Revision as of 20:04, 5 November 2009

Index of Claims made in Chapter 6: Apostasy

The authors focus Chapter 6 of Mormonism 101 on why a "complete apostasy" of the sort the Latter-day Saints propose simply could not have happened. They correctly point out that unless such a "complete apostasy" occurred, there was no need for a Restoration of primitive Christianity, and hence no reason for Mormonism to exist. They offer a series of arguments against the LDS position, summarized here in outline form.

   * The Bible passages Latter-day Saints use to show such an apostasy was predicted do not speak of a "complete apostasy."
   * Some Bible passages, when taken literally, predict that the Church would never be completely overcome by apostasy. (See especially Matthew 16:18.)
   * Specifically LDS scriptures reveal that John the Beloved and three Nephite apostles were given power over death, and are to remain on Earth until Jesus returns, bringing souls to Christ. Even if they gained no converts, four true Christians on the earth precludes a "complete" apostasy.
   * There is no indication that the office of apostle was supposed to continue beyond the New Testament Church. And if it was supposed to continue, why couldn't God make sure it did so?
   * A continuation of priesthood authority was not needed, because all believers in Christ are part of a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9).

We beg to differ. McKeever and Johnson fail to adequately describe and refute LDS arguments for the apostasy, and each of their major points will be addressed here. This review is relatively brief, however, and the reader is encouraged to read more comprehensive treatments of this subject (which McKeever and Johnson essentially ignore) listed in the "Further Reading" section at the end of this review. What is a "Complete Apostasy?"

What do Latter-day Saints mean when we say there was a "complete apostasy" from primitive Christianity, necessitating a Restoration? In this section, various questions relating to this subject will be answered, hopefully providing the reader with a clearer understanding. How did the apostasy happen, and what were its major results?

79-80

The quotations McKeever and Johnson provide from various LDS leaders describing the apostasy (pages 79-80) are actually quite good, and fairly representative, so the major points made in these quotations will be summarized here, rather than reproducing the quotations.

   * Rebellion within and persecution from without finally overcame the Church.
   * The Apostles were killed, and the perfect organization of the Church no longer existed on the Earth.
   * The priesthood-the authority to act in God's name-was lost from the earth.
   * Various errors crept into Christian doctrine.
   * Creeds were formulated, which set in stone many of the errors that had crept in. Such mixing of human error with scripture is an "abomination" to God.

What does the apostasy doctrine mean with respect to the relationship of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to other branches of Christianity?

Clearly the LDS believe pure Christianity was lost from the earth, and that other branches of Christianity are corrupted. But in some cases McKeever and Johnson appear to assume that this belief precludes any similarities or interaction with other Christian faiths. For instance, they write,

When Joseph Smith began his new religious movement in 1830, there was no great effort to meld or compromise the teachings of the Mormon Church with those of nineteenth century Christianity. Instead, early leaders prided themselves on their uniqueness and they boldly and publicly proclaimed their differences. They made little or no effort to associate with what they considered "apostate Christendom."

More recently however, some members of the LDS Church have felt it was time to declare to the world that the differences are only superficial or, at best, a problem of semantics. Some Mormon apologists have even declared that the divide between Christianity and Mormonism is not all that wide. Having studied this movement for a great portion of our lives, we find such concessions incredible, for if this is really true, it brings into question the Mormon concept of a so-called "complete apostasy."1

First, while it is true that early LDS leaders made no attempt to "meld or compromise" their teachings with those of contemporary Christian churches, McKeever and Johnson never demonstrate that recent LDS leaders have done any such thing. Often the problem has been that LDS have used different terminology than other Christians, causing some misunderstanding. For instance, as a young LDS missionary, I assumed that all Evangelical Christians were "antinomians," who believed that one could commit any number of mass murders, etc., after committing to Christ, and still be saved. On the other hand, my Evangelical friends usually believed that the LDS teach we are "saved by works," rather than by grace. We would argue and argue, with them emphasizing grace NOT works, and me arguing strenuously that good works are necessary. In reality, I found out later, there are a few antinomians out there, but many Evangelicals believe a true commitment to Christ entails a change in behavior. Someone who is "really saved" would never commit murder. Likewise, while I know of some LDS who incorrectly believe we are "saved by works," the Church actually teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but that good works cannot be separated from true faith.

Naturally, there are still differences between Evangelical and LDS soteriology. For example, we believe that good works are meritorious and have no doctrine of "eternal security," but the point is that the differences (in many cases) are not nearly as great as I once thought. I never would have come to this realization, however, had I not attempted to first establish common ground with my Evangelical acquaintances, and then move on to the differences. More and more, LDS leaders and lay members have been adopting this more peaceful approach as we come into contact more with our neighbors of other faiths. On the other hand, McKeever and Johnson approach Mormonism by only pointing out differences, and in fact many of those differences are greatly exaggerated. Thus, they fail to accurately describe the true differences between the Church of Jesus Christ and other branches of Christianity.

Second, whereas LDS leaders have always proclaimed our unique status among Christian churches,2 they have always pointed out that other faiths still have a good deal of God-given truth, and have pointed out important common ground. For instance, Joseph Smith said,

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.3

Brigham Young said,

It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and bring it to Zion.4

The Book of Mormon prophet Alma wrote a poem where he expressed his desire to preach the Gospel to everyone in the world, but then he corrected himself:

For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to the which is just and true.5

That is, even when the people of a certain time or culture did not have access to the pure Gospel message, God makes allowances for them, and gives them as much of His wisdom as they are able to receive. Notice the following statement by Brigham Young on the state of the souls of people like John Wesley, who lived according to the knowledge they had.

I never passed John Wesley's church in London without stopping to look at it. Was he a good man? Yes; I suppose him to have been, by all accounts, as good as ever walked on this earth, according to his knowledge. Has he obtained a rest? Yes, and greater than ever entered his mind to expect; and so have thousands of others of the various religious denominations.6

Contrary to McKeever and Johnson's statements about recent LDS ecumenism,7 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never attempted to join any ecumenical organizations, and has continued to teach our doctrine about the Apostasy and Restoration. However, in recent years there has been more emphasis placed on working together with other churches on humanitarian projects. This is only natural, since we no longer face anywhere near the same level of persecution from other Christians that we once did. Is this a bad thing? Should we shun others who would do good in the world because we disagree on doctrine?

Likewise, there has been renewed emphasis, when LDS interact with others, on the fact that we are Christians. Since we have always claimed to be a Restoration of primitive Christianity, obviously we have always claimed to be Christians, so McKeever and Johnson's insinuation that this is some sort of recent attempt to suck up to other denominations is ridiculous. The problem is that anti-Mormon writers like McKeever and Johnson have been popularizing the notion that we are not Christians, and we refuse to let such people define our belief system for us. From our perspective, this charge is patently false, when the Atonement of Jesus Christ is at the center of our religion, and we worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. We realize that we disagree with other Christians on a number of very important points, but then Protestant Christians, Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Anglican Christians, etc., all disagree with each other on various important points, as well. So call us "heretical Christians," or "apostate Christians," or whatever. Our point is that "Christianity" is the general category in which we fit. McKeever and Johnson, on the other hand, seem to exclude everyone outside their particular brand of Evangelicalism from Christianity. Witness, for instance, their statements about what "Christianity teaches" regarding the necessity of baptism, which would exclude Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as the LDS.8

In summary, the doctrine of the apostasy does not imply that everyone outside the Church of Jesus Christ is going to hell. It does not preclude the many beliefs and values we hold in common with other Christians. However, it does imply that the doctrines of other religions are in a number of ways corrupt, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only authorized Church of Jesus Christ upon the Earth. When we interact with our neighbors of other Christian faiths, our leaders encourage us not to be judgmental, but to build on common ground. Does belief in a "complete apostasy" imply that there were no true Christians between the Apostasy and the Restoration?

In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord said, "For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it."9 In another revelation, the Lord said,

All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.10

In other words, there has always been wheat among the tares. However, this brings up a more difficult question. If there were some people who would have accepted the Gospel as taught in Mormonism, why did God allow the earthly Church to pass from the earth?

Although God is in ultimate control of the universe, He allows others-including men and fallen angels like Satan-free will and considerable freedom of action. This is true to the extent that Paul could call Satan "the god of this world!"11 It isn't that God doesn't have the power to shut down the Devil's operation. He simply chooses not to-for now. We may infer from the Book of Mormon passage cited earlier (Alma 29:8) that God has His hand over all the earth, dispensing His truth in quantities large enough to propel people toward Him, but only as each people is prepared to receive it. That is, God reaches out to people where they are, drawing them toward Him, but never forcing. Christians apparently rebelled in large enough numbers (and many who did not rebel were martyred) that God thought it wise to remove His priesthood authority, and leave the world with a lesser amount of truth, until such time as the Gospel and priesthood could be restored in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ in glory.

Such a question could legitimately be asked of Evangelicals such as McKeever and Johnson. That is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ-in any form-has been essentially unheard of in vast areas of the earth throughout history. Were there no Australian aborigines in the second century who would have accepted Jesus had they heard of Him? To answer in the negative would smack of racism. And if the answer is yes, then why did God leave them without any chance to even hear of Jesus Christ? Didn't God have the power to bring them the Gospel? Didn't He care?

Obviously this problem must be faced by other Christians-only on a slightly smaller scale than that posited by the LDS. The answer-for both Latter-day Saints and other Christians-must be that God, in His Wisdom, chose to give some people more truth, and some less.

12

Claim

• The authors acknowledge that the Bible predicts major apostasy, but they go on to assert,

While some apostasies were certainly predicted, a complete apostasy where God's authority fully left the earth was never predicted or implied. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Paul said a time would come when some would depart from the faith. Paul explained to his protégé that this would take place in the latter times. Peter told his readers in 2 Peter 2:1-3 that many would follow the pernicious ways of false prophets, but nowhere does he say that all would do so.

Response

• Several points can be argued regarding this statement. First, the authors appear to be using a straw man argument. As explained earlier, when Latter-day Saints say there was a "complete" apostasy, we do not mean that every single Christian personally rebelled against God. Rather, the rebellion, along with outside persecution, was extensive enough that the earthly Church organization was in a shambles, and was taken over by hostile forces. God allowed this because the culture was not prepared to allow the pure Gospel message to flourish in its midst, so God allowed a somewhat watered-down version to be substituted. Consider what happened to the Church of Jesus Christ in modern times. After being mobbed and forced out of four states, the Saints relocated to the Great Basin desert, where no one but a few native American tribes lived. Why was such relocation necessary? Because the "civilized" portions of the United States presented such a hostile environment. And this all happened in the land that was supposedly a new beacon of hope for religious freedom! God, in His wisdom, preserved the wheat (His righteous elect) among the tares until the last days, when the righteous were to be gathered together, and the Earth cleansed.13
• The New Testament is absolutely clear that a major apostasy was already underway at that time, and was to culminate after the passing of the apostles. Paul told the Ephesian elders, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."14 Paul chastised the Galatian Christians for turning away "unto another gospel,"15 and warned the Corinthians against "false Apostles" who were among them.16 Just prior to the end of his life, he complained to Timothy that "all they which are in Asia be turned away from me."17 The seriousness of the situation can only be appreciated when one realizes that Asia Minor was where most of the Christian converts had been made during this early period.18
• The authors complain that Paul said an apostasy was to occur in the "latter time," but both Jude and John, a few decades later, called their own day "the last time" specifically because "ungodly men and "antichrists" were everywhere in the Church.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ…. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.19

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.20

• Obviously it was not "the last time" because the world was about to end. Paul told the Thessalonians not to worry about Jesus returning immediately, because an apostasy had to occur first.21 Peter warned Christians not to worry if Jesus didn't return soon, because "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."22 Could it be that the flooding of antichrists into Christianity signaled the end of the Church of that age? This interpretation is strongly supported by Paul's prediction of the apostasy in 2 Thessalonians:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God…. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.23

• Remember that John noted that it had been predicted that "antichrist shall come," and that this prediction had been fulfilled by the appearance of "many antichrists" in the Church. Most commentators link Paul's "son of perdition" with the antichrist. There is ample reason, from Paul's own use of the Temple as a symbol of the Church organization, that this prophecy predicted the takeover of the earthly Church organization by enemies. Richard L. Anderson explained:

Paul's central symbol of the apostasy is the man of sin or lawlessness sitting "in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thes. 2:4). Pounds of pages have been written about this being the Jerusalem temple, but that would be destroyed within two decades and would have no one sitting in it. And what did that temple mean to the Greek Gentiles or even to apostles in terms of their own religion without Mosaic sacrifices? The real question is how Paul used the word temple in his writing Almost always he used it figuratively - occasionally the body is a temple for God's Spirit, but usually the Church is the temple of God. The members ("ye," older plural English for the plural Greek) are "God's building" (1 Cor. 3:9), with Christ its foundation (1 Cor 3:11), or, in summary, "the temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:16). Elswhere Paul teaches about Christ as cornerstone, apostles as foundation, and members fitting into their places as a "holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:21). And in one of his last letters, Paul still spoke of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15). Paul must define Paul, and his own words show that he was here referring to the Church.24

82

Claim

• The stock argument used by the authors against the LDS case for a complete apostasy appeals to a single verse in Matthew: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."25 The authors assert, "Because the literal meaning would eliminate the 'loss of keys' for the primitive Christian church, many Mormons choose to spiritualize this otherwise straightforward verse." They go on to quote former LDS president, Harold B. Lee, and following passage from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The Savior's reference to the "gates of hell" (Hades, or the spirit world; Matt. 16:18) indicates, among other things, that God's priesthood power will penetrate hell and redeem the repentant spirits there. Many have been, and many more will yet be, delivered from hell through hearing, repenting, and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world after the death of the body.27

Response

• The problem with the authors' analysis of LDS exegesis of this passage is that they are the ones spiritualizing the meaning of the passage, and the LDS are taking it quite literally. The Greek word translated as "hell" in this passage is a form of "Hades." The entry on "Hell" in the Oxford Companion to the Bible has this explanation of the meaning of the word.
• Both Sheol and Hades refer to a general dwelling place of souls after death (Gen. 37:35; Acts 2:27)…. Postexilic Judaism reserved a particular section of hell for the punishment of sinners (emphasized in 1 Enoch 22:10-11). In the New Testament, the synoptic Gospels and James in twelve places name this place of pain Gehenna (Matt. 5:22; James 3:6). Among the New Testament examples of Hades, there are three in which punishment is the point, so that Hades corresponds to Gehenna (Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15; 16:23). In the other passages where Hades occurs, however, it is used in the neutral sense of a space where all dead are kept (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14; also the variant reading in 1 Cor. 15:55 [cf. Hos. 13:14]).28
• So "Hades" was not the place of final punishment, the domain of Satan. It corresponds to what Latter-day Saints call the Spirit World-a place where the spirits of both the righteous and wicked dead are kept until the Resurrection. Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) explained the early Christian concept of Hades when he wrote,

All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no…. Why, then, cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment and consolation in Hades in the interval, while it awaits its alternative of judgment?29

• Roman Catholics are even more interested than Evangelicals in demonstrating the continuity of the Church from New Testament times, but after reviewing various usages of "Hades" around the time of the New Testament writers, Catholic apologist and scholar Michael M. Winter had to admit that "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil."30
• What did the "gates of Hades" do? Saint Athanasius (fourth century AD), the famous proponent of the Nicene Creed, gave the following rendition of Christ's visit to Hades during the three days between His death and resurrection. "He burst open the gates of brass, He broke through the bolts of iron, and He took the souls which were in Amente [the Coptic equivalent of the Greek Hades] and carried them to His Father…. Now the souls He brought out of Amente, but the bodies He raised up on the earth."31 A first-century Christian collection of poems, the Odes of Solomon, described Jesus' visit to Hades in the following way.

And those who had died ran towards me: and they cried and said, Son of God, have pity on us, and do with us according to thy kindness, and bring us out from the bonds of darkness: and open to us the door by which we shall come out to thee. For we see that our death has not touched thee. Let us also be redeemed with thee: for thou art our Redeemer. And I heard their voice; and my name I sealed upon their heads: For they are free men, and they are mine.32

• Therefore, according to the early Christians, the "gates of Hades" kept everyone, including the Church, inside Hades until Jesus would come and release them into a glorious resurrection. So when Latter-day Saints apply Matthew 16:18 to the release of Spirits from the Spirit World rather than to the survival of the earthly Church, they are taking the passage quite literally.

84-85

Claim

• The authors argue that since the LDS scriptures teach that John the Apostle 33 and three Nephite apostles 34 were told they would not die, but remain on Earth to bring souls to Christ until the Second Coming, there could not have been a "complete apostasy."

The thought of a complete apostasy becomes a problem in light of the fact that these men were promised success in making converts. If John and the Nephites did successfully gain converts to their message this would seem to deny any such apostasy. In other words, the church really didn't cease to exist. If the word complete has any meaning when combined with apostasy in the English language, then there should not have been even one of these four individuals who remained through this dark period of history.35

• Has there ever been a Latter-day Saint who claimed that John and the Three Nephites did not and will not make any converts during their long ministries? And even if they had been promised that they would "bring souls unto Christ" 36 every single day they lived, Latter-day Saints have no trouble believing that these four men brought "souls unto Christ" without baptizing them into the earthly Church, as has already been explained.
• But what about the claim that the existence of these four men, who were obviously "church members," contradicts the notion of a "complete apostasy?" The fact is that Latter-day Saints believe these men were "translated," meaning that their bodies were changed to a higher state, preliminary to the resurrection, and now "they are as the angels of God." 37 If, as Joseph Smith said, translated beings are "held in reserve to be ministering angels," 38 how could the fact that God left priesthood-holding angels on the Earth (who did not transmit their priesthood to others) have any bearing on the question of whether the apostasy was "total?" Rather, this illustrates the LDS belief in God's loving concern for His children even during periods of apostasy.

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

293 n14

Claim

• The authors tell us,

Jesus did tell Peter in John 21:22, "If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." John gave a personal note in the next verse to head off any faulty interpretation of Jesus' statement: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" This contradicts Joseph Smith's interpretation.39

Response

• In fact, the authors are correct that Jesus did not say that John would not die, or that he would stay on Earth until Jesus returned. He asked the disciples a rhetorical question that implied that such a thing might happen. John's note that Jesus didn't specifically make such a prediction, written to quell the rumors, does not contradict Joseph Smith's claim that John nevertheless did not die. And if Joseph Smith's interpretation was incorrect, why did Jesus ask such a bizarre question to His disciples?
• The passage itself is ambiguous, although suggestive, but a certain tradition reported by St. Hippolytus (ca. 200 AD) seems consistent with the LDS view. "John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."40 Indeed, the doctrine that some would be thus "translated" was reported by early Christians such as Papias (ca. 100 AD) and the Jewish Christian writers of the Clementine Recognitions.41

86-87

Claim

• The authors proffer a series of arguments against the LDS belief that Apostles are a necessity in the Lord's Church.

• Surprisingly, the authors never mention the Bible passage most often quoted by Latter-day Saints in this regard.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.43

83

Claim

• The authors state the following with respect to a related passage:

In Ephesians 2:20, Paul states that Christ Himself is the cornerstone, a rock or stone placed in the corner of a proposed building on which all the other stones must align. The "apostles and prophets" do not necessarily mean offices, as the LDS Church implies; rather this phrase encompasses the teachings of the prophets (Old Testament) and the apostles (New Testament).

Response

• Perhaps the authors are correct that this alternate meaning is possible for Ephesians 2:20, but what of Ephesians 4:11-14? All the categories mentioned there seem to be "offices," and lest the authors forget, there were New Testament prophets.45 In fact, in the same letter, Paul wrote, "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."46 Obviously these were New Testament apostles and prophets. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul wrote, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Therefore, it appears that when Paul spoke of "apostles and prophets" he was using some kind of formulaic construction to denote certain people who were part of the New Testament Church.
• With that established, one need only look to the reasons Paul gave for God's establishment of these offices in the Church, which include "That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…." Has Christianity fulfilled these conditions, thus negating the need for divinely appointed individuals serving as apostles, prophets, etc.? I think not.

87

Claim

• The authors acknowledge that "the New Testament does speak of others who had the title of apostle." However, they go on to say,

In the strictest sense, apostle means "one sent forth." With this being the case, numerous people could have rightly held this designation. However, when it came to replacing Judas, the eleven felt that one of the requirements to be an apostle was that the individual had personally seen Christ. It never seemed to be a priority in the Christian church to replace deceased disciples after the account of Matthias in Acts 1:23-26.48

Response

• What the authors fail to disclose is that when a replacement for Judas was being sought, the requirement was not just that the candidate must have seen Christ personally, but that he be one who had followed Christ since the beginning of His ministry.49 However, this was not presented as a general requirement for all future apostles, obviously, since the Apostle Paul would have failed the test.
• The authors' argument thus brings up an interesting question. That is, was Paul a "real" apostle, with general authority over the Church like the original Twelve, or was he just some guy with no particular ecclesiastical authority, who was "sent forth" to preach? Paul evidently considered his calling an office. "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."50 When Paul mentioned other apostles, he did not seem to distinguish his office from theirs. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"51 "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles."52 The only sense in which he seems to have thought himself less than the other apostles is that he had formerly persecuted the Church. "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."53 And just as the original Twelve apostles were "ordained" as such by Jesus,54 Paul claimed, "I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle."55 Obviously, given the number of authoritative letters he wrote to various local churches, he considered himself to have jurisdiction over a wide area.
• Others called "apostles" in the New Testament include Barnabas56 and James the Lord's brother.57 Were they ordained apostles like Paul and the Twelve? The question is not answered in the New Testament, but the presence of apostles in the New Testament Church beyond the original Twelve and Matthias supports the LDS interpretation of Ephesians 4:11-14. Apostles should continue in the Church to, among other things, keep the faithful from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. And even if the calling of original Twelve was somehow different than that of the other apostles like Paul, all of them seem to have had general jurisdiction over the local churches. Can the authors produce modern apostles with general jurisdiction over local Protestant churches? No wonder there are thousands of Protestant sects.

87

Claim

• The authors bring up an interesting question related to the topic of replacing apostles. If the apostles were replaced for a time when a vacancy came up, "it seems strange that God would have allowed the leaders of His church in Palestine to be so ignorant as to stop replacing martyred apostles."

• It must be kept in mind that the LDS "believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."59 Many of the prophecies coming from the apostles in New Testament times were about the impending apostasy. They knew a rebellion was in the works. So if God told them not to ordain new apostles because of the rebellion that was underway, that is what would have happened. The apostasy was not an accident. It was a purposeful rebellion on the part of many Christians, tearing the Church apart. When this rebellion was combined with massive persecutions that wiped out a large number of faithful Christian leaders, God undoubtedly thought it wise to remove His priesthood.

87-89

Claim

• Latter-day Saints believe that because of the apostasy, priesthood authority was lost, and therefore had to be restored. The authors, on the other hand, counter with the standard Protestant argument for a "priesthood of all believers."

• This is the belief that every believer has all the authority he needs to run a church, and it serves as a basis for Protestant claims to authority apart from a succession of ordinations.
• For a detailed response, see: Priesthood/Non-transferable

89

Claim

• Against the LDS claim that God has restored the Aaronic and Mechizedek priesthoods to the Church, the authors write,

The Aaronic priesthood was for the priests of the temple, as defined in the books of Moses known as the Pentateuch. The New Testament shows no need for such a priesthood for Christian believers. As far as the Melchizedek priesthood, Hebrews 6:20 says Jesus is the "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Hebrews 7:24 says that because Jesus lives forever, He holds His priesthood permanently.

Response

• The authors give no evidence that the Aaronic priesthood was not to be perpetuated in the New Testament Church, but we need not defend such a proposition. The revelations of God to Joseph Smith state that this dispensation is a "welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories."62
• Therefore, we would expect to find things in the Restored Church pertaining to the Mosaic dispensation, but not that of the New Testament Church. In any case, we see the Aaronic priesthood as a subset of the Melchizedek priesthood,63 so the point is moot.
• First, what kind of priesthood did Melchizedek hold? Was his priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek?" If so, then obviously people other than Christ can belong to this order.
• Second, recently I showed that all the earliest Christian writers taught that the Church was inseparably tied to the ordained priesthood. The only ones preaching a "priesthood of all believers" were Gnostics and pseudo-prophetic sects like the Montanists. ^[1] Given this fact, it seems obvious that the earliest Church had some kind of priesthood order. Could it not have been the Melchizedek priesthood?
• Third, there are statements in the early Christian literature in the third century AD that speak of "the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest."65 Of course, the "great High Priest" was Christ, and He was High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
• As for the Melchizedek priesthood, nobody disputes the fact that Jesus holds His priesthood permanently, so it is difficult to discern the authors' reason for pointing this out. However, while it is true that the New Testament offers no further information on the Melchizedek priesthood, a number of points can be made in favor of the proposition that others can hold the Melchizedek priesthood.
• For a detailed response, see: Priesthood/Christians don't need a mediating priesthood

89

Claim

• The authors claims about a "priesthood of all believers" essentially rest on a single verse in the Bible. "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."66

• According to Protestants like the authors, this verse means that every believer is a priest of God. However, it is easy to see that Peter was here paraphrasing a passage from the Old Testament spoken by the Lord to Israel through Moses. "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."67 Although Israel is referred to as a "kingdom of priests," in some sense, obviously there was still an ordained priesthood in Old Testament times, which did not include every Israelite. Therefore, the authors claims to authority based on a "priesthood of all believers" appear to be groundless.
• For a detailed response, see: Priesthood/Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers"

Endnotes

1 Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 11.

2 For a recent example, see Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign (May 1995), 84-86.

3 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 313.

4 Brigham Young, "Intelligence, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 9 October 1859, Vol. 7 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1860), 284.

5 Alma 29:8.

6 Brigham Young, "Nature of Man, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 3 July 1859, Vol. 7 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1860), 5.

7 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 11.

8 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 200.

9 D&C 123:12.

10 D&C 137:7-9.

11 2 Corinthians 4:4.

13 Matthew 13:24-42.

14 Acts 20-29-30.

15 Galatians 1:6-8.

16 2 Corinthians 11:13.

17 2 Timothy 1:15.

18 John G. Davies, The Early Christian Church (New York: Anchor Books, 1965), 86.

19 Jude 3-4, 17-18.

20 1 John 2:18.

21 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

22 2 Peter 3:8.

23 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 7-12.

24 Richard Lloyd Anderson, Understanding Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 86.

25 Matthew 16:18.

27 M. Catherine Thomas, "Hell," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), 2:586.

28 The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 277.

29 Tertullian, On the Soul 58, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 volumes, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885-1896), 3:234-235. Hereafter cited as ANF.

30 Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1960), 17.

31 Discourse of Apa Athanasius Concerning the Soul and the Body, in E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Homilies (London: Longmans and Company, 1910), 271-272.

32 The Odes of Solomon 42:15-26, in The Forgotten Books of Eden, edited by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr. (New York: Random House, 1980), 140.

33 D&C 7.

34 The "Three Nephites." See 3 Nephi 28:7.

36 D&C 7:2-4.

37 3 Nephi 28:30.

38 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 170.

40 Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles, ANF 5:254-255.

41 Papias, quoted in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:5:1, ANF 1:531; Peter in Clementine Recognitions 1:52, ANF 8:91.

43 Ephesians 4:11-14.

45 See Acts 11:27-28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10, 1 Corinthians 12:28 and 14:29.

46 Ephesians 3:4-5.

48 Ibid.

49 Acts 1:21-22.

50 Romans 11:13.

51 1 Corinthians 9:5.

52 2 Corinthians 11:5.

53 1 Corinthians 15:9.

54 John 15:16.

55 1 Timothy 2:7.

56 Acts 14:14.

57 Galatians 1:19.

59 Article of Faith 5.

62 D&C 128:18.

63 D&C 107:13-14.

1. [note] Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, California: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999), 251-259.

65 Origen, On Prayer 28:9, translated by John J. O'Meara (New York: Newman Press, 1954), 112. This work is part of the Ancient Christian Writers series, volume 19. For a number of similar statements, and an LDS interpretation, see Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, 268-269.

66 1 Peter 2:9.

67 Exodus 19:6.