LDS If a universal apostasy really happened?

[Daniel Marsh]

Authority and prerogatives of the apostles
The authority of the Apostles proceeds from the office imposed upon them by Our Lord and is based on the very explicit sayings of Christ Himself. He will be with them all days to the end of ages (Matthew 28:20), give a sanction to their preaching (Mark 16:16), send them the "promise of the Father", "virtue from above" (Luke 24:49). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the New Testament show us the exercise of this authority. The Apostle makes laws (Acts 15:29; 1 Corinthians 7:12 sq.), teaches (Acts 2:37 and following), claims for his teaching that it should be received as the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), punishes (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5), administers the sacred rites (Acts 6:1 sq.; 16:33; 20:11), provides successors (2 Timothy 1:6; Acts 14:22). In the modern theological terms the Apostle, besides the power of order, has a general power of jurisdiction and magisterium (teaching). The former embraces the power of making laws judging on religious matters, and enforcing obligations by means of suitable penalties. The latter includes the power of setting forth with authority Christ's doctrine. It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles. (See REVELATION; INSPIRATION.)

Catholic theologians rightly speak in their treatises of some personal prerogatives of the Apostles; a brief account of them may not be superfluous.

A first prerogative, not clearly inferred from the texts of the New Testament nor demonstrated by solid reasons, is their confirmation in grace. Most modern theologians admit that the Apostles received so abundant an infusion of grace that they could avoid every mortal fault and every fully deliberate venial sin.
Another personal prerogative is the universality of their jurisdiction. The words of the Gospel on Apostolic office are very general; for the most part, the Apostles preached and travelled as if they were not bound by territorial limits, as we read in the Acts and the Epistles. This did not hinder the Apostles from taking practical measures to properly organize the preaching of the Gospel in the various countries they visited.
Among these prerogatives is reckoned personal infallibility, of course in matters of faith and morals, and only when they taught and imposed some doctrine as obligatory. In other matters they could err, as Peter, in the question of practical intercourse with the converted heathens; they might also accept certain current opinions, as Paul seems to have done with regard to the time of the Parousia, or Second Coming of the Lord. (See JESUS CHRIST.) It is not easy to find a stringent scripturistic demonstration for this prerogative, but reasonable arguments suggest it, e.g. the impossibility for all his hearers to verify and try the doctrine preached to them by an Apostle.
It is a more disputed question whether an Apostle writing on religious matters would have, merely by his Apostolic office, the prerogatives of an inspired author. This was asserted by the Catholic theologian, Dr. Paul Schanz of Tübingen (Apologie des Christenthums, II) and by some others, e.g. Joüon in "Etudes religieuses" (1904). Catholic theologians almost unanimously deny it, e.g. Father Pesch (De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae, 1906, pp. 611-634). (See INSPIRATION; NEW TESTAMENT.)
Apostolate and episcopate
Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts 11:30; 14:22; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7); presidents (proistamenoi, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Romans 12, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Ephesians 4:11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts 13:1; 1 Corinthians 12:28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts 13:1; 15:32; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the "authorities" of the Christian community. All other names are less important; the deacons are out of the question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms for ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, and somewhat later elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the last charged with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop--and there is but one in each town--governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

Another and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the various above mentioned names, chiefly the presbyteroi and the episkopoi (priests and bishops).

Some authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that the episkopoi of Apostolic times have the same dignity as the bishops of later times, and that the episkopoi of the apostolic writings are the same as the priests of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity of bishop and priest in Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus, i, 5-7, Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, xliv.
Another view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall call bishops--priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the bishops of the second century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern priests, and had not the plenitude of the priesthood. This opinion is fully discussed and proposed with much learning by A. Michiels (L'origine de l'épiscopat, Louvain, 1900).
Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl., 1895, and Etudes d'hist. et de théol. positive, I, Paris, 1903) expresses the following opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions, as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some presbyteroi had no liturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) the episkopoi, several in each community, had a liturgical function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, the bishopric was divided: one of the bishops became sovereign bishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were the later priests. This secondary priesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitive priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between the bishop and the priest.
Whatever may be the solution of this difficult question (see BISHOP, PRIEST), it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. (See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying: If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt at teaching;

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not selfwilled, not quick to anger, not given to wine, not violent, not given to filthy lucre;

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

Acts 1:12-20 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
12 Then they returned unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day’s journey.

13 And when they had come in, they went up into an upper room where abode both Peter and James, and John and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (the number of names altogether were about a hundred and twenty) and said,

16 “Men and brethren, it was necessary that this Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, who was the guide to those who took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained a part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Akel Dama, that is to say, the Field of Blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

As pointed out Bishop equals Apostle, so the office of an Apostle never left the church.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I don't buy it. It seems like the keys are directly connected to the binding and loosing and he gives all of the apostles the power to bind and loose. It reads as if the keys are what's used for binding and loosing - like they're locking or unlocking a chain. I don't see the warrant in dividing keys from the action of binding and loosing, and the power of binding and loosing is given to all of the apostles in Matt 18. I think you're reading too much into it, and certainly more than is warranted by the text.

The Council in Acts 15 has all the Apostles Binding rules on the Gentiles.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

All Christians are part of the Priesthood from the Beginning of the Church.
So, there is no need to restore a Priesthood of any kind. Hebrews 7 makes the OT Priesthoods obsolete. The Apostle John remains on earth until the Second Coming of Christ, thus as an Apostle that Office never went out of style too. I think it was II Nephi 28.

1 Peter 2:5 ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Hebrews 7
English: American Standard Version

>
7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace; 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils.

5 And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest's office have commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises.

7 But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes; 10 for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.

11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

15 And [what we say] is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, 16 who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: 17 for it is witnessed [of him,] Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

18 For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.

20 And inasmuch as [it is] not without the taking of an oath 21 (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him, The Lord sware and will not repent himself, Thou art a priest for ever); 22 by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.

23 And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: 24 but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.

25 Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the [sins] of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, [appointeth] a Son, perfected for evermore.

Jesus having the Priesthood and does not die, thus there is no need to restore a priesthood of any kind too.

 

[Peter1000]

Daniel March says:

It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles. (See REVELATION; INSPIRATION.)

This statement is very important to understand. It is the apostles only, and more particularly Peter, as the one who holds all the keys of the KOH, to recieve revelation not only for themselves personally and their families, but for the whole church. Only the apostles can give direction to the whole church. That special communication with Jesus is what keeps the church going in the direction that Jesus wants his church to go.

The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.

You are exactly right again. The bishop have been given keys for the general power of order, jurisdiction and magisterium, but only for a small, local area.

Bishops do not have the personal prerogatives of the apostles to receive revelation for the whole church. IOW the bishop cannot write to the apostles and tell them that they have had a revelation from Jesus that it is OK to baptize by sprinkling because we do not have a lot of running water in our area. That is a revelation that Jesus would not give a bishop. He would give that to Peter, who would write the bishop and inform him of that important change. Thereby keeping order in the church. Otherwise all the bishops would be going hither-thither, this way and that way and all sorts of bad stuff would enter the church.

Just know that Peter did not write a bishop and tell them it was OK to baptize by sprinkling, but soon after the apostles died, this was a directive from someone, says the Didache. And the ordinance of baptism was changed, and it was further changed and changed, until today it is not even essential to be baptized.

I will read your post again, because it is good, but I wanted to respond to what I quickly read. So see more response on this post. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Peter1000]

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying: If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt at teaching;

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not selfwilled, not quick to anger, not given to wine, not violent, not given to filthy lucre;

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

Acts 1:12-20 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
12 Then they returned unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day’s journey.

13 And when they had come in, they went up into an upper room where abode both Peter and James, and John and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (the number of names altogether were about a hundred and twenty) and said,

16 “Men and brethren, it was necessary that this Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, who was the guide to those who took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained a part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Akel Dama, that is to say, the Field of Blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

As pointed out Bishop equals Apostle, so the office of an Apostle never left the church.

Great scriptures, but your final words are incorrect. A bishop became equal to an apostle after the apostles were all murdered, not before Jesus set it up differently than what happened after about 120ad.

Even from your post #141 says this of the apostles:
"It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles."

And I will add this: the apostles had these personal prerogatives/revealed truths from Jesus in relationship to the entire church. The bishop had those same prerogatives but just for his church only, but not for the whole church, and when the bishop had a revelation about his church, and wanted to change something about the doctrine or organization, he had to get permission from the apostle assigned to his region. This is how order is maintained.

 

[Peter1000]

All Christians are part of the Priesthood from the Beginning of the Church.
So, there is no need to restore a Priesthood of any kind. Hebrews 7 makes the OT Priesthoods obsolete. The Apostle John remains on earth until the Second Coming of Christ, thus as an Apostle that Office never went out of style too. I think it was II Nephi 28.

1 Peter 2:5 ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

You are right, as Hebrews 7:12 says, For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The priesthood changed from Aaronic to Melchizedec, and some of the manifestations of that change were:
1) All worthy men could now hold the royal priesthood, not just men in the House of Levi.
2) New offices came into existence, such as apostles and prophets, bishop, and elders, and deacons, and teachers etc., not just high priest and priests.

It was a whole new deal, and not many people know about the change in the priesthood, or the priesthood in general. I am glad to have this discussion with you about the priesthood, not many will.

 

[Peter1000]

Hebrews 7
English: American Standard Version

>
7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace; 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils.

5 And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest's office have commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises.

7 But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes; 10 for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.

11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

15 And [what we say] is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, 16 who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: 17 for it is witnessed [of him,] Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

18 For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.

20 And inasmuch as [it is] not without the taking of an oath 21 (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him, The Lord sware and will not repent himself, Thou art a priest for ever); 22 by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.

23 And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: 24 but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.

25 Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the [sins] of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, [appointeth] a Son, perfected for evermore.

Jesus having the Priesthood and does not die, thus there is no need to restore a priesthood of any kind too.

Yes, Jesus has the priesthood, but is very careful to give this power to men. Since the beginning there have been many high points where men have walked with God. There have been many low points where men have apostatized from God.

Each time God reaches down to set up his church and gospel again, he has to restore the power and authority that men have to do this work. He had to restore the priesthood to Melchizedec and Abraham, he had to restore it to Moses. He had to restore it to John the baptist and Jesus brought the Melchizedec priesthood with him as the Son of God.

Jesus then gave the priesthood to Peter and the apostles and to all worthy men. After a short time, the priesthood was concentrated in the hands of only a few men called the clergy, and it became a power game after the apostles were gone, that caused the church to apostatize again. But was once again restored to JS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in our time.

 

[Peter1000]

The Council in Acts 15 has all the Apostles Binding rules on the Gentiles.

Notice that Peter was the first to speak up for the apostles, and he approved all that was said and was one that sent Paul with a letter to tell the people of the decision. Thank you, that is a good example of the leadership in the first church.

 

[Peter1000]

I don't think it does, regardless of the protests otherwise.

I do not protest, but the text makes it clear that Jesus only gave Peter the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'. The other apostles were there, but Jesus singled out Peter, and said I will give unto thee the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'.

So if you are looking for textual honesty you would agree that only Peter received the 'keys'.

We believe that there is more to the 'keys' than just the binding and loosing powers (which I agree, the other apostles held, per the text).

The 'keys' also hold the power of presidency. Which is the power to control the operations of binding and loosing. For instance, Thomas had to be given the keys to use his power from Peter. It is like owning a car. You have a car sitting there in the lot with all the power to get you from a to b. But in order to use that power you have to be given the key from the salesman before you can use the power of the car.

It is the same with the power to bind and loose. You have the power to bind and loose, but you must be given the 'keys' that unlocks that power and allows you to use it. If that control, or presidency did not exist, the apostles could have gone out and done anything they wanted with that power and really messed things up for the order in the church.

So Jesus gave the control or presidency to Peter and Thomas received the power to bind and loose as Peter saw fit. And it was Thomas who held the 'keys' to India only, and when he called a bishop to preside over the church in India, he gave that bishop the keys to the presidency and control of the church in India only. So Peter gives Thomas the necessary 'keys' of presidency and control for India only, and Thomas gives the bishop the necessary 'keys' of presidency and control over the India church only. That way, Peter knows that a good man has been chosen to lead and guide the church in India, via Thomas.

So the 'keys' do hold more power than just the binding and loosing power.

And I stated a different position that better takes into account the context.

I have to apologize, the text does say there were other apostles there at the time. But the text also is clear that only Peter was to receive the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' from Jesus.

We're only going to go in circles at this point. It's obvious to me that keys are used for binding and loosing, just as I would use a lock and key on a chain to bind or unbind something. In Matt 18, this authority was passed to his disciples, not just Peter. There is no need or warrant in the text from separating the keys from the activity of binding and loosing. Maybe you have warrant from some other source, but it's not in Matthew.

There is no need or warrant in the text from separating the keys from the activity of binding and loosing, you are right. However, the control of who binds and looses, and when they can use the power is in the hands of one who holds all the keys, and that is Peter.

All the apostles hold the power to bind and loose, but Peter holds the keys to unlock that power.
He gives partial keys to Thomas, who goes to India, and his power can only be used in India to preach and baptize and call local bishops and other officers of the priesthood. Thomas could not go into Corinth and start baptizing and setting up bishops etc. That is the territory that was given to Paul, and confusion would reign, and records would be incomplete, and a competing bishoprics would exist. It all gets messy without the order of the keys.

That's also not in Matthew 16 or 18. If you have an additional source you're using to interpret Matt 16/18, that's fine, but it's not in the text of Matthew on it's own accord.

Tell me in Matthew 16 or 18, who else the text says receives the keys of the KOH. As I read the text carefully, I find that Jesus only specifies that Peter will receive the keys, in
Matthew 16:19. In Matthew 18 it talks about the power to bind and loose given to the other apostles, but no keys are mentioned. So to me, the text only mentions Peter as the holder of the keys.

If you interpret the text to be saying: If you hold the power of binding and loosing, you hold the keys, since they are inseparable, then you can come up with your concept. But the text has to be interpreted and not read straight-forward in order to come up with that concept.
So I will ask you what additional source are you reading from that allows you to interpret the text in this way?

 

[Yekcidmij]

I do not protest, but the text makes it clear that Jesus only gave Peter the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'. The other apostles were there, but Jesus singled out Peter, and said I will give unto thee the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'.

So if you are looking for textual honesty you would agree that only Peter received the 'keys'.

Yet you remove the keys from the activity of binding and loosing, thus breaking the logic of the passage.

We believe that there is more to the 'keys' than just the binding and loosing powers (which I agree, the other apostles held, per the text).

Yes, you go beyond the text. I'm aware of this. I just see no good reason to follow suit.

The 'keys' also hold the power of presidency. Which is the power to control the operations of binding and loosing. For instance, Thomas had to be given the keys to use his power from Peter. It is like owning a car. You have a car sitting there in the lot with all the power to get you from a to b. But in order to use that power you have to be given the key from the salesman before you can use the power of the car.

It is the same with the power to bind and loose. You have the power to bind and loose, but you must be given the 'keys' that unlocks that power and allows you to use it. If that control, or presidency did not exist, the apostles could have gone out and done anything they wanted with that power and really messed things up for the order in the church.

So Jesus gave the control or presidency to Peter and Thomas received the power to bind and loose as Peter saw fit. And it was Thomas who held the 'keys' to India only, and when he called a bishop to preside over the church in India, he gave that bishop the keys to the presidency and control of the church in India only. So Peter gives Thomas the necessary 'keys' of presidency and control for India only, and Thomas gives the bishop the necessary 'keys' of presidency and control over the India church only. That way, Peter knows that a good man has been chosen to lead and guide the church in India, via Thomas.

So the 'keys' do hold more power than just the binding and loosing power.

This all certainly isn't in the text of Matthew.

I have to apologize, the text does say there were other apostles there at the time. But the text also is clear that only Peter was to receive the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' from Jesus.

And in Matthew 18, when Jesus again talks about binding and loosing, it's all of the apostles.

There is no need or warrant in the text from separating the keys from the activity of binding and loosing, you are right. However, the control of who binds and looses, and when they can use the power is in the hands of one who holds all the keys, and that is Peter.

Except in Matt 18 it was all of the apostles.

All the apostles hold the power to bind and loose, but Peter holds the keys to unlock that power.

So then you don't believe Matt 18 where Jesus gives this power to all of them. They don't really have the power because Peter actually does. But that's not what Matt 18 says.

He gives partial keys to Thomas, who goes to India, and his power can only be used in India to preach and baptize and call local bishops and other officers of the priesthood.

That's well beyond Matt 16 and 18.

Thomas could not go into Corinth and start baptizing and setting up bishops etc. That is the territory that was given to Paul, and confusion would reign, and records would be incomplete, and a competing bishoprics would exist. It all gets messy without the order of the keys.

I don't think it's messy, but then again I'm not importing all of your theological concepts from other sources into the discussion.

Tell me in Matthew 16 or 18, who else the text says receives the keys of the KOH. [/qutoe]

All of them because I don't see any good reason to separate the keys from the activity of binding and loosing.

[qutoe]
As I read the text carefully, I find that Jesus only specifies that Peter will receive the keys, in
Matthew 16:19. In Matthew 18 it talks about the power to bind and loose given to the other apostles, but no keys are mentioned. So to me, the text only mentions Peter as the holder of the keys.

I think you're (a) importing ideas and concepts about the "keys" into the text and (b) separating the keys from the activity of binding and loosing. I see no reason to understand the "keys" as anything other than connected with the activity of binding and loosing. This seems to be all that's warranted by the text. I know you have warrant from other LDS specific sources, but without those, I see no reason to understand Matt 16-18 any differently than I do.

So I will ask you what additional source are you reading from that allows you to interpret the text in this way?

I'm not importing any other sources. You are. In fact, the other sources I mentioned (Luke and Mark) don't even have this episode, so there are no other sources with which to compare. This also seems to put you in a bad spot since Peter's confession is quoted largely verbatim across all 3 gospels, yet two of them don't even include a doctrine you consider so central. Why don't they? Why do Luke and Mark only care about Peter's confession?

 

[Peter1000]

Yet you remove the keys from the activity of binding and loosing, thus breaking the logic of the passage.



Yes, you go beyond the text. I'm aware of this. I just see no good reason to follow suit.



This all certainly isn't in the text of Matthew.



And in Matthew 18, when Jesus again talks about binding and loosing, it's all of the apostles.



Except in Matt 18 it was all of the apostles.



So then you don't believe Matt 18 where Jesus gives this power to all of them. They don't really have the power because Peter actually does. But that's not what Matt 18 says.



That's well beyond Matt 16 and 18.



I don't think it's messy, but then again I'm not importing all of your theological concepts from other sources into the discussion.



I think you're (a) importing ideas and concepts about the "keys" into the text and (b) separating the keys from the activity of binding and loosing. I see no reason to understand the "keys" as anything other than connected with the activity of binding and loosing. This seems to be all that's warranted by the text. I know you have warrant from other LDS specific sources, but without those, I see no reason to understand Matt 16-18 any differently than I do.



I'm not importing any other sources. You are. In fact, the other sources I mentioned (Luke and Mark) don't even have this episode, so there are no other sources with which to compare. This also seems to put you in a bad spot since Peter's confession is quoted largely verbatim across all 3 gospels, yet two of them don't even include a doctrine you consider so central. Why don't they? Why do Luke and Mark only care about Peter's confession?

OK, I understand you cannot see a reason to understand the 'keys' as anything other than connected with the activity of binding and loosing. I get that.

I believe the text makes it clear that the 'keys' are definitely connected to the power to bind and loose. But the text is also clear that Peter was given those 'keys' in Matthew 16. It is not clear from the text that the rest of the apostles were given the 'keys' in Matthew 18.

Common sense tells us there has to be a 'go to' person. A president, or a leading apostle, or the head of the apostles. Does that make sense to you? The leader is the one who holds the 'keys', and Peter was given the 'keys'. It is Peter that was appointed to be the head of the apostles by Jesus. Although the text does not say, I appoint you the head of the apostles, it is significant that only Peter was given the 'keys'. There has to be a leader to keep the apostles doing what they were supposed to do.

So interpret the text as you wish, but the text was only giving you a little insight as to who Jesus chose to lead the apostles. Jesus gave all the apostles the power to bind and loose, but he only gave Peter the 'Keys' to control that power. The power cannot be separated from the 'keys' because the 'keys' control the power.

You think that all the apostles had the power to bind and loose, therefore they all had the 'keys' too. The text does not warrant that conclusion. You would have nobody at the head of the apostles or of the church. Headless church means chaotic church. Think about it. You are getting your ideas from some source too, just like me. Don't think you are just getting your information from the text. You have to interpret the text to come up with all the apostles had the 'keys'. Who did that for you? Who admittedly gave the apostles no head and the church no leader?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Common sense tells us there has to be a 'go to' person. A president, or a leading apostle, or the head of the apostles. Does that make sense to you?

So "common sense" tells you, not the text. That was my point - you're importing these ideas from somewhere other than the author of the text. And no, common sense doesn't tell me that. I think decentralized/distributed authority is common sense (I don't think Matt 16 or 18 say anything about decentralized authority either, btw).

You think that all the apostles had the power to bind and loose, therefore they all had the 'keys' too. The text does not warrant that conclusion.

Of course it warrants that conclusion; that's why I came to it

You would have nobody at the head of the apostles or of the church. Headless church means chaotic church. Think about it.

I don't think it does. I think centralized authority can be just as "chaotic" as you imagine a decentralized authority can be. There are plenty of examples in human history of centralized authority leading to chaos.

You are getting your ideas from some source too, just like me.

I got mine from Matthew.

Who admittedly gave the apostles no head and the church no leader?

The church does have a leader - Jesus. Easy Sunday School answer.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Great scriptures, but your final words are incorrect. A bishop became equal to an apostle after the apostles were all murdered, not before Jesus set it up differently than what happened after about 120ad.

Even from your post #141 says this of the apostles:
"It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles."

And I will add this: the apostles had these personal prerogatives/revealed truths from Jesus in relationship to the entire church. The bishop had those same prerogatives but just for his church only, but not for the whole church, and when the bishop had a revelation about his church, and wanted to change something about the doctrine or organization, he had to get permission from the apostle assigned to his region. This is how order is maintained.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

Defined:
bish·op·ric
/ˈbiSHəprik/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the office or rank of a bishop.
   • a district under a bishop's control; a diocese.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bishopric&oq=bishopric&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Acts 1 is about the other Apostles as a group appointing a new Apostle.
Peter states that as an Apostle that person is a Bishop.
Therefore, an Apostle is a Bishop. and, the reverse is true too.

That is my basic understanding or logic of the text.

Thanks for your kind reply.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

You are right, as Hebrews 7:12 says, For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The priesthood changed from Aaronic to Melchizedec, and some of the manifestations of that change were:
1) All worthy men could now hold the royal priesthood, not just men in the House of Levi.
2) New offices came into existence, such as apostles and prophets, bishop, and elders, and deacons, and teachers etc., not just high priest and priests.

It was a whole new deal, and not many people know about the change in the priesthood, or the priesthood in general. I am glad to have this discussion with you about the priesthood, not many will.

Only one person holds the Melchizedec Priesthood that is Jesus.
Basically, Jesus does not die or cease to exist since he is God.
Hebrews 7 makes it clear that his Priesthood is not transferable to anyone else.

15 And [what we say] is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, 16 who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: 17 for it is witnessed [of him,] Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7
English: American Standard Version

7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace; 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils.

Note: I think we agree that it was the Son of God aka as Jesus who appeared to Abraham.

5 And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest's office have commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises.

7 But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes; 10 for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.

11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

15 And [what we say] is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, 16 who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: 17 for it is witnessed [of him,] Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

18 For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.

20 And inasmuch as [it is] not without the taking of an oath 21 (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him, The Lord sware and will not repent himself, Thou art a priest for ever); 22 by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.

23 And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: 24 but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.

25 Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the [sins] of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, [appointeth] a Son, perfected for evermore.

Hebrews 7:24 New International Version (NIV)
24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

Hebrews 7:24-25 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
22-25 And he is, by virtue of this fact, himself the living guarantee of a “better” agreement. Human High Priests have always been changing, for death made a permanent appointment impossible. But Christ, because he lives for ever, possesses a priesthood that needs no successor. This means that he can save fully and completely those who approach God through him, for he is always living to intercede on their behalf.

Hebrews 7:24 Expanded Bible (EXB)
24 But because Jesus ·lives [remains; abides] forever, he ·will never stop serving as priest [ has a permanent/eternal priesthood].

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 531 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
aparabatoß from (1) (as a negative particle) and a derivative of (3845)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Aparabatos 5:742,772
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ap-ar-ab'-at-os Adjective
Definition
unviolated, not to be violated, inviolable
unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor
NAS Word Usage - Total: 1
permanently 1
NAS Verse Count
Hebrews 1
Total 1
Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Aparabatos". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon". . 1999.

Because he abideth (dia to menein auton). Same idiom as in verse Philippians 23 , "because of the abiding as to him" (accusative of general reference, auton). Unchangeable (aparabaton). Predicate adjective in the accusative (feminine of compound adjective like masculine), late double compound verbal adjective in Plutarch and papyri, from alpha privative and parabainw, valid or inviolate. The same idea in verse Philippians 3 . God placed Christ in this priesthood and no one else can step into it. See verse Philippians 11 for ierwsunh. Hebrews 7:24 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Good night all my wife is home.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Acts 15 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Meeting at Jerusalem
15 Then some men came to Antioch from Judea and began teaching the non-Jewish believers: “You cannot be saved if you are not circumcised as Moses taught us.” 2 Paul and Barnabas were against this teaching and argued with these men about it. So the group decided to send Paul, Barnabas, and some others to Jerusalem to talk more about this with the apostles and elders.

3 The church helped them get ready to leave on their trip. The men went through the countries of Phoenicia and Samaria, where they told all about how the non-Jewish people had turned to the true God. This made all the believers very happy. 4 When the men arrived in Jerusalem, the apostles, the elders, and the whole church welcomed them. Paul, Barnabas, and the others told about all that God had done with them. 5 Some of the believers in Jerusalem had belonged to the Pharisees. They stood up and said, “The non-Jewish believers must be circumcised. We must tell them to obey the Law of Moses!”

6 Then the apostles and the elders gathered to study this problem. 7 After a long debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, I am sure you remember what happened in the early days. God chose me from among you to tell the Good News to those who are not Jewish. It was from me that they heard the Good News and believed. 8 God knows everyone, even their thoughts, and he accepted these non-Jewish people. He showed this to us by giving them the Holy Spirit the same as he did to us. 9 To God, those people are not different from us. When they believed, God made their hearts pure. 10 So now, why are you putting a heavy burden[] around the necks of the non-Jewish followers of Jesus? Are you trying to make God angry? We and our fathers were not able to carry that burden. 11 No, we believe that we and these people will be saved the same way—by the grace of the Lord Jesus.”

12 Then the whole group became quiet. They listened while Paul and Barnabas told about all the miraculous signs and wonders that God had done through them among the non-Jewish people. 13 When they finished speaking, James said, “My brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon Peter has told us how God showed his love for the non-Jewish people. For the first time, God accepted them and made them his people. 15 The words of the prophets agree with this too:

16 ‘I will return after this.
I will build David’s house again.
It has fallen down.
I will build again the parts of his house that have been pulled down.
I will make his house new.
17 Then the rest of the world will look for the Lord God—
all those of other nations who are my people too.
The Lord said this.
And he is the one who does all these things.’

18 ‘All this has been known from the beginning of time.’

19 “So I think we should not make things hard for those who have turned to God from among the non-Jewish people. 20 Instead, we should send a letter telling them only the things they should not do:

Don’t eat food that has been given to idols. This makes the food unclean.

Don’t be involved in sexual sin.

Don’t eat meat from animals that have been strangled or any meat that still has the blood in it.

21 They should not do any of these things, because there are still men in every city who teach the Law of Moses. The words of Moses have been read in the synagogue every Sabbath day for many years.”

The Letter to the Non-Jewish Believers
22 The apostles, the elders, and the whole church wanted to send some men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. The group decided to choose some of their own men. They chose Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were respected by the believers. 23 The group sent the letter with these men. The letter said:

From the apostles and elders, your brothers,

To all the non-Jewish brothers in the city of Antioch and in the countries of Syria and Cilicia.

Dear Brothers:

24 We have heard that some men have come to you from our group. What they said troubled and upset you. But we did not tell them to do this. 25 We have all agreed to choose some men and send them to you. They will be with our dear friends, Barnabas and Paul. 26 Barnabas and Paul have given their lives to serve our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 So we have sent Judas and Silas with them. They will tell you the same things. 28 We agree with the Holy Spirit that you should have no more burdens, except for these necessary things:

29 Don’t eat food that has been given to idols.

Don’t eat meat from animals that have been strangled or any meat that still has the blood in it.

Don’t be involved in sexual sin.

If you stay away from these, you will do well.

We say goodbye now.

30 So Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas left Jerusalem and went to Antioch. There they gathered the group of believers together and gave them the letter. 31 When the believers read it, they were happy. The letter comforted them. 32 Judas and Silas, who were also prophets, said many things to encourage the believers and make them stronger in their faith. 33 After Judas and Silas stayed there for a while, they left. They received a blessing of peace from the believers. Then they went back to those who had sent them. 34 [c]

35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch. They and many others taught the believers and told other people the Good News about the Lord.

Paul and Barnabas Separate
36 A few days later, Paul said to Barnabas, “We should go back to all the towns where we told people the message of the Lord. We should visit the believers to see how they are doing.”

37 Barnabas wanted to bring John Mark with them too. 38 But on their first trip John Mark did not continue with them in the work. He had left them at Pamphylia. So Paul did not think it was a good idea to take him this time. 39 Paul and Barnabas had a big argument about this. It was so bad that they separated and went different ways. Barnabas sailed to Cyprus and took Mark with him.

40 Paul chose Silas to go with him. The believers in Antioch put Paul into the Lord’s care and sent him out. 41 Paul and Silas went through the countries of Syria and Cilicia, helping the churches grow stronger.

In short, Paul and Others spoke and Debated before Peter did. Peter was just giving his testimony, nothing more. James gave the Final Approval, not Peter.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I do not protest, but the text makes it clear that Jesus only gave Peter the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'. The other apostles were there, but Jesus singled out Peter, and said I will give unto thee the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'.

So if you are looking for textual honesty you would agree that only Peter received the 'keys'.

We believe that there is more to the 'keys' than just the binding and loosing powers (which I agree, the other apostles held, per the text).

The 'keys' also hold the power of presidency. Which is the power to control the operations of binding and loosing. For instance, Thomas had to be given the keys to use his power from Peter. It is like owning a car. You have a car sitting there in the lot with all the power to get you from a to b. But in order to use that power you have to be given the key from the salesman before you can use the power of the car.

It is the same with the power to bind and loose. You have the power to bind and loose, but you must be given the 'keys' that unlocks that power and allows you to use it. If that control, or presidency did not exist, the apostles could have gone out and done anything they wanted with that power and really messed things up for the order in the church.

So Jesus gave the control or presidency to Peter and Thomas received the power to bind and loose as Peter saw fit. And it was Thomas who held the 'keys' to India only, and when he called a bishop to preside over the church in India, he gave that bishop the keys to the presidency and control of the church in India only. So Peter gives Thomas the necessary 'keys' of presidency and control for India only, and Thomas gives the bishop the necessary 'keys' of presidency and control over the India church only. That way, Peter knows that a good man has been chosen to lead and guide the church in India, via Thomas.

So the 'keys' do hold more power than just the binding and loosing power.



I have to apologize, the text does say there were other apostles there at the time. But the text also is clear that only Peter was to receive the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' from Jesus.



There is no need or warrant in the text from separating the keys from the activity of binding and loosing, you are right. However, the control of who binds and looses, and when they can use the power is in the hands of one who holds all the keys, and that is Peter.

All the apostles hold the power to bind and loose, but Peter holds the keys to unlock that power.
He gives partial keys to Thomas, who goes to India, and his power can only be used in India to preach and baptize and call local bishops and other officers of the priesthood. Thomas could not go into Corinth and start baptizing and setting up bishops etc. That is the territory that was given to Paul, and confusion would reign, and records would be incomplete, and a competing bishoprics would exist. It all gets messy without the order of the keys.



Tell me in Matthew 16 or 18, who else the text says receives the keys of the KOH. As I read the text carefully, I find that Jesus only specifies that Peter will receive the keys, in
Matthew 16:19. In Matthew 18 it talks about the power to bind and loose given to the other apostles, but no keys are mentioned. So to me, the text only mentions Peter as the holder of the keys.

If you interpret the text to be saying: If you hold the power of binding and loosing, you hold the keys, since they are inseparable, then you can come up with your concept. But the text has to be interpreted and not read straight-forward in order to come up with that concept.
So I will ask you what additional source are you reading from that allows you to interpret the text in this way?

short answer, one can not lock or unlock the door without keys. Matthew 18,
Acts 1 and the Council in Acts 15 makes it clear others made decisions as a group.
And, note it was James(Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem ) who who was in charge in Acts 15.

22 The apostles, the elders, and the whole church wanted to send some men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. The group decided to choose some of their own men. They chose Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were respected by the believers. 23 The group sent the letter with these men. The letter said:

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Jesus then gave the priesthood to Peter and the apostles and to all worthy men. After a short time, the priesthood was concentrated in the hands of only a few men called the clergy, and it became a power game after the apostles were gone, that caused the church to apostatize again. But was once again restored to JS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in our time.

You accuse it becoming a power game after the Apostles but you have your history wrong. No doubt power and politics entered into the Church but that was only during the 3rd century and it was unavoidable given the domination of Christianity as a cultural force. Even then we still have good Church leaders whom were dedicated to the truth and strategies were come up with to deal with worldly influence, such as monasticism the LDS Church despises.

I don't believe for a second your organisation is free of corruption or men who don't want power and if you are going to accuse the historic Church in general of being subject tot he whims of men searching for power, give examples and demonstrate how each and every man was so corrupted that God could not have possibly used him to reveal the true Gospel.

Mind you, you don't have any other refrain. You have to blame men for failing the Church rather than God for failing to provide Apostles. When we contradict you that there were people who loved God, you admit as much and yet double down that the corruption in the Church was too immense. What is it? Were there people who actually loved God and were faithful, or was everyone corrupt? If the former existed there's no reason why they couldn't have been appointed Apostles. If the latter existed then you implicate your own LDS Church. God's promises of it being preserved are meaningless when he already let it fall once before.