Article of Faith

See #5: "We 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."

As I've listened to the discussions about the choosing of the new Catholic Pope, Benedict the XVI, it has reminded me that only the Roman Catholics and Mormons understand that "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." And Aaron was called by Moses, a prophet, following revelation and by the laying on of hands.

I've been, coincidentally, reading Bishops and Apostles in Early Christianity by Hugh W. Nibley. It's a survey of scholars and early church writings about the historical claim that Catholic bishops, specifically the Pope, are the authorized successors to the original apostles, and that the bishop of Rome was designated by God to oversee the entire church. Mormons believe that the original church was taken from the earth when the apostles ceased to exist as church officers, and was restored through Joseph Smith, a modern prophet, who was ordained to the priesthood after the order of Melchizedec by Peter, James and John, the original presiding officers of the Church ordained by Christ himself, who were and are resurrected persons sent to restore the presiding authority to the modern world. Such claims are rejected with "Those things don't happen today!" Yet, the issue of authority, or the priesthood, as Mormons refer to it, was a clear problem for Martin Luther when he confronted the corruption of the Roman church and realized that it could not be reformed, but had to be rejected and replaced, as indicated by Jesus' teaching that one doesn't repair an old garment by sewing in new cloth or put new wine in an old wineskin. Luther knew and accepted the doctrine that Jesus had ordained his earliest Apostles and chosen and ordained Peter to preside over his church when he was no longer on earth. He never really resolved that problem, but claimed that the authority to reform or reorganize the church was inherent in the congregation of the faithful, when their hierarchical leaders went astray.

Of course, the visitations and revelations experienced by Joseph Smith were mocked and rejected, but it is significant that they also raised a great deal of hatred of him and persecutions against him and those who believed him and accepted him as a prophet of God. Any fair-minded person familiar with the Bible, should recognize such events are more true to the religion described in it than any of the "Christian" denominations extant in Smith's time.

Nibley documents meticulously how the claim that the Pope holds the same authority as Peter, to whom Jesus said, "On this rock [Peter means rock] I will build my church," arose only several hundred years after the church was founded. Joseph Smith explained that this scripture referred to the rock of revelation, which is referred to in the earlier part of Jesus' statement. Scholar after scholar acknowledges that there is no documentary evidence that Peter ordained anybody to succeed him as President of the Church, and only tradition supports the claim that he was ever Bishop of Rome. Nibley quotes the earliest writings of the Church Fathers to demonstrate that bishops were not general authorities over the church as the apostles were. They were well aware that the church had lost the divine direction it once had through revelation to these authorized leaders. In the absence of higher authority, the bishops began to advise each other on doctrinal issues by letters, then by synods. Over time, they became divided over doctrinal issues and began to dispute with each other. They also began to be elected in local elections which came to be characterized by mob violence, fierce contention and disorder, which went far beyond anything one would expect from a truly divine organization. Bishops of large or important cities began to claim higher authority than those of smaller dioceses. Some asserted that they were Archbishops and the bishop of the capital of the Roman Empire claims to have the highest authority of all. (The dilemma created when the capital of the Empire moved to Byzantium is obvious, and it lead to the schism between the leaders of the church the two capitals.) There were often multiple claimants to the papacy who fought each other with intrigue, riots, murders and military power. The disorder, the plain, impudent wickedness being committed in the name of ecclesiatical authority are clear evidence that the original authority had been lost.

The Pope of Rome didn't establish his primacy until around 1,000 A.D. Before that, there were other bishops in Christianity who rejected claims that he had any authority over them. Bishops were all equal. It was much later that some became "more equal than others." These claims were based not on any historical source of authority, but because of the cities they represented. Much of church organization and procedure was copied from the Roman Empire. The early synods were so contentious and angry that the Emperor had to step in and decide which doctrines should be chosen to govern them all. This involvement of government power in ecclesiastical matters is a sure sign that an apostasy had taken place.

And if the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have the apostolic authority to oversee the church, neither do protestants, because they were originally Catholics and left because of the corruption and presumptions of church clerics.