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

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

Your answer is confusing because you’re offering exceptions while ultimately saying no. What was my question? It was can God make a calling to someone who has a false Idea concerning him? That is, can he make a prophet out of that person? Let’s consider Joseph Smith, the man you say was a Prophet. Given his being raised in a Christian Milieu I doubt he had the Mormon Ideas he had concerning God until they were supposedly revealed to him. Being raised in a Christian Milieu with every Christian authority telling him many things about God it seems impossible to argue that Joseph didn’t have false Ideas in some respect. Hence the need for revelation to correct him.

You could say the same about many other people and Prophets. Paul thought it was God’s will that he persecute the early Christians and drive them to extinction sooner that God intended for them to go extinct. Jonah was conflicted about God not destroying the town he preached too.

I suppose what I’m reading out of your response is that a person needs to have a Mormon understanding of God before God reveals himself in their life. Is that correct? Heck, even if someone has a Mormon Idea concerning God like you believe of the earliest Christians, they can still fall away if God withdraws his grace from them like you say he did. Plus this logic ultimately denies even the chance for Joseph Smith to have been called a Prophet since he was not perfect in his understanding prior to being called. He didn't even live his life righteously (considering his polyandry).

Does it not make more sense to suggest that God can call anyone, even if they have wrong Ideas about them and reform them? Or is God powerless to such a person? How did he convert Saint Paul, if that were the case?

 

[Peter1000]

Your answer is confusing because you’re offering exceptions while ultimately saying no. What was my question? It was can God make a calling to someone who has a false Idea concerning him? That is, can he make a prophet out of that person? Let’s consider Joseph Smith, the man you say was a Prophet. Given his being raised in a Christian Milieu I doubt he had the Mormon Ideas he had concerning God until they were supposedly revealed to him. Being raised in a Christian Milieu with every Christian authority telling him many things about God it seems impossible to argue that Joseph didn’t have false Ideas in some respect. Hence the need for revelation to correct him.

You could say the same about many other people and Prophets. Paul thought it was God’s will that he persecute the early Christians and drive them to extinction sooner that God intended for them to go extinct. Jonah was conflicted about God not destroying the town he preached too.

I suppose what I’m reading out of your response is that a person needs to have a Mormon understanding of God before God reveals himself in their life. Is that correct? Heck, even if someone has a Mormon Idea concerning God like you believe of the earliest Christians, they can still fall away if God withdraws his grace from them like you say he did. Plus this logic ultimately denies even the chance for Joseph Smith to have been called a Prophet since he was not perfect in his understanding prior to being called. He didn't even live his life righteously (considering his polyandry).

Does it not make more sense to suggest that God can call anyone, even if they have wrong Ideas about them and reform them? Or is God powerless to such a person? How did he convert Saint Paul, if that were the case?

A man can be called to be a prophet without a full knowledge of God. He may have false ideas of God. But if God calls him to be a prophet, God will reveal to him a fuller knowledge of Himself and correct the falsehoods.

JS is a perfect example. JS did not have a full knowledge of God when he went into that grove of trees. When he came out, he had a much better understanding o,f who God and Jesus were, and what church to join, and that his sins were forgiven. And because JS was a good man, God continued to add to his knowledge and continued to reduce the falsehoods all the days of his life.

JS did not commit polyandry, but he married married women only for eternity, not for time on this earth.

 

[Peter1000]

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.

I do not see your point. I disagree with your point. And I see no reason to continue to bash each other over your point. Therefore, I am agreeing to disagree with your point.

 

[Peter1000]

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 have conceded nothing. We simply disagree with your analogy that 1 massacre not ordered by BY, in any way compares to hundreds of massacres over the centuries ordered directly from the pope himself.

So no, we do not concede the point. What we conceded to is that this discussion is not healthy for our 2 religions and we must agree to disagree. That is all we concede to.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We have conceded nothing. We simply disagree with your analogy that 1 massacre not ordered by BY, in any way compares to hundreds of massacres over the centuries ordered directly from the pope himself.

So no, we do not concede the point. What we conceded to is that this discussion is not healthy for our 2 religions and we must agree to disagree. That is all we concede to.

Hundreds of massacres over the centuries ordered directly from the pope? If you really believe that we do have nothing to talk about. You have whitewashed your history and blackwashed ours.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

A man can be called to be a prophet without a full knowledge of God. He may have false ideas of God. But if God calls him to be a prophet, God will reveal to him a fuller knowledge of Himself and correct the falsehoods.

JS is a perfect example. JS did not have a full knowledge of God when he went into that grove of trees. When he came out, he had a much better understanding o,f who God and Jesus were, and what church to join, and that his sins were forgiven. And because JS was a good man, God continued to add to his knowledge and continued to reduce the falsehoods all the days of his life.

JS did not commit polyandry, but he married married women only for eternity, not for time on this earth.

Now my next question. Between the death of the Apostle John and the birth of Joseph Smith, was there not one qualified person to be a Prophet/Apostle? Take into account what we've established. That God can chose sinful men. That God can chose simple men. That God can chose men who have false ideas concerning him. Was there not one qualified individual in the entire history of humanity during this time period?

 

[He is the way]

Now my next question. Between the death of the Apostle John and the birth of Joseph Smith, was there not one qualified person to be a Prophet/Apostle? Take into account what we've established. That God can chose sinful men. That God can chose simple men. That God can chose men who have false ideas concerning him. Was there not one qualified individual in the entire history of humanity during this time period?

John the beloved is not dead. After Jesus' death Peter was the head of Christ's church. Peter was given the keys. Apparently those keys were lost and had to be restored along with prophets and apostles.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

John the beloved is not dead. After Jesus' death Peter was the head of Christ's church. Peter was given the keys. Apparently those keys were lost and had to be restored along with prophets and apostles.

Not the main part of my question. If you choose to believe the beloved Apostle did not die, then fine. Let's say, John deliberately disappeared from human history. Was there no one in the 1700 years before Joseph Smith who qualified to be an Apostle/Prophet? I'm not talking about Christians only, I'm talking about the whole of humanity.

Please take in mind what we have established about what it takes to be a Prophet. They can be a sinner. They can have false Ideas concerning God. They can make mistakes even during their time as a Prophet/Apostle. They can be simple and uneducated people. Seems the only thing a person actually needs, is a genuine faith in the divine.

Was no one qualified?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Yes, if God allowed it. But he will not allow it because it is the end time, and He will not have time to raise up another people to do the work. So He will remove bad players in the apostleship for instance and keep the ship running correctly.

Why were not early LDS Prophets removed since newer ones disagree with them?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

In context, Paul is writing to the Thessalonians and telling them that the second coming of Jesus will not happen until "there is a falling away first".(see vs 3)

What is this "falling away first". Is that not what the context is. The second coming of Christ will not happen, until after a falling away of the church from the true Jesus. Another word for apostasy. And as the church falls away, the man of sin will be revealed who is satan, and in verse 7 Paul tells us this "mystery of iniquity" is already starting to happen (in the church), and if you will, in the world.

But I believe the context is the church, not necessarily the world.

Right after the falling away, the antichrist is the cause and Jesus comes right away to destroy him by .... Since, the shortly thereafter events have not occurred, neither has the great falling away happened either. The word "and" clearly indicates the great falling away and the evil world leader, thus a world religion of worshiping him all happen at the same time. Rest of the chapter friend is for encouragement.


2 Thessalonians 2
J.B. Phillips New Testament
Before Christ’s coming there will be certain signs
2 1-4 Now we do implore you, by the very certainty of Christ’s coming and of our meeting him together, to keep your heads and not be thrown off balance by any prediction or message or letter purporting to come from us, and saying that the day of Christ is almost here. Don’t let anyone deceive you by any means whatsoever. That day will not come before there arises a definite rejection of God and the appearance of the lawless man. He is the product of all that leads to death, and he sets himself up in opposition to every religion. He himself takes his seat in the temple of God, to show that he really claims to be God.

5-12 I expect you remember now how I talked about this when I was with you. You will probably also remember how I used to talk about a “restraining power” which would operate until the time should come for the emergence of this man. Evil is already insidiously at work but its activities are restricted until what I have called the “restraining power” (of God) is removed. When that happens the lawless man will be plainly seen—though the truth of the Lord Jesus spells his doom, and the radiance of the coming of the Lord Jesus will be his utter destruction. The lawless man is produced by the spirit of evil and armed with all the force, wonders and signs that falsehood can devise. To those involved in this dying world he will come with evil’s undiluted power to deceive, for they have refused to love the truth which could have saved them. God sends upon them, therefore, the full force of evil’s delusion, so that they put their faith in an utter fraud and meet the inevitable judgment of all who have refused to believe the truth and who have made evil their play-fellow.

You, thank God, belong to those who believe the truth
13-15 But we can thank God continually for you, brothers, whom the Lord loves. He has chosen you from the beginning to save you, to make you holy by the work of his Spirit and your own belief in the truth. It was his call that you followed when we preached the Gospel to you, and he has set before you the prospect of sharing the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So stand firm, and hold on! Be loyal to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or in writings.

16-17 May the Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father (who has loved us and given us unending encouragement and unfailing hope by his grace) inspire you with courage and confidence in every good thing you say or do.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There is nothing in the text that says, the "man of sin" is at work in the church. In fact, those who are part of God's Elect can not be deceived by signs and wonders that the false world leader who claims to be God can do.


Matthew 24:24
False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.

Right after the falling away, the antichrist is the cause and Jesus comes right away to destroy him by .... Since, the shortly thereafter events have not occurred, neither has the great falling away happened either. The word "and" clearly indicates the great falling away and the evil world leader, thus a world religion of worshiping him all happen at the same time. Rest of the chapter friend is for encouragement.


2 Thessalonians 2
J.B. Phillips New Testament
Before Christ’s coming there will be certain signs
2 1-4 Now we do implore you, by the very certainty of Christ’s coming and of our meeting him together, to keep your heads and not be thrown off balance by any prediction or message or letter purporting to come from us, and saying that the day of Christ is almost here. Don’t let anyone deceive you by any means whatsoever. That day will not come before there arises a definite rejection of God and the appearance of the lawless man. He is the product of all that leads to death, and he sets himself up in opposition to every religion. He himself takes his seat in the temple of God, to show that he really claims to be God.

5-12 I expect you remember now how I talked about this when I was with you. You will probably also remember how I used to talk about a “restraining power” which would operate until the time should come for the emergence of this man. Evil is already insidiously at work but its activities are restricted until what I have called the “restraining power” (of God) is removed. When that happens the lawless man will be plainly seen—though the truth of the Lord Jesus spells his doom, and the radiance of the coming of the Lord Jesus will be his utter destruction. The lawless man is produced by the spirit of evil and armed with all the force, wonders and signs that falsehood can devise. To those involved in this dying world he will come with evil’s undiluted power to deceive, for they have refused to love the truth which could have saved them. God sends upon them, therefore, the full force of evil’s delusion, so that they put their faith in an utter fraud and meet the inevitable judgment of all who have refused to believe the truth and who have made evil their play-fellow.

You, thank God, belong to those who believe the truth
13-15 But we can thank God continually for you, brothers, whom the Lord loves. He has chosen you from the beginning to save you, to make you holy by the work of his Spirit and your own belief in the truth. It was his call that you followed when we preached the Gospel to you, and he has set before you the prospect of sharing the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So stand firm, and hold on! Be loyal to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or in writings.

16-17 May the Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father (who has loved us and given us unending encouragement and unfailing hope by his grace) inspire you with courage and confidence in every good thing you say or do.

Study Guide for 2 Thessalonians 2 by David Guzik
2 Thessalonians - Executable Outline - Study Resources

Verse 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

demonstrates that the evil force, power is at work in the world. No where in the text is the word Church used in reference to the great deception.

God sends the delusions on those who refuse to believe,

Romans 1:21
J.B. Phillips New Testament
The righteousness of God and the sin of man
18-21 Now the holy anger of God is disclosed from Heaven against the godlessness and evil of those men who render truth dumb and inoperative by their wickedness. It is not that they do not know the truth about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known, thus leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still further into the dark.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Many of the saints of the 16th century were put to death by the Catholic church and that is OK with you? The murders of thousands of people that disagree with the pope on small as well as large matter, is OK with you. Murder, plunder, rape, persectuion, etc., etc., etc. is what the vicar of Christ is all about, is what the true church of Jesus Christ is OK with. Read your Catholic history and tell me this is the church that holds the keys of the kingdom of God.

The baptism of John was the water baptism is incomplete without the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit baptism- see Acts 2:38).
You have to have both to be saved.

We deny some Christians idea of the Deity. We believe that God the Father, and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one. I can support that biblically 10 ways. There are some Christians who think differently about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we cannot help that. But to say our baptism is not recognized because we don't think of God the Father and Jesus and the Holy Ghost exactly like some Christians think of Him, is not right. IOW you believe that 70% of all Christian baptisms are not recognized, and maybe 95% if they have to believe exactly like you think God the Father and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are like.

It is one thing to say that your baptism is not recognized because the man baptizing you is not authorized to do that work, but to say it is not recognized because I do not believe exactly how you believe is a way different condition.

"Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons), stoked by religious zeal and a deep resentment of decades of public abuse and federal interference, murder 120 emigrants at Mountain Meadows, Utah on September 11, 1857. "
120 emigrants murdered at the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
The Aftermath of Mountain Meadows | History | Smithsonian Magazine
Mormon Historians Shed Light On Sept. 11, 1857

Now, we both committed the same Fallacy and neither proves anything.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Sorry, but an elder is not a bishop, try again. Only apostles could come to that area, and from the elders, he would ordain one of them as the bishop. Titus could not do that, only an apostle could do that.

1 Timothy 3:2-7
The sort of men to bear office: bishops
It is quite true to say that a man who sets his heart on holding office has laudable ambition. Well, for the office of a bishop a man must be of

Bishop
bish'-up: The word is evidently an abbreviation of the Greek episkopos; Latin, episcopus.

GENERAL

⇒See a list of verses on BISHOP in the Bible.

1. Use in the Septuagint and Classic Greek:
The Septuagint gives it the generic meaning of "superintendency, oversight, searching" (Nu 4:16; 31:14) in matters pertaining to the church, the state, and the army (Jg 9:28; 2Ki 12:11; 2Ch 34:12,17; 1 Macc 1:54; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:6). Nor is it unknown to classical Greek. Thus Homer in the Iliad applied it to the gods (xxii.255), also Plutarch, Cam., 5. In Athens the governors of conquered states were called by this name.

⇒See the definition of bishop in the KJV Dictionary

2. New Testament Use:
The word is once applied to Christ himself, "unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1Pe 2:25). It abounds in Pauline literature, and is used as an alternative for presbuteros or elder (Tit 1:5,7; 1Ti 3:1; 4:14; 5:17,19). The earliest ecclesiastical offices instituted in the church were those of elders and deacons, or rather the reverse, inasmuch as the latter office grew almost immediately out of the needs of the Christian community at Jerusalem (Ac 6:1-6). The presbyteral constitution of Jerusalem must have been very old (Ac 11:30) and was distinct from the apostolate (Ac 15:2,4,6,22-23; 16:4). As early as 50 AD Paul appointed "elders" in every church, with prayer and fasting (Ac 14:23), referring to the Asiatic churches before established. But in writing to the Philippians (Ac 1:1) he speaks of "bishops" and "deacons." In the GentileChristian churches this title evidently had been adopted; and it is only in the Pastoral Epistles that we find the name "presbyters" applied. The name "presbyter" or "elder," familiar to the Jews, signifies their age and place in the church; while the other term "bishop" refers rather to their office. But both evidently have reference to the same persons. Their office is defined as "ruling" (Ro 12:8), "overseeing" (Ac 20:17,28; 1Pe 5:2), caring for the flock of God (Ac 20:28). But the word archein, "to rule," in the hierarchical sense, is never used. Moreover, each church had a college of presbyter-bishops (Ac 20:17,28; Php 1:1; 1Ti 4:14). During Paul's lifetime the church was evidently still unaware of the distinction between presbyters and bishops.

⇒See also the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Of a formal ordination, in the later hierarchical sense, there is no trace as yet. The word "ordained" used in the King James Version (Ac 1:22) is an unwarrantable interpolation, rightly emended in the Revised Version (British and American). Neither the word cheirotonesantes (Ac 14:23, translated "appointed" the American Standard Revised Version) nor katasteses (Tit 1:5, translated "appoint" the American Standard Revised Version) is capable of this translation. In rendering these words invaria bly by "ordain" the King James Version shows a vitium originis. No one doubts that the idea of ordination is extremely old in the history of the church, but the laying on of hands, mentioned in the New Testament (Ac 13:3; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6; compare Ac 14:26; 15:40) points to the communication of a spiritual gift or to its invocation, rather than to the imparting of an official status.

Bishop in the Bible
(An overseer, a supervisor)
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:2-7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ...
Titus 1:5-11 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; ...
⇒Bible Encyclopedia for BISHOP.

A TITLE OF JESUS
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Bishop in the Bible

 

[Daniel Marsh]

This is from your link Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead:

"
One reason Mormons advance the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life?

There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Scripture is very clear in stating that this life is the only chance we get. Once we die, our fate is sealed: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known. Thus, those who do not hear the gospel in this life will be judged based on the knowledge they did have in this life."

The idea that people can't be taught in the spirit world is very problematic and disagrees with the Bible:

(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:5 - 6)

5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

The judgement does not come right after we die either. Hebrews 9:27 does not say our fate is sealed upon our death. Can he be right that billions of people will NOT end up in heaven because they were not baptized? God is not that unjust. God is indeed a just God and He has provided a way for ALL of His children. They WILL hear the gospel and be able to accept or reject the necessary ordinances to get into heaven. God is just and fair to ALL.

Baptism is not needed to be saved. Just ask the guy on the Cross with Jesus when we get to the final Judgement.

 

[mmksparbud]

David was anointed king but he was not a prophet, however, Nathan was. God calls prophets to deliver His word. I am truly grateful for all that God and Jesus Christ has done for us.

David not a prophet?!! More JS hot air---

Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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

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

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

He can cover it up though? Cool!

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

Evidently Brigham Young had promised all of the Fancher cattle to local Indian leaders:

"...Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with Brigham Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B. Huntington, at Great Salt Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the Mormon chief of the Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head chief of the Piedes; Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of desert bands along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers.

"Little was known of what they talked about until recently when it came to light that Huntington (apparently speaking for Young) told the chiefs that he 'gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia by] the south rout[e].' The gift 'made them open their eyes,' he said. But 'you have told us not to steal,' the Indians replied. 'So I have,' Huntington said, 'but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.' The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them. They belonged to the Baker-Fancher train." (Forgotten Kingdom, p. 167-168)
...
This raises the question as to whether or not the LDS Church views the perpetrators of the massacre as committing "murder" or do they consider their acts "justified"? The Mormon scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants 42:18, declares: "...he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." Also, Section 132:27 proclaims: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood,...after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant..." Since Lee had his temple blessings and marriages restored the LDS leaders must not consider him guilty of murder or shedding "innocent blood." [Section 132]

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE: ONE OF MY FAMILY'S BEST KEPT SECRETS
Mountain Meadows Massacre Contents

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"Peter1000, post: 75544737, member: 382212"]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."

My wife is almost home, look into this next time.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

scrolled through to here.

 

[He is the way]

Not the main part of my question. If you choose to believe the beloved Apostle did not die, then fine. Let's say, John deliberately disappeared from human history. Was there no one in the 1700 years before Joseph Smith who qualified to be an Apostle/Prophet? I'm not talking about Christians only, I'm talking about the whole of humanity.

Please take in mind what we have established about what it takes to be a Prophet. They can be a sinner. They can have false Ideas concerning God. They can make mistakes even during their time as a Prophet/Apostle. They can be simple and uneducated people. Seems the only thing a person actually needs, is a genuine faith in the divine.

Was no one qualified?

Many are called:

(New Testament | Matthew 22:11 - 14)

11 ¶ And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 121:34 - 40)

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

God said:
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:13)

13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

No one takes the honor unto himself:

(New Testament | Hebrews 5:4)

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Even if they were worthy they needed to be called of God.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Even if they were worthy they needed to be called of God.

This doesn't address what I've asked about clearly. My specific question is about if there was anyone capable of being a Prophet/Apostle during the 1700 years of God's absence on Earth. We've already established some criterion for what it takes to be a Prophet. Namely the only thing that seems to be required is a sincere faith. Having wrong Ideas, being a sinner or possibly making mistakes and sinning during one's tenure as God's anointed doesn't automatically disqualify a person.

The question isn't about whether people were called by God.