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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
