the Apostles and the people they appointed?

Because I figured that we were in agreement on that point.

This is still how we do it to this day...:yes:

The fact that you believe this is why you accept the authority of the latter councils. I do not.

Its the politics involved in it all that I'm guessing bothers you guys.

Largely - although the lack of authority is still the bigger issue.

Actually...no I don't. Truth can come out of any organization, whether it's got "proper authority" or not. However, the difference comes in whether it can teach falsehood.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Not at all...here we agree.

Finally - We agree on something!!!

Well, this also came from you...(see the quote on this post).

Now, I'm not sure if you think the early church teaching error was relevant or not.
As, I may be getting conflicting answers here, hopefully we can clear this up.

Also not sure what you mean by either of these statements.

 

[Quiddity]

Because I figured that we were in agreement on that point.

Geesh...we must have a batting average of 1.000 in communication....

No...we are not in agreement on this point. I'm not the one questioning the authority of first century Christians...you guys are.

I'm just trying to understand why you guys are being selective on this. On what basis do you guys determine who does or does not have authority? If you guys only stick to the apostles, why? And why ignore the men appointed by the apostles themselves?

The fact that you believe this is why you accept the authority of the latter councils. I do not.

Huh? This isn't a matter of faith SL. This is just how we've done our Councils. We've had a total of 23 Ecumenical Councils since the one in Acts. Don't know why you think it's a matter of belief...

Largely - although the lack of authority is still the bigger issue.

Why the infiltration of anything wordly entering the Church is an issue for you (or LDS) is beyond me. If would be akin to me believing the LDS isn't true because there is a group of Elders/Bishops who are heavily involved in politics and support gay marriage. Even I know as a catholic, that this isn't cause for concern because I'm familiar with the chain of command in the LDS Church.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Unless I misunderstood you......you were saying that without authority it's pointless. I said I disagree and followed with "Truth can come out of any organization, whether it's got "proper authority" or not. However, the difference comes in whether it can teach falsehood."

Finally - We agree on something!!!

I'm sure we agree on much more then that.

Also not sure what you mean by either of these statements.

Katz had mentioned earlier that the Great Apostasy has mostly to do with the loss of authority and nothing to do with false doctrine.

You seem to be hesistant to disagree but seem to almost disagree with that statement. I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Katzpur]

Katz had mentioned earlier that the Great Apostasy has mostly to do with the loss of authority and nothing to do with false doctrine.

Victor, my exact words were: "I think the issue concerns authority more than it does doctrine." "More than" does not mean the the same thing as "nothing to do with." The point I was trying to make was that the existance of Apostles is absolutely essential for the doctrine of the Church to remain pure. Doctrine could, and probably did, remain pure for a period of time after the Apostles' deaths, but ultimately no one held the authority Christ had given them. Consequently, no one was in a position to receive divine guidance and direction for the Church as a whole from its true Head. People were forced to rely on their own interpretations of what the scriptures said, and the more powerful individuals eventually called the shots. In a nutshell, that's how "orthodoxy" was established.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, you'd really just have to stick to the Apostles. Anytime I manage to quote anything before 100 A.D. it will most assuredly be dismissed if it doesn't align to LDS belief. Even if the very man I'm quoting is a close follower of St. John or St. Paul.

That's not entirely true, Victor. I'd say that if you were to quote anything from 300 A.D. it would probably be dismissed, but I would at least hear you out on quotes from individuals who were personally associated with any of the Apostles. After all, look at Bickmore's work. He quotes all the time from non-biblical sources dating from the 1st century to show how certain LDS doctrines were commonly accepted by the early Church.

The office of Apostle in it's original form is dead. It was never intended to go beyond the first twelve.

Could you give me any evidence whatsoever to support this theory? Paul specifically says otherwise. Furthermore, there were three or four Apostles called after the first twelve. That, in and of itself, is proof that the office of Apostle was to continue until Christ's return.

No bishop today, holds the office of Apostle in the same sense. Similar, yes, but no bishops beyond the twelve (or Apostolic era) can spew God's revelation.

Well, I'd agree that no Roman Catholic bishop does.

 

[Katzpur]

Was that a "no"? I'm not sure.

Come on, Victor. You're a smart guy. How could I have responded more clearly?

I'm guessing you'd almost have to believe the "restored" church is immune to the very same destruction the early church was, right? Not because it's got it easier (coming to be in the 1830's), but because it's got valid authority, while the early Church didn't because...umm...I'm still not sure why exactly, because I used to think it was because of false doctrine, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

The early Church did have valid authority. It had exactly the same authority today's Church (mine ) has. False doctrine came to exist because the Apostles -- who held the authority to receive revelation from Christ -- were martyred. Once they were no longer alive, there was no one around who held that authority. The result was, as Paul had said would be the case, men because "like children, tossed about by every wind of doctrine."

I think that part of the problem in your inability to get what we're saying is that, to you, 500 A.D. was "the early Church." To us, 100 A.D. was "the early Church."

 

[Katzpur]

Why the infiltration of anything wordly entering the Church is an issue for you (or LDS) is beyond me. If would be akin to me believing the LDS isn't true because there is a group of Elders/Bishops who are heavily involved in politics and support gay marriage.

Victor, suppose Obama were to call a meeting of all the Roman Catholic bishops in the United States. Some attended; others did not. Once they were convened, he told them that they had to come to some sort of agreement regarding some issue such as the ordination of female bishops, opening up the way to perhaps a female Pope at some point in the future. They argued bitterly back and forth on the matter for several weeks and then finally had a vote. The ones who disagreed got exiled to some foreign country, were stripped of their priesthood and the rest went home happy. The decision, determined by majority rule, became Catholic doctrine and was forever afterwards considered binding on Catholics. Are you telling me you'd be okay with that kind of policy making? If you find my example flawed, could you please explain why?

 

[SoyLeche]

Geesh...we must have a batting average of 1.000 in communication....

Yeah, we have...

No...we are not in agreement on this point. I'm not the one questioning the authority of first century Christians...you guys are.

We are, however, in agreement (I thought) about the authority of the Apostles though, which is what this line of discussion turned into.

I'm just trying to understand why you guys are being selective on this. On what basis do you guys determine who does or does not have authority? If you guys only stick to the apostles, why? And why ignore the men appointed by the apostles themselves?

As I said before, the fact that the authority was lost follows from the fact that Joseph Smith was told that the Authority was no longer present on the Earth. I cannot pinpoint the exact moment when the authority was lost. My guess would be soon after the death of the last Apostle. I don't know why it wasn't passed on.

Huh? This isn't a matter of faith SL. This is just how we've done our Councils. We've had a total of 23 Ecumenical Councils since the one in Acts. Don't know why you think it's a matter of belief...

I said: "The presence of Apostles differentiates this particular council from those that came later."

You said: "This is still how we do it to this day...:yes:"

My subsequent statement ("The fact that you believe this is why you accept the authority of the latter councils. I do not.") was made because I took your statement to mean "The presence of the Apostles is present in the councils to this day". That is what I was saying you are taking on faith.

Why the infiltration of anything wordly entering the Church is an issue for you (or LDS) is beyond me. If would be akin to me believing the LDS isn't true because there is a group of Elders/Bishops who are heavily involved in politics and support gay marriage. Even I know as a catholic, that this isn't cause for concern because I'm familiar with the chain of command in the LDS Church.

It would be akin to this if this group of Elders/Bishops were making rules for the church (they would NOT have the authority to do this). In my view, this is basically what the ecumenical councils were.

Unless I misunderstood you......you were saying that without authority it's pointless. I said I disagree and followed with "Truth can come out of any organization, whether it's got "proper authority" or not. However, the difference comes in whether it can teach falsehood."

I still don't know what "the difernece comes in whether it can teach falsehood" is supposed to mean.

I'm sure we agree on much more then that.

Yeah, but we haven't in this thread much

Katz had mentioned earlier that the Great Apostasy has mostly to do with the loss of authority and nothing to do with false doctrine.

You seem to be hesistant to disagree but seem to almost disagree with that statement. I'm not entirely sure.

Katz has addressed this again. If I recall correctly, I said basically the same thing she did (the post came after hers, but I hadn't read hers yet). I agree with her statement.