LDS Against LDS claims about Christians & keeping the commandments: the example of Philoxenos of Mabbug

Peter1000 · Jul 17, 2019

mmksparbud said:
Why are you thanking me? I said you do not read past what you want it to say--
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Enoch and Elijah were not left on this earth---they were translated into heaven. John died--quite taking just the parts of scripture you want. Jesus was saying---it's none of your business what I choose to do!
Your prophet did not talk to him.

That is OK, Jesus said If I will that he tarry till I come, means If John did tarry till the 2nd coming, Jesus would have somehow transformed his body to overcome the aging process. I just called it translation. You can call it what you want. I still thank you.

Peter1000 · Jul 17, 2019

dzheremi said:
So you really believe that St. John the Apostle is alive now, waiting for Jesus' return. But you don't know where he is or what he has been doing this entire time.

Interesting question. What do you believe. Did Jesus allow John to remain on the earth until his 2nd coming, or not? It is a legitimate bible question based on John 21. You now know what we believe, so tell us what you believe?

How does this belief square with your belief in the Great Apostasy? You say that the Great Apostasy definitely happened because although a remnant of right-teaching people have existed and taught throughout the centuries,

I have never said that they were 'right-teaching people'. The apostasy would cause the teachings to be unreliable. The fulness of the gospel would be lost, but a alternative gospel of mixed truth and man-made doctrine would be the norm. And that fulness would wane as time went by so that the churches.

I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand that an apostasy can be in full stride, but there are a remnant that are trying to keep with the original church, but because of the lack of true leadership and revelation and authority, they continually loose their grasp on what the original church taught.

Apostasy does not mean you stop going to church, it just means you are not being taught the fulness of the gospel, so you cannot live the fulness of the gospel.

God does not leave you to dry up and sweep you away, he understands your situation, and his solution is for all those who grew up in the ages of apostasy or never even heard of Jesus Christ, they will have that chance to hear the fulness of the gospel in the spirit world, it is for this reason that the gospel was preached also to them that are dead, so they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)

if one of the original apostles is still alive, then why does authority need to be passed on to anyone at all? Y

Only a living apostle can ordain other apostles and only a living apostle can ordain a new bishop.

The keys and authority are always passed on by the laying on of hands from the one holding the authority to the one getting the authority. There is no way that the authority emanates from John to anyone that thinks they should have it. It has to be given, like Jesus said to Peter, I will give unto you the 'keys of the KOH'. Peter just did not receive the keys by some kind of spiritual osmosis.

So the authority given to the apostles by Jesus Christ still exists upon the earth, in the person of St. John the Apostle, making the restoration even more needless

John or any of the apostles, eventually, stopped calling and ordaining new, living apostles, per Jesus. John, although he has been on the earth since the time of Christ, was not given the right to pass on his authority to another apostle or to a new bishop.
If Peter for instance, had given Clement the 'keys to the KOH' and made him his successor, I am sure that Clement would have called himself an apostle, and not kept the title of bishop. But Peter did not pass that authority of the apostle to him, hence his title remained bishop. Now, a bishop that was ordained by a living apostle would have the authority, even after the apostle died. He would have it until he was released or died himself. But a bishop could not pass his authority down to another bishop, it took a living apostle to replace a bishop.

Also, if St. John's being alive to this day is the proof of our Lord's guarantee that "the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church", then why is it St. Peter who answers Him in Matthew 16, leading to the famous "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" line?

To guard against the gates of hell prevailing over the church, I believe Jesus called on John to perform that service. Peter was first given the 'keys of the KOH'. And he lead the apostles his entire life. When he died, his keys had to have been given to John. It is unknown what John did with his time all these years, but I am sure he did much good for the Lord during this journey.
In the resurrection, I will find out what occupied John's time. Interesting subject though.

this belief concerning St. John should have also been present at the time of the writing of the Gospels, correct? So if the understanding was to be that St. John in his physical preservation was to be the fulfillment of Christ's promise, why is this not reflected in this passage,

Either it was, and has been taken out, or Jesus did not want to reveal that information to the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints. Although he does open the door for John to be on earth till his 2nd coming.

mmksparbud · Jul 17, 2019

Peter1000 said:
That is OK, Jesus said If I will that he tarry till I come, means If John did tarry till the 2nd coming, Jesus would have somehow transformed his body to overcome the aging process. I just called it translation. You can call it what you want. I still thank you.

Yes--It means IF---the very next verse says it---yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die;

And John did die. The bible does not state that John was translated. Jesus is said to have loved John---yet He Lets him age into an old man? There is no account that says John did not age. Rev. was written about 50 years after the resurrection. He leaves him on this earth and gives him no work to do for Him? No apostle ever remained silent---and he has. There was a work for every man of God in preaching the gospel, yet not one single person has heard a single word from him anywhere---except, of course for your JS. Only Enoch and Elijah were translated. Other than that:
Heb_9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

If God loved John, why would he not translate him instead of letting him age into an old man and leave him on this earth to do nothing for over 2,000 years? How very unkind. He has done not one miracle, not preached a single sermon anywhere--not shown how great the power of God is in keeping him alive all these years, not glorified God in any way---totally useless for over 2,000 years when He could have saved millions by simply continuing in the work of preaching the gospel all this time. What a symbol of His power that would have been yet John said nothing and seems to have been left without a single solitary power to do a single thing for God---worse than useless. God doesn't do useless---He isn't into laziness, He does not leave His people powerless. Yet God has kept him alive, as an old man, for absolutely no purpose all this time---rubbish---the ussual totally corrupt version of our God by JS and further proof that he is no servent of God.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 17, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Yes, John must have cried every day to see the church change into a game of thrones. And for Rome to devolve into the synagogue of satan. (Martin Luther, the reformer's description of Rome)

He must have cried when he witnessed the Alexandria that continually erupted into a political war between the Christians, Jews, and pagans over who would be preeminent in the city. Murder, exiles of thousands of people, loss of homes and property was the order of the day.

He must have cried as he watched bishops fight against bishops and dethrone one bishop after another for silly jealousies, and doctrinal differences that did not amount to a hill of beans. But fight we will so our particular belief will be preeminent. Every year there was a new false teaching that had to be rooted out and out of revenge and jealousy were thrones given and taken in Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome.

He must have cried when bishops took upon themselves not only to be head of the church, but also head of the city or political arena that caused so much controversy and life and property.

I could literally go on and on, look at every bishop and their rules and you will find a lot of controversial events that make you want to wonder if they knew anything about Christ and how he operates?

But you are right, John did not like what he saw Christianity devolve into and could not do anything about it.

You could list even more negative things, but imagine how they could have been avoided in John acted? If God had saved us from our selves or given us the special protection you believe the Mormon Church has today?

You say he couldn't have done anything about the corruption. He could have appointed loyal men and good men to be Apostles. John Chrysostom, Maximos the Confessor, Augustine and plenty of others whom history has omitted. But he didn't.

That after all seems to be one of the major arguments of this thread. That there were indeed moral people, men who emphasized the commandments and advocated living the Christian life, not just men but women also. In order to maintain your narrative, you have to accuse every single Church leader of being absolutely corrupt, a view which cannot hold if you know anything about Church history. Dzrhemi gave the example of Philoxenos and there are countless others.

So while I was being imaginative with my consideration of John I do not think it inaccurate. Sure, John would have witnessed the moral failings of Christians (like he witnessed the moral failing of Peter who was by no means perfect, yet Peter was made an Apostle nonetheless) but what would have hurt him more? Immoral people doing evil things, or good people being unable to receive the highest heaven because they lacked what was truly essential in this life? Polygamy, Celestial marriage and proper temple baptism. All are consigned to lives as servants in heaven despite their faithfulness to Christ.

What would have hurt John most, is that he could done something about it. He could have appointed someone, anyone with faith, an Apostle. But, like I've insisted every time this topic has come up, the Mormon God wanted the Church to apostatize and you have no justification for why it was allowed to happen. Nor do you have any real response to presence of there being good and decent people of a greater moral character than Joseph Smith. It's no wonder, that when confronted with troubling ideas you have to smear the entire Church.

dzheremi · Jul 18, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Interesting question. What do you believe. Did Jesus allow John to remain on the earth until his 2nd coming, or not? It is a legitimate bible question based on John 21. You now know what we believe, so tell us what you believe?

It's not a legitimate Bible question based on John 21 or any other passage. That's not how it's understood, and as mmksparbud already pointed out in post #42, the passage itself actually clarifies what it means when it says "yet Jesus said not unto Him, he shall not die". So I don't know how you can get any other meaning out of that verse, since it specifies that it does not mean what the Mormon religion apparently claims it means. It'd be like trying to 'find the meaning' of Christ's Aramaic words in Mark 15:34 or Matthew 27:46. It literally tells you what that is in the verse. You don't need to wonder.

But since you have, here is what our father HH St. Cyril says in his commentary on the Gospel of St. John. This is what I likewise believe. Concerning 21:20-23, he tell us:

The inspired Evangelist points to himself obscurely, but still sufficiently to indicate who is meant. For he it was who was the beloved disciple, and who leaned upon Christ's Breast at the last Supper, and asked who it was that should betray Him. Peter, then, observing him, longed for information, and sought to know in what perils he would be involved in the time to come, and in what way his life would end. But the question seemed unseemly, and it appeared to savour rather of a meddlesome and inquisitive spirit, that, after having learnt what was to happen unto himself, he should seek to know the future fate of others. For this cause, then, I think the Lord makes no direct reply to his question or inquiry, but, diverting the aim of the questioner, does not say that John will not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? That is to say, Thou hast heard, O Peter, the things concerning thyself, what need is there for thee to ask questions about others, and to seek to fathom out of season the knowledge of the Divine decrees. For if he never die at all, He says, what consolation will this be to thy heart? The man who is wise and prudent, then, if he is doomed to die, will not trouble himself as to whether another will be saved alive or not; for it will be enough for him to suffer his own doom, and he will receive no comfort at all from the misfortune or good cheer of another. The passage is fraught with some such meaning as this. Peter's speech here seems to imply that the blessed Peter anxiously desired to know what was destined to be John's fate, as he would have considered it a consolation in his own sufferings if John were surely fated to, die by torture, either of the same or of some other kind. And do not be amazed at this, but rather take the following thought into consideration. It is common to us, however profitless it be, to like at times not to be seen to be the only ones who are suffering, or who are destined to undergo some dreadful fate, but to prefer to hear that others have either suffered it already or are expected to suffer it in the future.

I have never said that they were 'right-teaching people'.

Yeah, I didn't put that in quotes cos it wasn't one. I am referring to the part of post #32 when you wrote this: "Many millions of good people continued to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do good works in his name and lived lives that resembled the life of Christ. I would call this faithful group through the ages, a remnant of the true church." I guess you either want to quibble about nothing, or "(continuing) to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ" isn't right teaching. Whatever.

The apostasy would cause the teachings to be unreliable. The fulness of the gospel would be lost, but a alternative gospel of mixed truth and man-made doctrine would be the norm. And that fulness would wane as time went by so that the churches.

And this is all even with St. John being alive still, according to Mormonism. I must ask then what is the point of St. John being alive? How does this fulfill our Lord's promise, if even though St. John is alive, so the authority given to the original apostles does not really perish after all (as I thought you guys believed, before I realized that you had this strange belief about St. John), it does not prevent the Great Apostasy from happening anyway?

I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand that an apostasy can be in full stride, but there are a remnant that are trying to keep with the original church, but because of the lack of true leadership and revelation and authority, they continually loose their grasp on what the original church taught.

Again, how do they lack authority if the apostolic authority given to St. John is still around, because St. John himself is? I had originally thought, when starting this thread, that the claim to the lack of authority was tied to lack of having preserved these teachings that Mormonism claims itself alone to have preserved in the 'restored church' or whatever. Now I'm not so sure that this is true, because not only are you admitting that, no, people from well within the period of the Great Apostasy, such as Mor Philoxenos of Mabbug (and, well...now I must assume basically anyone; you are free to pick and choose whatever you like from wherever if the apostasy does not need to be total), can still be teaching the right things that Mormonism usually claims only for itself, but also that St. John still lives, and his living is itself the fulfillment of Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Combining these two ideas (right teaching can remain with the 'remnant', and the promise of Christ is fulfilled because John is still alive -- both of these being the case centuries into the Great Apostasy) results in an incredibly incoherent situation where the Great Apostasy happens no matter what, because it is not tied to the abandonment of teaching(s) -- because again, that doesn't have to have happened, if you can have this 'remnant' who still teach those things well within the Apostasy -- and it is not tied to deaths of the apostles and the subsequent lack of authority (even though I'm fairly sure that you yourself had argued before this thread that it was...? I may have you confused with another Mormon here; I just know I have read that here before with regard to the Great Apostasy) -- because again, St. John never died, so the authority never really went away. He was just told, according to you, not to pass it on to anyone else. But he still had it of himself, and he was still walking the earth all this time, while the great apostasy was going on.

So, tying it all together, if the Great Apostasy is not tied to a loss of teaching, and is not tied to authority, then what do we have left? Why did the Great Apostasy actually happen? It seems that our friend Ignatius is 100% correct: that it happened because God willed it to happen, and there's no actual explaining of it outside of that. God wanted the apostasy to happen.

And that is just the craziest thing I've ever heard. That is the not God that we worship in Christianity whatsoever.

Apostasy does not mean you stop going to church, it just means you are not being taught the fulness of the gospel, so you cannot live the fulness of the gospel.

That doesn't mean anything, Peter, "The fullness of the gospel." You don't get to still claim that after already admitting that this is not related to having preserved specific teachings, because if it means something other than that, there is then no way to measure who does or does not have "the fullness of the gospel" (because we cannot say "Okay, what is missing in what group X teaches that group Y does teach, such that group Y has 'the fullness of the gospel', while group X does not"). So it becomes a meaningless statement. It is a meaningless statement.

God does not leave you to dry up and sweep you away, he understands your situation, and his solution is for all those who grew up in the ages of apostasy or never even heard of Jesus Christ, they will have that chance to hear the fulness of the gospel in the spirit world, it is for this reason that the gospel was preached also to them that are dead, so they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)

This may be your belief as a Mormon person, but not Christian in their right mind believes this, because it is nonsense. The harrowing of Hell was a one time event to offer life to those who had gone before the incarnation of Christ. Those of us who now live in the post-incarnational world do not need any 'spirit world' preaching done to us, and indeed, such a thing is nothing more than a Mormon fiction. If post-death repentance and transformative change of mind and heart could be assumed to be possible after death, then no one would need to accept Christ in this life, and many of His own sayings and parables (e.g., "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you", the parable of the talents, etc.) would make absolutely no sense. Same with the rest of the scriptures, in fact. This idea makes a mockery out of living the Christian life.

Only a living apostle can ordain other apostles and only a living apostle can ordain a new bishop.

And in St. John, according to Mormonism, you have a living apostle who therefore could have done so, and no doubt would have wanted to if he saw this 'great apostasy' going on around him for centuries until Joseph Smith Jr. arrived, and yet did not do so because...why? All you say is that "obviously" he was told not to, but you don't give any actual evidence of it or reason for it. St. John just sat on his hands obediently for hundreds of years, waiting for JS to arrive...

The keys and authority are always passed on by the laying on of hands from the one holding the authority to the one getting the authority. There is no way that the authority emanates from John to anyone that thinks they should have it. It has to be given, like Jesus said to Peter, I will give unto you the 'keys of the KOH'. Peter just did not receive the keys by some kind of spiritual osmosis.

Okay. This is how bishops and priests are ordained in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, so you'll get no complaints from me regarding this method. The scriptures also provide us with the example of casting lots for the replacement of Judas, though. So we must not have a mechanical idea of how any of this works. Authority, at least in the Orthodox conception, is not magic, i.e., it's not a matter of the "correct" physical motions as though it's all 'form' over 'content', but must include maintaining the true faith. I assumed, again, that Mormonism agreed with this, since it believes that only it has the true faith anyway. This thread has taught me that this is not the case.

John or any of the apostles, eventually, stopped calling and ordaining new, living apostles, per Jesus.

"Per Jesus" where? Where does Jesus ever say "Stop ordaining people after a certain point"? What is Mormonism's idea of the Great Commission, then?

John, although he has been on the earth since the time of Christ, was not given the right to pass on his authority to another apostle or to a new bishop.

Why? Again, what was the point of preserving him so that he could sit around, being alive but not doing anything?

If Peter for instance, had given Clement the 'keys to the KOH' and made him his successor, I am sure that Clement would have called himself an apostle, and not kept the title of bishop. But Peter did not pass that authority of the apostle to him, hence his title remained bishop.

No. This is all very much incorrect. The bishops are the direct successors of the apostles, through the laying on of hands that we were just talking about, from the founder of the Church at a particular location down to today. Remember in a much earlier post in this thread how I mentioned that each major see has maintained a list of such bishops down to this day? This is how they can trace their succession from the apostles until now. It has nothing to do with the title of "Bishop" vs. "Apostle", because the apostles ordained the bishops in the first place.

Linguistically, it would not have been correct or appropriate for a bishop to style himself an apostle, as "apostle" comes from Greek apostolos, meaning "messenger, envoy, person sent forth". It is in this way that St. Mark is known as an Apostle, being the "Apostle to the Egyptians" (the one who was sent forth to Egypt), or that Sts. Cyril and Methodius are called "the Apostles to the Slavs". The bishop is the one who is already there (not the one originally sent there) and is chosen to shepherd the community in a given place, "bishop" coming from the Greek episkopos, meaning "overseeer".

They're not the same thing, so why would they hold the same title?

Granted, one can be both (i.e., sent to a place and remaining there to shepherd the community, as happened with the bishops first sent to Philae in Nubia by HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic in the 340s), but ancient sources such as the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius and others show that it was common in the early Church to consider the first man ordained by the Apostle(s) in a given place to be its first bishop (e.g., in Alexandria, that would Ananios; in Antioch, that would be Evodius, etc).

Now, a bishop that was ordained by a living apostle would have the authority, even after the apostle died. He would have it until he was released or died himself. But a bishop could not pass his authority down to another bishop, it took a living apostle to replace a bishop.

Why?

To guard against the gates of hell prevailing over the church, I believe Jesus called on John to perform that service.

What service? According to you, St. John didn't do anything while the entire Church went into irrecoverable apostasy, even as it preserved the very same teachings that Mormonism supposedly 'restored'!

Peter was first given the 'keys of the KOH'. And he lead the apostles his entire life. When he died, his keys had to have been given to John. It is unknown what John did with his time all these years, but I am sure he did much good for the Lord during this journey.

I really don't see how. The Mormon version of St. John is a failure by design.

In the resurrection, I will find out what occupied John's time. Interesting subject though.

Okay...

Either it was, and has been taken out, or Jesus did not want to reveal that information to the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints. Although he does open the door for John to be on earth till his 2nd coming.

Uh huh.

It seems there's no actual answer to this question, but a vague "It means what we want it to mean, just because it does".

This is deeply unsatisfying and weird. Here I am, thinking that Mormonism has at least some basis for making what it thinks is unique claims for itself (hence the OP), only to find out that nothing seems to be based in anything, because the apostasy doesn't have to be total (teachings that Mormonism thinks that only it has preserved can be preserved in other places and times and churches; doesn't matter), and doesn't have to be based in a loss of authority with the death of the apostles (because not all of them died after all). It's not about any of that after all. What is it about? Oh, we don't knowwww. St. John did some great work for God, by doing absolutely nothing for hundreds of years while the Church collapsed around him. What 'much good' could he have done, then? We don't know that either, but we'll find out when the resurrection happens.

This has got to be the strangest, most vapid, most confused, most contradictory, most self-defeating bunch of hooey I've ever read on CF.

Peter1000 · Jul 18, 2019

dzheremi said:
It's not a legitimate Bible question based on John 21 or any other passage. That's not how it's understood, and as mmksparbud already pointed out in post #42, the passage itself actually clarifies what it means when it says "yet Jesus said not unto Him, he shall not die". So I don't know how you can get any other meaning out of that verse, since it specifies that it does not mean what the Mormon religion apparently claims it means. It'd be like trying to 'find the meaning' of Christ's Aramaic words in Mark 15:34 or Matthew 27:46. It literally tells you what that is in the verse. You don't need to wonder.

But since you have, here is what our father HH St. Cyril says in his commentary on the Gospel of St. John. This is what I likewise believe. Concerning 21:20-23, he tell us:

The inspired Evangelist points to himself obscurely, but still sufficiently to indicate who is meant. For he it was who was the beloved disciple, and who leaned upon Christ's Breast at the last Supper, and asked who it was that should betray Him. Peter, then, observing him, longed for information, and sought to know in what perils he would be involved in the time to come, and in what way his life would end. But the question seemed unseemly, and it appeared to savour rather of a meddlesome and inquisitive spirit, that, after having learnt what was to happen unto himself, he should seek to know the future fate of others. For this cause, then, I think the Lord makes no direct reply to his question or inquiry, but, diverting the aim of the questioner, does not say that John will not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? That is to say, Thou hast heard, O Peter, the things concerning thyself, what need is there for thee to ask questions about others, and to seek to fathom out of season the knowledge of the Divine decrees. For if he never die at all, He says, what consolation will this be to thy heart? The man who is wise and prudent, then, if he is doomed to die, will not trouble himself as to whether another will be saved alive or not; for it will be enough for him to suffer his own doom, and he will receive no comfort at all from the misfortune or good cheer of another. The passage is fraught with some such meaning as this. Peter's speech here seems to imply that the blessed Peter anxiously desired to know what was destined to be John's fate, as he would have considered it a consolation in his own sufferings if John were surely fated to, die by torture, either of the same or of some other kind. And do not be amazed at this, but rather take the following thought into consideration. It is common to us, however profitless it be, to like at times not to be seen to be the only ones who are suffering, or who are destined to undergo some dreadful fate, but to prefer to hear that others have either suffered it already or are expected to suffer it in the future.

It is a legitimate bible question. Jesus says "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" That opens up a great big can of John whoopy.
If John tarries on earth until Jesus's 2nd coming, which is a legitimate bible question, tell me what Jesus will do?
1) will Jesus let him die and then resurrect him?
2) will Jesus let him die and then be on earth in spirit form?
3) will Jesus translate his body that extends his life to he comes? (remember Jesus did not say he would not die, but he did not say he would die either)
4) will Jesus do something to his body that we have no science for to extend his life.
5) I believe John died and did not tarry on the earth until Jesus comes again.
6) I have no idea.

I ask this because Cyril tells Peter it is none of his business, but does not answer if he thought John tarried till Jesus comes again.

Yeah, I didn't put that in quotes cos it wasn't one. I am referring to the part of post #32 when you wrote this: "Many millions of good people continued to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do good works in his name and lived lives that resembled the life of Christ. I would call this faithful group through the ages, a remnant of the true church." I guess you either want to quibble about nothing, or "(continuing) to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ" isn't right teaching. Whatever.

Pardon, I should have said, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as much as they knew the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

We do have the bible, and the bible teaches us of the life of Jesus and his good works, but as the apostasy continued, the bible lost many plain and precious doctrines, and the people teaching the gospel found themselves further and further from the truth, but still pressed forward with what they had, the best they could.
Again you can be in the middle of an apostasy and still have much of the gospel from the bible. But you do not have the true keys and authority that was in the hands of the apostles.
It is not contradictory. When the apostles died, the whole truth (the fulness) slowly slipped away. The teaching was fervent, but lacking a fulness that the apostles were able to furnish.
(Ephesians 4:12-13)

And this is all even with St. John being alive still, according to Mormonism. I must ask then what is the point of St. John being alive? How does this fulfill our Lord's promise, if even though St. John is alive, so the authority given to the original apostles does not really perish after all (as I thought you guys believed, before I realized that you had this strange belief about St. John), it does not prevent the Great Apostasy from happening anyway?

We really can't answer that question. We can speculate, but that is not decisive. I have suggested that John was assigned to tarry to keep the gates of hell from overwhelming the kingdom of God here on earth. How he did that, I do not know. Perhaps there could have been things done that are unknown by man, but known by Jesus. There could be hundreds of ways that John could have influenced a decision that made a great deal of difference in the history of the world. Who knows? It is not something that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Then again, maybe John died of old age and moved on. Who knows?

Again, how do they lack authority if the apostolic authority given to St. John is still around, because St. John himself is? I had originally thought, when starting this thread, that the claim to the lack of authority was tied to lack of having preserved these teachings that Mormonism claims itself alone to have preserved in the 'restored church' or whatever. Now I'm not so sure that this is true, because not only are you admitting that, no, people from well within the period of the Great Apostasy, such as Mor Philoxenos of Mabbug (and, well...now I must assume basically anyone; you are free to pick and choose whatever you like from wherever if the apostasy does not need to be total), can still be teaching the right things that Mormonism usually claims only for itself, but also that St. John still lives, and his living is itself the fulfillment of Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Combining these two ideas (right teaching can remain with the 'remnant', and the promise of Christ is fulfilled because John is still alive -- both of these being the case centuries into the Great Apostasy) results in an incredibly incoherent situation where the Great Apostasy happens no matter what, because it is not tied to the abandonment of teaching(s) -- because again, that doesn't have to have happened, if you can have this 'remnant' who still teach those things well within the Apostasy -- and it is not tied to deaths of the apostles and the subsequent lack of authority (even though I'm fairly sure that you yourself had argued before this thread that it was...? I may have you confused with another Mormon here; I just know I have read that here before with regard to the Great Apostasy) -- because again, St. John never died, so the authority never really went away. He was just told, according to you, not to pass it on to anyone else. But he still had it of himself, and he was still walking the earth all this time, while the great apostasy was going on.

The keys and the authority had to be passed on, and John did not pass his authority on. At least there is no recording of John doing that. Whether John is alive or dead makes no difference in regards to the 'keys' or authority. It only makes a difference if Jesus instructs John to pass his 'keys' on. As far as we know, Jesus did not instruct and John did not pass his 'keys'.

The remnant taught 3/4 the truths, then 1/2 the truth. The remnant did not have the priesthood or power or authority or keys to do the work of the Lord, even though John was alive on the earth.
You wonder why, I am going to tell you, and I apologize before I do because this is a man you believe is a saint, but it is public knowledge and so I will use him as an example.
Read about St. Cyril's times:
Cyril of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Does this sound like the Church of Jesus Christ?

So, tying it all together, if the Great Apostasy is not tied to a loss of teaching, and is not tied to authority, then what do we have left? Why did the Great Apostasy actually happen? It seems that our friend Ignatius is 100% correct: that it happened because God willed it to happen, and there's no actual explaining of it outside of that. God wanted the apostasy to happen.

Did Ignatius say that God willed the apostasy to happen?

This may be your belief as a Mormon person, but not Christian in their right mind believes this, because it is nonsense. The harrowing of Hell was a one time event to offer life to those who had gone before the incarnation of Christ. Those of us who now live in the post-incarnational world do not need any 'spirit world' preaching done to us, and indeed, such a thing is nothing more than a Mormon fiction. If post-death repentance and transformative change of mind and heart could be assumed to be possible after death, then no one would need to accept Christ in this life, and many of His own sayings and parables (e.g., "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you", the parable of the talents, etc.) would make absolutely no sense. Same with the rest of the scriptures, in fact. This idea makes a mockery out of living the Christian life.

I can only say, see you in the 'spirit world'. Then you will know.

The harrowing cannot be a one time event. BTW when was the harrowing to take place, or does it come later at the end of the world?

And in St. John, according to Mormonism, you have a living apostle who therefore could have done so, and no doubt would have wanted to if he saw this 'great apostasy' going on around him for centuries until Joseph Smith Jr. arrived, and yet did not do so because...why? All you say is that "obviously" he was told not to, but you don't give any actual evidence of it or reason for it. St. John just sat on his hands obediently for hundreds of years, waiting for JS to arrive...

We do not know what good he did for the Lord during that time. We know that by the end of his life he was an outcast in some Christian places. Remember Diotrephes, who cast people out of the church if they entertained John when he came. Is this just 1 bishop? Who knows?

The scriptures also provide us with the example of casting lots for the replacement of Judas, though. So we must not have a mechanical idea of how any of this works.

Lots were cast as recorded, but the ordination was not recorded, only that he was numbered among the eleven. But he was ordained.

"Per Jesus" where? Where does Jesus ever say "Stop ordaining people after a certain point"? What is Mormonism's idea of the Great Commission, then?

About what year did the last apostle die, that is the date. The great commission can go forward even though the fulness is not with them. Hearing about Jesus is a great work, and must continue to move forward, again even if the full truth is not being taught.
That will all be taken care of in the 'spirit world'. So keep sending your missionaries out and we will too, and lets get the name of Christ as far and wide as we can. They can find the whole truth in the spirit world and have the ordinances taken care of also. Do not fret, but continue to work hard.

Linguistically, it would not have been correct or appropriate for a bishop to style himself an apostle, as "apostle" comes from Greek apostolos, meaning "messenger, envoy, person sent forth". It is in this way that St. Mark is known as an Apostle, being the "Apostle to the Egyptians" (the one who was sent forth to Egypt), or that Sts. Cyril and Methodius are called "the Apostles to the Slavs". The bishop is the one who is already there (not the one originally sent there) and is chosen to shepherd the community in a given place, "bishop" coming from the Greek episkopos, meaning "overseeer".

You are correct the bishop and the apostle are 2 different offices. If Clement for instance had been the recipient of Peters keys, then Clement would have given up his bishop's position and changed his title to apostle. His first work would have been to ordain a bishop in his stead and then start to work around the Christian world and perhaps beyond, to be a special witness of Jesus Christ and setting up bishops as churches were organized.

Since he did not do this, we know he did not receive Peter's keys, and he remained a bishop.

They're not the same thing, so why would they hold the same title?

You are right, they are not the same title, and they would not hold the same title. Except that an apostle could perform the functions of a bishop if he came to an area and had to build it up until he could find a suitable bishop to ordain and leave in his place. That happened often. I believe Peter did this in Antioch and Rome.

An ordained bishop can never promote himself to the rank of an apostle, and could not perform the functions of an apostle. Some tried, and when the true apostles came around they did not allow them to stay. (Diotrephes - were there others?)

This is deeply unsatisfying and weird. Here I am, thinking that Mormonism has at least some basis for making what it thinks is unique claims for itself (hence the OP), only to find out that nothing seems to be based in anything, because the apostasy doesn't have to be total (teachings that Mormonism thinks that only it has preserved can be preserved in other places and times and churches; doesn't matter), and doesn't have to be based in a loss of authority with the death of the apostles (because not all of them died after all). It's not about any of that after all. What is it about? Oh, we don't knowwww. St. John did some great work for God, by doing absolutely nothing for hundreds of years while the Church collapsed around him. What 'much good' could he have done, then? We don't know that either, but we'll find out when the resurrection happens.

Teaching half truths and having no authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ is a full apostasy, not 1/2 apostasy, but full apostasy.

This has got to be the strangest, most vapid, most confused, most contradictory, most self-defeating bunch of hooey I've ever read on CF.

You make it that way all on your own. It is hooey to you I know, but you have never heard or really studied the history with an apostasy slant. If you did, you would recognize what I am telling you. Do you think the Church of England was in an apostate position when they burned live men, women, and children to the stake because they resighted the 10 commandments in English. Is that how the true Church of Jesus Christ operates. Think hard about that.

Rescued One · Jul 18, 2019

What people did in the Middle Ages is hardly different than the Mountain Meadows Massacre or Blood Atonement. Is that how the true Church operates? Think hard about that.

Ironhold · Jul 19, 2019

Phoebe Ann said:
What people did in the Middle Ages is hardly different than the Mountain Meadows Massacre or Blood Atonement. Is that how the true Church operates? Think hard about that.

Why do you insist on bringing those up even after we've explained matters hundreds of times over at this point?

In fact, Brigham Young was willing to assist in the federal investigation of Mountain Meadows during the first attempt in 1859 so as to get the situation wrapped up quickly.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Did Ignatius say that God willed the apostasy to happen?

I assume by this question you are asking about Ignatius of Antioch, but Dzrhemi i believe was referring to my supposition that the only real explanation a Mormon can give that makes any sense for why the Apostasy happened is because God wanted it to come about. It's an unavoidable conclusion from Mormon premises.

1. The Church must have ruling Apostles in order that it doesn't fall into Apostasy.
2. An Apostle must be appointed by another Living Apostle and the correct ceremony must be done in order to ensure Apostolic authority is transferred legitimately.
3. An Apostle can only appoint another Apostle if God approves of the candidate.
4. A man may not appoint himself an Apostle or leader.
5. (this is my argument based on the scripture and the example we have in Peter and others) An Apostle is worthy of being as much if he has faith in Christ. His sinfulness does not make him unworthy, his denying of Christ does not make him unworthy, only in the end does it come down to whether the person in their heart accepts Christ. Peter is the prime example here, who admitted himself a sinner and forsook the Lord in front of others. It wasn't Peter's actions that made him again faithful, but Christ's prayer to the Father for Peter that he was spared and forgiven. Apostles are also imperfect and can err, as seen in Peter after Christ's ascension and the many immoral actions of Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders.
6. Mormons admit, there were people after the Apostles who had faith in Christ. Their faith in course of time became corrupted due to the lack of Apostolic leadership.
8. Time and space does not limit one's being appointed an Apostle or receiving the keys. Joseph Smith was appointed an Apostle through divine intervention. He was not self made according to Mormonism.

Conclusion: Since men cannot appoint themselves Apostles or leaders of the Church. Since God chose not a single faithful person to be a new Apostle in between 100AD-1800AD and exercise the authority needed to prevent Apostasy, it can only be concluded that God, by his lack of action, desired that the apostasy remain in force.

The Mormon answer to this is to suggest that that there was moral failing in the people of that time period. Yet as we've seen with Peter the power of God can overcome sin in the appointment of Apostles. Also when it comes to there being moral failings, how much is that due to the lack of authentic Mormon teaching and sacraments? Mormons cannot explain spiritual experiences of Christians during that time either except as to dismiss them because it is contrary to their narrative. If those experiences were legitimate, a mercy from God, they accomplished little and those who had them died in the arms of corrupted Christianity.

So being unable to blame the people, since they could not appoint themselves Apostles, what explanation do you have for there being no Apostles? Historically, it makes no sense in the story of Genesis to now. God starts with Abraham with the fulfillment coming in Christ and then immediately the family of God is destroyed. Makes no sense to me.

ViaCrucis · Jul 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
These offices and concepts are the legalese of the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints, as contained in your Bible. They present a model of how the first century church grew and how it was administered, and who administered it.

What you have to remember is that the 'foundation' of the first century church was:
Ephesians 2:19-22 King James Version (KJV)
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

IOW, this is the foundation that Jesus set up to administer his church. It is this foundation that assures that the buidling is fitly framed together and groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. It is this foundation that builds together an habitation of God through the Spirit.

To further emphasize the reason for the apostles and prophets, we read why Jesus gave them:
Ephesians 4:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
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.
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

So can the saints be perfected without apostles and prophets and other? NO, according to Jesus.
So can the work of the ministry be done properly without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul. Bishops cannot be ordained without the apostles, that is part of their ministry.
So can the body of Christ be edified without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we come in the unity of the faith without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we come to a knowledge of the Son of God without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be a perfect man, that measures up to the stature of the fullness of Christ, without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be no more children without the apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be tossed to and fro without apostles and prophets and others? YES, according to Paul.
So can we be carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive? YES, according to Paul.

Now after Jesus set the legal foundation, he set up the legal administration of the church and this is how he did it:
John 15:16 & 27 King James Version (KJV)
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus first chose 12 apostles and ordained them, and legally set up the foundation of the church Jesus gives them further power to administer his church. See next scripures:

Matthew 16:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This legal scripture is packed. Jesus give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and then tells him what power and authority he has when he holds them. This brings us to the binding and loosing power.

Whoever holds these keys, Jesus says that whatever they do on earth will be recognized in heaven. So if Peter baptizes and person into the church, (binds that person to the church) heaven recognizes that baptism and records the name of that person in the book of life. If for some reason that person has to be excommunicated and Peter excommunicates that person, (looses this persons membership in the church), heaven recognizes this excommunication and takes that person name out of the book of life).

You cannot administer this church without the 'keys to the kingdom of God".

What Jesus did next was give this same power of binding and loosing to the other apostles, however he did not give them the keys, like he gave Peter. There is only 1 man on the earth that has all the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' in his control at one time.
Matthew 18:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now the apostles were endowed with power to administer the church, he gave all worthy men in the church the power to work in the name of the Lord as they were needed and called by the apostles to administer churches in their local areas. The first thing Jesus did was give the overall power to men called the holy priesthood:
1 Peter 2:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

AND

1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Now that Jesus has set up the foundation of the church and given the apostles the keys to administer the church, and has given all men the priesthood to act in the name of the Lord and do his will, the apostles had what they needed to go out and build up the church all over the world. That is what they did, and the following offices of the priesthood were set up to administer the church in local areas:
1) bishops (Titus 1:6-8)
2) elders (Acts 14:22-24)
3) priests (1 Peter 2:9 NIRV)
4) teachers (Ephesians 4:11)
5) seventy (Luke 10:1)
6) deacons (1 Timothy 3:7-9)
7) evangelists (Ephesians 4:11)
8) pastors (Ephesians 4:11)

With these administrators in place the apostles could continue to go around the Roman world and a little beyond at that time and set up many churches with functioning administrators. And the church grew daily as the Lord added to it.

So keep the following list of Biblical concepts and offices to know that the priesthood and it offices were present and working in the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints.
1) keys of the kingdom of heaven
2) priesthood
3) bind and loose
4) ordained
5) apostles
6) prophets
7) bishops
8) elders
9) priests
10) teachers
11) seventy
12) deacons
13) evangelists
14) pastors
15) foundation of the church
16) Jesus chief cornerstone

So the Biblical foundation of the church is set and sure. And the other offices of the building are tightly fit together.
You have to ask yourself, what is the foundation of your church? Do you have apostles and prophets and evangelists and pastors and teachers and deacon and elders and bishops and priests and is every worthy man ordained to the royal priesthood. Do you have the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Christian churches will have to say Jesus Christ and the Bible is our foundation. Is that what the first century church had, NO, according to Paul. So I hope I answered these questions:

1) Don't talk about "priesthood authority" until you can actually demonstrate that "priesthood authority" is a concept that exists independently of uniquely Mormon writings and teachings.

2) you argue that the bishops of the historic Churches aren't valid because bishops need to be ordained by a "living apostle", then demonstrate that this is supposed to be the case--using clear, unambiguous statements from the Bible and any historical works you are able to use.

3) Because you need to get to the foundations here.

It's like you have a box with a lot of the right puzzle pieces, but you have no idea how to assemble them, and so you grabbed some pieces from a completely different puzzle to try and get it to look just the way you want.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jul 19, 2019

Maybe I missed it, I don't know if it was already asked and/or answered, but I'm curious:

If one of the Twelve Apostles is still around, why isn't he counted among the Quorum of Twelve? Was John's apostleship removed?

-CryptoLutheran

dzheremi · Jul 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
It is a legitimate bible question. Jesus says "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" That opens up a great big can of John whoopy.

"A great big can of John whoopy"...hahahaha...what the heck, Peter...

If John tarries on earth until Jesus's 2nd coming, which is a legitimate bible question, tell me what Jesus will do?
1) will Jesus let him die and then resurrect him?
2) will Jesus let him die and then be on earth in spirit form?
3) will Jesus translate his body that extends his life to he comes? (remember Jesus did not say he would not die, but he did not say he would die either)
4) will Jesus do something to his body that we have no science for to extend his life.
5) I believe John died and did not tarry on the earth until Jesus comes again.
6) I have no idea.

None of this is what the question is actually asking about, though. What He is asking Peter is "If John remains alive until My second coming, what is to you?" In other words, what difference would it make to you if I have other plans for other people? He not saying "John won't die". In fact, the passage itself specifies that this is not what He is saying, as has been already been pointed out by mmksparbud in #43.

I ask this because Cyril tells Peter it is none of his business, but does not answer if he thought John tarried till Jesus comes again.

Probably because he doesn't have to, because it's clear from the verse itself that it is not saying what you claim it is, and St. Cyril is not going to waste him time talking about something that none of his audience would've ever asked or wondered about, because they too would've known the verse.

Pardon, I should have said, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as much as they knew the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Okay.

We do have the bible, and the bible teaches us of the life of Jesus and his good works, but as the apostasy continued, the bible lost many plain and precious doctrines

Which ones, where, and when? This is vague to the point of not meaning anything.

Again you can be in the middle of an apostasy and still have much of the gospel from the bible. But you do not have the true keys and authority that was in the hands of the apostles.

Except you do because St. John is still alive, according to Mormonism. :doh:

It is not contradictory.

Like fun it isn't! Explain to me how you can simultaneously believe that the authority given to the apostles is lost even as one of them remains alive upon the earth, then. Was St. John's authority taken away from him while he still lived? Because if so, that's not what you said earlier. Previously you had said that he was simply told not to pass it on to anyone, which as I already noted shouldn't make a difference as to whether or not it existed anymore, since obviously he would still possess it of himself (in this conception of how authority works).

When the apostles died, the whole truth (the fulness) slowly slipped away. The teaching was fervent, but lacking a fulness that the apostles were able to furnish.

Except that one of them never died, according to your religion.

(Ephesians 4:12-13)

Ephesians 4:4-16 --

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. 8 Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men." 9 (Now this, "He ascended"--what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Gee, Peter, I wonder why you stopped at verse 13 and didn't go on to quote the subsequent verse directly after it (highlighted above). You know, the one that explains what it means to come to the unity of faith, and why it is important that each was given their own gift, in their own measure.

Hmmm....could it be because verse 14 in particular could be taken by Christians as a warning against falling for subsequent revelations, like Mormonism????

We really can't answer that question.

Why not? Why can you not answer for your own unique doctrines? Why can you not explain how it is that you can believe what you believe and it does not have any effect on what your religion teaches (apparently)? What is the point in this belief about St. John if it doesn't mean anything in the context of your religion? Because previously you had written that you thought that St. John's remaining alive was the fulfillment of Jesus' promise of Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Why can you not then defend that belief, by explaining how you can hold to it and still believe that the Great Apostasy happened?

We can speculate, but that is not decisive. I have suggested that John was assigned to tarry to keep the gates of hell from overwhelming the kingdom of God here on earth. How he did that, I do not know.

That isn't what I asked. What I asked was this: "How does this fulfill our Lord's promise, if even though St. John is alive, so the authority given to the original apostles does not really perish after all (as I thought you guys believed, before I realized that you had this strange belief about St. John), it does not prevent the Great Apostasy from happening anyway?"

It is a question about the logic of holding to these two propositions simultaneously, since they contradict each other (since the perishing of the apostles is what precipitated the Apostasy, but not all of them died, so how could the apostasy have happened anyway? Either the first clause is true and the second false, or vice-versa, but they can't both be true). It wasn't a question of what St. John specifically did. (I'm clarifying here because I can see from looking at the form of the question how it is that you would think you have answered it by typing what you have. Sorry about that. I can't think of another way to phrase this right now.)

Then again, maybe John died of old age and moved on. Who knows?

You! Apparently you do! You guys are the ones who claim this! Why are you backing away from it now? Hahahaha. Geez Louise...I literally just learned within this thread that this is a Mormon belief, and now, only a few posts later, it's apparently totally up for debate and may not have even happened!

The keys and the authority had to be passed on, and John did not pass his authority on. At least there is no recording of John doing that.

According to you, this is because he was instructed not to (post #32): "There is 1 apostle that we believe did not die, and that was John. But he was obviously given instruction to not pass his authority to another person."

Whether John is alive or dead makes no difference in regards to the 'keys' or authority.

What?! Then why did you write any of the following:

"Here is the problem. As per the bible, a bishop needed to be chosen and ordained by an apostle. When the apostles were killed, what happened to this model?" (post #8; your very first post in this thread)

"It is difficult to peg the date of the start of the apostasy because it started slowly, even as the apostles were still alive, but it started to grow more intense when they had passed away." (ibid)

"It was not up to the apostles to appoint other apostles, it was up to Jesus. Why did Jesus not have the apostles keep replacing fallen apostles?" (post #13)

"...they certainly did not bemoan the lack of pesky apostles snooping around and letting them know that they were not leading the church the way Jesus would have it." (ibid)

"So can the saints be perfected without apostles and prophets and other? NO, according to Jesus.
So can the work of the ministry be done properly without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul. Bishops cannot be ordained without the apostles, that is part of their ministry.
So can the body of Christ be edified without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we come in the unity of the faith without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we come to a knowledge of the Son of God without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be a perfect man, that measures up to the stature of the fullness of Christ, without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be no more children without the apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul." (post #19)

Etc., etc.

Basically every post you've made in this thread makes some allusion to the lack of apostles being the reason for the falling of the Church into apostasy, and now you want to tell me that it doesn't matter with regard to authority whether or not St. John the Apostle actually died.

Peter, if you're not going to stick by what you write, why do you bother replying to the thread in the first place? It's incredibly annoying and frankly makes you look like you don't even care about attempting to be consistent. This may pass muster in the context of Mormonism, but no one here is going to listen to you if you can't even listen to yourself.

It only makes a difference if Jesus instructs John to pass his 'keys' on. As far as we know, Jesus did not instruct and John did not pass his 'keys'.

Which is why I and others have said in this thread that Mormonism appears to lay the fault for the great apostasy happening at the feet of God. God must have wanted it to happen, because again, according to you, St. John was told not to pass on the 'keys'. So God did. God made the great apostasy happen.

So why do you guys so slander the Christian Church for being 'in apostasy'? We're following what God wanted us to do, according to you guys. Why are you so against God?

The remnant taught 3/4 the truths, then 1/2 the truth. The remnant did not have the priesthood or power or authority or keys to do the work of the Lord, even though John was alive on the earth.

Because GOD didn't want them to, according to YOU!!!!

You wonder why, I am going to tell you, and I apologize before I do because this is a man you believe is a saint, but it is public knowledge and so I will use him as an example.
Read about St. Cyril's times:
Cyril of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Does this sound like the Church of Jesus Christ?

Yes! Yes it does. Of course it does. HH St. Cyril, the Pillar of Faith, being victorious over Nestorius and his heretical party is absolutely the Church of Christ manifest on Earth. All those who refuse to confess that St. Mary is Theotokos are anathema to the Orthodox faith established by Christ and His apostles.

Did you seriously expect any other reply than this? You must not have been paying attention to anything I've ever posted, if that is the case.

Did Ignatius say that God willed the apostasy to happen?

You did.

I can only say, see you in the 'spirit world'. Then you will know.

We might as well see each other in the Norse Valhalla or the Maya Xibalba, or the Ancient Egyptian Duat...it's all the same pagan nonsense, except that those people had some excuse in having developed those beliefs prior to their Christianization. What's Mormonism's excuse, since it was started within an already Christianized society by people who had previously been Christians?

dzheremi · Jul 19, 2019

The harrowing cannot be a one time event.

Why not? Christ was only crucified one time, Christ only rose from the dead one time, etc. So everything around it was a one time event; why can't it be, too?

BTW when was the harrowing to take place, or does it come later at the end of the world?

The harrowing took place during the time of Christ's burial, before His glorious resurrection.

We do not know what good he did for the Lord during that time. We know that by the end of his life he was an outcast in some Christian places. Remember Diotrephes, who cast people out of the church if they entertained John when he came. Is this just 1 bishop? Who knows?

What? What kind of question is this? "Is this just 1 bishop?" Yes. What else would it mean? It's a proper name, meaning "Nourished by Jupiter".

About what year did the last apostle die, that is the date. The great commission can go forward even though the fulness is not with them.

Okay. So may earlier post was correct when I put forth that in the Mormon conception God designed the Church to fall into apostasy with the death of St. John in c. 106 AD.

I mean, that's completely ridiculous and stupid, but I am glad to have it finally confirmed, even if it took a while.

Hearing about Jesus is a great work, and must continue to move forward, again even if the full truth is not being taught.
That will all be taken care of in the 'spirit world'. So keep sending your missionaries out and we will too, and lets get the name of Christ as far and wide as we can.

I don't recognize the gods that your missionaries preach to have anything in common with the true God of Christianity beyond the names and texts which your religion attempts to steal and mutilate for its own sake, which is to lure people away from Christ in service of demonic nonsense such as that which you have posted in this thread.

So, no. Let's not. I do not want to be associated with Mormonism in any way, shape, or form, if what you have posted is an accurate representation of Mormon beliefs, as it is not appropriate at all that any Christian should embrace these things, and by that, damn themselves.

They can find the whole truth in the spirit world and have the ordinances taken care of also. Do not fret, but continue to work hard.

I'm not fretting about anything we do. If anything, I'm fretting for the souls of approximately 15-16 million Mormons around the world, and all those they are trying to convert to this false religion, after reading what you have written concerning what you guys believe. Lord have mercy.

You are correct the bishop and the apostle are 2 different offices. If Clement for instance had been the recipient of Peters keys, then Clement would have given up his bishop's position and changed his title to apostle.

That doesn't follow at all. First century Christianity cannot simply be assumed to be Mormon because you yourself happen to be Mormon. You have to show how/that it is, as per ViaCrucis' good post. You cannot do so by simply asserting things.

His first work would have been to ordain a bishop in his stead and then start to work around the Christian world and perhaps beyond, to be a special witness of Jesus Christ and setting up bishops as churches were organized.

Since he did not do this, we know he did not receive Peter's keys, and he remained a bishop.

See above.

You are right, they are not the same title, and they would not hold the same title. Except that an apostle could perform the functions of a bishop if he came to an area and had to build it up until he could find a suitable bishop to ordain and leave in his place. That happened often. I believe Peter did this in Antioch and Rome.

An ordained bishop can never promote himself to the rank of an apostle, and could not perform the functions of an apostle. Some tried, and when the true apostles came around they did not allow them to stay. (Diotrephes - were there others?)

Again, see above. You cannot project Mormonism's ecclesiology onto the past, apropos of nothing. Either prove it or keep silent.

Teaching half truths and having no authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ is a full apostasy, not 1/2 apostasy, but full apostasy.

This makes zero sense. If the teachings themselves were preserved within the period of the Great Apostasy, as is shown in the OP, then the great apostasy could not have been complete. "Keep the commandments" and "Keep your covenants" are not half-truths, as per Mormonism. In fact, they're among those that Mormons here most often accuse Christians of not keeping, if the posting histories of the likes of He Is The Way are anything to go by. That's the entire reason why I made this thread. And now you want to say that it has to do with not being able to keep authority in place, while also claiming all over the thread that this is as it was because God wanted it to be so? And yet it is still somehow all our fault? Is this the same religion that tells us not to blame Adam and Eve for the fall, since they were doing God's will? Why do they get more leeway than the entire Christian Church, which you guys at least claim to recognize was founded by Christ, even if it didn't remain for very long?

You make it that way all on your own. It is hooey to you I know, but you have never heard or really studied the history with an apostasy slant. If you did, you would recognize what I am telling you. Do you think the Church of England was in an apostate position when they burned live men, women, and children to the stake because they resighted the 10 commandments in English. Is that how the true Church of Jesus Christ operates. Think hard about that.

What does the Church of England have to do with anything? They didn't exist as their own separate Church in the fifth-sixth century. And why should I or anyone else have to study history "with an apostasy slant" rather than you having to prove why such a slant is warranted in the first place? You're the one who believes that all of this is historically accurate to begin with, and yet you either cannot or refuse to actually back it up with anything period-appropriate.

I am forced to conclude that you do not have period-appropriate documents which back up your understanding. You can claim that the Bible says this or that, but you don't have any figures from back then within the Christian world who actually show anything like the Mormon view on this topic. This is why you are forced to invent a 'Great Apostasy' out of nowhere, because of course then you can claim that the lack of evidence to support your position is actually evidence for that position, as you had the temerity to do earlier with regard to HH St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Well, forgive me, but I don't buy it for a second, and I don't appreciate your slander against the Orthodox bishops of the holy Church of God in favor of your latter-day invention and the lies and deceit of the devil that this invention rests upon. You have nothing in your corner, and cannot even support your own unique beliefs (e.g., all this stuff about St. John as relates to the Great Apostasy).

I will now resume ignoring all future replies from you, now that it is clear that you have nothing to say and will not even stand by what you have already said, when push comes to shove, as you have more than amply demonstrated by the feeble non-defense offered in the post I am now replying to. Take care, Peter, and may God (the true one, Who your belief slanders) have mercy upon you and all Mormons. I trust that you do not grasp the full breadth of the heresies you are supporting, as Mormonism has definitely called good evil and evil good. Lord have mercy.

Peter1000 · Jul 19, 2019

Phoebe Ann said:
What people did in the Middle Ages is hardly different than the Mountain Meadows Massacre or Blood Atonement. Is that how the true Church operates? Think hard about that.

It is not what happens in the true church. It was a deplorable incident that still boggles every Mormons mind whenever we revisit that tragedy.

The difference with this one time event and what I portrayed in the post is that the head of the church was involved in these murders, and it stretched over the centuries as people were trying to free themselves from the cruel tyranny of the church.

You cannot compare this one time event (as horrible as it was) to the millions of people that were massacred in the name of Jesus from 200ad on.

Rescued One · Jul 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
It is not what happens in the true church. It was a deplorable incident that still boggles every Mormons mind whenever we revisit that tragedy.

The difference with this one time event and what I portrayed in the post is that the head of the church was involved in these murders, and it stretched over the centuries as people were trying to free themselves from the cruel tyranny of the church.

You cannot compare this one time event (as horrible as it was) to the millions of people that were massacred in the name of Jesus from 200ad on.

Murder is wrong whenever it happens.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.
Brigham Young, (March 8, 1863.) Journal of Discourses 10:110.

“I [am] opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 296, 1949

“I will tell you how much I love those characters. If they had any respect to their own welfare, they would come forth and say, whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not, ‘We shed his blood, and now let us atone for it;' and they would be willing to have their heads chopped off, that their blood might run upon the ground, and the smoke of it rise before the Lord as an incense for their sins.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 179, February 18, 1855

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so, in such a case; and under the circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.... There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity. I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

Peter1000 · Jul 19, 2019

dzheremi said:
Why not? Christ was only crucified one time, Christ only rose from the dead one time, etc. So everything around it was a one time event; why can't it be, too?

The harrowing took place during the time of Christ's burial, before His glorious resurrection.

If there was a harrowing of hell at the time of Christ, has there been no other people since that time go to hell? And if there have, then it seems like a harrowing should at least take place 1 more time to take care of those that came into hell between the time of Christ and his 2nd coming. Right?

Continual teaching in the spirit world is a much better solution than a harrowing of hell once at the time of Christ.

The per-period documentation exists all through the history of Christianity, and that is all I will say about it.

Sorry that you can call my leaders liars and monsters and satanic, but I can't even lead you to a Wikipedia article that does not give a flattering portrayal of Cyril without you going on ignore.

When I read my next history of Christianity, I will keep you up to date on how the apostasy plays out on its pages. It is not difficult to see it, if you are looking for it.

Anyway hope to have you back soon.

Peter1000 · Jul 19, 2019

Phoebe Ann said:
Murder is wrong whenever it happens.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.
Brigham Young, (March 8, 1863.) Journal of Discourses 10:110.

“I [am] opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 296, 1949

“I will tell you how much I love those characters. If they had any respect to their own welfare, they would come forth and say, whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not, ‘We shed his blood, and now let us atone for it;' and they would be willing to have their heads chopped off, that their blood might run upon the ground, and the smoke of it rise before the Lord as an incense for their sins.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 179, February 18, 1855

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so, in such a case; and under the circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.... There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity. I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins.”
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

Are these few words supposed to overcome the centuries of bloodshed heaped upon mankind in the name of Jesus Christ by cruel and evil leaders? It did not work.

Rescued One · Jul 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Are these few words supposed to overcome the centuries of bloodshed heaped upon mankind in the name of Jesus Christ by cruel and evil leaders? It did not work.

Who said any such thing? Murder is murder whether it's one life or one hundred thousand. Your leaders were evil men.

Peter1000 · Jul 21, 2019

Phoebe Ann said:
Who said any such thing? Murder is murder whether it's one life or one hundred thousand. Your leaders were evil men.

Were the leaders of the churches that murdered millions of people over the centuries evil men too?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 21, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Were the leaders of the churches that murdered millions of people over the centuries evil men too?

Murdered millions by whose estimate? What are we talking about here? The Inquisition? The Crusades? Millions, really? Was it all unjustified? You'll find the cause of warfare in Christian history to be more complex than priests leading armies for the sake of wanton destruction. Priests rarely were the helm of any army btw.

What do you have to say about the good clergy? How do explain the existence of men and women of genuine faith? How did they continue to exist despite there being no Apostles and God's spirit not being with them? Or are you content to smear everyone clergyman as evil the reason for Christianity's fall?

The problem i have with your narrative is that it is overly critical. I understand that as a MOrmon you have an invested interest in the Church before the LDS being utterly corrupt and destitute of anything good but this blinds you to looking at history with an objective eye. Mormons will gladly quote the Church fathers when they mention corruption or that people have abandoned real faith, but ignore those same fathers when they commend their brethren for persevering and keeping to the faith. Two things can be true at the same time and the Church has always had to deal with evil in it's midst. Human nature is not something obliterated by conversion or becoming a Christian so we are still subject to sin.

LDS Against LDS claims about Christians & keeping the commandments: the example of Philoxenos of Mabbug

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Member

Dissident

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Similar threads