As a missionary I remember using the story in Acts of the remaining 11 apostles choosing a replacement for Judas after his suicide as evidence that the church was always meant to have apostles as leaders [or, if you’re an old school Mormon, after the 11 killed Judas for his treachery - according to that great latter day apostle Heber C. Kimball “Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out” (JOD 6:126)] But that same account rules out any modern person as being qualified to be one of the twelve.

According to Acts, Peter supposedly laid down the following criteria:

“ ‘So one of the men who have accompanied us throughout the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.’ So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.”

Thus to be one of the twelve apostles a person must:

1. Accompanied Jesus during his ministry beginning from his baptism

2. Be an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection

Unless the current 12 are Jews born 2000 years ago in Palestine, it seems to me that they don’t quite meet those specifications.

By the way, I remember discussing this passage with an LDS religion professor who tried to argue that it showed that Peter had no idea that the church was meant to last for more than one generation or he would not have set up such an impossible criteria. And because of Peter’s lack of foresight the early church inevitably fell into apostasy when they stopped ordaining apostles. So the Acts story actually supports the church’s teaching on the Great Apostasy. See, the church is true!

That’s what I love about LDS apologists. They can take any evidence against the church, twist it around, and argue that it really proves that the church is true. Joseph Smith was a scumbag? Well, that just shows that only God himself could have successfully used such a flawed man to restore the church – it’s a miracle that the Mormon church survived and flourished given Joseph’s many failings. Its just even more proof that the church is true.

hobblecreek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> By the way, I remember discussing this passage
> with an LDS religion professor who tried to argue
> that it showed that Peter had no idea that the
> church was meant to last for more than one
> generation or he would not have set up such an
> impossible criteria. And because of Peter’s lack
> of foresight the early church inevitably fell into
> apostasy when they stopped ordaining apostles. So
> the Acts story actually supports the church’s
> teaching on the Great Apostasy. See, the church is
> true!

Sounds like the kind of rationalizations my Brother uses. In fact it may have been my brother. He was an LDS religion teacher and Institute director. They have these crazy ways of rationalizing things and to them it's more proof that the Church is true rather than proof of how much they need to twist things to keep it from unraveling in their minds.

When Holland stands up in GC and screams how the BOM has met every challenge for 180 years what he means is "for 180 years we have proudly refused to face the obvious."

Their way is not creating the spirit that can heal, raise the dead, prophetize, speak in tongues, etc. But they don't care, because they're too full of themselves to admit it's not working...

All good mormons believe that Joseph smith is true, and the bible is not.
The only thing the bible is good for is when they want someone to believe they are Christian.

JS was a raging emotional elephant, BKP is a proud brainchild, it's pagan not christian tradition, but as long as it's a direct call to dr feelgood who cares?