If "authority" and "hierarchy" are all that matter, why not be Catholic?
Posted Apr 21, 2023, 11:43 PM UTC
2327
Because they changed the ordinances and lost the priesthood. But when we change the ordinances (and every single one has been changed in the modern church) we don’t lose the priesthood.
10
When they do it, it's "apostasy."
When we do it, it's the "continuing restoration."
10
What about Orthodox or Oriental?
8
Looking for this comment! All claim the same authority. UsefulCharts does an excellent series about the Christian Denominations Family Tree, looking at the earliest Christian groups, some of whom we got our different NT texts from, to more modern denominations. This one is about the many different Catholic Churches, and the many different Eastern Orthodox churches. All claim an unbroken apostolic authority?
2
The different Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with the Latin Church.
1
Ok
1
Jesus spoke "as one having authority" and called out the hypocrisy of the hierarchies, all of them. "The kingdom of God is within you," he taught. That's the original gospel, the good news that you're free as soon as you realize that hierarchies want status and your money, and you don't need them. Clear your mind of authoritarian assumptions, and then re-read the Gospels, and you will begin to grasp what excited the earliest Jesus groups, that you have authority. The more scholarship reveals about Christianity before it was colonized by church authority, the more we discover how liberating the original message was and is.
2
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
u/Ma3vis, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Because it’s not the “true” authority and hierarchy! 😉
No different than asking a Christian why they don’t just become Muslim because Islam is a religion too.
1
Exactly. Mormonism is very similar to Catholicism. Priesthood authority, required ordinances, confession, leadership interpreting scripture, legalism, tithing/taxing the poor. But they have prettier chapels and more humanitarian efforts. I’m thinking I’d rather be Catholic at this point.
1
Exactly! I see these missionaries and gospel doctrine books talking about apostasy and changing doctrine and I just think... why are they so concerned about historical questions, instead of the true barometer of truth: whether practicing Catholics feel good feelings about and have spiritual experiences within their church? Those are the "primary questions," right?
1
The Catholic popes did some horrible things, as I am sure everyone knows. For example, they launched the crusades and the inquisition and the horrible persecution of Waldensians and Cathars. At one point there were, I think, three popes who each used their authority to excommunicate the others. Jesus said of false prophets to "know them by their fruits". He never once says to believe their claims simply because they make such claims. Are popes different because they are not called "prophets"? I see no reason to believe in the authority claims of popes.
At least the Mormons never did anything as horrible as the Catholics did with the crusades and the various persecutions. However, various LDS church leaders did do things which should call into question their claims to divine authority, like having a harem, adultery, slander of women, destruction of families by adding the wife to their harem, apparently murder, and many other things, even including a particularly hideous form of racism.
I think that all high demand religions who claim authority have this kind of thing in their history and therefore, I see no reason to accept any of them as legitimate claimants to divine authority. The orthodox groups seem to have less of the evil filth in their history than the Catholics, so I think that selecting them as the legitimate repository of divine authority over the Catholics makes good sense. This said, the current pope seems to be a very good man who is sincerely seeking to follow the teachings of Jesus, but that is very different than having some sort of special authority exclusively recognized by God. Ultimately, mankind would be better off following their consciences than adhering to any religion. Religions which claim authority have mostly caused evil and we would be better off without them.
Actually, there is no special authority. The closest thing to it was the priesthood claimed by the Jewish priests which was hereditary and done away with in the New Testament as explained there quite well. See Hebrews 7 for example.
0
Because the question necessarily becomes "who holds that authority?" And for most members of the church, the answer is Russell M. Nelson and his fourteen colleagues.
But again, why? Catholic popes can trace their authority back to St Peter and Jesus himself. Russell has authority, why? Because he says so?
The idea of a single, successive line of papal authority cleanly going back to Peter as the Bishop of Rome and preeminent apostle is as faith-based as anything in Mormonism.
Catholic authority rests on the belief that Peter was the Vicar of Christ and that his authority now rests with Pope Francis.
Mormon faith rests on the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet to whom divine authority was given, an authority that now rests with Russell M. Nelson (as far as most people who fall under the "Mormon" banner are concerned).
Both are totally based in faith and belief, so I don't understand why you would offer Catholicism as an apparently more logical choice for those concerned about authority. Both traditions makes claims that cannot be verified historically or scientifically; both require faith; one does not necessarily make more sense than the other.
I agree. There is evidence to show that early Christian bishops did not see themselves as holding apostolic authority. Ignatius of Antioch points out that an apostle outranks a bishop in authority, implying that one bishop has no right to command another.
I've never seen anything pointing out what exactly an apostle is supposed to do or how someone becomes an apostle, despite them being the universal governors of the early church. I imagine this lack of information is what caused the Catholics to invent the idea of Papal authority vested in the Roman bishop.
In Joseph Smith era Mormonism (and to some degree in first gen NT era) an apostle was basically seen as someone who could say “I’ve spoken with and interacted with Jesus personally therefore I know he exists and isn’t made up and I can openly say that because I really have spoken to him” in essence.
That’s why Joseph Smith and the original 12 in the NT are so aggressive about witnessing him. It’s a way of showing they really have met him (or are trying to be convincing liars who really want to appear as if they have).
The 15 of the church used to insinuate this point much more overtly and aggressively because it was still in the collective cultural memory (and implied in the scriptures) of the members that that’s what an apostle does, but they’ve obviously since backed away.
Now, apostles are basically just business administrators who act like spiritual authorities in Mormon culture. They can’t give you any specific details about Jesus, whereas NT ones and Joseph Smith did.
In a generation or two, this will probably be seen as normal.
Except for the magical appearance of a resurrected Peter James and John and John the Baptist that Joseph conveniently forgot to mention or journal about until he conveniently remembered like 7 years later right when his authority was questioned. Other than that, you’re right, they are equally logical.
Both claims are not equally valid.
Needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt the first claim is false in order for the superseding claim to be valid.
I harp on this often. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir released an album titled “A might Fortress” featuring the song of the same name. The song was written by Martin Luther who was a Bishop considered to hold apostolic succession, and who passed it along to other Clergy.
The song itself insinuates apostolic succession.
As heard at General Conference.
https://youtu.be/SqlkstnVRmg
Why?
If somebody said “this is the best tasting chocolate in the world because it sells the most,” then years later I come out with another chocolate and say “this is the best tasting chocolate in the world and someday it will sell more than yours,” do I have to prove that their chocolate was actually not the best chocolate?
The fact is that they believe there is a direct line of authority to Christ. This belief is not provable with facts. You can’t disprove something that wasn’t provable in the first place.
Historically speaking, the idea that Peter was the first pope is bunk.
https://ehrmanblog.org/who-was-the-first-bishop-of-rome/
Peter was never the bishop of Rome - he and James (Jesus' blood relative brother) were the leaders of the Jerusalem church, until it was destroyed in 70 CE. In fact James may have had prominence over Peter