Answers To Gospel Questions: Upon This Rock…

[Ray]

Question:

"Last Sunday my husband and I were called on to speak at the evening services in our ward. We were followed by another speaker who gave a forceful address in which he warned us of false doctrine that he said is being taught in the Church. In part of his address he said many throughout the Church are teaching false doctrine in relation to the saying of Jesus to Peter, 'And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' He said that the Catholics say this rock is Peter, and many in the Church teach that it is the rock of revelation. The rock, he said, is Christ. Is it a false doctrine to say that this rock is revelation? We have been taught always to believe it."

Answer:

The expression "the rock" is used in the scriptures with different meanings that must be interpreted according to the context. There are times when it refers to Christ and times when it refers to the gospel and other times when the reference is to revelation and again to the Church. Let us consider the passage under question. At Caesarea Philippi the Lord asked his disciples,

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.("Matt. 16:13"Matt. 16:14"Matt. 16:15"Matt. 16:16"Matt. 16:17"Matt. 16:18"Matt. 16:19Matthew 16:13-19.)

THE CHURCH IS NOT ESTABLISHED ON ANY MAN

The interpretation placed on this conversation by the Catholics is extremely absurd. It is contrary to reason to think that the Lord would establish his Church upon any man, no matter how faithful and wonderful he might be. It is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the church of Peter. When the Nephite disciples sought the Lord to know what was to be the name of the Church, he said to them:

Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;

And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.

Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.

And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.("3 Ne. 27:5"3 Ne. 27:6"3 Ne. 27:7"3 Ne. 27:83 Nephi 27:5-8.)

The extent of the authority to Peter was to hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning the presiding authority upon the earth. These keys enabled him to take charge and preside over the work of the Lord, exercising divine authority. The antecedent of this is "revealed" in the preceding paragraph, and upon revelation the Lord would build his church. It has always been so understood in the past, and it is today. If there is no communication with the heavens, if the Lord cannot speak, then he has no authorized servants upon the earth. When the gift of revelation ceased then errors crept in with disastrous results. This is the complaint made in ancient Israel at times; because of wickedness, there was no prophet, no vision, no communication with the heavens.("1 Sam. 28:61 Samuel 28:6.) For nearly, if not quite, nineteen hundred years there had been no divine revelation. Religious denominations relied entirely on the dead letter of the Bible for their authority. They closed the heavens against themselves, and their interpretations of scripture without divine guidance led them into division, subdivision, and multiplication of churches, each going its own way blindly and in confusion. The power of the priesthood was lost and the true Church of Jesus Christ ceased to exist on the earth. There had been no prophet, no revelation, or divine instruction from the time of the apostles of old until the Lord again opened the heavens and sent holy messengers to restore that which had been taken away.

EXPLANATION BY THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH

Speaking on the meaning of the Savior's words to Peter concerning the rock, the Prophet Joseph Smith has said:

John was a priest after the order of Aaron, and he held keys of the priesthood, and came forth preaching repentance and baptism, for the remission of sins, but at the same time cries out, "There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose," and Christ came according to the words of John, and he was greater than John, because he held the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood and kingdom of God, and had before revealed the priesthood to Moses; yet Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness; and Jesus in his teaching says: "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What rock? Revelation.(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 273-74. )

Members of the Church should not spend their time in argument over this passage; nor should there arise misunderstandings. In the Doctrine and Covenants we find passages in which the term "rock" refers definitely to revelation, also to the Church and to Jesus Christ. In the Book of Mormon and the Bible like passages are found. Here are a few examples:

Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.("D&C 6:34D. & C. 6:34. See Ibid., 10:69; 33:13; and "3 Ne. 11:393 Nephi 11:39. )

It appears clear that this passage refers to revelation. In the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 50:44, the rock refers to Christ, "the stone of Israel." In the Book of Mormon are several passages that clearly refer to Jesus and others that refer to revelation and the gospel; for instance, consider these:

And in them [Nephite records] shall be written my gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock [revelation] and my salvation.("1 Ne. 13:361 Nephi 13:36.)

And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?(Ibid., 15:15.)

Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation.("2 Ne. 4:302 Nephi 4:30. Compare "Hel. 5:12 Helaman 5:12.)

From these passages we see that the "rock" is used variously: in reference to the gospel, revelation, and Jesus Christ. When we get this clearly in our minds and have the spirit of discernment so we can understand the passages in which this term is used, there should be no conflict as to the correct meaning by members of the Church.

Does anybody have a problem understanding what is being taught here?

Does anybody have a problem accepting what is being taught here?

If so…ready, set, go…and let ‘er rip! :)

[Guest curvette]

I don't have a problem with the Savior being the "rock" upon which his church is built. This seems only logical. I can certainly see why most people would interpret this scripture as meaning that Christ was building his church upon the authority he was giving Peter because that seems to be what the scripture is saying. I'm a little perplexed to why he would give Simon the name of Peter (Petra) which means rock and then go on, in the same breath, to say that this is what his church will be built upon. I haven't ever heard a satisfactory explanation for that.

[Ray]

To say that the rock refers to Christ is this passage would be the same as saying that Christ would build His church upon Himself, literally, and that doesn’t make any sense to me.

To say that the rock refers to Peter in this passage would be the same as saying that Christ would build His church upon Peter, and I believe Joseph Fielding Smith did a pretty good job of explaining why that doesn’t make any sense.

I think Christ gave Simon-Barjona the name Peter, or Petra, because Peter was to be the means whereby revelation would be conveyed to the church of Christ. I think this is another incident where Christ gave someone a name that had some relation to who they were or what they were to do in their life, as Christ gave other names to people.

The church of Christ is an organization or group of people built upon revelation, conveyed through the Holy Ghost. One of those revelations is that Jesus is the Christ. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ only through a revelation from our heavenly Father, which told him that Jesus was the Christ, so Christ was saying that His church would be built upon revelation.

In 1 Corinthians 12:3, Paul states that “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost”, and I will assume that Paul meant that no man can say that with confidence and integrity without having it revealed to them through revelation. Someone may hear that testimony from their parents, or someone in Sunday School, or by reading someone else's testimony in the scriptures, but that someone will never know whether or not that testimony is true unless that testimony is conveyed into their heart by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Without a testimony from the Holy Ghost, all information is only something that someone else thinks is true, and as far as that someone is concerned, there is only the possibility that it may or may not be true.

[Guest Starsky]

Just two thoughts...I agree with Ray...the church isn't built upon Christ Himself...He is the Cornerstone...by His own pronouncement....

Also...I agree the rock is revelation...because in latin languages where everything is either male or female...both rock and revelation are female... and neither Peter Nor Christ are female...LOL

[Jenda]

Revelation. Yep, that's the answer! B)

[Ray]

Just two thoughts...I agree with Ray...the church isn't built upon Christ Himself...He is the Cornerstone...by His own pronouncement....

Hmm, thanks for agreeing with me, but when you put it that way it seems that the church is built upon Christ. A cornerstone is the first stone laid down before a building is built, isn’t it? I still believe Christ was telling Peter that He would build His church upon the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, but I now see that that doesn’t necessary conflict with the idea that the church is also built upon Christ Himself. In other words, I think I was wrong to say that our Lord’s church is not built upon Him. If Christ is the cornerstone, the church must be built upon Him, but the actual construction of His church is accomplished through revelation.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 27 2004, 12:48 PM

Just two thoughts...I agree with Ray...the church isn't built upon Christ Himself...He is the Cornerstone...by His own pronouncement....

Hmm, thanks for agreeing with me, but when you put it that way it seems that the church is built upon Christ. A cornerstone is the first stone laid down before a building is built, isn’t it? I still believe Christ was telling Peter that He would build His church upon the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, but I now see that that doesn’t necessary conflict with the idea that the church is also built upon Christ Himself. In other words, I think I was wrong to say that our Lord’s church is not built upon Him. If Christ is the cornerstone, the church must be built upon Him, but the actual construction of His church is accomplished through revelation.

Well...going this way...we must know that all revelation is Christ/THE WORD/The Truth/Light/Life....because He is the source. Seek/Knock/Ask..receive revelation in many forms...even blessings are a revelation of Christ. LOL...even Life is a revelation of Christ.

Now...when talking about building a church....can revelation produce itself? can it build anything of itself? It must be that Christ is stating that He is giving us....revelation....to build the church upon. Though it is from Him....is it Him?

Just a confusing bit of thinking...LOL

[Ray]

Yah, it can get a bit confusing, and now that I’ve thought some more about this, I can see how it could truthfully be said that the church is or was also built upon Peter. As I said before, Peter was the means by which revelation was given to the church, to help build up the church, so Peter is as much a part of the building or organization of the church as Christ, and Joseph Smith for that matter. The revelations that have been received by the prophets of the church in the past are as much a part of the church as the prophets we have today, and without revelation through them, coming from Christ, the church would be lost and slip into apostasy.

Heh, I’ve heard about and have seen some dualisms, but this is the first time I can remember seeing how a passage of scripture can be interpreted accurately in 3 different ways. And maybe there are more of these that I just haven’t noticed yet. :)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I noted President Fielding Smith's application of the word "absurd" to the Catholic position that the Church was founded upon Peter (the eponymous "rock" of Matthew 16). Whenever an opposing lawyer refers to an argument as "absurd," I know he doesn't have any real counter to it. You only throw out names when you don't have simple facts to argue.

It's entirely consistent with reason and scripture to understand the Church -- i.e. that component of the Lord's work for which fallible humans are responsible -- as being based on the humans who constitute it. Ephesians 2:20 states that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (See also the "Guide to the Scriptures" entry for "Apostles" under the heading "Study Helps" in the scripture section of the Church's official lds.org website.) Peter was an apostle and a prophet; hence, he, and his apostolic colleagues and successors, as well as those acting under their authority, was, indeed, the "rock" on which the Lord built his Church (not, mind you, the entirety of the Lord's work, a large part of which is done outside the Church proper).

What seems to me to run against reason is the idea, advanced by President Smith, that the obvious play on Peter's name (which means a rock) with "this rock" in Matthew 16 is irrelevant. What we have here is another case of "speaking as a man."

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 27 2004, 01:29 PM

Yah, it can get a bit confusing, and now that I’ve thought some more about this, I can see how it could truthfully be said that the church is or was also built upon Peter. As I said before, Peter was the means by which revelation was given to the church, to help build up the church, so Peter is as much a part of the building or organization of the church as Christ, and Joseph Smith for that matter. The revelations that have been received by the prophets of the church in the past are as much a part of the church as the prophets we have today, and without revelation through them, coming from Christ, the church would be lost and slip into apostasy.

Heh, I’ve heard about and have seen some dualisms, but this is the first time I can remember seeing how a passage of scripture can be interpreted accurately in 3 different ways. And maybe there are more of these that I just haven’t noticed yet. :)

Peter was only in the "first presidency" of the early church. The church was led by James, the brother of Jesus. Of course, many people received revelation in the early church, Paul did, as did others.

[Winnie G]

Awe the wise man who built his house apron the rock.

I love that scripture and I think it settle the debate as to who the rock is

[Ray]

I’m starting to get a better grasp on how the Church functions. I think people most often receive revelation when they are ready and willing to receive it. I can think of a few occasions when the Lord has given revelation to someone when they may have not been open to receiving it, perhaps because the Lord felt it was required, but I think most often it comes when people really want to know the Lord’s will.

All of us are “human”, but some of us are more open to receiving truth than some other people. Some of us think we know quite a bit already, and are sufficiently satisfied with the level of understanding we have that we aren’t open to receiving any more, especially anything contrary to what we know or what we believe we know. If we aren’t open to receiving more revelation, or if we don’t feel a pressing need or desire to know the Lord’s will about something, how are we ever going to know it?

I think Joseph Fielding Smith was sufficiently satisfied with his level of understanding about how revelation is essential to the building up of the church that he may not have thought about how our Lord’s statement could be interpreted in other ways. Or maybe he did understand how Peter and Christ were essential in the building of the church, but he was so focused on teaching about how revelation is essential that he didn’t fully express his understanding on the other two points.

I’ve noticed that sometimes I don’t always express everything I know about a particular issue either, because I’m focused on expressing a particular point about that issue. I’ve noticed how other people don’t fully express themselves either. Maybe instead of thinking that Joseph Fielding Smith was only speaking as a man, you might think about the idea that he just didn’t fully express himself as well as he might have. Perhaps the only thing he thought was absurd was the idea that Christ built His church only upon Peter, without clarifying that it was through the revelation that Christ gave Him and continues to give to people who hold the keys of the priesthood.

[Jenda]

I think you are right, Ray. We are given awarenesses when we need them, when they will make the most profound impact on us, when they will alter our life and maybe the lives of those we touch. I recall "epiphanies" that I have received, how they influenced my life. I recall incidences that have happened that never made me stop and think until they were brought to my attention by someone else who understood them for what they were. God has so many ways of revealing things to us. We need to be open, and we need to remember that others are open, also, and look for insights wherever God provides them.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 27 2004, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 27 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Jan 27 2004, 01:29 PM

Yah, it can get a bit confusing, and now that I’ve thought some more about this, I can see how it could truthfully be said that the church is or was also built upon Peter.  As I said before, Peter was the means by which revelation was given to the church, to help build up the church, so Peter is as much a part of the building or organization of the church as Christ, and Joseph Smith for that matter.  The revelations that have been received by the prophets of the church in the past are as much a part of the church as the prophets we have today, and without revelation through them, coming from Christ, the church would be lost and slip into apostasy.

Heh, I’ve heard about and have seen some dualisms, but this is the first time I can remember seeing how a passage of scripture can be interpreted accurately in 3 different ways.  And maybe there are more of these that I just haven’t noticed yet.  :)

Peter was only in the "first presidency" of the early church. The church was led by James, the brother of Jesus. Of course, many people received revelation in the early church, Paul did, as did others.

Interesting. Where do you get the idea that James led the church while Peter was still alive? If it was Peter who held the keys, which were given to him by our Lord, why would James be the Prophet for the church?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Jan 27 2004, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Jan 27 2004, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2004, 01:33 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Jan 27 2004, 01:29 PM

Yah, it can get a bit confusing, and now that I’ve thought some more about this, I can see how it could truthfully be said that the church is or was also built upon Peter.  As I said before, Peter was the means by which revelation was given to the church, to help build up the church, so Peter is as much a part of the building or organization of the church as Christ, and Joseph Smith for that matter.  The revelations that have been received by the prophets of the church in the past are as much a part of the church as the prophets we have today, and without revelation through them, coming from Christ, the church would be lost and slip into apostasy.

Heh, I’ve heard about and have seen some dualisms, but this is the first time I can remember seeing how a passage of scripture can be interpreted accurately in 3 different ways.  And maybe there are more of these that I just haven’t noticed yet.  :)

Peter was only in the "first presidency" of the early church. The church was led by James, the brother of Jesus. Of course, many people received revelation in the early church, Paul did, as did others.

Interesting. Where do you get the idea that James led the church while Peter was still alive? If it was Peter who held the keys, which were given to him by our Lord, why would James be the Prophet for the church?

It is the understanding throughout Christendom that James was the leader of the church, but I will look up some references.

Please tell me, in return, where the keys of the kingdom were bestowed only on Peter. If I remember my church history correctly, it was Peter, James and John who restored the priesthood, so they all must have had them.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 27 2004, 02:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 27 2004, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Jan 27 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2004, 01:33 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Jan 27 2004, 01:29 PM

Yah, it can get a bit confusing, and now that I’ve thought some more about this, I can see how it could truthfully be said that the church is or was also built upon Peter.  As I said before, Peter was the means by which revelation was given to the church, to help build up the church, so Peter is as much a part of the building or organization of the church as Christ, and Joseph Smith for that matter.  The revelations that have been received by the prophets of the church in the past are as much a part of the church as the prophets we have today, and without revelation through them, coming from Christ, the church would be lost and slip into apostasy.

Heh, I’ve heard about and have seen some dualisms, but this is the first time I can remember seeing how a passage of scripture can be interpreted accurately in 3 different ways.  And maybe there are more of these that I just haven’t noticed yet.  :)

Peter was only in the "first presidency" of the early church. The church was led by James, the brother of Jesus. Of course, many people received revelation in the early church, Paul did, as did others.

Interesting. Where do you get the idea that James led the church while Peter was still alive? If it was Peter who held the keys, which were given to him by our Lord, why would James be the Prophet for the church?

It is the understanding throughout Christendom that James was the leader of the church, but I will look up some references.

Please tell me, in return, where the keys of the kingdom were bestowed only on Peter. If I remember my church history correctly, it was Peter, James and John who restored the priesthood, so they all must have had them.

Here are some links.

http://www.insmkt.com/jbj.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/033...product-details

http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/james.html

http://www.1way2god.net/printfriend/bio_ja...herofjesus.html

http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_br...er_of_jesus.htm

The first three are reviews of books written on the subject. There are other references, but you can search 'James brother Jesus' and find them yourself.

[Guest Starsky]

WOW!

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 27 2004, 02:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 27 2004, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Jan 27 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2004, 01:33 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Jan 27 2004, 01:29 PM

Yah, it can get a bit confusing, and now that I’ve thought some more about this, I can see how it could truthfully be said that the church is or was also built upon Peter.  As I said before, Peter was the means by which revelation was given to the church, to help build up the church, so Peter is as much a part of the building or organization of the church as Christ, and Joseph Smith for that matter.  The revelations that have been received by the prophets of the church in the past are as much a part of the church as the prophets we have today, and without revelation through them, coming from Christ, the church would be lost and slip into apostasy.

Heh, I’ve heard about and have seen some dualisms, but this is the first time I can remember seeing how a passage of scripture can be interpreted accurately in 3 different ways.  And maybe there are more of these that I just haven’t noticed yet.  :)

Peter was only in the "first presidency" of the early church. The church was led by James, the brother of Jesus. Of course, many people received revelation in the early church, Paul did, as did others.

Interesting. Where do you get the idea that James led the church while Peter was still alive? If it was Peter who held the keys, which were given to him by our Lord, why would James be the Prophet for the church?

It is the understanding throughout Christendom that James was the leader of the church, but I will look up some references.

Please tell me, in return, where the keys of the kingdom were bestowed only on Peter. If I remember my church history correctly, it was Peter, James and John who restored the priesthood, so they all must have had them.

Very interesting information about James, and Paul. I’ve wondered before why Paul was so boastful about “withstanding Peter to his face”. Someday I’ll look into that some more.

The reasons that Peter seems to me to be the President of the church comes from my knowledge that our Lord said He was going to give Peter the authorization to use the keys, that He told Peter to feed His sheep, that Peter seems to take the prominent role in the scriptures, and that there is only one person on the Earth at any given time who is authorized to hold and use all of the keys of the priesthood. The First Presidency as a quorum also holds them, and the 12 Apostles also hold them, but they can only be used under the direction of the Prophet and President of the church, until he dies, and then they are used under the direction of the acting President of the church until the other apostles agree on who should be the next President of the church.

Btw, the First Presidency and 12 Apostles of the church must also be in total agreement in all of their decisions regarding an issue, otherwise no other action or decision is made on that issue. But when actions and decisions are made, they are made by virtue of the keys that the President of the church is authorized to use.