posted
Blackblade, the Bible frequently sets forth things involving God in the sometimes quaint manner and custom of common human speech. Saying God gave or would give David multiple wives is simply the way the prophet chose to work it. But what God allows is not necessarily the ideal tht He would prefer.
The best example I can give involves the death of King Saul, as reported in 1 Chronicles 10:
Verse 4 says Saul killed himself: "Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it."
Verse 11 implies the Philistines killed Saul: "And when all Jabeshgilead heard all that the Philistines had done to Saul...."
Verses 13-14 say that the Lord killed Saul: "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
All three statements, of course, are true in their own way. Saul literally killed Himself. The Philistines caused his death in a more general sense. And God "slew him." This latter shows us that God takes responsibility for the things that He allows, even if it is not His fault, and not necesarily what He would prefer.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, are you saying that the old testament prophets did not, in fact, have more than one wife? or if they did, it was against the Lord's wishes?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No katharina, I am saying that people in the Old Testament, even patriarchs and prophets, did not always do things the way God would have preferred. And though God may have indulged them in certain situations, they still suffered the consequences.
There is an ancient Chinese system of writing using pictographs. The pictograph for a garden is a cross-hatch design. The pictograph for home is a garden with two stick figures in it, a man and a woman. The pictograph for unhappiness shows a garden with a man and two women in it. Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having a hard time of thinking of any OT prohphet that is recorded as having more than one wife. Patriarchs, yes; kings, yes. Is this an example of our differing use of the word "prophet" again?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:that people in the Old Testament, even patriarchs and prophets, did not always do things the way God would have preferred.
Are you saying that when the old testament prophets (patriarchs) had more than one wife, they went against what God preferred?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: Thats pretty shaky ground if you ask me. God is listing all the things He has done for David and then he interjects something he "allowed" in the middle and continues listing more gifts?
God most certainly DID slay Saul in that Saul had descended into sin and God no longer protected nor gave him advice as to what to do. God allowed Saul to get himself in a position where the Philistines could kill him. It is exactly the same as how David "slew" Uriah. Neither David nor God delivered the stroke, they both allowed circumstance to accomplish their aims.
quote:Saying God gave or would give David multiple wives is simply the way the prophet chose to work it.
And who are you to judge how the prophet "meant" to phrase it? I could just as easily argue that the prophet was directly saying that David had been given so much at God's hands and had spit in God's face figuratively by slaying Uriah so he could marry wife. The parable of the ewe lamb that Nathan preceded these comments with further describes a situation where David has been given much by God
If it was not right for David to take multiple wives God would most likely have commanded David not to as plenty of righteous men were monogamous. David in his early days was very open to listening to God, why should we assume that God simply understands cultural differences and lets things slide? I know of no culture where God has been so accommodating, if I remember he is no respecter of persons.
Again where in the law can you identify a rule against polygamy?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Puppy, to clarify:
I'm not saying there wasn't dissension amongst early Christians. But there was an authoritative Church body for resolving such conflicts and such resolution represented accepted and established doctrine. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts is the first example of this.
In one sense Nicea did "settle" the trinity issue. However, the belief is that this was a positive statement of what the beliefs already were in the face of dissension - not that there was no dissension.
This is a good clarification. I have been reading along and up til a couple of posts have been nodding along, "Oh good. Dag's got it covered."
My understanding is that, once Christianity became the "state religion" it became important to write down and codify our beliefs and that the beliefs laid down in the creed, especially regarding the nature of God/Christ. But I don't want to minimize that there was dissent. Bishops did have to be convinced. The authoritive church body for establishing doctrine meant a lot of discussion and consensus building. Dagonee is correct that the creed when he states that the Council at Nicea recorded what the Church already believed and even more correct when he notes that coming to an agreement about what that meant was not without controversy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, when knowledge of God has become darkened, and God seeks to lead a people back into a full appreciation of His truth, He never demands of them total reform all at once. He leads them step by step, as they are able, saying, "Today this is the truth you must focus upon. Tomorrow some other truth will become a testing truth to reveal your faithfulness to Me."
God did not say anything to Abraham about taking the pagan idols with him when He started out for the Promised Land. But later He did encourage various people to put away their idols, and finally He absolutely required this of Israel, allowing them to be carried away captive because of their continued refusal to put all the vestiges of idolatry away from them.
The seventh commandment says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
How do you define adultery?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: All non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy
This is false. There are many Christian Polygamy sects. Here's an example. The numbers don't compare to Mormon Polygamy sects, but they certainly exist.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, in order to say that polygamy has always been disapproved of by God, you have to stretch quite a few things in the Bible, at the very least.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blackblade, when knowledge of God has become darkened, and God seeks to lead a people back into a full appreciation of His truth, He never demands of them total reform all at once. He leads them step by step, as they are able, saying, "Today this is the truth you must focus upon. Tomorrow some other truth will become a testing truth to reveal your faithfulness to Me."
God did not say anything to Abraham about taking the pagan idols with him when He started out for the Promised Land. But later He did encourage various people to put away their idols, and finally He absolutely required this of Israel, allowing them to be carried away captive because of their continued refusal to put all the vestiges of idolatry away from them.
The seventh commandment says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
How do you define adultery?
1: Could you cite where Abraham took his idols with him? I have no recollection of this. I do agree that God reveals his word gradually as the full import would be too much for most people. But God in your scripture said, "Moses" allowed you to put away your wives, but not "God." God distanced himself from saying he ever sanctioned or even allowed divorce as the Jews were then and previously doing it.
2: Adultery? Thats a difficult question, as you may or may not separate fornication from adultery. But engaging in sexual intercourse with somebody who is not your lawfully wedded wife/husband most likely constitutes adultery. If neither party is married I call it fornication. Adultery to me is more serious then fornication.
Hence if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, outside of his wife fornicating with another man, he commits adultery in the eyes of God and His laws. The 2nd woman he has sex with is also committing adultery as the man in the eyes of God and His laws is still married to the first woman, even if civilly the divorce has taken place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the most dangerous misconceptions for Mitt Romney are those held by Mormons about themselves.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I have been unable to locate a text that indicates Abram took with him out of his father Terah's house some household idols. There is an occasional mention that such existed, such as when Jacob told his household to get rid of them: "Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you....And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand...." (Genesis 35:2, 4) There is an earlier mention of household idols in Genesis 31:19: "And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's." Jacob said nothing about these idols for some time, until he finally told his household to put them away.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1: Jacob telling his household to put away their strange Gods is certainly well within moral grounds. It does not say Jacob worshiped the idols, and its doubtful that his man/woman servants were not Canaanites and they certainly had idols. I am sure Abraham's "household" probably has NO overlap with Jacob's "household."
2: Again, Rachael's motives for taking the images are not given any explanation in the biblical account. Perhaps she knew by taking them her father would pursue Jacob and they would be forced to reconcile their differences. Lets say she took them with the intent of worshiping them when Jacob took her home, does that mean Jacob himself was worshiping idols?
Idolatry (idol worship, not laziness) is given ALOT of treatment in the old testament. God did not tolerate it at all from the beginning. It may interest you that in the extended account of Abraham's life that Mormons accept, it is revealed that Abraham was almost sacrificed by his own father to the pagan idols of Egypt, and that God saved him and slew the priest the was poised to slay Abraham. It was from there that Abraham wandered until he reached Canaan. I was always interested that Abraham took his father with him even after that event, though ultimately according to the account Terah temporarily repents of his wickedness but turns back to idol worship and abandons Abraham.
The fact Abraham himself was nearly sacrificed by his own father to idols adds a powerful dynamic to when Abraham himself was asked by the one and true God to sacrifice his own son.
Ron, perhaps we should focus on polygamy's treatment in the Old and New testament. We already agree that God slowly reveals his word, but my point was that God still has some standards that have always been in force. Idol worship has never been tolerated amongst his people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to add something to the thread that Puppy/Dagonee/et al were discussing regarding the Nicaean Creed. Fair disclosure: I am a practicing Mormon.
Mormon doctrine claims that after Christ was resurrected, he left his kingdom (church) in the charge of Peter (with the help of the other Apostles). It further attests that all of the Apostles were killed and that when they died, the kingdom that Christ established -- the organization of the church was killed with them. Finally, (and here is the part that is missing from all the discussion so far) Christ gave specific authority to his Apostles to govern the church. This authority is called by Mormons "The Priesthood".
The Priesthood, according to Mormon belief, is the defining aspect of our creed. To quote the current president of the church, “[The priesthood] is a delegation of divine authority, different from all other powers and authorities on the face of the earth. … It is the only power on the earth that reaches beyond the veil of death. … Without it there could be a church in name only, [a church] lacking authority to administer in the things of God.”
So, it is the lack of priesthood at Nicaea that makes the Creed less than inspired. It doesn't matter what they decided should be included or how they came about it. Even in an historical/fact gathering capacity, they simply didn't have the authority to speak for God. Therefore, the Nicaean Creed holds no water for Mormons because it happened during the "Apostasy" wherein there was a famine in the land "of hearing the words of the Lord".
Non-Mormon Christians seem to believe otherwise. They (according to my discussions with friends and relatives of various sects) believe that the priesthood is a body of inspired men/women that are called by God to teach His word. On its face, it sounds remarkably like Mormon belief. But in practice, the calling of Mormon leaders is done by Articles of Faith "the laying on of hands by those who are in authority" (traceable back to Christ). For non-Mormon Christians, I believe, calling in the ministry is obtained by seeking God's will and then devoting time and effort to gospel study (correct me if I am wrong). The distinction here is not that what non-Mormon Christians are doing wrong, but that one gives people the authority to act in the name of God and the other gives people a greater closeness to God. This distinction is important, as the speaker in the first link I gave (Elder Jeffery R. Holland) said, "Clearly, acting with divine authority requires more than mere social contract. It cannot be generated by theological training or a commission from the congregation. No, in the authorized work of God there has to be power greater than that already possessed by the people in the pews or in the streets or in the seminaries—a fact that many honest religious seekers had known and openly acknowledged for generations leading up to the Restoration."
The defining difference between Mormons and non-Mormon Christians (and the one that will likely never be aired in a political debate) is divine authority.
Edited to clean up some punctuation issues.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr.Intel, you are very mistaken concerning your characterization of non-Mormon Christians and callings to ministry, especially in the contention that Mormon beliefs regarding "'the laying on of hands by those who are in authority' (traceable back to Christ)." For example, many Christians believe in the Apostolic Succession.
quote:The Catholic Church (including its rites), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, Anglican Communion and some others hold that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles. In Catholic and Orthodox theology, the unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" [2] would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age".[3] According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible.
Both Orthodox and Catholics believe that each of their teachings today is the same as or is in essential harmony with the teaching of the first apostles, although each might deny this about the other, at least where the teachings of each are in conflict. This form of the doctrine was formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ.
Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches. The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize Roman Catholics nor any other group as having Apostolic Succession, examples of economia such as the reception of Catholic priests by "vesting" rather than by re-ordination, notwithstanding.
Further, ecumenical councils such as the Nicean Council are not seen as "a body of inspired men/women that are called by God to teach His word." They are seen by Catholics as possessing infalliable authority given by Christ himself.
I'm sure those denominations not mentioned here have their own views on the authority of such councils, but I doubt your summary is accurate for most of them, either.
So, it is the lack of apostolic succession and the rejection of the line of authority from Christ through the Apostles, the Bishops at Nicea, and subsequent person by person succession lasting through today that makes the Mormon teachings on this subject less than inspired.
This just goes to show that the misunderstandings aren't one way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
In 1904, Reed Smoot (how's that for a Mormon name) was elected to the Senate. The Senate was not going to let him take his seat because he was Mormon and some Mormons were still practicing polygamy, although Reed Smoot in particular did not. President Teddy Roosevelt intervened and Reed Smoot took his seat. He was an apostle at the time. He was in the Senate for the next thirty years.
Yep, there was a SENATOR who was a member of the QUORUM OF THE TWELVE at the same time. Forget about whether or not he gave credence to the leaders back in Salt Lake - he WAS one of the leaders back in Salt Lake.
Incidentally, he used to go back to Utah to campaign for the Republicans, which upset some of the other apostles such as Lorenzo Snow because they were Democrats. Which is understandable. Considering there was about thirty years of this, Matt thinks this is part of where the idea that to be a good Mormon one must be a Republican came from. I can see how that would appear.
B.H. Roberts, a great Mormon theologian (wrote all sorts of books in the last part of the nineteenth century) was a Democrat and he was elected to the House of Representatives from Utah. The House did not let him take his seat because he was Mormon. That stuck, and Roberts was sent back to Utah. B.H. Roberts was practicing polygamy at the time, so considering the laws at the time, I kind of think the House had a point
posted
I just wanted to say that I'm learning alot from this discussion and I appreciate the way that it is taking place.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Constitutional side note: the Senate and House have essentially unfettered authority to refuse to seat members. Even if it is unconstitutional to do so because of religion,* the courts have said there is no remedy for such a violation. That is, the House could get away with this today and nothing short of political action could stop them.
*There's good reason to think that the religious tests clause might prohibit this. However, since there's no remedy, there's no precedent. Without question, it would be grossly violative of the spirit of the Constitution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are many ideas on how authority is passed, but Mormons claim that authority a) had to be directly/physically transferred from one holding the authority to the next; and b) that the authority has to be traceable back to Christ. Papal primacy and the Mormon restoration are the only two ways this could have happened. Mormon theology holds that Papal primacy could not be one of the avenues of apostolic succession because of the apostasy referenced in Amos 8.
Obviously the Catholic Church (and Anglican and Episcopal by association) do not agree with the Mormons on this topic.
Most other Protestants don't claim Apostolic succession the way that the Mormons and Catholics do. They claim a "connectional" (from your enlightening wiki link) association to the succession. Which, according to strict Mormon interpretation is a farce.
You and I both know that interfaith doctrinal debates rarely lead to persuasion, so I'll end this post by saying I don't intend for anyone to believe me solely based on what I say. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on what anyone else (including me) believes. I am trying to point out why Mormons don't believe anything that came out of Nicaea. In reality, the Book of Mormon plainly states that such doctrinal differences represent "stumbling blocks" that keep people from understanding the truth. I would argue that this very discussion could be so described.
My lack of understanding of what other Christian faiths believe is one thing I can ammend and hope that by participating in this thread, it will help ameliorate my condition. Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most other Protestants don't claim Apostolic succession the way that the Mormons and Catholics do.
Just a reminder: Catholics alone make up more than half the Christians in the world. Throw in 200+ million Eastern Orthodox and 70 million Anglicans, and more than 2/3 of all Christians' views on authority are not covered by your earlier description. That's all I wanted to get across.
(And I'm not saying your description fits the others, but I'm not qualified to speak to that. I think that most believe that the Council of Nicea was well before any break in the succession, so, even if your description is adequate today, it does not apply to their interpretation of the authority of the creed.)
Edit: and I appreciate the explanations. It's not anything new to me (due solely to similar explanations I've read here before), but I always like well-intentioned discussions about differing beliefs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: For non-Mormon Christians, I believe, calling in the ministry is obtained by seeking God's will and then devoting time and effort to gospel study (correct me if I am wrong).
You are wrong.
quote:Most other Protestants don't claim Apostolic succession the way that the Mormons and Catholics do. They claim a "connectional" (from your enlightening wiki link) association to the succession. Which, according to strict Mormon interpretation is a farce.
The "connectional" link that you describe as a farce is not held by "most Protestants" according to the wiki link, but only by United Methodists. Since I'm a member of that "farscial" body, I'd like to clarify a point.
The break in apostalic succession as understood by the Catholic church is because the founder of the Methodist denominations, John Wesley, was not a Bishop. He was, however, an ordained Anglican priest. Therefore there still is an unbroken link of laying on of hands traced back to the apostles. The same is true of the Lutheran church -- Martin Luther was a priest, but not a bishop.
There are independent churches whose clergy are either self-ordained or ordained by groups of people with no connection through the historic links, but the major denominations trace their ordination through the laying on of hands by someone (or multiple someones) who was ordained in the same way.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the original thread topic, it does not appear to me that Mormons suffer from any stigma in government. Mitt Romney managed to get elected governor of Massachusetts, and his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan back in the 60's, and I remember him as being very popular, credited with "saving American Motors Corp." (which no longer exists, but that happened later). He ran for president as a favorite son, and the only thing that really did him in was when he visited Vietnam and later said that U.S. generals "brainwashed" him.
These days, most Americans have no idea what their own church teaches, let alone what others teach, so denominational affiliation is not likely to be a hindrance for any candidate.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana -- my LDS paradigm very well may be keeping me from understanding what you're saying, and please correct me if needed. From you say, it appears that most protestant denominations claim at least of some of their authority through their unbroken chain to the apostles through Catholic church. This would imply a belief that the Catholic church had authority, at least up to Luther.
How does this mesh with the unfortunate belief of some that Catholics aren't really Christians? Is it just a disconnect between the doctrines of the denominations and the beliefs of the members, or is there a belief that while the Catholic church had authority at some point, but has since lost it? Or something else entirely?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The break in apostalic succession as understood by the Catholic church is because the founder of the Methodist denominations, John Wesley, was not a Bishop. He was, however, an ordained Anglican priest. Therefore there still is an unbroken link of laying on of hands traced back to the apostles. The same is true of the Lutheran church -- Martin Luther was a priest, but not a bishop.
Thanks for chiming in, Dana. I've always wondered about that. My knowledge of this topic WRT to Protestants stops at the Anglican Communion (or it did before you expanded it).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: both of those, plus the fact that the majority of the "Catholics aren't really Christians" folk are not the mainline denominations but the more independant evangelical churches who don't believe in any type of apostolic succession. Some churches even have clergy who are self-ordained (though they would say called by God).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How does this mesh with the unfortunate belief of some that Catholics aren't really Christians? Is it just a disconnect between the doctrines of the denominations and the beliefs of the members, or is there a belief that while the Catholic church had authority at some point, but has since lost it? Or something else entirely?
Not all Protestants believe that Catholics aren't Christians. And in that case, as far as I know, the biggest issue is salvation through grace vs. salvation through works.
posted
Dana -- which groups believe that the Catholic church once held authority, but no longer do, and how do they believe that this authority was lost?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ruffled feathers aside, I appreciate your comment.
I never called your religion a farce. I said that according to strict Mormon belief, the idea of a "connection" to apostolic authority was a farce. Take it however you like, but at least grant me the dignity of replying to what I said, not to what you think I said.
Numbers are meaningless to me, so discussion about how many people belong to which religion doesn't make your argument any more valid. There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world (probably more) and I'm a lot more interested in what they each believe than how many bodies they have in church every Sunday (or were sprinkled or dunked or otherwise included in the membership records).
On the subject of succession, let me get this straight... The sects who claim apostolic succession (i.e. Catholic, Anglican, Mormon) believe that they got it from Peter (an Apostle) and then through various people after that (i.e. the Pope). While those who believe in connection to the succession, claim they got it through some other office (i.e. Priest). Is that right?
This is a key difference, then because Mormons believe that an actual Apostle has to pass along the authority. Apostleship isn't just a nice name, it's an office in the Priesthood. It has keys, rights, and powers that aren't found in other offices. Bishop and Priest are offices in the Priesthood, too, but they don't have the same responsibilities as Apostle. According to Mormon doctrine, Apostles have all the keys and powers that Christ has ever given to man. No other office has these keys and powers. Among them is the power of revelation. Not the kind of revelation that anyone can get when they read the Bible, but the kind that Moses had when he received the ten commandments, the kind that Isaiah had when he saw the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, the kind that Abraham had when he was promised that his seed would be as the sands of the sea. Finally, Mormons claim that there is only one church that has this authority on the earth today.
To my understanding, there is no other church that claims these things -- that there was an apostasy, that the authority to speak in God's name was lost and that subsequently, the power was restored in a church by the original Apostles Peter, James, and John.
So, unless an Apostle ordains another man to be an Apostle, the chain is at least partially broken (again, this is according to Mormon belief) since the keys and powers of the Apostleship could only be transferred to another Apostle. If Wesley and Luther weren't Apostles, then their authority is not the same as Peter. Since Mormons claim that Peter, James and John ordained Joseph Smith to be an Apostle (an other Prophets conferred keys to them as well) that all the keys of authority exist in the church colloquially known as the Mormon one.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Numbers are meaningless to me, so discussion about how many people belong to which religion doesn't make your argument any more valid. There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world (probably more) and I'm a lot more interested in what they each believe than how many bodies they have in church every Sunday (or were sprinkled or dunked or otherwise included in the membership records).
I mentioned them solely to point out that your intitial description fits a small minority of non-Mormon Christians at most.
quote:On the subject of succession, let me get this straight... The sects who claim apostolic succession (i.e. Catholic, Anglican, Mormon) believe that they got it from Peter (an Apostle)
Or another Apostle, not just Peter.
quote: and then through various people after that (i.e. the Pope).
Not just the Pope - through any Bishop (from the episcopate churches' perspective).
quote:This is a key difference, then because Mormons believe that an actual Apostle has to pass along the authority.
I can't tell if your "this is a key difference" sentence refers to the previous sentence or the previous paragraph as a whole. To be sure everything is clarified, each Bishop was ordained by an Apostle or by another Bishop. We believe that a Bishop gains the full authority of the Apostle or successor to an Apostle that ordained him. The only difference between what you claim regarding the transfer of authority to your non-Peter/James/John Apostles is what you call them (plus the 1.8 millenia gap).
Mormon "Bishops" are far different than Catholic Bishops. We mean "successor to the Apostles" when we say "Bishop."
quote:To my understanding, there is no other church that claims these things -- that there was an apostasy, that the authority to speak in God's name was lost and that subsequently, the power was restored in a church by the original Apostles Peter, James, and John.
Your "these things" references a set of claims much broader than your summary.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to Mormon doctrine, Apostles have all the keys and powers that Christ has ever given to man.
I need a brush up on my Mormon theology understanding. I thought only the President of the church had all the keys, and he delegated them to the different apostles. I know Joseph Smith claimed he got the greater priesthood and lesser priesthood from multiple angels. Wasn't it Peter, James, and John, for the Melchizedek and Aaron for the aaronic priesthood, according to Smith?
Exactly who supposedly gave what keys and what the keys are has always been a little fuzzy for me. Ie, did Peter, James, and John give separate keys individually to Joseph, or did they all give the same keys at the same time? And what keys were they? Do todays 12 have all the keys individually but only have authority to use some of the keys? Or do they only have select keys given by the President?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mentioned them solely to point out that your intitial description fits a small minority of non-Mormon Christians at most.
I can live with that.
quote:Not just the Pope - through any Bishop (from the episcopate churches' perspective).
Okay, Dag. I think I'm with you. According to the theory of Apostolic Succession, Bishops are the same as Apostles as far as passing along authority. So when the Catholic Church claims authority through the Popes to Christ, their claim is that Bishops have the same authority that Christ gave to Peter. As for Luther and Wesley, they were not Bishops or Apostles, so their claim is less... valid?
quote:I can't tell if your "this is a key difference" sentence refers to the previous sentence or the previous paragraph as a whole. To be sure everything is clarified, each Bishop was ordained by an Apostle or by another Bishop. We believe that a Bishop gains the full authority of the Apostle or successor to an Apostle that ordained him. The only difference between what you claim regarding the transfer of authority to your non-Peter/James/John Apostles is what you call them (plus the 1.8 millenia gap).
Just the last sentence, as Mormons agree with the idea of Apostolic authority being passed to other Apostles. So other than the Bishop/Apostle nomenclature (and that Mormons believe in an apostasy) Apostolic succession is fairly close to the line of authority beliefs of the Mormons? Cool.
quote:Mormon "Bishops" are far different than Catholic Bishops.
I won't argue with you there!
quote:Your "these things" references a set of claims much broader than your summary.
Which summary was that? Nevertheless, I don't claim to know the ins and outs of all the Christian religions (which is the point of my conversing with you and Dana) so I can honestly say that I don't know of any other church that claims "those things". Do you?
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses. Google "restorationism" for more details. I don't think any of the others specify Peter, James, and John, but they were all founded on the idea that original Christianity died out due to apostasy and was restored in their church.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: I need a brush up on my Mormon theology understanding. I thought only the President of the church had all the keys, and he delegated them to the different apostles. I know Joseph Smith claimed he got the greater priesthood and lesser priesthood from multiple angels. Wasn't it Peter, James, and John, for the Melchizedek and Aaron for the aaronic priesthood, according to Smith?
The President of the Church is the only one with the authorization to exercise all the keys at the same time (unless he designates others to do so). The keys also exist in their entirety in the body of men ordained as Apostles (the Quorum of the Twelve) and are given to the Apostle when he is ordained. They are latent unless activated by the President. As an example, the sealing power is one of the keys held by all the Apostles which can be activated for use by the Apostles, and also given to Temple Presidents and certain men that are called to perform Temple sealings.
quote:Exactly who supposedly gave what keys and what the keys are has always been a little fuzzy for me. Ie, did Peter, James, and John give separate keys individually to Joseph, or did they all give the same keys at the same time? And what keys were they?
In Doctrine and Covenants 110 has some of the answers you are looking for. Basically, Moses, Elias, and Elijah commit different keys to Joseph Smith. Moses gave (among others) the keys of the gathering of Israel. Elijah is the one who commits the sealing power. Peter, James, and John gave Joseph Smith the Melchizedek Priesthood (the same Priesthood that Melchizedek held) and ordained him to the office of Apostle.
Here is another great resource on the keys of the Priesthood.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana -- if I understand correctly, restorationists don't claim any of their authority from a line that goes through the Catholic church.
Are there any churches who claim their authority from a line that goes through the Catholic church, but who believe that the Catholic church no longer has that authority?
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses. Google "restorationism" for more details. I don't think any of the others specify Peter, James, and John, but they were all founded on the idea that original Christianity died out due to apostasy and was restored in their church.
They sure do believe in restoration. But not a one of them (as far as I can tell from their wiki entries) believe in Apostles or mention anything about authority (or the succession thereof).
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, no that was in response to the post directly above it, not yours.
There are a lot of protestants who believe that the Catholic church became corrupt sometime around the middle ages, but I don't know of any specific denominations who include that in their doctrine.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: mph, no that was in response to the post directly above it, not yours.
There are a lot of protestants who believe that the Catholic church became corrupt sometime around the middle ages, but I don't know of any specific denominations who include that in their doctrine.
There are a lot of Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church became corrupt sometime around the middle ages - but also think that there is more good than bad and that the bad is, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fixable. I think that all Churches have some corruption in them somewhere. Even instituted by God, they are organized and administered by fallible human beings. So we all get things wrong, sometimes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
