Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[Anddenex]

Your argument implies that the Catholic Church employed such practices from its earliest inception. This purposely blurs the line between when the supposed apostasy took place and multiple centuries later.

My argument didn't imply anything, save it be that the Catholic Church employed these methods.

You are reading into my comment to much. As I mentioned in my original post, and in my response to you, "playing devil's advocate" should be your focus.

[Blackmarch]

The “Great Apostasy” seems to be the fundamental justification for the need of a restoration of the Church, and therefore an indispensable part of the stool upon which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stands. I have related, on another thread my experience in receiving a response from a Mormon bishop to the request for any historical evidence of the “great apostasy” and won’t repeat it here. Suffice it to say that it was less than convincing but I won’t hold it against the good bishop. Knowing that there has to be more I would appreciate a real Mormon response to this question. I don’t mean to limit it to just to historical evidence, that is just the question I asked of the bishop, any evidence will do. If the answer just comes down to “that is what we believe by faith” I understand and can accept that. I am just wondering if there is something more on which you base this belief. Thanks.

the 12(13-14) apostles were killed off and never reinstated is probably the best evidence.

probably second best is that the book of mormon did not come from any sect at the time.

If you are wanting more history then you may want to check out fairlds.org;

Apostasy/Patristic evidence of - FAIRMormon

which is a decent place to get some names and references if you want to start searching.

and i'd also point out that the doctrine of apostacy is not unique to the lds church nor started with it.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Blackmarch

[SteveVH]

the 12(13-14) apostles were killed off and never reinstated is probably the best evidence.

probably second best is that the book of mormon did not come from any sect at the time.

If you are wanting more history then you may want to check out fairlds.org;

Apostasy/Patristic evidence of - FAIRMormon

which is a decent place to get some names and references if you want to start searching.

and i'd also point out that the doctrine of apostacy is not unique to the lds church nor started with it.

We've addressed these points already. Either the Apostles, and the entire Church, really, were so inept that they forgot to ordain "new Apostles" as they begin to die off, or there never was to be an office of "Apostle", but rather the authority of the Apostles was handed down to bishops. The twelve Apostles were unique among all other men. They met requirements that no other men could meet. They were the foundation upon which the Church was built and the Church, from that point on was charged with guarding and protecting the doctrines given to the Church by the Twelve.

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:

a) Witness the resurrected Lord

b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.

These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The "Twelve" was never meant to be on going. There was only one time the eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement, and Matthias met the criteria. Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, there was no need to replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have have easily been replaced, in fact, unless they were all brain dead, they would have been replaced, just like Bishops have been replaced for 2000 years.

It defies reason to believe that the Apostles died and everyone forgot to replace them until it was too late. Think about it for a moment. An Apostle dies and, presumabley knowing that ordination of a new Apostles was vitally important for the Church to continue with authority, they somehow just overlooked actually ordaining a new Apostle. Now I understand that in order to justify the existence of the LDS Church that you must approach this from another perspective, but this approach first assumes that the LDS Church was necessary and then works backwards in its interpretation of events in order to make them fit the Mormon scenario. I maintain that one cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion by starting at the beginning of Christian history and going forward, especially taking into consideration the promises Christ made concerning his Church.

Edited September 26, 2012 by StephenVH

[Maynard]

Like I said Maynard, I can argue both sides with equal fervor so telling you this or that is, like Connie said, going in circles. Because, all you really have to do is look at that post you just posted in there and consider the alternate possibility and debate with yourself.

You have to invoke the Holy Spirit of promise that you will know what is true if you truly desire to know. But you will have to do lots of humbling and kneeling and praying for personal revelation.

One thing is fact, an LDS Prophet worthy of ex-communication from the LDS Church will not remain Prophet. Peter denying Christ in the situation that he was in was weakness. In his heart, he did not deny Christ. In his heart, he was merely weak. You can't say the same for John XII.

I am not sure how to quote a post I am not responding to. So I will simply bold the quotes from my previous post that Anatess encouraged me to look at from an LDS viewpoint.

"Unfortunately, a caricature has been created out of the history surrounding the Church and its popes over the last two millennia. There are several contributing factors to this. One is a misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. As the head of the church he is responsible for leading the church and its members into a closer union with Christ."

The history surrounding the church has been accurately reported without exaggeration about the scope and effects of the evil perpetrated by the bad actors ascending to the office of the papacy.

"However, as the visible head of the Bride of Christ he is not guaranteed to be impeccable, nor are his personal views protected from error. The popes can err as leaders and theologians, and can even be deeply sinful men without violating the authority given to the Church by Christ. The protection of the Holy Spirit over the Pope is only that he will not err when making official statements on faith and morals.

As for the root of temporal abuses, sin is the root of any temporal abuse."

The catholic church has taught this from the beginning, but because the church was in apostasy as early as 70AD this teaching is in error. Therefore both the teaching that the pope is only inerrant when officially speaking on faith and morals and the teaching that popes can be sinful men without entering the church into an apostasy is false.

(Nowhere can one find support for this in history before the 1600's)

"Peter was clearly the head of the early Church and he openly denied Christ during the Lord’s passion. Did this invalidate Peter as the leader of the Church? Was the Apostolic Church in apostasy because the leader of the Apostles rejected Christ?"

Peter was not the Rock of the early Church, he was merely singled out by Christ because of his proclamation. The word Peter, Cephas in Aramaic, means Rock but that is a mere allusion to the fact that Peter would receive a revelation from the Father who actually is flesh and bone despite the accusation that, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven," made by Christ referring to Peter's prophecy. Peter's name was just listed first in all but one of the scriptural lists in Scripture because Peter was the one that made the pronouncement. Peter then was referred to by Christ as Satan (Matt 16:23). Satan (literally adversary) does not refer to the sinful pride of Peter in correcting Jesus. Arguing this from my LDS viewpoint, this neither is a sign that Peter is in personal apostasy nor that he has lost his worthiness to receive revelation merely because Christ called him a satan. Peter was just showing his personal weakness.

Although Acts chapter 2 clearly refers to the Apostolic office as a bishopric, when Peter ordained Ignatius as bishop of Antioch and others as bishop he was not intending to pass on the authority of the apostles to these men. After all the apostles died out quickly before having a real opportunity to establish succession in the early church.

"I am sure that you have heard this point before, but one ‘blessing’ of the bad popes is that they were so driven by selfish worldly desires that they did not spend their time writing or discussing the teachings of the Church. Because of this they couldn’t do damage to the teaching authority of the Church, or its doctrine.

You claim that, "an LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner." Many historians, including some LDS historians, have pointed out grievous acts committed by leaders in the LDS church."

These never happened because the LDS church is the restored church and such things would only happen in the apostate church. Many people wrote terrible things about Joseph Smith/Brigham Young and accused him of unflattering actions because he was a prophet of god and they are always persecuted.

"Thinking about the Filioque as an LDS… I would say that the Holy Spirit is a separate god from the heavenly father and Jesus, united only in will. I would deny the historical teachings of the early Christians in conjunction with the accounts of the Holy Spirit being breathed into Adam by the Father and breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus. Therefore eliminating the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son)."

"Regardless the filioque does point to another issue with classic GA apologetics, the thought that the effects of Greek Philosophy and paganism on early Christianity can be used as an illustration of the Apostasy. This is a classic attack against the early Christians. They adopted Greek thoughts (Neo-Platonism) and pagan religious practices (worshipping idols, holidays, etc), corrupting the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the fact that early Christians, seeking to use the science of philosophy to explain Christian beliefs, adopted Greek terms and ways of speaking does not mean that the beliefs were changed. On the other hand, one can see many Greek and Pagan ideas flourishing in LDS theology. The concept of a heavenly goddess procreating with the god of heaven is clearly evident in many polytheistic pagan religions. The concept of the pre-existence of humans is woven through the works of several different pagan philosophers including Plato. The concept of eternal progression is also present in paganism. Interestingly enough, the early Christians rightly called these adoptions of Greek and Pagan thought heretical and defended the teachings of Christianity against them from the very beginning."

The Greek thoughts and language existing in the Catholic Church are a sign of corruption and apostasy. Because the LDS church is the true church of god the Greek thoughts and language in its theology is true as revealed by the prophets.

The problem with all of this, is the refusal of a very simple admittance. The HISTORICAL case for the Catholic Church and its doctrine is much stronger than the HISTORICAL case for the LDS church and its doctrine. NOTE: I am not making the claim that this automatically makes the teachings of the Catholic Church 100% true. I am not making the case that this means the Catholic Church is must be the true Church of Christ. I am not even making the claim that the Catholic Church did not somehow lose its way.

I am making the argument that New Testament Christianity. The faith lived out by those in the generations of the Apostles and the 3 generations following them, looks much more like the faith of the Catholic Church than the LDS. To claim that the HISTORICAL arguments for each church are equal in vigor and it only depends which side you start from is simply untrue. In the historical light, to call Apostolic Succession arbitrary, and to then claim some evasive authority note clearly elucidated (outside of that succession) by New Testament Scriptures or other 1st and 2nd century writings is hypocritical. Again, if the Apostasy is an historical reality then it should have some historical weight behind it other than, you see that bad guy, clearly the church was in apostasy several centuries ago. Where are the discussions over the loss of authority? There are hundreds of documents by and refuting other issues (heresies from the Catholic perspective) why nothing addressing those who claim the authority of the Church had disappeared from the earth?

Why is the best book on the apostasy, written by an LDS Geologist and not an historian?

On a final note, you ask that I humble myself and do a lot of praying about what is true. I was once an avowed atheist. I had a heavenly experience (which is was absolutely necessary for my conversion) and was visited by an angel that revealed to me the truth of Christ and His One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. This is only a personal revelation, however, God chose to humble me in my arrogance as an atheist. I have received personal revelation. Personal revelation however, is not a formula it is bound in a relationship between each person and the person of Christ.

Personal revelation is not required for one to ascend to certain truths. I firmly believe that among those truths is the reasonableness (not the absolute certainity), but the reasonableness that the Catholic Church is the continuation of historic New Testament Christianity.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Maynard

[Anddenex]

I maintain that one cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion by starting at the beginning of Christian history and going forward, especially taking into consideration the promises Christ made concerning his Church.

Keyword in this statement "I". Fortunately, the Lord doesn't work from StephenVH reasoning, or mental ability to arrive at a specific conclusion.

You mention two specific items for one to become an Apostle. These two reasons must have pertained solely to those who were to replace Judas. Most people see Paul as an Apostle, yet he would not have fit within those two items.

The conclusion you provide, as others have said, are only from your frame of reference, and assumes you are the top tier for knowledge, understanding, and coming to the truth. And if anybody disagrees with your reasoning, they must be wrong or inept.

Why would Apostles give their authority to Bishops? Where in scripture do you see Bishops given an Apostolic calling?

[Vort]

Maynard, reading through your WoT, I can't determine what you're quoting and what you're writing.

[Maynard]

Keyword in this statement "I". Fortunately, the Lord doesn't work from StephenVH reasoning, or mental ability to arrive at a specific conclusion.

You mention two specific items for one to become an Apostle. These two reasons must have pertained solely to those who were to replace Judas. Most people see Paul as an Apostle, yet he would not have fit within those two items.

The conclusion you provide, as others have said, are only from your frame of reference, and assumes you are the top tier for knowledge, understanding, and coming to the truth. And if anybody disagrees with your reasoning, they must be wrong or inept.

Why would Apostles give their authority to Bishops? Where in scripture do you see Bishops given an Apostolic calling?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/1?lang=eng

Take a look at Acts 1:20 in the LDS New Testament. The clearest representation that we see an ordination to a Bishoprick in the act of replacing an Apostle, (along with this are several first century writings that equate the bishops with the Apostles, which of course the LDS church by necessity must consider apostate)

Interesting that throughout history (again it must all be apostate history) the office of bishop has been referred to as an apostolic office. Where in history, before Joseph Smith is the 'office of apostle' considered apart from the office of bishop?

As far as Paul goes, Stephen, clearly spoke of participation in the New Testament council which included the Apostles. It did not include Paul, he had not converted yet.

[SteveVH]

Keyword in this statement "I". Fortunately, the Lord doesn't work from StephenVH reasoning, or mental ability to arrive at a specific conclusion.

Yes, Thank God for that.

You mention two specific items for one to become an Apostle. These two reasons must have pertained solely to those who were to replace Judas.

Must have pertained solely to those who were to replace Judas? On what basis do you make that statement?

Most people see Paul as an Apostle, yet he would not have fit within those two items.

Well, Paul did witness the ressurected Christ, but more importantly he received his office directly from Christ rather than being first chosen by the Apostles. By your own criteria, he could not have been an Apostle in the same sense as the Twelve. Even Barnabas is referred to as an "apostle", but this has nothing to do with the position that the Twelve held.

The conclusion you provide, as others have said, are only from your frame of reference,

Could not the same be said about anyone on this forum? I certainly won't deny that.

and assumes you are the top tier for knowledge, understanding, and coming to the truth.

That is certainly not my assumption so if it is someone else's I am flattered, but you would be wrong. I am far from the top tier for knowledge, understanding and coming to the truth. I depend upon my Church to lead me there.

And if anybody disagrees with your reasoning, they must be wrong or inept.

Please direct me to the post in which I said that. Thanks.

Why would Apostles give their authority to Bishops?

In order for the authority which they received from Christ to continue in the Church. You must understand that the office of "bishop" in the Catholic Church is a completley different animal than the office of "bishop" in the LDS Church. The office of Bishop possesses the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, including the offices of sanctifying, teaching and ruling. This isn't some temporary assignment, as in the LDS Church. Their office is forever and there is no higher authority in the Church, assuming, of course, that they remain in union with the chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Where in scripture do you see Bishops given an Apostolic calling?

What is your definition of an "Apostolic calling"?

Edited September 26, 2012 by StephenVH

[Anddenex]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/1?lang=eng

Take a look at Acts 1:20 in the LDS New Testament. The clearest representation that we see an ordination to a Bishoprick in the act of replacing an Apostle, (along with this are several first century writings that equate the bishops with the Apostles, which of course the LDS church by necessity must consider apostate)

Interesting that throughout history (again it must all be apostate history) the office of bishop has been referred to as an apostolic office. Where in history, before Joseph Smith is the 'office of apostle' considered apart from the office of bishop?

This is clearly a stretch. This is speaking of the replacement of Judas, who was never a Bishop, or in a Bishoprick. This is clearly not the same as an Apostolic reference now being conferred on a Bishop. This scripture is solely emphasizing the responsibilities of Judas will now be upon Matthias, ordained as an Apostle.

As pertaining to the biased statement "by necessity", not really. It verifies a line of authority, that without Apostles the church crumbles, as would the LDS church if we were to loose all of the Apostles and Prophets.

[Anddenex]

Yes, Thank God for that.

Yes, indeed.

Must have pertained solely to those who were to replace Judas? On what basis do you make that statement?

Well, Paul did witness the ressurected Christ, but more importantly he received his office directly from Christ rather than being first chosen by the Apostles. By your own criteria, he could not have been an Apostle in the same sense as the Twelve. Even Barnabas is referred to as an "apostle", but this has nothing to do with the position that the Twelve held.

Simple, by the reasoning you provided. Paul was not among those who walked with Christ from the time of his baptism, yet as you pointed out, he still received his office directly from Christ. Just reread your post that this responded to.

Could not the same be said about anyone on this forum? I certainly won't deny that.

No, the language provided in your post clearly emphasize a difference in how you address their responses, and how they address yours.

That is certainly not my assumption so if it is someone else's I am flattered, but you would be wrong. I am far from the top tier for knowledge, understanding and coming to the truth. I depend upon my Church to lead me there.

Please direct me to the post in which I said that. Thanks.

Reread your posts, when you respond to others. It is evident even withing the previous post I responded to.

"I maintain that one cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion..."

You have issued in this statement that anybody that doesn't see it as yourself, a top tier of knowledge, is not "reasonably" exercising good logic, because any other conclusion is false, as such, anybody who provides a different conclusion, according to you, again, would not be applying good reason or logic.

If you see yourself as "far from the top tier of knowledge" your written language speaks otherwise.

For example using the same quote:

"I maintain that [ I ] cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion..." No harm, only emphasizing from your frame of reference, this is unreasonable for you personally. Nobody would argue with this.

However, the written language you have used, "one", is a general statement meaning "all", emphasizing "all cannot" reasonably come to any other conclusion.

This emphasizes, your reasoning is above any others who do not see it the same way.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Anddenex

[SteveVH]

Reread your posts, when you respond to others. It is evident even withing the previous post I responded to.

"I maintain that one cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion..."

You have issued in this statement that anybody that doesn't see it as yourself, a top tier of knowledge, is not "reasonably" exercising good logic, because any other conclusion is false, as such, anybody who provides a different conclusion, according to you, again, would not be applying good reason or logic.

If you see yourself as "far from the top tier of knowledge" your written language speaks otherwise.

For example using the same quote:

"I maintain that [ I ] cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion..." No harm, only emphasizing from your frame of reference, this is unreasonable for you personally. Nobody would argue with this.

However, the written language you have used, "one", is a general statement meaning "all", emphasizing "all cannot" reasonably come to any other conclusion.

This emphasizes, your reasoning is above any others who do not see it the same way.

Thanks for the critique. I'll try to be more careful in my wording.

[Traveler]

I have some questions that might help to clear the murky waters. First let me state the premise that m questions are based on so that you can disagree with them if you like.

1. Christ claimed that He would establish His church.

2. Christ indicated that this Church would be present on earth during the time of the Apostles.

3. There are only 2 plausible interpretations of Scripture where Christ's Church is concerned

a) Christ established a Church with a visible form and an authority structure

b) Christ established a Church of believers, the Church is invisible without an earthly head and all authority lies in the word of God rightly interpreted.

Those premises being stated. It is my understanding that Catholics, LDS, and Greek Orthodox all subscribe to 3a. Of these three churches, the LDS church is the alone in believing that the authority of the Church was lost in an apostasy.

The Orthodox would disagree that Peter rules over the other Apostles, but not that he is first in honor among the apostles. They would agree that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church and Apostolic succession is the reason why. The Orthodox even believe that the Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession.

All of that being said, the point made by Stephen seems to be a reasonable point of discussion amongst those who share the belief that Christ established a Church with a visible form and an earthly authority structure. The LDS church has a distinctly different understanding from the other churches that share 3a.

If Christ's Church had as an essential element earthly authority how does the LDS belief live up to Christ's promises about the Church?

If earthly authority is not essential what need is there for a restoration?

On a side note am I hearing that the prophets get revelation because they are worthy spiritually?

Hypothetically, if the LDS prophet were to commit a heinous crime or just be found to be a horribly sinful person in general would that mean that the LDS church was in apostasy?

(I am not making accusations, I have never heard this before and am seeking clarity)

I think you ask many good questions. May I suggest the we take an entirety different perspective and instead of trying to fit a symbolic glass slipper on a modern religious foot of a church that we take a step back and understand that we are talking about a "kingdom". A construct of laws, subjects (citizens) and governing or implementation of laws or covenants.

The question is - who has the right to wright checks against the treasury of G-d? I would submit that only those with power of attorney. I would submit that one sent with power of attorney also speaks with the authority in proxy of the law giver. That what they proclaim become lawful emblems of law (scripture) to all subjects of the kingdom.

Now I submit to you that there really was not a complete succession of all apostolic authority and that the closing of the law (scripture) following the death of the apostles with authority to proclaim law (scripture). Thus the fact that the Bible was declared canon and closed proves that the authority of law was lost leaving the kingdom in apostasy - unable to write checks against the treasure and act as proxy for G-d with all powers of attorney.

The Traveler

Edited September 27, 2012 by Traveler

[Guest]

In order for the authority which they received from Christ to continue in the Church. You must understand that the office of "bishop" in the Catholic Church is a completley different animal than the office of "bishop" in the LDS Church. The office of Bishop possesses the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, including the offices of sanctifying, teaching and ruling. This isn't some temporary assignment, as in the LDS Church. Their office is forever and there is no higher authority in the Church, assuming, of course, that they remain in union with the chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Clarification on the bolded statement above.

The LDS Bishop is not a temporary assignment. Once ordained Bishop, an LDS priest retains those keys throughout his life. He may not have a ward to preside over, but he still retains the keys so that if he gets assigned a ward later, he would not need to be ordained again.

[Guest]

I am not sure how to quote a post I am not responding to. So I will simply bold the quotes from my previous post that Anatess encouraged me to look at from an LDS viewpoint.

You can just type it like this without the space before QUOTE:

[ QUOTE]

Text you want to display as a quote here.

[/ QUOTE]

If you want to reference a name in the QUOTE just do [ QUOTE=type_name_here].

You can even do a quote within a quote by nesting the quote tags. Check out how I'm using it below...

"Unfortunately, a caricature has been created out of the history surrounding the Church and its popes over the last two millennia. There are several contributing factors to this. One is a misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. As the head of the church he is responsible for leading the church and its members into a closer union with Christ."

The history surrounding the church has been accurately reported without exaggeration about the scope and effects of the evil perpetrated by the bad actors ascending to the office of the papacy.

My enhancement to your musing: As a Catholic, I would assume that the Catholic Church is the expert on their own history and presented their own history accurately. Trying to prove that the history as presented by the Catholic Church aligns with what truly happened, to me, is not necessary to the study of the Apostasy.

"However, as the visible head of the Bride of Christ he is not guaranteed to be impeccable, nor are his personal views protected from error. The popes can err as leaders and theologians, and can even be deeply sinful men without violating the authority given to the Church by Christ. The protection of the Holy Spirit over the Pope is only that he will not err when making official statements on faith and morals.

As for the root of temporal abuses, sin is the root of any temporal abuse."

The catholic church has taught this from the beginning, but because the church was in apostasy as early as 70AD this teaching is in error. Therefore both the teaching that the pope is only inerrant when officially speaking on faith and morals and the teaching that popes can be sinful men without entering the church into an apostasy is false.

(Nowhere can one find support for this in history before the 1600's)

The question is not in the error of the teaching. The question is if a grievously sinful man can continue to retain the authority of a Pope. A lay person can teach true doctrine. But he does not have the authority to lead the Church and make any decision to both its temporal or spiritual direction.

"Peter was clearly the head of the early Church and he openly denied Christ during the Lord’s passion. Did this invalidate Peter as the leader of the Church? Was the Apostolic Church in apostasy because the leader of the Apostles rejected Christ?"

Peter was not the Rock of the early Church, he was merely singled out by Christ because of his proclamation. The word Peter, Cephas in Aramaic, means Rock but that is a mere allusion to the fact that Peter would receive a revelation from the Father who actually is flesh and bone despite the accusation that, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven," made by Christ referring to Peter's prophecy. Peter's name was just listed first in all but one of the scriptural lists in Scripture because Peter was the one that made the pronouncement. Peter then was referred to by Christ as Satan (Matt 16:23). Satan (literally adversary) does not refer to the sinful pride of Peter in correcting Jesus. Arguing this from my LDS viewpoint, this neither is a sign that Peter is in personal apostasy nor that he has lost his worthiness to receive revelation merely because Christ called him a satan. Peter was just showing his personal weakness.

Although Acts chapter 2 clearly refers to the Apostolic office as a bishopric, when Peter ordained Ignatius as bishop of Antioch and others as bishop he was not intending to pass on the authority of the apostles to these men. After all the apostles died out quickly before having a real opportunity to establish succession in the early church.

Correction: Peter is the Rock upon which Revelation was given. He was chosen by Christ and given the authority to be the head of the Church.

On Acts Chapter 2: Peter had every intention to pass Apostolic authority. But, whether the authority survived, one cannot say. Paul, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp were all fighting the flames of apostasy in their regions of Christianity. This would not stabilize all the way to the Council of Nicea in 325. Did the authority survive up to the Council? Were the people that decided in the Council ones that retained authority? Or were they the same type of people as Diotrephes that John wrote about in his 3rd epistle?

This goes hand in hand with the previous musings of whether a grievously sinful man can continue to retain the authority of the Kingdom.

"I am sure that you have heard this point before, but one ‘blessing’ of the bad popes is that they were so driven by selfish worldly desires that they did not spend their time writing or discussing the teachings of the Church. Because of this they couldn’t do damage to the teaching authority of the Church, or its doctrine.

You claim that, "an LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner." Many historians, including some LDS historians, have pointed out grievous acts committed by leaders in the LDS church."

These never happened because the LDS church is the restored church and such things would only happen in the apostate church. Many people wrote terrible things about Joseph Smith/Brigham Young and accused him of unflattering actions because he was a prophet of god and they are always persecuted.

Maynard, I just have but one thing to suggest to adjust your compass here - instead of looking at "bad" Popes as the CAUSE of the Apostasy, it is more prudent to look at "bad" Popes as a BY-PRODUCT of the Apostasy. Does this make sense?

I won't muddy the waters by discussing the LDS leaders. If you like, we can take that up in a different post/thread. It is an important discussion to have but in this particular case, we're not discussing whether the LDS Church is in Apostasy, we're merely discussing whether the Catholic Church can possibly be in Apostasy... it's a different discussion to tackle: if the Catholic Church is in Apostasy, then which Church is true? Make sense?

"Regardless the filioque does point to another issue with classic GA apologetics, the thought that the effects of Greek Philosophy and paganism on early Christianity can be used as an illustration of the Apostasy. This is a classic attack against the early Christians. They adopted Greek thoughts (Neo-Platonism) and pagan religious practices (worshipping idols, holidays, etc), corrupting the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the fact that early Christians, seeking to use the science of philosophy to explain Christian beliefs, adopted Greek terms and ways of speaking does not mean that the beliefs were changed. On the other hand, one can see many Greek and Pagan ideas flourishing in LDS theology. The concept of a heavenly goddess procreating with the god of heaven is clearly evident in many polytheistic pagan religions. The concept of the pre-existence of humans is woven through the works of several different pagan philosophers including Plato. The concept of eternal progression is also present in paganism. Interestingly enough, the early Christians rightly called these adoptions of Greek and Pagan thought heretical and defended the teachings of Christianity against them from the very beginning."

The Greek thoughts and language existing in the Catholic Church are a sign of corruption and apostasy. Because the LDS church is the true church of god the Greek thoughts and language in its theology is true as revealed by the prophets.

Nothing to add here except just minor clarifications:

1.) The LDS do not believe that ALL Greek and Pagan ideas in the Catholic Church are apostate. The LDS do believe that the Catholic Church contains true doctrine - just not ALL true doctrine. The LDS believes in the light of Christ (truth) present in all people regardless of religion or culture - this, of course includes Greeks and pagans. The light of Christ is the basis of each person's instinctive conscience.

2.) Heavenly Goddess procreating with God the Father is not LDS doctrine.

The problem with all of this, is the refusal of a very simple admittance. The HISTORICAL case for the Catholic Church and its doctrine is much stronger than the HISTORICAL case for the LDS church and its doctrine. NOTE: I am not making the claim that this automatically makes the teachings of the Catholic Church 100% true. I am not making the case that this means the Catholic Church is must be the true Church of Christ. I am not even making the claim that the Catholic Church did not somehow lose its way.

I am making the argument that New Testament Christianity. The faith lived out by those in the generations of the Apostles and the 3 generations following them, looks much more like the faith of the Catholic Church than the LDS. To claim that the HISTORICAL arguments for each church are equal in vigor and it only depends which side you start from is simply untrue. In the historical light, to call Apostolic Succession arbitrary, and to then claim some evasive authority note clearly elucidated (outside of that succession) by New Testament Scriptures or other 1st and 2nd century writings is hypocritical. Again, if the Apostasy is an historical reality then it should have some historical weight behind it other than, you see that bad guy, clearly the church was in apostasy several centuries ago. Where are the discussions over the loss of authority? There are hundreds of documents by and refuting other issues (heresies from the Catholic perspective) why nothing addressing those who claim the authority of the Church had disappeared from the earth?

Why is the best book on the apostasy, written by an LDS Geologist and not an historian?

On a final note, you ask that I humble myself and do a lot of praying about what is true. I was once an avowed atheist. I had a heavenly experience (which is was absolutely necessary for my conversion) and was visited by an angel that revealed to me the truth of Christ and His One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. This is only a personal revelation, however, God chose to humble me in my arrogance as an atheist. I have received personal revelation. Personal revelation however, is not a formula it is bound in a relationship between each person and the person of Christ.

Personal revelation is not required for one to ascend to certain truths. I firmly believe that among those truths is the reasonableness (not the absolute certainity), but the reasonableness that the Catholic Church is the continuation of historic New Testament Christianity.

The Kingdom of Heaven did not start with the New Testament. Therefore, when we talk about history, we need to take into account the entire history from Adam to today. In the history of man, we see serveral dispensations of the gospel. The gospel is given to Adam, Adam chose to go into apostasy, the authority is withdrawn which led Adam to be banished from Paradise. The gospel is given to Moses, Moses chose to go into apostasy, the authority was withdrawn from Moses and he never saw the Promised Land. And so on and so forth. Apostolic succession is not arbitrary. The authority of the Priesthood must be handed down from one generation to the next. But we see that for each gospel dispensation, we see the hand of God in the restoration of authority.

So one would ask the question - why would it change now? Man is still man and is still sinful. Why would God retain a covenant with sinful men today by virtue of Apostolic succession alone when He didn't with men before? Surely, Jesus walking the earth did not automatically give sinful men immunity from their covenants.

The Catholic Church always talks about history like the earth started at the birth of Christ. It didn't. The organization of the church has been implemented since the day Adam was placed in the garden.

What does it matter if a book that is meant to be a testament of things of a spiritual nature is written by a historian versus a geologist? The issue is not the history. The history is merely a by-product of a spiritual event. The spiritual event is the discussion. God withdrew priesthood authority... how does a mere historian write about such things? Talmage was an Apostle of the LDS Church. That was his credentials in writing the book. Not the geologist. Although the book is not considered part of LDS canon, the writer has received spiritual confirmation that an Apostasy happened.

[Traveler]

Jesus said that in the mouth of two or more witnesses: So beside the LDS witness that the basic structure of the church was lost or changed with the passing of the apostles below is an interesting link concerning a book being published by evangelicals of a growing movement to return Apostolic level of leadership to Christianity. Or as the book highlighted in the articles says - a return to global authority of Apostles that was lost when Christian Bishops established divers localized authority. Sorry the link is kind of a link to a link to a link - it may be necessary to copy the following url.

CougarFan.com External Link: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765607134/Apostle-idea-is-growing-in-popularity-among-other-faiths.html

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Clarification on the bolded statement above.

The LDS Bishop is not a temporary assignment. Once ordained Bishop, an LDS priest retains those keys throughout his life. He may not have a ward to preside over, but he still retains the keys so that if he gets assigned a ward later, he would not need to be ordained again.

My mistake. Thank you for the correction.

[Maynard]

I think you ask many good questions. May I suggest the we take an entirety different perspective and instead of trying to fit a symbolic glass slipper on a modern religious foot of a church that we take a step back and understand that we are talking about a "kingdom". A construct of laws, subjects (citizens) and governing or implementation of laws or covenants.

The question is - who has the right to wright checks against the treasury of G-d? I would submit that only those with power of attorney. I would submit that one sent with power of attorney also speaks with the authority in proxy of the law giver. That what they proclaim become lawful emblems of law (scripture) to all subjects of the kingdom.

Now I submit to you that there really was not a complete succession of all apostolic authority and that the closing of the law (scripture) following the death of the apostles with authority to proclaim law (scripture). Thus the fact that the Bible was declared canon and closed proves that the authority of law was lost leaving the kingdom in apostasy - unable to write checks against the treasure and act as proxy for G-d with all powers of attorney.

The Traveler

I appreciate this new perspective Traveler. I will let it digest for a while.

[Maynard]

This is clearly a stretch. This is speaking of the replacement of Judas, who was never a Bishop, or in a Bishoprick. This is clearly not the same as an Apostolic reference now being conferred on a Bishop. This scripture is solely emphasizing the responsibilities of Judas will now be upon Matthias, ordained as an Apostle.

As pertaining to the biased statement "by necessity", not really. It verifies a line of authority, that without Apostles the church crumbles, as would the LDS church if we were to loose all of the Apostles and Prophets.

Your claim is that Judas was never a bishop because you completely separate the office of bishop and apostleship. However, your own scriptures regarding the replacement of Judas state "let another his bishoprick take." Reasonable parties would acknowledge two things.

1. A plain reading of scripture would indicate that the selection of an Apostle is being referred to as replacing and bishop/filling a bishoprick (take your pick of the two, they essentially mean the same thing).

2. The plain reading of scripture is not always the true meaning of that scripture.

I contend that these facts place us in the following position. We must accept the plain meaning of scripture OR we must show through scripture addressing similar themes, that the plain text reading is not the correct one.

I also detect was may be a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Apostolic Succession and the office of bishop is intimately united. Catholics believe that the Apostles were the bishops, that was the Apostolic office. Bishop was not a subset of apostle. To be an Apostle was to be a bishop. Those who hold the office of bishop today, hold the apostolic office. The bishops acting in concert can make pronouncements about doctrine guarded from error by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you were clear on this, but I wanted to make sure we were using like terms.

I am very interested in your evidence that the use of the term bishoprick in reference to Matthias filling the office of Judas, is only about the responsibilities and not about the bishoprick being the office that an Apostle held.

You asked "Where in Scripture do you see bishops being given an apostolic calling?"

This assumes that the office of bishop and the apostolic office are separate. Catholic contend that they are not. In this passage of scripture the office of bishop is the office that Matthias takes when he ordained one of the 12.

[Blackmarch]

We've addressed these points already. Either the Apostles, and the entire Church, really, were so inept that they forgot to ordain "new Apostles" as they begin to die off, or there never was to be an office of "Apostle", but rather the authority of the Apostles was handed down to bishops. The twelve Apostles were unique among all other men. They met requirements that no other men could meet. They were the foundation upon which the Church was built and the Church, from that point on was charged with guarding and protecting the doctrines given to the Church by the Twelve.

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:

a) Witness the resurrected Lord

b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.

These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The "Twelve" was never meant to be on going. There was only one time the eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement, and Matthias met the criteria. Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, there was no need to replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have have easily been replaced, in fact, unless they were all brain dead, they would have been replaced, just like Bishops have been replaced for 2000 years.

It defies reason to believe that the Apostles died and everyone forgot to replace them until it was too late. Think about it for a moment. An Apostle dies and, presumabley knowing that ordination of a new Apostles was vitally important for the Church to continue with authority, they somehow just overlooked actually ordaining a new Apostle. Now I understand that in order to justify the existence of the LDS Church that you must approach this from another perspective, but this approach first assumes that the LDS Church was necessary and then works backwards in its interpretation of events in order to make them fit the Mormon scenario. I maintain that one cannot reasonably arrive at this conclusion by starting at the beginning of Christian history and going forward, especially taking into consideration the promises Christ made concerning his Church.

Sorry for my lateness in replying, just like to say you asked for what is the best evidence in our opinion, and just throwing my weight behind what I think, for what its worth.

I'm pretty sure you have covered that point which is why i didn't elaborate-

Whether an apostacy occurred or not, that would be the first thing the church would have to get around some way or another... and in either case they've had over thousand years to come up with explanations of why or why not (in this case bishops were elevated to the same level as apostles in authority).

I doubt it would be profitible here to go thru all that here, which is why I gave the link in my previous post - it links to a page that have names and resources of who know the histories better and they present their reasons why they think there was an apostacy or not, or how much of a one.

As for ineptness, colossality, incredulity, of stupidity, forgetfulness or ignorance and etc.. let me remind you were dealing with humans here. we tend to have these characteristics in spades.

However I doubt as well that the reason for not ordaining more apostles was due to forgetfulness or ignorance (altho i cannot rule that out, i do believe that reason for a cause is extremely unlikely). Personally, it seems more due to circumstance than anything else, altho the apostles or at least Peter may not have had a sense of urgency because he had been shown what had to happen before the Lord's second coming.

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:

a) Witness the resurrected Lord

b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.

These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The "Twelve" was never meant to be on going. There was only one time the eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement, and Matthias met the criteria. Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, there was no need to replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have have easily been replaced, in fact, unless they were all brain dead, they would have been replaced, just like Bishops have been replaced for 2000 years.

If the apostles were inept, they would not have ordained mathias, nor would they have done so if the apostleship was not to be a continuing function. And there were no others who could call apostles save for Christ and the apostles.

The problem I see with the reqs here, is that most likely it is incomplete; if these were all the reqs there should have been more apostles than just 12/13.

Or,

If they are complete then I'd have to conclude that then an apostacy was on its way already; out of all the people to have followed the lord and witnessed him both before and after, that there were only 13 that were somehow worthy enough to be made apostles.

In addition to that it would also indicate the wickedness of the followers throughout time as no one else was worthy enough to recieve a witness from the resurrected christ nor be right enough to have the Holy Spirit grant unto them a vision of the saviors life.

Later on in history it would seem that generally the few times anyone claimed visions or things of that nature they tended to get martyred, first by romans/roman citizenry, then later by what the church became.

Do i need to justify the LDs church using the apostacy? no I don't.. the Holy Spirit did that for me , all the apostacy does is help explain how things came to be. Altho i doubt it, I suppose that some form of authority could have been left right up to the time until Christ explained to Joseph Smith that there were none that were his- which i'd doubt to some extent; things of this nature generally come about by gradual increments rather than suddenly (and personally i think historical events point more to this). However, such an occurence wouldnt be totally without precedence however; there was enough of something left in God's church that was createdby Moses, respected by God to grant unto one of the leaders prophesy in regards to Jesus during Christ's ministry, before the authority was taken from them and given to the church Christ set up after His atonement and resurrection.

Which brings me to my last point I gave- the book of mormon; it didn't come from any church. If any church had authority (or intedned to hace continued authority) it would have come from them.

Anyways hopes this sheds a little more on my view of why i think there was an apostacy.

[SteveVH]

Whether an apostacy occurred or not, that would be the first thing the church would have to get around some way or another... and in either case they've had over thousand years to come up with explanations of why or why not (in this case bishops were elevated to the same level as apostles in authority).

More like 2000 years, but who's quibbling. Why would the Church have to explain anything when the question has never arisen? It has always been understood that the twelve Apostles held a unique role in the Church as the foundation and that they past their authority on to the bishops. Because of the uniqueness of the Twelve, this was not an "office", if you will, to be filled. Those who walked with Christ and witnessed the resurrection were limited. There is no need for a second "foundation" once the first has been laid. This is a modern notion beginning with the Adventist movement and borrowed by the LDS and is a very recent blip on the screen of Christian history. So the Church has never given an explanation because none was ever required. That does not mean an explanation does not exist. I have just given you one.

However I doubt as well that the reason for not ordaining more apostles was due to forgetfulness or ignorance (altho i cannot rule that out, i do believe that reason for a cause is extremely unlikely). Personally, it seems more due to circumstance than anything else, altho the apostles or at least Peter may not have had a sense of urgency because he had been shown what had to happen before the Lord's second coming.

You are asking me to believe that Christ could not forsee this happening or that he founded his Church with the full knowledge that it would utterly fail within 60 to 70 years. Now you are free to believe what ever you wish, but I do not find this in the least convincing. I know that Joseph Smith believed Christ's own Church to have failed as he prided himself on having succeeded even beyond Christ:

"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409).

If the apostles were inept, they would not have ordained mathias

I agree, they were not inept, they knew exactly what they were doing.

nor would they have done so if the apostleship was not to be a continuing function.

That is the LDS position, but that is all it is. The reason there were twelve Apostles is that they represented the twelve tribes of Israel. This was to be the foundation of the Church. Judas had apostasized, therefore he needed to be replaced so that there were twelve witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection upon which the Church would founded. They chose Matthias and the group of twelve was whole again as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the upper room. It was then, at Petecost, that the Church was born, having as its foundation the Twelve, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. By the very nature of the case, since we would not always have witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection, (the requirement for being an Apostle) this unique role would be impossible to continue and unncecessary. The authority given to the Apostles was passed down to the bishops. And what was to stop them from doing this? One in authority, by its very definition, has the power to grant that authority. Christ gave his authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave this authority to the bishops. It remains the authority of Christ. It is no different than the president of a government giving authority to his embassadors to enter into various agreements with other countries. They are acting with the authority of the President. The bishops are the embassadors of Christ and act with the authority of Christ.

The problem I see with the reqs here, is that most likely it is incomplete; if these were all the reqs there should have been more apostles than just 12/13.

So you are saying that you just don't trust the Scritpures. If we don't have some basis of truth on which we can rely then we cannot have a discussion. So you will use Scripture when it helps your position and then claim that it is inadequate when it does not support your position.

Or,

If they are complete then I'd have to conclude that then an apostacy was on its way already; out of all the people to have followed the lord and witnessed him both before and after, that there were only 13 that were somehow worthy enough to be made apostles.

In addition to that it would also indicate the wickedness of the followers throughout time as no one else was worthy enough to recieve a witness from the resurrected christ nor be right enough to have the Holy Spirit grant unto them a vision of the saviors life.

So the Scriptures are either incomplete or just plain wrong on this count. And all because they do not agree with your preconceived notion. Okay.........

Do i need to justify the LDs church using the apostacy? no I don't.. the Holy Spirit did that for me , all the apostacy does is help explain how things came to be. Altho i doubt it, I suppose that some form of authority could have been left right up to the time until Christ explained to Joseph Smith that there were none that were his- which i'd doubt to some extent; things of this nature generally come about by gradual increments rather than suddenly (and personally i think historical events point more to this). However, such an occurence wouldnt be totally without precedence however; there was enough of something left in God's church that was createdby Moses, respected by God to grant unto one of the leaders prophesy in regards to Jesus during Christ's ministry, before the authority was taken from them and given to the church Christ set up after His atonement and resurrection.

Yes, for such a foundational belief I have never seen such a wide array of views on how this actually came about. For some Mormons the apostasy occurred imediately upon the death of the last Apostle. For others it was more gradual.

Which brings me to my last point I gave- the book of mormon; it didn't come from any church. If any church had authority (or intedned to hace continued authority) it would have come from them.

In order to agree with your point one first has to agree that the BoM is true. You are correct, the BoM did not come from any church, it came from a man (or men depending on whose story one wishes to believe) who made a claim that he received it from on high. One needs to decide if his claim was credible. You find it credible, I find it incredible.

Edited October 1, 2012 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

Steven - just wondering - do you believe Paul was an Apostle? Note he was not in the company of the 12 when the L-rd walked the earth.

The Traveler

[Guest]

That is the LDS position, but that is all it is. The reason there were twelve Apostles is that they represented the twelve tribes of Israel. This was to be the foundation of the Church. Judas had apostasized, therefore he needed to be replaced so that there were twelve witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection upon which the Church would founded. They chose Matthias and the group of twelve was whole again as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the upper room. It was then, at Petecost, that the Church was born, having as its foundation the Twelve, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. By the very nature of the case, since we would not always have witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection, (the requirement for being an Apostle) this unique role would be impossible to continue and unncecessary. The authority given to the Apostles was passed down to the bishops. And what was to stop them from doing this? One in authority, by its very definition, has the power to grant that authority. Christ gave his authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave this authority to the bishops. It remains the authority of Christ. It is no different than the president of a government giving authority to his embassadors to enter into various agreements with other countries. They are acting with the authority of the President. The bishops are the embassadors of Christ and act with the authority of Christ.

Not a good analogy, Steve. A President sending out ambassadors doesn't make a President not necessary. We still continue to elect Presidents who still continue to assign more ambassadors. A President and an Ambassador have 2 separate and distinct functions in government. A President rules over the ambassadors so they don't give out different messages. Yes, I understand the Catholics chose one of the bishops to preside over the rest, but this is not how Christ organized the Church.

[SteveVH]

Not a good analogy, Steve. A President sending out ambassadors doesn't make a President not necessary.

Who said the President is not necessary? The President in this case is Jesus Christ. The Apostles did not have authority on their own. It was given to them by Christ and then by the Apostles to the bishops. The authority given is the authority of Christ, first given to the Twelve.

We still continue to elect Presidents who still continue to assign more ambassadors. A President and an Ambassador have 2 separate and distinct functions in government. A President rules over the ambassadors so they don't give out different messages.

Yep. And Christ rules over our bishops, through the Holy Spirit, guiding them into all truth, as he promised he would, so that they don't give out different messages.

Yes, I understand the Catholics chose one of the bishops to preside over the rest, but this is not how Christ organized the Church.

No, the Father chose Peter and it can be easily demonstrated that he was first among the Apostles. So his successor is first among the bishops. There is no inconsistency here.

[SteveVH]

Steven - just wondering - do you believe Paul was an Apostle? Note he was not in the company of the 12 when the L-rd walked the earth.

The Traveler

Well, he was not one of the Twelve, obviously. They had a unique function, as I have said. They represented the 12 tribes of Israel and were the foundation upon which the Church was founded. The requirements for belonging to that exclusive club limit membership to the Twelve members at the time of Pentecost, the birth of the Church. They would not be replaced, rather they would be succeeded in terms of authority by the bishops which they ordained, and so on.

As for Paul, he was also given a unique role, directly from Jesus Christ. His influence and work was just as important, but he did not occupy the same position as the Twelve. Before preaching he sought approval from the Apostles. Barnabas was also called an "apostle" and he did great things. The Book of Revelation recognizes the Twelve, and no others.

[Anddenex]

Your claim is that Judas was never a bishop because you completely separate the office of bishop and apostleship. However, your own scriptures regarding the replacement of Judas state "let another his bishoprick take." Reasonable parties would acknowledge two things.

1. A plain reading of scripture would indicate that the selection of an Apostle is being referred to as replacing and bishop/filling a bishoprick (take your pick of the two, they essentially mean the same thing).

2. The plain reading of scripture is not always the true meaning of that scripture.

As pertaining to number 1, remember we have the individual here quoting the Book of Psalms. There were no Bishops mentioned in the old testament. The term bishoprick is in reference to responsibility, not a particular office within the priesthood. It could be easily said within the LDS church, in connection to this verse, the Apostles have a bishoprick and the Seventies have a bishoprick and the Stake President has a bishiprick, and the Bishop has a bishoprick, but none of the offices are transferrable except within that particular priesthoods office. As such, an Apostles office, bishoprick, is not bestowed upon a Bishop. When ordained the Bishop becomes an Apostles, a Stake President, a Seventy, not vice-versa.

I would agree with number 2, which leaves us in a quandary.

I contend that these facts place us in the following position. We must accept the plain meaning of scripture OR we must show through scripture addressing similar themes, that the plain text reading is not the correct one.

I also detect was may be a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Apostolic Succession and the office of bishop is intimately united. Catholics believe that the Apostles were the bishops, that was the Apostolic office. Bishop was not a subset of apostle. To be an Apostle was to be a bishop. Those who hold the office of bishop today, hold the apostolic office. The bishops acting in concert can make pronouncements about doctrine guarded from error by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you were clear on this, but I wanted to make sure we were using like terms.

I am very interested in your evidence that the use of the term bishoprick in reference to Matthias filling the office of Judas, is only about the responsibilities and not about the bishoprick being the office that an Apostle held.

You asked "Where in Scripture do you see bishops being given an apostolic calling?"

This assumes that the office of bishop and the apostolic office are separate. Catholic contend that they are not. In this passage of scripture the office of bishop is the office that Matthias takes when he ordained one of the 12.

Titus 1:7. When Paul, addresses himself as an Apostle, not a Bishop, and is addressing Titus, which I am in understanding that Titus was a Bishop. We know Titus was not an Apostle.

The New Testament gives evidence to the Bishop as a separate calling than an Apostle, otherwise, why give counsel about a Bishop and what a Bishop is.

1 Timothy 3: Again we see an Apostle directing words toward Bishop and deacons. Not correlating the two offices as one, but an Apostle is directing Bishops and deacons their responsibilities.

Phillipians 1: 1, Paul calls the Bishops and deacons to gather. No reference again that a Bishop and Apostle are one in the same office, but rather we have an Apostle calling the Bishops and deacons.

Now, where in scripture do you have evidence that the office of an Apostle and Bishop are the same?

Edited October 2, 2012 by Anddenex