For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Orontes]

In the earlier periods, the claim could be made that Peter had given Linus all authority. The problem in later periods became the greater access to historical information and the protestant schizmatics started asking historical questions that revealed problems with the Roman claim to authority.

Since there are no authentic early texts nor historical support for Peter, ever having transferred his Presiding Apostolic Authority to Linus, the myth of having authority crumbled. Duschene and other great catholic historians dedicated their lives to finding the connection between Peter and Linus, and could never find the connection. Once the protestants realized the Roman Catholic Christian movement never had the authority it claimed, this only added fuel to the protestant fires.

Clear
φινεειδρω

The inability to demonstrate apostolic succession from Peter to Linus is an massive issue. There are others, a few examples:

1) There is nothing to demonstrate the title of Bishop includes gradations in authority. (The notion of archbishops, or metropolitan bishops seems to have arisen in the Fourth Century, but would become more widespread in the Seventh Century)

2) The first council of the Church, Council of Jerusalem: the decision to admit gentiles into the movement, without requiring circumcision was made by the whole council, not a decree by Peter.

3) From the Council of Nicene forward: the Roman Emperor was typically held as the head of the Christian faith. All Seven of the Ecumenical Councils were called by the Roman Emperor and he sat at their head. The Roman Emperor appointed bishops and patriarchs in the East, and after the East Roman Empire was able to reconquer Italy from the Goths in the Six Century did the same with the Popes in Rome. The Emperor could appoint Popes, dispose Popes and Popes had to await his authorization before their episcopal consecration. This would only end in the Eighth Century when the Byzantine Empire was fighting for its life against the Muslim invasions from the East and lost administrative control over Italy. Rome would find a new protector with the Franks. The Franks were the only German tribe that occupied West Roman lands that were Trinitarians. All the others were Aryans. As the Frank rose in power in the West, the Papacy was able to leverage it. Pepin the Short (the father of Charlemagne) was the one who gave the lands around Rome (what would become known as the Papal States) to the Pope. It is during this time that the Donation of Constantine was forged, where the Papacy claimed that the Roman Emperor Constantine had given all the Western Roman Empire over to the Pope. This was what the Papacy would then use to try and influence and control the Western Kings through the Medieval Era and why one usually associates a king being crowned by a ecclesiastical figure, like a Bishop. Papal Surpremacy claims are in many rooted in a power vacuum in the West. If the Franks had been Aryans or if the East Roman Empire had been able to reassert itself in Italy, the entire history of Papal positioning would have been quite different.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Evening all! I've had a killer of a headache today so while I have read all of your posts (and thankyou so much for them!), I may not mention all the points in this post. I'll have a reread over them tomorrow though and come back to any bits I need clarifying/expanding upon etc.

OK to make sure I understand and to try and better explain my perspective, I am going to change the story slightly (it will sound silly but I often do this to make sure I understand by changing the story etc)

OK so a house was built by a master builder and placed in the care of the three little pigs (Peter). The foundation was strong, built with bricks (The Rock). The three little pigs were entrusted with teaching the rainbow colours (the gospel) which would lead to a pot of gold (salvation). There were 10 other house members. The colours of the rainbow were ROYGBIV. However one of the members believed that the colours were RYPGOPB and went off to build his own house. One of the members decided that there should only be 4 colours so went off to build his own house removing the colours he didn't like. Another decided the colours were in the wrong order and yet another decided there should be extra colours. Each had elements of the truth but not the full true rainbow! 6 members remained in the house. 1 wasn't sure about Blue but decided to follow the ROYGBIV, another decided the green was lighter than it was. Only 4 followed the true original colours of the rainbow. The other houses existed but as much as the big bad wolf tried, he could not blow down the three little pigs house made from bricks.

From this story I can see that there are schisms (apostasy) however the original house built by the master builder and entrusted to the three little pigs still stands and has not been blown down by the big bad wolf even though it has apostates within its walls.

My understanding of the great Apostasy is that on the death of the three little pigs (Peter), the authority was not passed to another (Linus??) And therefore the house fell? until it was rebuilt again by another 1700years later?

My questions are (touching on some of the points made in your posts)...

1) I can see how the schisms show an apostasy of sorts but not how the authority was lost and the house fell completely? I guess I am seeing two different types of apostasy in a way? One where it's individuals but the original still exists (although difficult for an 11th member to find) and one where the original house has fallen and has been blown over by the big bad wolf but then rebuilt

2) Where can I go to find out what the original church taught? Catholics mention the early church fathers and they do seem to be very Catholic in some of the quotes I have seen but then did the loss of the authority happen before the ECF? Of course there is the Bible but then this was compiled by Catholics (OK they say it's God breathed). They've added some books and refused others.

3) How do we know Linus wasn't the successor of Peter and therefore the authority was lost?

I've actually spent the last two years concentrating on Catholicism and have been to mass several times. My issue is different churches have elements I *like* although I want to find the TRUTH not necessarily what I like.

I'll write a post about my thoughts on how I feel on various churches at some point.

 

[Katzpur]

Evening all! I've had a killer of a headache today so while I have read all of your posts (and thankyou so much for them!), I may not mention all the points in this post. I'll have a reread over them tomorrow though and come back to any bits I need clarifying/expanding upon etc.

Sorry to hear about your headache. I hope that by the time you read this, you are feeling better.

OK to make sure I understand and to try and better explain my perspective, I am going to change the story slightly (it will sound silly but I often do this to make sure I understand by changing the story etc)

OK so a house was built by a master builder and placed in the care of the three little pigs (Peter). The foundation was strong, built with bricks (The Rock). The three little pigs were entrusted with teaching the rainbow colours (the gospel) which would lead to a pot of gold (salvation). There were 10 other house members. The colours of the rainbow were ROYGBIV. However one of the members believed that the colours were RYPGOPB and went off to build his own house. One of the members decided that there should only be 4 colours so went off to build his own house removing the colours he didn't like. Another decided the colours were in the wrong order and yet another decided there should be extra colours. Each had elements of the truth but not the full true rainbow! 6 members remained in the house. 1 wasn't sure about Blue but decided to follow the ROYGBIV, another decided the green was lighter than it was. Only 4 followed the true original colours of the rainbow. The other houses existed but as much as the big bad wolf tried, he could not blow down the three little pigs house made from bricks.

From this story I can see that there are schisms (apostasy) however the original house built by the master builder and entrusted to the three little pigs still stands and has not been blown down by the big bad wolf even though it has apostates within its walls.

I love analogies and I hate them. I love them because they are so useful in helping us understand complex topics. I hate them because they are inevitably an imperfect way of doing so. As you know, I have used analogies myself in trying to explain LDS beliefs to you. Whenever I do use an analogy, I can't pretty much count on someone trying to pick it apart. That's always hard on me, because I feel as if the person who is fault-finding didn't even really attempt to look at what I was trying to get across. I feel like the second he started reading, he started looking for holes in my analogy and was so focused on how he was going to respond that he got absolutely nothing out of it. Since I have found myself in that position so often, I don't want to be guilty of doing what I hate people doing to me. I hope you believe that.

Anyway, as I read your story/analogy, my first thought was, "Yeah, that makes sense. I can see where she's coming from." I decided not to respond immediately, but to just let your comments float around in my brain for a while. It wasn't long afterwards, though, that something struck me: You have used the colors of the rainbow to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ. So far so good. The problem with this -- and I don't think it's a minor one -- is that what those colors are and the order in which they appear is something that is scientifically observable and provable. There can be no disputing the fact that the spectrum is exactly as you described it -- ROYGBIV. We don't have to wonder if the three little pigs got the colors right to start out with. If you had listed the colors exactly as you did, but had omitted yellow and included taupe instead, I would undoubtedly call that to your attention. We could agree to stand side by side and together observe a rainbow. (I would want to do it in England, though. ) We could determine once and for all whether "true rainbows" were supposed to include yellow or taupe.

When it comes to gospel doctrines, we simply do not have that ability. Catholics believe Catholic doctrines are what the original Christians believed, and Mormons believe LDS doctrines are what the original Christians believed. Getting to the bottom of whether an apostasy took place or not requires that we make a judgment call as to which of those two churches is teaching "original Christianity."

My understanding of the great Apostasy is that on the death of the three little pigs (Peter), the authority was not passed to another (Linus??) And therefore the house fell? until it was rebuilt again by another 1700 years later?

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I would point out, though, that when the house was rebuilt, the Master Builder was directing precisely how it was constructed.

My questions are (touching on some of the points made in your posts)...

1) I can see how the schisms show an apostasy of sorts but not how the authority was lost and the house fell completely? I guess I am seeing two different types of apostasy in a way? One where it's individuals but the original still exists (although difficult for an 11th member to find) and one where the original house has fallen and has been blown over by the big bad wolf but then rebuilt.

I think I've personally said all I can think of to say on this question, but if I get any brilliant ideas, I promise to pipe up with them.

2) Where can I go to find out what the original church taught? Catholics mention the early church fathers and they do seem to be very Catholic in some of the quotes I have seen but then did the loss of the authority happen before the ECF? Of course there is the Bible but then this was compiled by Catholics (OK they say it's God breathed). They've added some books and refused others.

I'll bet this would surprise you, but we Mormons (Clear, in particular, but to some extent the rest of us) can point to the early Church fathers as actually teaching LDS doctrines. Obviously, their quotes aren't the ones the Catholics are going to be using.

3) How do we know Linus wasn't the successor of Peter and therefore the authority was lost?

Do you have any evidence at all that he was Peter's successor, or are you just taking Catholicism's word for it? I'll tell you what... You bring me conclusive evidence that he was, and I'll start to seriously consider joining the Catholic Church.

I've actually spent the last two years concentrating on Catholicism and have been to mass several times. My issue is different churches have elements I *like* although I want to find the TRUTH not necessarily what I like.

I can understand that. That's commendable.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Sorry to hear about your headache. I hope that by the time you read this, you are feeling better.

I love analogies and I hate them. I love them because they are so useful in helping us understand complex topics. I hate them because they are inevitably an imperfect way of doing so. As you know, I have used analogies myself in trying to explain LDS beliefs to you. Whenever I do use an analogy, I can't pretty much count on someone trying to pick it apart. That's always hard on me, because I feel as if the person who is fault-finding didn't even really attempt to look at what I was trying to get across. I feel like the second he started reading, he started looking for holes in my analogy and was so focused on how he was going to respond that he got absolutely nothing out of it. Since I have found myself in that position so often, I don't want to be guilty of doing what I hate people doing to me. I hope you believe that.

Anyway, as I read your story/analogy, my first thought was, "Yeah, that makes sense. I can see where she's coming from." I decided not to respond immediately, but to just let your comments float around in my brain for a while. It wasn't long afterwards, though, that something struck me: You have used the colors of the rainbow to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ. So far so good. The problem with this -- and I don't think it's a minor one -- is that what those colors are and the order in which they appear is something that is scientifically observable and provable. There can be no disputing the fact that the spectrum is exactly as you described it -- ROYGBIV. We don't have to wonder if the three little pigs got the colors right to start out with. If you had listed the colors exactly as you did, but had omitted yellow and included taupe instead, I would undoubtedly call that to your attention. We could agree to stand side by side and together observe a rainbow. (I would want to do it in England, though. ) We could determine once and for all whether "true rainbows" were supposed to include yellow or taupe.

When it comes to gospel doctrines, we simply do not have that ability. Catholics believe Catholic doctrines are what the original Christians believed, and Mormons believe LDS doctrines are what the original Christians believed. Getting to the bottom of whether an apostasy took place or not requires that we make a judgment call as to which of those two churches is teaching "original Christianity."

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I would point out, though, that when the house was rebuilt, the Master Builder was directing precisely how it was constructed.

I think I've personally said all I can think of to say on this question, but if I get any brilliant ideas, I promise to pipe up with them.

I'll bet this would surprise you, but we Mormons (Clear, in particular, but to some extent the rest of us) can point to the early Church fathers as actually teaching LDS doctrines. Obviously, their quotes aren't the ones the Catholics are going to be using.

Do you have any evidence at all that he was Peter's successor, or are you just taking Catholicism's word for it? I'll tell you what... You bring me conclusive evidence that he was, and I'll start to seriously consider joining the Catholic Church.

I can understand that. That's commendable.

Yes my headache is much better today thank-you! I'm hoping to be able to catch up on some posts and pay closer to attention to some of the points you are all making (although I also have to clean my house!)

Just quickly, I wanted to say I know that you probably feel like you have already addressed some points (schisms/apostasy for example) and probably feel like we are going around in circles! I'm sorry.... Clear stated that the schisms are proof of an apostasy which I am seeing to a degree. Like the rainbow they are visible for all to see. However to go back to the story, the original house built still stood amongst the schisms, though granted the schisms make it more difficult to find. I'm understanding how an apostasy of sorts happened (the schisms). What I am not understanding/yet seeing is the original house falling. I'm not saying it would def be the Catholic Church or any other Church. Just from a logical perspective at the moment I can only see the schisms as an apostasy of men/individuals not of the church as a whole whereby authority was no longer on the earth.

Which leads to the question about Peter's successor! My answer to your question is neither. I don't have evidence either way (yet). Just as I'm asking you how we know Linus wasn't Peter's successor (as LDS, that is your position), I would ask a Catholic how they know Linus was Peter's successor (as a Catholic, that is their position)

 

[Jane.Doe]

Your story makes me smile so much! Mostly because it says "I have small kids too". I've spent some time thinking on it.

OK so a house was built by a master builder and placed in the care of the three little pigs (Peter). The foundation was strong, built with bricks (The Rock). The three little pigs were entrusted with teaching the rainbow colours (the gospel) which would lead to a pot of gold (salvation). There were 10 other house members. The colours of the rainbow were ROYGBIV. However one of the members believed that the colours were RYPGOPB and went off to build his own house. One of the members decided that there should only be 4 colours so went off to build his own house removing the colours he didn't like. Another decided the colours were in the wrong order and yet another decided there should be extra colours. Each had elements of the truth but not the full true rainbow! 6 members remained in the house. 1 wasn't sure about Blue but decided to follow the ROYGBIV, another decided the green was lighter than it was. Only 4 followed the true original colours of the rainbow. The other houses existed but as much as the big bad wolf tried, he could not blow down the three little pigs house made from bricks.

Things I like about your analogy: the Master builder builds the house of sturdy bricks (the Rock). Peter is not the house, but a pig whom lives in the house and teaches the colors.

Some minor things to add---
Pigs need to eat. The house built by the Master has a well of pure water in it. In this pure well you can see the True colors of the rainbow: you are continually retaught the Truth and you take the colors of the rainbow into yourself when you drink it. Peter is an authorized pig whom is teaching the Truth and continually drinks from the pure well.

There are lots of other wells around too: in houses other pigs built, in houses the wolf built, and wells just on the side of the street for anyone. While drinking from all these other wells appears to be good, they are contaminated: they poison the individual and in them you see an false rainbow. Any pig who drinks from these wells/learns this false rainbow cannot return to the Master's house.

We have two sources of learning: learning by being taught from the other pigs (pure or not) and drinking from the wells (pure or not).


Back to your story--- the Master builds the house, and the well inside it. He puts pig Peter in charge, and Peter does a good job: people listen to his pure teachings and drink from the pure well themselves. But then other pigs come along, and teach other things and offer water from contaminated wells.

....Ok I'm struggling to finish this.... I wanted to get show that we need to learn just from "this person told me" but also learning from direct revelation ourselves. That the other pigs quit drinking from the pure well themselves, but only listening to each other, which leads to fallacy. My metaphor skills are failing right now... I'll see if I can make it work later.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Your story makes me smile so much! Mostly because it says "I have small kids too". I've spent some time thinking on it.

Things I like about your analogy: the Master builder builds the house of sturdy bricks (the Rock). Peter is not the house, but a pig whom lives in the house and teaches the colors.

Some minor things to add---
Pigs need to eat. The house built by the Master has a well of pure water in it. In this pure well you can see the True colors of the rainbow: you are continually retaught the Truth and you take the colors of the rainbow into yourself when you drink it. Peter is an authorized pig whom is teaching the Truth and continually drinks from the pure well.

There are lots of other wells around too: in houses other pigs built, in houses the wolf built, and wells just on the side of the street for anyone. While drinking from all these other wells appears to be good, they are contaminated: they poison the individual and in them you see an false rainbow. Any pig who drinks from these wells/learns this false rainbow cannot return to the Master's house.

We have two sources of learning: learning by being taught from the other pigs (pure or not) and drinking from the wells (pure or not).


Back to your story--- the Master builds the house, and the well inside it. He puts pig Peter in charge, and Peter does a good job: people listen to his pure teachings and drink from the pure well themselves. But then other pigs come along, and teach other things and offer water from contaminated wells.

....Ok I'm struggling to finish this.... I wanted to get show that we need to learn just from "this person told me" but also learning from direct revelation ourselves. That the other pigs quit drinking from the pure well themselves, but only listening to each other, which leads to fallacy. My metaphor skills are failing right now... I'll see if I can make it work later.

What's funny is that I would probably have done the exact same before I had kids! I'm a kid at heart (went to Disney for my 21st for example)

Is the well the Sacrament?

 

[Jane.Doe]

What's funny is that I would probably have done the exact same before I had kids! I'm a kid at heart (went to Disney for my 21st for example)

Lol. I was just thinking that because I put a Plan of Salvation cartoon together to teach a friend yesterday, and it sounded just like my DD's board book. And I may or may be listening to Lilo & Stitch right now at work....

Is the well the Sacrament?

No, Christ and revelation. The pigs (aka human messengers) teach the best they can, but you also need to be taught by the Holy Spirit directly as well. That is how we determine whether or not the message the pigs are teaching is what's really True.

 

[Orontes]

My questions are (touching on some of the points made in your posts)...

1) I can see how the schisms show an apostasy of sorts but not how the authority was lost and the house fell completely? I guess I am seeing two different types of apostasy in a way? One where it's individuals but the original still exists (although difficult for an 11th member to find) and one where the original house has fallen and has been blown over by the big bad wolf but then rebuilt

2) Where can I go to find out what the original church taught? Catholics mention the early church fathers and they do seem to be very Catholic in some of the quotes I have seen but then did the loss of the authority happen before the ECF? Of course there is the Bible but then this was compiled by Catholics (OK they say it's God breathed). They've added some books and refused others.

3) How do we know Linus wasn't the successor of Peter and therefore the authority was lost?

I've actually spent the last two years concentrating on Catholicism and have been to mass several times. My issue is different churches have elements I *like* although I want to find the TRUTH not necessarily what I like.

I'll write a post about my thoughts on how I feel on various churches at some point.

Per 1) What has been pointed out was a loss of leadership, ecclesiastical change and doctrinal change on a fundamental level. Do you challenge any of these points or need them further explained? If not, where is the house still standing?


Per 2) Aside from the New Testament proper, the beliefs of early Christianity can be found in the vast amounts of pseudepigraphic material that has been discovered that didn't exist at the time Joseph Smith was out and about. Pseudepigrapha includes a whole variety of texts that had followers and reflect competing visions of what Christianity should be. There are also the works from the Patristic Fathers, where one can trace how beliefs changed: were either suppressed, or fell out of favor. One simple example would be Origen of Alexandria. He was the most influential of the Patristic Fathers. We was considered a champion of the faith and died in the good graces of the Church. Origen taught and believed in a pre-existence of the soul. The notion would eventually be seen as a heresy and Origen was posthumously excommunicated because of it. If you want specific book references on early Christianity, I can provide them as either works of scholarship, or primary source material. There are lots of options.



Per 3) There is zero evidence that Linus was named Peter's successor. Nothing in contemporary or near contemporary documents make any mention of this happening. Further, given Bishop was a local ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it doesn't make sense a local title would suddenly assume universal authority. There is a titular incongruity. If Peter is held as the leader of Christendom and Linus was to be his heir, then why wouldn't he name him as an apostle, a title with universal jurisdiction?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Lol. I was just thinking that because I put a Plan of Salvation cartoon together to teach a friend yesterday, and it sounded just like my DD's board book. And I may or may be listening to Lilo & Stitch right now at work....


No, Christ and revelation. The pigs (aka human messengers) teach the best they can, but you also need to be taught by the Holy Spirit directly as well. That is how we determine whether or not the message the pigs are teaching is what's really True.

Basically the master builder left a helpline! The issue I'm having is if there are scam calls and whether you can be sure it's the helpline vs a scam?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Per 1) What has been pointed out was a loss of leadership, ecclesiastical change and doctrinal change on a fundamental level. Do you challenge any of these points or need them further explained? If not, where is the house still standing?


Per 2) Aside from the New Testament proper, the beliefs of early Christianity can be found in the vast amounts of pseudepigraphic material that has been discovered that didn't exist at the time Joseph Smith was out and about. Pseudepigrapha includes a whole variety of texts that had followers and reflect competing visions of what Christianity should be. There are also the works from the Patristic Fathers, where one can trace how beliefs changed: were either suppressed, or fell out of favor. One simple example would be Origen of Alexandria. He was the most influential of the Patristic Fathers. We was considered a champion of the faith and died in the good graces of the Church. Origen taught and believed in a pre-existence of the soul. The notion would eventually be seen as a heresy and Origen was posthumously excommunicated because of it. If you want specific book references on early Christianity, I can provide them as either works of scholarship, or primary source material. There are lots of options.



Per 3) There is zero evidence that Linus was named Peter's successor. Nothing in contemporary or near contemporary documents make any mention of this happening. Further, given Bishop was a local ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it doesn't make sense a local title would suddenly assume universal authority. There is a titular incongruity. If Peter is held as the leader of Christendom and Linus was to be his heir, then why wouldn't he name him as an apostle, a title with universal jurisdiction?

I'm not sure Im fully seeing the doctrinal change yet (a Catholic would argue that the Trinity is in the Bible and having the authority, the Church would be able to define doctrines etc based on the Word that had been fully revealed. Having the authority woud mean no revelation would be required) but just to clarify something about the ecclesiastical change from an LDS perspective, is the Prophet also an Apostle?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Also, over on CAF, one of the LDS posters mentioned that unmarried people do not attain eternal life. What happens to those who do not get married?

 

[Jane.Doe]

Basically the master builder left a helpline! The issue I'm having is if there are scam calls and whether you can be sure it's the helpline vs a scam?

The the solution is to learn what the Master's voice sounds like, and then you can just hang up on the scammers.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I'm not sure Im fully seeing the doctrinal change yet (a Catholic would argue that the Trinity is in the Bible and having the authority, the Church would be able to define doctrines etc based on the Word that had been fully revealed. Having the authority woud mean no revelation would be required)

Wow- deja vu. I just hear this same argument from a Calvinist yesterday. He gladly gladly admitted that pre-1500 no one believed in Calvinism, but as Calvinism is in the Bible it was then clarify by John Calvin and we should all follow his words. (Obviously I disagree with him)

From the LDS perspective: the ability/authority to interpret the Bible correctly is a sub-set of revelation. One can only reveal the Truth with revelation.

Prophet also an Apostle?

Yes, he is the head Apostle.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Also, over on CAF, one of the LDS posters mentioned that unmarried people do not attain eternal life. What happens to those who do not get married?

Correction here: the highest happiness is found with God and with eternal families. If someone does not have the opportunity to be married in this life, they will have the opportunity in the next one. For example: little children who pass away are saved in Christ, and have every opportunity in the next life to grow into the fullness of eternal life (including marriage).

So it's more that everyone in the highest happiness will be sealed (including to a spouse), whether or not that bonding happens in this life or the next.

 

[Katzpur]

From the LDS perspective: the ability/authority to interpret the Bible correctly is a sub-set of revelation. One can only reveal the Truth with revelation.

This is an excellent point to bring up. We LDS believe that the "rock" Jesus said He would build His Church on is the rock of revelation, the principle by which Peter appeared to have come to know who Jesus really was. The fact that, of all the Apostles were could have responded to Christ's question ("Whom say ye that I am?"), Peter was the only one who answered correctly. The others seemed a bit uncertain and offered only suggestions. Jesus pointed out that Peter had received his knowledge, not from man, but from God. I believe that since He intended to continue to communicate with the Church He was going to establish, even after He'd ascended into Heaven, He knew He needed to pick someone who was sufficiently in tune to be able to recognize the promptings of the Spirit.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Im a little confused on marriage/eternal life now. i thought LDS agreed that marriage wouldnt happen in the afterlife as a new marriage, just that earthly marriages are eternal (if in the temple). I also thought you only sealed by proxy those who were married in this life. So how would a child be able to get married and sealed in the next life?

 

[Katzpur]

Im a little confused on marriage/eternal life now. i thought LDS agreed that marriage wouldnt happen in the afterlife as a new marriage, just that earthly marriages are eternal (if in the temple). I also thought you only sealed by proxy those who were married in this life. So how would a child be able to get married and sealed in the next life?

Remember, there's a lot happening in the Spirit World. We don't know right now how it's all going to work out, but I suspect that when Christ returns, He'll have a lot of good news to share with us. Marion D. Hanks, a now-deceased LDS leader used to have the following quote posted in his office: “To believe in God is to know that all the rules will be fair, and that there will be wonderful surprises.”

God doesn't tell us to do something without providing the means for us to obey.

 

[Clear]

Truth_Faith said : I can see how the schisms show an apostasy of sorts but not how the authority was lost and the house fell completely? I guess I am seeing two different types of apostasy in a way? One where it's individuals but the original still exists (although difficult for an 11th member to find) and one where the original house has fallen and has been blown over by the big bad wolf but then rebuilt (post #282)

Orontes replied : What has been pointed out was a loss of leadership, ecclesiastical change and doctrinal change on a fundamental level. Do you challenge any of these points or need them further explained? If not, where is the house still standing? (Post #288)


Truth_Faith13 : Orontes has pointed out my own confusion as to your illogic.. If you believe church leadership changed, and the church organization changed and the church priesthood changed, and the doctrines changed then why would you illogically conclude the organization is the same house?



REGARDING APOSTASY OF DOCTRINES

Remember that the concept of “complete” apostasy does NOT mean all doctrines were lost, but that all churches contain contaminants and evolve away from what we are given over periods of time. While some doctrines have been changed by being added (errors of addition to the earliest gospel) such as the baptism of infants and changes occurring due to adoption of principles designed to oppress and gain power and money to the church we have already discussed. Some doctrines have been lost (errors of subtraction to the earliest gospel) such as the Roman Catholic loss of knowledge of pre-existence and loss of priesthood authority. Still, there have always been doctrinal “debri” from the earliest ages. For example, there is much doctrine that is simply contaminated but which contains much that is very fine and very original. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is a slightly modified version of an authentic early doctrine.

Clear

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF FOUR

Truth_Faith13 : If you believe the Catholic Church was given the authority of Peter, and that this principle keeps the “house” in your example from falling, then lets’ discuss the nature of the church and the Roman Congregations loss of authority.


REGARDING LOSS OF APOSTOLIC PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY
Of course, some principles have been lost “completely”. For example, historically, apostolic authority died out with the death of the apostles. The authority of Bishops was, for a time, still present in the earliest churches, until they too, died out. Since all priesthood power is delegated from it’s origin and flows downward, (i.e. from God, to Christ, to the Apostles, etc), the loss of apostles meant lower levels of authority were also lost.

At the death of the apostles, the roman congregation found itself in the same position as all other early Christian congregations. They had a bishop who had a level of priesthood authority, but they no longer had a prophet or an apostolic level of authority that lived among them.


REGARDING THE USE OF THE WORD “CHURCH” OR “ ΕΚΚΛΕΣΙΑ”
One problem with the parable of the “three little pigs” is the concept of a house/building as a symbol for the “church”. Clement tells us that “the Books and the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the beginning. For she was spiritual” 2nd Clement P 75 14:3 We are not dealing with a building or a physical object that is being damaged or destroyed, but rather a gathering of individuals and loss and contamination of principles they are learning.

The New Testament greek work for “church” is εκκλησια. It is a compound word made up of two words καλεω is the greek word meaning “to invite”; “to call” or “to name”. It distinguishes of one thing from another. The Greek εκ is the greek word for “out” / “out of”. Thus, it is the term used for any assembly of individuals who are "invited" or "called out" to separate themselves from a group or a place towards another group or place or purpose, whether it is a town meeting, or a group of Christians, whether in a building or in a field. In the cosmic scale, it is those who are invited or called out of the world to learn moral truths and progression.

The Earliest Judeo-Christian εκκλεσια or Church of Jesus Christ was a different organization than the organization that arose in later centuries that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church. For examples :

The Original εκκλνσια DID have apostolic authority, whereas the later Roman Christian Movement’s organization never, historically, gained the apostolic authority it claimed.
The base Characteristics of the Original εκκηεσια, had different goals in many ways; and the goals and methods of accomplishing those goals were substantially different.
The Original church’s administration was different than the administration of the Roman Christian Movements administration in many fundamental ways.
The Original εκκληεσια’s doctrines originating from apostles and prophets were different than the later man-made doctrines of the Roman Religious movements Theologian-derived theological doctrines. There are other issues, but I think these points are the main ones.


The early model of life as part of tutoring experience that prepares us for heaven
While your "three little pigs and the big bad wolf" analogy has merit, the Jewish zohar gives a more common ancient simile regarding the gospel and it’s purpose in educating the spirits of mankind. Speaking of pre-mortal spirits, the question is asked regarding male and female spirits, “if they are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. .… In this wise, the Holy One, be blessed, possessed a son from the matron, that is, the supernal holy soul. He dispatched it to a village, that is, to this world, to be raised in it, and initiated into the ways of the King’s palace. Informed that his son was now come to maturity, and should be returned to the palace, the King, out of love, sent the matron for him to bring him into the palace. “ In this context the world is, in the main, a place for the education of spirits sent here from a pre-mortal realm to be educated as part of a preparation for heaven.

The contamination of gospel truths with the doctrines of theologians does not mean that a contaminated gospel has nothing good in it. It simply means that to the degree that it is contaminated and incorrect it cannot teach correct principles as clearly and as efficiently as an uncontaminated and correct gospel.


Truth_Faith13 asked, regarding authority : How do we know Linus wasn't the successor of Peter and therefore the authority was lost?

Complex historical models do not originate and sustain themselves upon absence of data, but instead, historical models originate and sustain themselves from the presence of historical data. The theory that Peter was a long-standing bishop in Rome who gave gave a religious super-power to an obscure and relatively unknown bishop of a small congregation in Rome runs into the same problem as the theory that Pee Wee Herman was President of the United States in 1999.

There is NO data, (zero, zip, nada) to support Peter as the first standing bishop who transfers power just as there is NO data to support Pee Wee Herman as President of the United States. However, there is significant historical data showing Linus was the first bishop of rome and there is significant historical data showing that Bill Clinton and NOT Pee Wee Herman was POTUS in 1999. That is the problem with the Catholic claim to Peters Authority.



Regarding Roman Catholic Historical Misconceptions and their effect on any accurate historical conversations:

All of us have historical misconceptions (myself included). I think two major Roman Catholic historical misconceptions seem to underlie almost all of their specific assumptions to priesthood authority.

#1 : Roman Catholics were taught the historical misconception that they were #1 the “first” or “original” Christian congregation from which others split and that they thus, still teach “original” doctrines.
The original Roman congregation was only one congregation among many in the early Christian Movement. It was neither the first nor was it the most important. There were congregations in Jerusalem, and Ephesus and Galatia and Phillipi and other places that claimed antiquity and had equal authority.

#2: Roman Catholics were taught that their Bishops/Popes somehow received religious Authority of apostleship from the Apostle Peter and so they have more religious authority than other Christianities.
The original Roman congregation was in the same position as all other congregations when no more apostles or prophets could lead and guide them. They were left to carry on as best as they were able.

post two of four follows

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF FOUR

THE MONUMENTAL PROBLEM OF LACK OF DATA SUPPORTING A LONGSTANDING BISHOPRIC OF PETER IN ROME


THERE IS NO PERIOD APPROPRIATE HISTORICAL DATA TO SUPPORT EITHER PETER AS A LONG-STANDING BISHOP IN ROME NOR ANY TRANSFER OF APOSTOLIC PRESIDING AUTHORITY TO LINUS. ALL DATA ORIGINATE AS “BACK CLAIMS” FROM LATER PERIODS OF TIME.

The lack of Data or recognition for Peter as Bishop creates it’s own meaning. The Patrologiae Graeca dedicates TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES to Clement, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter), yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.

If Peter became Bishop of Rome for 20 years, then there should be a great deal of textual records as there are dedicated to Clement. However, there are no Bishop Peter sermons, no Bishop Peter miracles, no Bishop Peter conversations, no Bishop Peter administrative acts, etc. The earlier Clementine records write a great deal regarding personal daily interactions with Peter when Peter is in Palestine. But, upon leaving Palestine, even Clement loses sight of Peter and writes nothing of what happened to him.

A) If Peter HAD BEEN a sitting Bishop in Rome and head of the church, then he would have written MORE than only 1st peter.
It is inconceivable that a “bishop” Peter would NOT have written something during the more than two decades it is claimed that he was Bishop. Remember, Peter does NOT have to write with his own hand, but need simply employ a few secretaries. Origen and Augustine kept several secretaries very busy taking their dictation in their prodigious production of texts. Paul doesn’t write his text, but leaves it to another to write. Also, as administrative support increases, the ease with which texts are generated increases, ease of transmission increases; ease of stationary storage increases; ease of distribution increases; and the ease and amount of copying improves.

Truth_Faith13 : If you think Peter would have suddenly stopped all writing, what is your theory as to why he would no longer have written anything?


B) During this time period, the Christian churches are experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than churches in a “steady state).

It is inconceivable that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).

Truth_Faith13 : If you think Peter, as an administrative head would NOT have written administrative notes and orders and instructions, then what is your theory as to why he would not have done this if he was an administrative head?

C) The Apostle Peter would have continued to give many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period and I believe that such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.

Truth_Faith13 : If you think that the Apostle would have stopped giving Testimony of Jesus, then why would he have done this?


D) There was continuing concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the Christian movement took root among differing culture and countries and Peter, if he had been acting as a “general Bishop” would have continued to send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles. Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).

Truth_Faith13 : If Peter would not have tried combat schism and heresies, nor written or spoken against them, what is your theory as to why he would have not done this?


E) Much of this guidance would have been Doctrinal guidance in a textual form as Peter encouraged corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.

F) Peter would have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions. Clement wrote of these early debates Peter had, others would have written about continuing debates in Rome had Peter been there.

Truth_Faith13 : If you think Peter would have stopped speaking publically or had no more public disputations with anti-christians, why would you theorize this way? What would be the reason?


G) Any Petrine administration in Rome would have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.

H) The continuing miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 20 years.

Truth_Faith13 : If there would have been no more miracles done by Peter during this 20 year period, why would you theorize miracles would have stopped happening by Peter?


I) Textual records associated with other organizational and administrative tasks within a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task would have existed, (Certainly many more ordinations than Peters’ single ordination Clement alone)

J) At least some texts a hypothetical Petrine Bishopric sent out to different countries and congregations would not have been highly valued and retained.
It is very unlikely that all copies of all such documents created over 20 years as a Bishop of a rapidly enlargening religious movement in all places they were sent in all cities of an enlargening Religious movement would have undergone destruction. For example, we have a fair amount of the correspondence that took place between the Priests of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the priests of it’s sister jewish temple in Egypt (Elephantine), why would none exist; be discussed; or at least be known of having at one time existing.

Truth_Faith13 : If you have a theory that the vast amount of records and writings would not have been distributed to and valued by other Christian communities and thus kept for later discovery, why do you theorize this happened.

post three of four follows