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

Peter1000 said:

Your dates of schisms are dates that correspond to continued and deeper apostasy. Thank you.

Click to expand...

In other words: they're things you didn't know about because you don't bother to learn about things before you bring them up, since you don't care about anything for the sake of actually learning, but instead for the sake of buttressing your false religion's incredibly stupid and ahistorical claims against Christianity.

Well you're not welcome. You're not welcome to use my Church's history, which you don't understand or seek to understand, against it.

Just tell me, in 451 when the OO split from the RC, which church was the true mother church?

Click to expand...

This is not what happened in the first place. You get an F- in Christian history.

Or which church was the true Christian church.

Click to expand...

Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy was true in 451, just like it was at any date before or after that.

Since you think you are the Orthodox church you must believe that you teach the word with more truth than the RC, or why split?

Click to expand...

Again that's not what happened. Find me a Church in 451 that makes the theological and ecclesiological claims that are unique to the Roman Catholic Church of today (read: not held by the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox churches) and I will convert to Mormonism on the spot.

You can't. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in 451.

So do you call yourself the true church of Jesus Christ? And if not, why not?

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ our God, so yeah, that's what we are. What's your point, though? The Eastern and Western Chalcedonians also say that of their own churches, so what is that supposed to do?

dzheremi said:

Also, everybody notice the double-bind involved here: In the Mormon understanding of Christian Church history, they don't have to pay attention to the Orthodox because the Orthodox supposedly 'broke off' from the Catholic Church. So it was bad that they did that/it robs them of whatever legitimate authority they may have had (the "keys" of the priesthood, according to Peter above), since they split the Church.

But also in the Mormon understanding of Church history, the Catholic Church was itself the evidence of the great apostasy, made obvious through its nefarious behavior such as ordering hundreds of massacres in the Middle Ages and all this. So it was bad if anyone stayed in the Catholic Church.

You can't leave, but also you can't stay. There's basically nothing you can do. The apostasy happens anyway, because no matter what you do it will be used as 'proof' of the 'great apostasy'.

Click to expand...

And further, as I have discovered, they think Catholics not hating on Orthodox is another proof of Catholic apostasy because we're supposed to hate on people who are in schism. Who knew.

He is the way said:

Does it really matter when people turned away from loving God? When people stop loving God and turn away from His commandments of LOVE they don't have the Holy Ghost to guide them. They are then left to kick against the pricks. That is what happened to the Pharisees. They thought they were living the law perfectly, but they sought the honor and glory of man, not the LOVE of God. The fruits of LOVE are humility, charity, kindness, virtue, honesty, benevolence, long suffering, hope, faith, and obedience.

Click to expand...

Yup, it matters. You claim a great apostasy but you don't have historical evidence for it so you aren't able to provide a date for it. Which leads normal people to say it never happened.

And when did people stop loving God? Did Mother Teresa love God? Did Theresa of Avila love God? Did St. Francis love God? Did Polycarp love God? Or did they all hate God? How about me? Do I hate my Lord and my God?

Peter1000 said:

.
This is the problem. To have a fixed public revelation is the downfall of the church. I do agree that the church must have a bulwark of doctrine that cannot be trifled with.

Click to expand...

Fixed public revelation is fixed because we have a faith delivered by Jesus to the apostles. It is the opposite of a problem.

In our church, we have doctrines that are permanent, and then we have policies that can change as the world changes.

Click to expand...

Doh? Fixed doctrines and flexible policies. But are your doctrines actually permanent, or only good until the next prophet makes something new up?

Your public revelation (fixed) is like our doctrine (fixed), and your private revelation (changing) is like our policies (changing).

Click to expand...

No. Private revelation is for the person who received it. It is never compulsory for another person to believe it. Private revelation is not about rules and changing rules. And revelation (the public kind) is what doctrines are developed from.

I would suggest your fixed and completed body of revelation is contained in the bible, and that is why there are thousands of Christian churches in the world today, because every church has it own fixed body of revelation that they adhere to as their interpretation of the bible. Which of all the churches has the true fixed revelations?

Click to expand...

The public revelation is what Israel put in the Old Testament, what the apostles put in the New Testament, and what the apostles told their successors, as recorded in the Church Fathers. It's not just Scripture alone, but that is substantially it. So all Christians have a similar body of revelation. It's more the interpretation of the content of revelation that is the problem. The Orthodox and Catholics, because we have the full canon and the Fathers, the fixed revelation in whole, have it right and are in essential agreement, the same priesthood, and the same sacraments.

Are you that astute as to know when an angel is from God and when an angel is of satan? What is your formula for knowing?

Click to expand...

By myself I am not astute enough. But the apostolic authority in the Catholic Church watches to be sure that any private revelation is not inventing something new and contrary to the faith once handed on to the apostles. Which is why 'continued revelation' is a bad bad idea. Humans have a great ability to believe any new thing. But we've been warned about such things.

Then why is the Catholic and Orthodox not one church? Why are they many? Because the interpretation of the public revelation is different. Some or all of the churches do not believe in the true public revelation. That is why we all need living apostles to keep us on the right track and unify our churches so we are not children being tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by cunning men that deceive.

Click to expand...

Our stubbornness will end some day. Catholics and the Orthodox are brothers who are close but fight like brothers. We belong at the same table and someday we will be. Now as to the Protestants they left and invented new doctrines. And when Joseph Smith came along he invented some more, some even stranger things. I wonder how Joseph Smith would have come out if he had grown up as a Catholic or an Orthodox. He had half a good idea about priesthood.[/QUOTE]

He is the way said:

Does it really matter when people turned away

Click to expand...

Of course it matters. You make the claim, you ought to be able to back it up with specifics. Also, it's the entire reason your religion exists, so it ought to matter to you, if you care about your religion.

chevyontheriver said:

Yup, it matters. You claim a great apostasy but you don't have historical evidence for it so you aren't able to provide a date for it. Which leads normal people to say it never happened.

And when did people stop loving God? Did Mother Teresa love God? Did Theresa of Avila love God? Did St. Francis love God? Did Polycarp love God? Or did they all hate God? How about me? Do I hate my Lord and my God?

Click to expand...

I have given the historical evidence and it checks out:

(New Testament | Acts 20:28 - 35)

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.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Since the priesthood was restored great things have happened and are continuing to happen. The ancient ordinances have been restored to the earth with all of the keys.

dzheremi said:

Of course it matters. You make the claim, you ought to be able to back it up with specifics. Also, it's the entire reason your religion exists, so it ought to matter to you, if you care about your religion.

Click to expand...

So you can tell me the month day and year of Christ's return? Can you tell me the precise minute?

He is the way said:

So you can tell me the month day and year of Christ's return? Can you tell me the precise minute?

Click to expand...

The difference is that Christ's return (for everyone but Mormons and JW) is in the future, not in the past.

Are you really going to compare my inability to tell the future (particularly concerning something which the scriptures say we will not know beforehand, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5, 2 Peter 3:10, etc.) to your own inability to read any reputable Church history? That's asinine.

He is the way said:

I have given the historical evidence and it checks out:

Click to expand...

Sorry. No. If you had historical evidence you could provide a year when the 'total apostasy' occurred. What you quoted was a warning but not an accomplished historical event. Still waiting on the accomplished historical fact and the year of that accomplished historical fact. With some actual history to it, as in a record of something that happened past tense. Some historical data. What you have provided is a warning which you have turned into a justification for some 'total apostasy', going WAY beyond the intent of the actual warning. Just provide the year and the documentation of what happened in that year. It wouldn't be that hard to do.

He is the way said:

So you can tell me the month day and year of Christ's return? Can you tell me the precise minute?

Click to expand...

We are waiting for that event. So we do not know the day, month, year, decade, or century of when it may occur. You, on the other hand can't tell us the year or century of the 'total apostasy' even though you suppose it is an accomplished historical fact. See the difference?

He is the way said:

Since the priesthood was restored great things have happened and are continuing to happen. The ancient ordinances have been restored to the earth with all of the keys.

Click to expand...

Great things have happened through the ages and continue to happen without your false priesthood, restoration, doctrine, and ordinances. You are grasping at straws to legitimize your religion and it's making you look foolish.

He is the way said:

Since the priesthood was restored great things have happened and are continuing to happen. The ancient ordinances have been restored to the earth with all of the keys.

Click to expand...

There are sometimes 'great things' among Buddhists, or even atheists. This is a dangerous line of argumentation. Particularly when you think that the greatness of your particular works mean anything.

dzheremi said:

The difference is that Christ's return (for everyone but Mormons and JW) is in the future, not in the past.

Are you really going to compare my inability to tell the future (particularly concerning something which the scriptures say we will not know beforehand, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5, 2 Peter 3:10, etc.) to your own inability to read any reputable Church history? That's asinine.

Click to expand...

As far as I know it did not occur at a certain day or time, but over a period of time starting with the death of Peter.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

As we’ve already established it is up to God to appoint Apostles in order to preserve the Church from apostasy. You cannot blame us for what your God should have done if there is a standard of preserving truth. Evidently the Mormon God had decided that the world wasn’t worth it, that his people should be abandoned to their sin and to error. That they should forever be denied the highest celestial reward in heaven.

Click to expand...

You forget that God has created an alternative method for these people to learn the true gospel of Jesus Christ and to receive all the ordinances necessary for salvation. So I have told you many times, God did not abandon these people, nor will they be kept from the highest celestial rewards in heaven. But you keep saying this, so read it several times so you know what we believe and stop giving false information about what we believe.

The problem I see is obvious. No one here is arguing that Bishops took the place of the Apostles. The Apostles were a unique office and one which they obviously didn’t intend to continue. It cannot be argued reasonably that there was no opportunity for there to be no more Apostles appointed because John never died. Peter also admitted there were plenty of qualified individuals who could have been made Apostles.

Click to expand...

We are arguing that the bishops could not have taken the place of the apostles. So we are talking apples to oranges. Again, if the apostles were gone, PER THE BIBLE, look what cannot happen.
(see my post #263)
Just one example of what stops - "the work of the ministry". (Ephesians 4:12) Why does Paul say that the "work of the ministry" would stop? Because the keys that hold the power and authority to do the "work of the ministry" are gone and no man holds them, hence, no man with authority, can minister in the name of Jesus Christ and have it be recognized in heaven. So, no man has the authority to baptize, and we believe that a person must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it order to be saved in the kingdom of God.

So that is why Jesus has a perfect alternative that will take those people and they will be taught the truth and receive the ordinances in order to be saved. He has not abandoned them, nor have the gates of hell prevailed.

To argue that they would have all been killed or not listened to is a weak argument. Not even all Christians were killed in the Roman Empire, this despite their being subjected to persecution during the reigns of certain Emperors. Church leaders were always targeted yet the Churches found the means to continue in the hardest circumstances. There were Bishops of Rome in the heart of the Imperium since Paul and if they could survive persecution why couldn’t God’s anointed Apostles survive?

Click to expand...

It's not too weak, it happened quickly. All you have to do is read your bible to see that a large % of the church had turned from the apostles and were not willing to listen to them. Also, Paul told us that many would turn when the apostles were gone. One of the reasons for this is that there were many false apostles that took advantage of the good people of the church, you are right.

All the apostles were killled within 60 years of Jesus' resurrection, so God decided, rather than appointing new apostles that would just be killed again, to go with His alternative method. If the world and the churches would not accept his true apostles then He would go another way to get his people saved.

Peter1000 said:

You forget that God has created an alternative method for these people to learn the true gospel of Jesus Christ and to receive all the ordinances necessary for salvation. So I have told you many times, God did not abandon these people, nor will they be kept from the highest celestial rewards in heaven. But you keep saying this, so read it several times so you know what we believe and stop giving false information about what we believe.

Click to expand...

He abandoned them to abomination, if you prefer to use this definition. Given teh ascendancy of Nicene Christianity how can you describe it as anything else? I'll also note that while they might be saved (everyone is saved in Mormonism) most Christians have been denied the supposed fullness of the LDS throughout history. Missing is a celestial marriage in their lives or Mormon baptism and since you cannot know the names of everyone to baptize for them, how is it unreasonable to conclude that they have been denied the highest celestial reward?

I know Mormons say that God will open up a path for them, but how is that so? Where in the Mormon texts are we told this is the case? If it is the case, why baptize for the dead to begin with? If your marriage ceremony isn't necessary, along with all of the rites and rituals, why go through with them?

Peter1000 said:

We are arguing that the bishops could not have taken the place of the apostles. So we are talking apples to oranges. Again, if the apostles were gone, PER THE BIBLE, look what cannot happen.
(see my post #263)
Just one example of what stops - "the work of the ministry". (Ephesians 4:12) Why does Paul say that the "work of the ministry" would stop? Because the keys that hold the power and authority to do the "work of the ministry" are gone and no man holds them, hence, no man with authority, can minister in the name of Jesus Christ and have it be recognized in heaven. So, no man has the authority to baptize, and we believe that a person must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it order to be saved in the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

Right. So why didn't God provide the necessary authority? You seem to miss this point again and again. It wasn't up to us to provide Apostles and prophets for these things you mention. It was up to God. He failed to provide what could have easily been provided. There were plenty of faithful people, no better or worse than you Mormons today. There were plenty of opportunities in history that your God could have made use of. He didn't.

Peter1000 said:

So that is why Jesus has a perfect alternative that will take those people and they will be taught the truth and receive the ordinances in order to be saved. He has not abandoned them, nor have the gates of hell prevailed.

Click to expand...

Would you say the same of your Church if God made his grace depart from it? That you hadn't been abandoned? No, you would rightfully ask why has he forsaken you.

Peter1000 said:

It's not too weak, it happened quickly. All you have to do is read your bible to see that a large % of the church had turned from the apostles and were not willing to listen to them. Also, Paul told us that many would turn when the apostles were gone. One of the reasons for this is that there were many false apostles that took advantage of the good people of the church, you are right.

Click to expand...

You keep reading, most or many and turn it into an inevitability that the apostasy must have happened. Even granting that there is still no reason why a remnant of the faithful could not have persevered. You even grant that there were good Christians whom were faithful and that God will save them in the end. Yet he abandoned those people to abominable teachings. What is abomination to God? It is on the level of Homosexuality, at least going by the Old Testament.

Peter1000 said:

All the apostles were killled within 60 years of Jesus' resurrection, so God decided, rather than appointing new apostles that would just be killed again, to go with His alternative method. If the world and the churches would not accept his true apostles then He would go another way to get his people saved.

Click to expand...

They would be killed again based on what? Sure they might be killed but they would live for many years as well, preaching the gospel. If an Apostle can live for ten years to increase the gifts of God to the people isn't that worth his martyrdom?

Where is the evidence that true apostles were rejected the orthodox believers?

Peter1000 said:

You forget that God has created an alternative method for these people to learn the true gospel of Jesus Christ and to receive all the ordinances necessary for salvation.

Click to expand...

If God has an "alternative method", why do we even need your God while we are earth today? Of what relevance is your church then?

Here's the dilemma you face -

If mormon theology is correct and Christianity is not, then you're good and we Christians get the opportunity to make it up later in the afterlife.

If Christianity is correct and mormonism is not, then we Christians are good and the mormons will have to take their chances. With Scripture being clear on what happens to false prophets and false teachers, as well as those who claim to do good works in Jesus' name but he doesn't know them, that's an awful big chance to take. Again, if Christianity is correct, mormons will not get a second chance in the afterlife.

Are you willing to take that risk?

He is the way said:

As far as I know it did not occur at a certain day or time, but over a period of time starting with the death of Peter.

Click to expand...

OK. SO you don't have a date or data on that, but do you have a range? When was it actually over? Expecting a year very close to the death of Peter in 67 AD in Rome. A year hundreds of years later, or even dozens of years later would be so much hot air. And I'm still expecting historical data from that actual time to actually back up your assertion.

He is the way said:

As far as I know it did not occur at a certain day or time, but over a period of time starting with the death of Peter.

Click to expand...

I thought it was from the death of John. Which?

chevyontheriver said:

I thought it was from the death of John. Which?

Click to expand...

As I have already stated, John the beloved is still alive. He will tarry until the second coming. That being said I meant the death of Peter and Paul.

He is the way said:

As I have already stated, John the beloved is still alive. He will tarry until the second coming. That being said I meant the death of Peter and Paul.

Click to expand...

That makes John the oldest human by about a thousand years.