Jason

I owe you a few responses yet CK, and promise I will get to them shortly. I'm a bit tired tonight, but have a few new things to bring to the table. By the way, I don't think we have to accept each other's position on this, it is more than sufficient to understand each other's point of view as I see it. :)

Back to this post from earlier, I cracked open my copy of Oscar Cullmann's "The Early Church: Studies In Early Christian History & Theology" and found this: “In early Christianity the word “apostle” is used in two senses: in the wider sense it denotes simply an eye-witness of the resurrection of Christ, in the narrower sense a member of the group of the Twelve who must bear witness not only to Christ risen but also to Christ incarnate on earth. Consequently every apostle is not able, as a direct eye-witness, to pass on information about all the facts. Paul himself cannot report, as an eye-witness, the events of the earthly life of Jesus. And yet he is an apostle since he can give direct eye-witness evidence of the risen Lord whom he has seen and hard on the road to Damascus. For the other events he must rely on the eye-witness testimony of the other apostles. . . . It can now be understood how, in virtue of a real sense of community created by the function of an apostle as witness to Christ, all tradition which in reality he has received by way of other apostles. Thus Paul can say that he has received ‘from the Lord’ a tradition which in reality he has received by way of other apostles. Transmission by the apostles is not effected by men, but by Christ the Lord himself who thereby imparts this revelation. . . . The apostle is essentially one who passes on what he has received by revelation.” (72-73) What do you think of that? I thought it was interesting and pertinent to our discussion. I also came across this in the same text: "Does this favorable estimate of the apostolic paradosis justify the attribution of the same normative import to later ecclesiastical paradosis? The Catholic Church claims that it does; and this is because it identifies the authority of the post-apostolic Church which preserves, transmits and interprets the apostolic message with the authority of the apostles." (75) A footnote to this states: "In this transmission and interpretation of the message, the Church enjoys a divine, infallible authority as did the apostles as recipients of revelation." Thoughts?

Just the one in Acts. If there was another instance, it would add considerable weight to your belief that the Apostolic office was meant to be continued, and not limited to a Bishopric. It is my understanding that all Bible scholars say that James presided over the Council. Do you know of a source, LDS or not, that says otherwise? I'm not sure I see where you get this idea from. I mean I know why you believe this, but I'm not seeing it. Let's stick to pre-Mosaic times. Probably confirmation bias. But let's pretend for a moment it's not. Why is a "central authority" really necessary? One might argue that Joseph Smith didn't have that in mind originally, but in Nauvoo years decided he was alone in charge. What about the so-called Patriarchal Priesthood?

It seems to me that some of the early Apostles in Joseph Smith's day lamented about not seeing the LORD, likewise some Apostle in recent times stated (was it Oaks?) that they don't ask whether anyone has actually seen the LORD (presumably because some have not?). Frankly I have to locate it first. It may just be some bogus rumor a Roman Catholic wanted everyone to hear. Consider how quickly the Apostles appointed a replacement to fill the quorum. Why? And when one of their number fell, why didn't they feel the same sense of urgency to fill it as previously? Had the Quorum fulfilled it's purpose? Other than to begin missionary work and begin to establish the Church, what other reason would exist to continue their council? Paul was an apostle, but not one of the Twelve. Certainly. Did you catch that it was James, not Peter, who presided at the council in Jerusalem? I might point out (and frankly, we're all grasping at shadows of history here) that this was still rather early in the Church. By the end of the first century, the church was established enough that the need of the quorum was not necessary. Regional leaders, holding all the keys, and presumably receiving revelation from God on all matters, would be sufficient as had been the case in every dispensation previous. No?

Ok. I'm with you so far. All of them? I seem to recall that some have stated they have not? I recall a story where some people visited St. John on Patmos about a question, only to have him refer them back to the Bishop that is in charge of the Church. Furthermore, I seem to recall that there was no higher authority than a Bishop, simply because there was no jurisdiction larger than that of a regional Bishopric/Diocese/Stake.

As a father of a soon-to-be three year old girl, this story tore me up. http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/08/01/wheres.molly/index.html

I think you're onto something there CK. The questions remain: Did the Apostles give the same "keys" of authority to the Bishops? (I think the passages quoted show they did.) And does the missionary activity of an Apostle necessitate they remain in existence? (Look at your own Apostles for an answer here?)

Sure, ++Benedict XVI is Bishop of Vatican City, and Rome I presume. (I don't think he'd ever relinquish his title to ROME!) The thing that bugs me on the authority issue is how many people will say: "Well, you don't have apostles anymore and we do!". But what they're not realizing is that the Bishop is an Apostle (or even a Presbyter and Deacon as one of my quotes suggests!).

I agree. But for the Apostolic Churches, following the Bishop is the same thing as following the Prophet in your Church. I was hoping that you'd notice that the Early Fathers taught that Bishops are the Successors to the Apostles. It seems many LDS don't understand that point. (Whether you believe they still maintain the keys of authority is another matter.)

I'd like to share a couple of others that CK left out. I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on these. "I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 105. ANF 1:61.) "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishop in the churches, and the succession of these men to our own times. . . . for they [the apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men." (St. Irenaeus. c. 180. ANF 1:415.) "But deacons should remember that the Lord chose apostles -- that is, bishops and overseers. But apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascension of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the church." (St. Cyprian, c. 250. ANF 5:344) "You should know that the bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop. If anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the church." (St. Cyprian, ANF 5:374-375.)

That the idea of an established Priesthood authority, seperate from the Priesthood of all believers, was established very early by the original apostles. Yep. In the LDS Church? True. What's your point? Why? You thinking of traveling East?

A cursory analysis of the 1st and 2nd century Church demonstrates very clearly that the Apostles left people in Charge, and "laid hands on them" to confer authority. This is from the ANF themselves, not some RCC scholar out to prove his side right.

The entire Apostasy argument boils down to faith and authority. Did the Church lose it's authority, and require a restoration, or not? If it did not, then you have a host of churches to choose from: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, Anglicans, and their various splinter churches. If the Church did lose it's authority, you still have a host of choices: LDS-SLC, COC/RLDS/Restorationists, Strangites, Bickertonites, Allreds, Johnstons, LeBarons, etc, etc, etc.

I'm pretty positive mine is just a rip-off of Gide's. But I like it anyway.

Trust the man who is seeking for truth, don't believe the man who claims to have found it.

Islam was not created by Satan.

I actually like Ron Paul as a candidate. I am also impressed that his cash on hand is increasing unlike former top-tier McCain. I think the next quarter's numbers will be telling on who's in and who's out.

Good riddance!

Heavy emphasis on the "wee." Oh, so you're serious then. So what is it about a fraternal organization that you find offensive? WE are the only fraternal association you'll ever need. Anything else is just sinful competition. (Now, I sound like a cult. ). We as in what? The Church? The Pentecostals? Is fraternization outside of the Church sinful for some reason? Is this based on some Biblical interpretation, or just opinion? "We," by definition, includes me. You both have me concerned that my apparently feeble attempt at humor is failing. So, I'll just surrender. To rehash: Jason corrected the poster who said that the Council of Nicea was meant to correct Gnostic heresy, by saying, "No that was the heresy of Bishop Arius." I joked that Anti-Masonry was formed to combat the Gnostic heresy (never mind that it was about 1700 years late). Jason asked me if I was a wee bit serious, and I said "Heavy emphasis on the 'we'" (i.e. as pposed to the "serious.") He nevertheless, chose to take me serious, and ask me why? So, I overplayed the joke, saying that all needs could be met within the household of faith. Now, you ask me which household, who's faith? I have never had a mild attempt at humor continue to fail so badly. You may all turn your tickets in for a refund, as I'm canceling the show. Gotcha. Oh, and I didn't say "Bishop Arius" as he was a Presbyter and never a Bishop. B)

Heavy emphasis on the "wee." Oh, so you're serious then. So what is it about a fraternal organization that you find offensive? WE are the only fraternal association you'll ever need. Anything else is just sinful competition. (Now, I sound like a cult. ). We as in what? The Church? The Pentecostals? Is fraternization outside of the Church sinful for some reason? Is this based on some Biblical interpretation, or just opinion?

Heavy emphasis on the "wee." Oh, so you're serious then. So what is it about a fraternal organization that you find offensive?

Nope, the "three Jew bankers" poisoned the world's supply of mac-n-cheese.

Well don't talk about it, but I have the Triton hanging on my wall. And yes, I have knockers to match my cans.

You are right. Anti-Masonry was created to counter Gnosticism. Ouch. A wee-anti-Mason, eh?

The Nicene Creed was created to combat Arianism, not Gnosticism.