LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[chevyontheriver]

There is no doubt, the Mountain Meadow Massacre is a bright red stain on the church. We accept it, and take responsibility for it, but we also count it as an anomaly with deep regret.

Ah, I see. Regret makes it all OK. Except that doesn't work for Catholics.

There have been thousands of hours spent by tens of authors to prove that BY ordered the massacre, and to this day there is not one document that has been found that incriminates BY in that fashion.

OK. No evidence Brigham Young ordered it. How about how he covered it up and blamed the Indians?

John Lee was the one that gave the (completely unconscionable) order to fire. It is beyond any degree of understanding how he somehow came to give that order. I am sure he regrets it too, for he was hung for the crime and his soul will smolder in hell, as will others that were there that day.

You have judged him in hell. Catholics are less dogmatic about who is in hell, allowing God to have a say first.

And I would think just like you, if BY had been involved with this massacre, then the keys of the kingdom of heaven would not reside with this church. But he wasn't and they do.

He can cover it up though? Cool!

As for sexual improprieties, you have no good knowledge of how the Lord views plural marriage. You have no good knowledge of the plural marriages that JS was engaged in. So until you get past lies that the critics who hate JS say, and you find out the truth, we really cannot have a discussion of that.

Ah, but I do. I lived in Muslim communities where there were plenty of plural marriages. Seen them in action. And lived with an articulate Muslim who explained to me why it was a terrible idea even if it was allowed for Muslims. I never met Joseph Smith though, and have only read about that. Your denial is telling. Why is it the LDS has banned polygamy? And when the sexual revolution makes polygamy OK again, will the LDS un-ban it?

But if you are trying to console yourself that the abomination of the Catholic bishops have pressed upon the world for centuries with one mistake by the men in the Church of Jesus Christ, I am sure you will come to the right conclusion. There is no comparison.

There IS a comparison. In fact it works out poorly for the LDS. So soon after it's founding the LDS is involved in a massacre, and Brigham Young blames the Indians. That's about the equivalent of Clement of Rome hiding a similar sized massacre. And then you have your sordid polygamous past. Not pretty. Look to your own abominations. You aren't in focus.

The Trinity as you know it is at least 70% different than any other Christian church in the world. Oh, the outward appearance may be close, but if we started to dig through the details, it would not take too much time before you could not stand to be in the same room with the other churches.

Hmmm. Well, there are Oneness Pentecostals I would differ with. The SDA is a bit dodgy, but in the end Trinitarian. The Jehovah's Witnesses I differ with. The Orthodox and Catholics disagree on one tiny point and even some Orthodox theologians are saying it's a difference of perspective. Basically the vast majority of Protestants have a Catholic understanding of the Trinity. It's about 95% of all that claim to be Christian that would agree on the Trinity.

That is why they are no longer of your church, they do not believe everything you believe. So if you accept their baptism, good on you, but you are accepting their baptism for the wrong reasons.

Of course they don't believe everything I believe. But there is some hope, and there is a Mere Christianity that exists even if bull headed people can't yet reconcile. We hope to end up in the same room with them eventually. Their baptism is acceptable right now even if not reciprocated. That is the baptism of those who are Trinitarian, the vast majority. Which is why we accepted the Baptism of the Donatists 1600 years ago even though they would not accept Catholic baptism.

The bible does not say you have to believe in the Trinity to be baptized. The bible does not even have the word "Trinity" on any page.

The Bible is not a systematic theology book. Once in a while Paul manages to rise to a bit of systematic theology in the NT but for the most part we are left to figure out systematic questions based upon the Bible, the Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Bishops. We are not Sola Scriptura fundamentalists who fear to use words not found in the Bible. So it doesn't matter that the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible. It's true nonetheless, and folks like Athanasius and Basil and Gregory Nazianzen put the systematic theology together far better than Joseph Smith tried to do 1500 years later. Their work and the ideas of Joseph Smith are incompatible. Theirs is compatible with the Bible though.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't think God would do this for any reason. I believe he would do this because the leaders of the church have rejected him, because they are not willing to receive revelation any more and have gone off the path.

Now in our case, I believe God will correct the errors by the leaders by replacing them. The reason for that is, like I say, the time is too close now to the second coming to raise up a new group of people to do this work.

So rather than letting this church drift away on it own supposed power, He will do what he needs to do to keep it on line. So far, because of the willingness of the apostles and prophets to listen and hear the Lord, the Lords work is moving forward as he sees fit.

I can only but ask again it seems. If God left the LDS Church to her own devices, apart from his grace, would it fall into apostasy?

Saying you don't think that will ever happen isnt an answer. Since here I am concerned with what protects a Church from apostasy. Is it human effort or God?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I can only but ask again it seems. If God left the LDS Church to her own devices, apart from his grace, would it fall into apostasy?

Saying you don't think that will ever happen isnt an answer. Since here I am concerned with what protects a Church from apostasy. Is it human effort or God?

I see where you are going with this.

 

[Peter1000]

I can only but ask again it seems. If God left the LDS Church to her own devices, apart from his grace, would it fall into apostasy?

Saying you don't think that will ever happen isnt an answer. Since here I am concerned with what protects a Church from apostasy. Is it human effort or God?

The answer is yes it would.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The answer is yes it would.

Next question. Are the Mormons more moral/righteous than first and second century Christians without God's grace?

 

[Peter1000]

Ah, I see. Regret makes it all OK. Except that doesn't work for Catholics.

What more can we do, except regret and ask God for forgiveness, and see that it never happens agiain? It should work for Catholics, who over the years have had hundreds of massacres.

OK. No evidence Brigham Young ordered it. How about how he covered it up and blamed the Indians?

As reports came in from southern Utah, BY was first told that the indians had done it. Then after a time, and by the men he sent down to investigate, he learned the truth, and told the true story.

Why is it the LDS has banned polygamy? And when the sexual revolution makes polygamy OK again, will the LDS un-ban it?

Up until a certain date (and I don't remember what that date was) it was not against the laws of the Federal Gov. to have more than one wife. But there came a time that it was, and the Federal Gov. was coming down on the church heavily in the way of incarcerating leaders and confiscating property.

With all the intense pressure from the gov. Wilford Woodruff went to the Lord and asked for a solution. The solution was to end plural marriage. So they did.

It is not a matter of sex.

There IS a comparison. In fact it works out poorly for the LDS. So soon after it's founding the LDS is involved in a massacre, and Brigham Young blames the Indians. That's about the equivalent of Clement of Rome hiding a similar sized massacre. And then you have your sordid polygamous past. Not pretty. Look to your own abominations. You aren't in focus.

Please, don't try to compare our 1 massacre to your hundreds over hundreds of years and hundreds of groups of people that got disgusted with the Catholic church and left it, only to be persued and slaughtered. Whole books have been written on all the slaughters. Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus by the Catholic. So I would not put your Clement of Rome massacre up against our Mt. Meadow massacre and try to say we are even.

And I haven't even said a word about the sexual depravity of the Catholic leaders. Do you really want to go there?

It's about 95% of all that claim to be Christian that would agree on the Trinity.

Yes, about 95% of Christians believe in the Trinity. So do the member of my church. We too believe that the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. That is the level 1 belief.
The level 2 belief is figuring out what does the word "one" mean? The level 3 belief tries to define what "Person" means. The level 4 belief is how the 3 Persons are different if any. For instance some believe they are coequal in all ways. Some believe that there is a first Person of the Triinity and a second Person, which denotes difference etc.

The levels go on a long way, and the further you dig down to lower levels, the percentage of agreement starts to decline, until you are pretty much believing what you believe, but nobody else does. And that is the reason you belong to your church and I belong to mine, and Lutherans belong to theirs etc. So 95% agree with the firsts level, but by the time you get to the 10th level, well you see my point. So what level does one have to agree on for you to recognise their baptism? And that is only 1 doctrine that we have talked about

You should have never accepted the Donatist baptism. These were people who struck one of the first blows against the Mother church, and separated themselves from it. Many bishops and high up people, especially in Carthage area went over to the Donatist heresy. After years of persecuting them and burning down their churches, the Catholic church decided that it did not matter if the man baptizing was worthy to baptize, they would accept his baptism.
One of the great mistakes of the early church. It watered down the priesthood so far that it was practically worthless. Anyone could now baptize according to the Catholic church. Real careless with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Peter1000]

Next question. Are the Mormons more moral/righteous than first and second century Christians without God's grace?

I believe the members of the church today are more inclined to be more moral and righteous than the first century Christians just for the fact that the world is a different place. In the first century, the world was a terrible, cruel, godless, immoral place. A lot of things have changed to the benefit of mankind. But that difference is also due to God's grace. Without God's grace, we would be no better than our first century brothers.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What more can we do, except regret and ask God for forgiveness, and see that it never happens agiain? It should work for Catholics, who over the years have had hundreds of massacres.

So you guys have a massacre and you can regret it and ask God for forgiveness and it's all good. But Catholics somehow aren't allowed to do that and are totally apostate? My point is what you say caused the Catholic Church to become apostate is something the Mormons already did within the lives of the founders of Mormonism. Yours is a very unequal standard of complaining about others and excusing your own.

As reports came in from southern Utah, BY was first told that the indians had done it. Then after a time, and by the men he sent down to investigate, he learned the truth, and told the true story.

You say.

Up until a certain date (and I don't remember what that date was) it was not against the laws of the Federal Gov. to have more than one wife. But there came a time that it was, and the Federal Gov. was coming down on the church heavily in the way of incarcerating leaders and confiscating property.

With all the intense pressure from the gov. Wilford Woodruff went to the Lord and asked for a solution. The solution was to end plural marriage. So they did.

It is not a matter of sex.

So can we look for polygamy again from the LDS? I mean if the federal government allows it again I can see no reason you wouldn't. Except it is not kind to women with the one exception of where numerous men have been killed in war.

Please, don't try to compare our 1 massacre to your hundreds over hundreds of years and hundreds of groups of people that got disgusted with the Catholic church and left it, only to be persued and slaughtered. Whole books have been written on all the slaughters. Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus by the Catholic. So I would not put your Clement of Rome massacre up against our Mt. Meadow massacre and try to say we are even.

Except the Clement of Rome massacre didn't happen, Yours did, within the same time frame. Your basis for total apostasy means the LDS is also totally apostate if you measure the same.

And I haven't even said a word about the sexual depravity of the Catholic leaders. Do you really want to go there?

Sure. Mormons have their sexual depravities. Ours are real. Disqualifying the whole Catholic Church as I am sure you can say. But yours then disqualify the whole of Mormonism.

Yes, about 95% of Christians believe in the Trinity. So do the member of my church. We too believe that the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. That is the level 1 belief.
The level 2 belief is figuring out what does the word "one" mean? The level 3 belief tries to define what "Person" means. The level 4 belief is how the 3 Persons are different if any. For instance some believe they are coequal in all ways. Some believe that there is a first Person of the Triinity and a second Person, which denotes difference etc.

The levels go on a long way, and the further you dig down to lower levels, the percentage of agreement starts to decline, until you are pretty much believing what you believe, but nobody else does. And that is the reason you belong to your church and I belong to mine, and Lutherans belong to theirs etc. So 95% agree with the firsts level, but by the time you get to the 10th level, well you see my point. So what level does one have to agree on for you to recognise their baptism? And that is only 1 doctrine that we have talked about

I believe what the Lutheran confessions believe about God. And what the Westminster Confession says about God. Not about your deity. Your baptism is into a different deity. And you admit it by rejecting our baptism.

You should have never accepted the Donatist baptism. These were people who struck one of the first blows against the Mother church, and separated themselves from it. Many bishops and high up people, especially in Carthage area went over to the Donatist heresy. After years of persecuting them and burning down their churches, the Catholic church decided that it did not matter if the man baptizing was worthy to baptize, they would accept his baptism.
One of the great mistakes of the early church. It watered down the priesthood so far that it was practically worthless. Anyone could now baptize according to the Catholic church. Real careless with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

But your 'total apostasy' happened long before the Donatists, so it can't even matter. But let me clue you in about the Donatists. They were 'holier than thou' folks who refused to allow people who compromised in a recent persecution to come back after repenting their failure. It's kind of like the Mormons actually, who will not allow for repentance after apostasy. The Donatists however, aside from their lack of desire to allow the repentant to return to fellowship, were otherwise Catholic. So of course their baptism was accepted. It shouldn't have been otherwise, even though the Donatists ended up rejecting Catholic baptism just because Catholics dared to forgive those who apostasized during a persecution.

 

[He is the way]

So you guys have a massacre and you can regret it and ask God for forgiveness and it's all good. But Catholics somehow aren't allowed to do that and are totally apostate? My point is what you say caused the Catholic Church to become apostate is something the Mormons already did within the lives of the founders of Mormonism. Yours is a very unequal standard of complaining about others and excusing your own.

I hope you don't mind if I answer for Peter1000. This is about church leaders not just members. Please don't blame the leaders of our church for what our members have done. Members of the Catholic Church have done worse. Our church leaders do not sanction torture and murder, but yours have.

You say.

So can we look for polygamy again from the LDS? I mean if the federal government allows it again I can see no reason you wouldn't. Except it is not kind to women with the one exception of where numerous men have been killed in war.

Polygamy still exists in the world today. It may return to the United States:
(Old Testament | Isaiah 4:1)

1 AND in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Except the Clement of Rome massacre didn't happen, Yours did, within the same time frame. Your basis for total apostasy means the LDS is also totally apostate if you measure the same.

The mountain meadows massacre was not ordered by the church presidency.

Sure. Mormons have their sexual depravities. Ours are real. Disqualifying the whole Catholic Church as I am sure you can say. But yours then disqualify the whole of Mormonism.

Polygamy is not about sexual depravities. That being said, sadly there are perverts in every religion. We are taught to be virtuous.

I believe what the Lutheran confessions believe about God. And what the Westminster Confession says about God. Not about your deity. Your baptism is into a different deity. And you admit it by rejecting our baptism.

We believe that baptism should be by immersion but not before the age of accountability.

But your 'total apostasy' happened long before the Donatists, so it can't even matter. But let me clue you in about the Donatists. They were 'holier than thou' folks who refused to allow people who compromised in a recent persecution to come back after repenting their failure. It's kind of like the Mormons actually, who will not allow for repentance after apostasy. The Donatists however, aside from their lack of desire to allow the repentant to return to fellowship, were otherwise Catholic. So of course their baptism was accepted. It shouldn't have been otherwise, even though the Donatists ended up rejecting Catholic baptism just because Catholics dared to forgive those who apostasized during a persecution.

The only perfect person that has lived was Jesus Christ. That being said church leaders are held to a higher standard. They should NOT lead people astray. We believe that our leaders are leading us in the right direction towards Jesus Christ.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I hope you don't mind if I answer for Peter1000. This is about church leaders not just members. Please don't blame the leaders of our church for what our members have done. Members of the Catholic Church have done worse. Our church leaders do not sanction torture and murder, but yours have.

Given your short history and small number I think you have a proportionally larger problem. I don't like to get into the scandals of others, but point out to them that if they think their group is so much better than any others they are a bit delusional. I think you believe Catholics are so terrible because it's been taught to you from a young age. Am I right?

Polygamy still exists in the world today. It may return to the United States:

I kind of expect it in a few years. Given the way things are going, it's inevitable. Will that please the LDS?

The mountain meadows massacre was not ordered by the church presidency.

So then it's OK? OK to even cover it up?

Polygamy is not about sexual depravities. That being said, sadly there are perverts in every religion. We are taught to be virtuous.

Catholics are taught to be virtuous as well. Not all are. Not all Mormons are either. There is a mystery of iniquity everywhere there are humans. You believe the LDS has maintained priesthood even though that mystery of iniquity is live among Mormons, including their leaders. But Catholics, so far far far worse? And thus no priesthood? No. The Catholic doctrine of original sin actually explains it all, particularly how we got Cain in one generation, how we got David the adulterer and murderer, and even sacrifice to Moloch within the religion of Israel, Judas Iscariot, some bad popes, and Mormons who massacre and others who cover it up. Point being your people have convinced you of how upstanding the Mormon founders were and how totally abased Catholics are. But you guys are morally in the exact same boat. If we're totally apostate you are too. Lost with no priesthoods. You are way too optimistic about Mormons and too pessimistic about everyone else. Which is why you need to re-evaluate your whole 'total apostasy' theory with some actual history, modern and ancient.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I believe the members of the church today are more inclined to be more moral and righteous than the first century Christians just for the fact that the world is a different place. In the first century, the world was a terrible, cruel, godless, immoral place. A lot of things have changed to the benefit of mankind. But that difference is also due to God's grace. Without God's grace, we would be no better than our first century brothers.

I almost can't believe you would say the bolded. That's a progressive take if I ever saw it. As if the world today isn't terrible, cruel, godless and immoral. Like do you live in Utah, is it that much of a Paradise? But at least you admitted that without God's grace you would be no better off than the first century Christians.

Another question. Would you agree with the proposition that the status of a Apostle/Prophet is not due to any particular righteousness or credentials on part of the person? That literally anyone with faith can be made a Prophet or Apostle?

 

[Peter1000]

I almost can't believe you would say the bolded. That's a progressive take if I ever saw it. As if the world today isn't terrible, cruel, godless and immoral. Like do you live in Utah, is it that much of a Paradise? But at least you admitted that without God's grace you would be no better off than the first century Christians.

Another question. Would you agree with the proposition that the status of a Apostle/Prophet is not due to any particular righteousness or credentials on part of the person? That literally anyone with faith can be made a Prophet or Apostle?

I believe in order for a man to receive revelation from God, they must be in tune with God. It does not mean they have to be perfect, but their basic attitude has to be one of doing that which is righteous before the Lord.

I believe even an evil person can be turned from evil and repent to become an instrument in the Lords hands to perform the work God has for him to do. Paul is the model for that kind of man. But God is only going to use him as long as he stays righteous.

I say that which is bolded because at least we are willing to learn the meat of the gospel of Jesus Christ verses not accepting the meat and only trying to live the milk of the gospel. (1 Corinthians 3:2)

 

[Peter1000]

So you guys have a massacre and you can regret it and ask God for forgiveness and it's all good. But Catholics somehow aren't allowed to do that and are totally apostate? My point is what you say caused the Catholic Church to become apostate is something the Mormons already did within the lives of the founders of Mormonism. Yours is a very unequal standard of complaining about others and excusing your own.

You say.

So can we look for polygamy again from the LDS? I mean if the federal government allows it again I can see no reason you wouldn't. Except it is not kind to women with the one exception of where numerous men have been killed in war.

Except the Clement of Rome massacre didn't happen, Yours did, within the same time frame. Your basis for total apostasy means the LDS is also totally apostate if you measure the same.

Sure. Mormons have their sexual depravities. Ours are real. Disqualifying the whole Catholic Church as I am sure you can say. But yours then disqualify the whole of Mormonism.

I believe what the Lutheran confessions believe about God. And what the Westminster Confession says about God. Not about your deity. Your baptism is into a different deity. And you admit it by rejecting our baptism.

But your 'total apostasy' happened long before the Donatists, so it can't even matter. But let me clue you in about the Donatists. They were 'holier than thou' folks who refused to allow people who compromised in a recent persecution to come back after repenting their failure. It's kind of like the Mormons actually, who will not allow for repentance after apostasy. The Donatists however, aside from their lack of desire to allow the repentant to return to fellowship, were otherwise Catholic. So of course their baptism was accepted. It shouldn't have been otherwise, even though the Donatists ended up rejecting Catholic baptism just because Catholics dared to forgive those who apostasized during a persecution.

This discussion is not healthy for either of us, so this will be my last post on this subject.

I can only say what I believe, and you too. There is plenty of evidence of apostasy if you are willing to read the history with that in mind. I can also see your point, that although there were imperfect men, a full apostasy did not happen.

So we will just have to agree to disagree about the apostasy. Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I believe in order for a man to receive revelation from God, they must be in tune with God. It does not mean they have to be perfect, but their basic attitude has to be one of doing that which is righteous before the Lord.

I believe even an evil person can be turned from evil and repent to become an instrument in the Lords hands to perform the work God has for him to do. Paul is the model for that kind of man. But God is only going to use him as long as he stays righteous.

I say that which is bolded because at least we are willing to learn the meat of the gospel of Jesus Christ verses not accepting the meat and only trying to live the milk of the gospel. (1 Corinthians 3:2)

Let's clarify and be precise in our language. Sinners can be chosen by God to be Prophets/Apostles? Their sinfulness doesn't impact God's decision on the matter, correct? Because if that is the case then there would be no Prophets/Apostles whatsoever. I think the answer to this has to be yes otherwise you indict all Prophets/Apostles. The only requirement seems to me that a Prophet and or Apostle must have faith. Still, tell me if you affirm this statement.

My next question is this. Can a person with the wrong Ideas about God be chosen by God to be his Apostle/Prophet?

 

[dzheremi]

I kind of expect it in a few years. Given the way things are going, it's inevitable. Will that please the LDS?

It has already been decriminalized earlier this year...you'll never guess where...

 

[He is the way]

Given your short history and small number I think you have a proportionally larger problem. I don't like to get into the scandals of others, but point out to them that if they think their group is so much better than any others they are a bit delusional. I think you believe Catholics are so terrible because it's been taught to you from a young age. Am I right?

I was not taught that from a young age, there was a program that I watched on PBS about torture. I was surprised that many of the torture devices were invented by the members of the Cathodic Church.

I kind of expect it in a few years. Given the way things are going, it's inevitable. Will that please the LDS?

To me the main purpose of polygamy is to show compassion on others.

So then it's OK? OK to even cover it up?

The whole thing was a tragedy:

" Yes, one of the hardest things about Mountain Meadows is that a few points of historical evidence are not as clear as we would like them to be. That is almost always the case with history; there are gaps and silences. Historians have done a lot of work on this. Mountain Meadows has been combed over pretty thoroughly, and there are real debates. The biggest debate is whether Brigham Young knew about the massacre ahead of time. He certainly knew about it afterward, but did he know about it ahead of time? Did he order it? Is he responsible for it in some way? There is some conflicting evidence. You can point to some evidence that suggests that Brigham Young had his hand behind this, that he was kind of an invisible hand guiding this.

There is no doubt that Brigham Young contributed to a climate of fear though his violent rhetoric toward the government, toward emigrants, toward the Gentiles, toward dissenters. This rhetoric was in the context of the Mormon Reformation, when he and other Mormon leaders were traveling around Utah, using violent rhetoric to get people to repent. There is no doubt in my mind that Brigham Young was culpable in that way. But I strongly believe in and agree with the interpretation of most historians, who say Brigham Young was not directly responsible for the massacre and would have stopped it if he could have. There are some historians who disagree with that, but I for one think the evidence clearly lands on the former side. That still doesn’t change the fact that local church leaders were involved. Stake presidents, a bishop, and others who were the local church leaders in Cedar City were not just aware of this, but they were the ones driving it. Nor does it change the fact that Brigham Young, after the fact, was responsible for the cover-up and helped obscure the facts and helped divert justice officials from finding the perpetrators and arresting them. I think he was trying to protect his people. Again, we have to understand the twenty-year context behind this situation.

So what do we do with this? I think we have to realize that our Church leaders, local and general, are people too. They are called of the Lord, and they are inspired of the Lord, but the Lord never takes away their agency; they too can make choices which divert them, sometimes horribly and tragically, from the true teachings of the gospel. We saw that with Isaac Haight and William Dame and John Lee and the other people who coordinated the massacre on the ground. We know that Brigham Young sanctioned violence in the 1850s against Native Americans, dissenters, and others, so even if he was not directly responsible for Mountain Meadows, his hands were not clean concerning the violence of the 1850s. So we have to recognize that our leaders, just like us, operate in history. They are part of a culture; they are not perfect. God is still working with them and is working with the Church to purify it and sanctify it. I don’t think we can excuse our Church leaders for whatever degree of responsibility they carry, nor do we have to pin everything on them. Not everything that happened in Utah Territory can be blamed on Brigham Young. He wasn’t involved in everything, despite what people sometimes say, so I think we need to be careful historians.

There is an ethical part of us that should say we are not going to pin blame where it doesn’t belong, nor are we going to excuse people of things they are actually responsible for. And in this process, we will be motivated by charity and humility and empathy but also by a desire to tell the truth. As Latter-day Saints, we are not afraid of the truth. We are not afraid of facts, because ultimately we are not here to vindicate the character of Brigham Young. The truth of Mormonism doesn’t rest on that. We embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, which involves the redemption of the Church and its leaders as well as us, and that’s the story we tell—not whether Brigham Young, or any other leader of the Church, was morally perfect or not."

From: Discussing Difficult Topics: The Mountain Meadows Massacre | Religious Studies Center

Catholics are taught to be virtuous as well. Not all are. Not all Mormons are either. There is a mystery of iniquity everywhere there are humans. You believe the LDS has maintained priesthood even though that mystery of iniquity is live among Mormons, including their leaders. But Catholics, so far far far worse? And thus no priesthood? No. The Catholic doctrine of original sin actually explains it all, particularly how we got Cain in one generation, how we got David the adulterer and murderer, and even sacrifice to Moloch within the religion of Israel, Judas Iscariot, some bad popes, and Mormons who massacre and others who cover it up. Point being your people have convinced you of how upstanding the Mormon founders were and how totally abased Catholics are. But you guys are morally in the exact same boat. If we're totally apostate you are too. Lost with no priesthoods. You are way too optimistic about Mormons and too pessimistic about everyone else. Which is why you need to re-evaluate your whole 'total apostasy' theory with some actual history, modern and ancient.

Yes, like you said, there are problems and everything really depends on personal worthiness. It is still my belief that God's true church would have the same organization as it did while Jesus was on the earth. It would be led by a prophet. Jesus said:

(New Testament | Matthew 5:17 - 18)

17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

We also read:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 13)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[chevyontheriver]

This discussion is not healthy for either of us, so this will be my last post on this subject.

I can only say what I believe, and you too. There is plenty of evidence of apostasy if you are willing to read the history with that in mind. I can also see your point, that although there were imperfect men, a full apostasy did not happen.

So we will just have to agree to disagree about the apostasy. Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy it.

I'm glad you can see my point. On our own efforts and following our own desires things spiral downwards. That the Catholic Church has not hit bottom after two thousand years of it's members trying to destroy it is testimony to God's oversight. I hope I have provided some food for thought.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The whole thing was a tragedy:

Exactly.

There is no doubt that Brigham Young contributed to a climate of fear though his violent rhetoric toward the government, toward emigrants, toward the Gentiles, toward dissenters. This rhetoric was in the context of the Mormon Reformation, when he and other Mormon leaders were traveling around Utah, using violent rhetoric to get people to repent. There is no doubt in my mind that Brigham Young was culpable in that way. But I strongly believe in and agree with the interpretation of most historians, who say Brigham Young was not directly responsible for the massacre and would have stopped it if he could have. ... That still doesn’t change the fact that local church leaders were involved. Stake presidents, a bishop, and others who were the local church leaders in Cedar City were not just aware of this, but they were the ones driving it. Nor does it change the fact that Brigham Young, after the fact, was responsible for the cover-up and helped obscure the facts and helped divert justice officials from finding the perpetrators and arresting them.

So what do we do with this? I think we have to realize that our Church leaders, local and general, are people too. They are called of the Lord, and they are inspired of the Lord, but the Lord never takes away their agency; they too can make choices which divert them, sometimes horribly and tragically, from the true teachings of the gospel. We saw that with Isaac Haight and William Dame and John Lee and the other people who coordinated the massacre on the ground. We know that Brigham Young sanctioned violence in the 1850s against Native Americans, dissenters, and others, so even if he was not directly responsible for Mountain Meadows, his hands were not clean concerning the violence of the 1850s. So we have to recognize that our leaders, just like us, operate in history. They are part of a culture; they are not perfect. God is still working with them and is working with the Church to purify it and sanctify it. I don’t think we can excuse our Church leaders for whatever degree of responsibility they carry, nor do we have to pin everything on them. Not everything that happened in Utah Territory can be blamed on Brigham Young. He wasn’t involved in everything, despite what people sometimes say, so I think we need to be careful historians.

To be careful historians we need to see that people are people, warts and all. If Brigham Young were a Catholic pope you would find in his actions enough to say it warranted the claim of total apostasy. Yet, as he is Mormon you cam say God was still working with him and working with the (LDS) church to purify it and sanctify it. But that's what I say of the Catholic Church.

Yes, like you said, there are problems and everything really depends on personal worthiness. It is still my belief that God's true church would have the same organization as it did while Jesus was on the earth. It would be led by a prophet.

I think you have just conceded my point about scandals. That if the Catholic Church is disqualified by scandals the LDS is as well. Or better that while scandals are serious things they are not automatically disqualifying of the whole endeavor. Which comes back to the 'total apostasy' thing being overblown. There were lots of problems in the early Church and the later Church and there are problems in the Church of today. Not a big surprise. The surprise is that holiness still manages to exist here and there, that there are saints, and that the bad guys have not destroyed the good, the true, and the beautiful. The good, true and beautiful rises up here and there right inside of the Catholic Church. (and the Orthodox Churches as well, and even among the rest of the baptized.) We Catholics do not claim that everything in the Catholic Church has always been rosy. We claim that despite it all God has preserved the teaching and the community of faith. That is actually your claim when it comes to Brigham Young, that despite the bad not all was lost. Yet if your claim makes any sense it also makes sense of the continued existence of the Catholic Church.

So it actually comes back to what the Church of Christ should look like in 2020. You and I agree that there should be an active Melchizedek priesthood, because the priesthood of Jesus is continued in His Church. The Catholic view is that Jesus formed apostles who formed bishops as part of the natural succession plan to spread the Church into every corner of the world. It's like the acorn turned into an oak tree. It doesn't look like an acorn any longer but it is an acorn all grown up. You get hung up on the names 'prophet' and 'apostle' while the bishops and the pope exercise prophetic roles in their leadership when they are actually listening to God, and they exercise apostolic roles as well. One such prophetic utterance was when pope Paul VI spoke about the bad consequences of contraception, all of which have come true in our culture. Not everything a pope or bishop says is prophetic, but we are to listen to them when they do, when they speak sitting on the seat of authority. Prophecy has not ceased. Miracles have not ceased. Teaching has not ceased. Evangelism has not ceased. Oversight has not ceased. All of this continued even in persecution, even as some bad men weaseled themselves in.

The Continuity of the Catholic Church by The Most Reverend Duane G. Hunt D.D. ::

 

[He is the way]

Exactly.

To be careful historians we need to see that people are people, warts and all. If Brigham Young were a Catholic pope you would find in his actions enough to say it warranted the claim of total apostasy. Yet, as he is Mormon you cam say God was still working with him and working with the (LDS) church to purify it and sanctify it. But that's what I say of the Catholic Church.

I think you have just conceded my point about scandals. That if the Catholic Church is disqualified by scandals the LDS is as well. Or better that while scandals are serious things they are not automatically disqualifying of the whole endeavor. Which comes back to the 'total apostasy' thing being overblown. There were lots of problems in the early Church and the later Church and there are problems in the Church of today. Not a big surprise. The surprise is that holiness still manages to exist here and there, that there are saints, and that the bad guys have not destroyed the good, the true, and the beautiful. The good, true and beautiful rises up here and there right inside of the Catholic Church. (and the Orthodox Churches as well, and even among the rest of the baptized.) We Catholics do not claim that everything in the Catholic Church has always been rosy. We claim that despite it all God has preserved the teaching and the community of faith. That is actually your claim when it comes to Brigham Young, that despite the bad not all was lost. Yet if your claim makes any sense it also makes sense of the continued existence of the Catholic Church.

So it actually comes back to what the Church of Christ should look like in 2020. You and I agree that there should be an active Melchizedek priesthood, because the priesthood of Jesus is continued in His Church. The Catholic view is that Jesus formed apostles who formed bishops as part of the natural succession plan to spread the Church into every corner of the world. It's like the acorn turned into an oak tree. It doesn't look like an acorn any longer but it is an acorn all grown up. You get hung up on the names 'prophet' and 'apostle' while the bishops and the pope exercise prophetic roles in their leadership when they are actually listening to God, and they exercise apostolic roles as well. One such prophetic utterance was when pope Paul VI spoke about the bad consequences of contraception, all of which have come true in our culture. Not everything a pope or bishop says is prophetic, but we are to listen to them when they do, when they speak sitting on the seat of authority. Prophecy has not ceased. Miracles have not ceased. Teaching has not ceased. Evangelism has not ceased. Oversight has not ceased. All of this continued even in persecution, even as some bad men weaseled themselves in.

The Continuity of the Catholic Church by The Most Reverend Duane G. Hunt D.D. ::

We use our priesthood to bless the lives of others. At the present time I am grateful that The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic Church are working together to feed and clothe the homeless and care for the sick. It is great to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

 

[Peter1000]

Let's clarify and be precise in our language. Sinners can be chosen by God to be Prophets/Apostles? Their sinfulness doesn't impact God's decision on the matter, correct? Because if that is the case then there would be no Prophets/Apostles whatsoever. I think the answer to this has to be yes otherwise you indict all Prophets/Apostles. The only requirement seems to me that a Prophet and or Apostle must have faith. Still, tell me if you affirm this statement.

My next question is this. Can a person with the wrong Ideas about God be chosen by God to be his Apostle/Prophet?

I believe that a person who is called of God to be a prophet or apostle not only has to have faith but has to be active in implementing that faith into good works and doing the will of God in order to receive God's word to direct His people. Does that man have to be perfect, no, but God is not going to work with a man that is commiting serious offenses before Him. God will withdraw from that man and amen to his priesthood and his apostleship. There have been a few apostles chosen in our time that have suffered excommunication from their apostleship because of grevious sins.

The answer to your next question is NO. If God is going to call you to be His apostle or prophet, he is going to make sure you know Him personally. He will also correct you if you are teaching wrong ideas about Him. If you do not correct your doctrines, He will withdraw his support from you and you will be replaced from your apostleship.