Mormons and Catholics

As promised, I’m going to piecewise review Hugh Nibley’s book. The Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity and where appropriate make connections with Mormon priesthood development. This will act as a fairness control and will probably have the effect of softening some of Nibley’s criticisms. I’ll start with the Editors’ preface, and if any book needed such this one does, because it remains an unpolished literary work. Something that is bound to be frustrating is that the editors were unable to track down some of Nibley’s sources, especially some that buttress his arguments at crucial junctures. This is on top of of some of Nibley’s typical freelancing with footnotes, something he has come under fire for even among Mormon scholars. In fairness to Hugh, he never intended this manuscript to be for publication, rather it contains lecture notes for a 1954 class originally containing 155 pages, but expanded to 239 in the FARMS compilation.

The editors sketch three prominent positions about Peter and his relationship to bishops. Roman Catholics envision Peter as the first bishop of Rome, whereas Eastern Orthodox Catholics have him as a bishop in Antioch, whereas Mormons postulate that Peter merely ordained bishops in these locations and was not a bishop himself. Before these positions can be evaluated, a daunting definitional problem exists as to what an apostle is and what a bishop is which can fluidly account for development to meet the changing needs of the growing church. We could talk, as Nibley does, in terms of essential qualifications, describe duties and jurisdictions, discuss relations with other church members and officers, and protocols for appointment and succession.

As an aside, in the current landscape, the Mormon stake president more closely parallels the Catholic diocese bishop. Archbishops in Catholicism, might roughly be said to be equivalent of Area Authority Seventies in the LDS Church. The Mormon bishop finds more of a parallel to a Catholic parish priest. A Mormon sustains a person to be “prophet” or “apostle” first and answers questions about what is essential to the job description later. In Catholicism, it seems a more appropriate starting point to determine “prophetic” and “apostolic” essence (aided by reflection on ancient prophets and apostles) as attributes or functioning that every Catholic in varying degrees, should be able to internalize and participate in. Some apostolic prerogatives are more concentrated in the church’s leadership. For example the teaching authority of the original apostles is declared to have been inherited by the Magisterium led by the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s (the chief apostle’s) successor.

Given the current differences, Mormons can have a difficult time grasping how bishops can succeed apostles in light of the distance and distinction between apostles and bishops in the LDS authority structure. But I would like to point out that this distance wasn’t always so great and Mormon history. An abbreviated example will have to suffice: Joseph Smith served as the stake president of Kirtland, Ohio, while David Whitmer served as the president of the Missouri saints in an early stage in Mormon history. The Quorum of 12 (Q12) apostles was formed in early 1835, but their authority at that time was more confined to the mission field, outside organized stakes. Therefore, we have apostles (not members of the Q12) Whitmer and Smith performing very bishop-like functions in the sense that they were officiating over local congregations and administering in temporal affairs. In Mormonism, a person might perform two callings at once, or it is recognized that person holding a high office is able to perform all the duties of lesser offices as needed. In settings of few trained priesthood holders this is more likely to be the case, but generally lesser duties are delegated. Whitmer’s presidency in Missouri collapsed (as the church did there for that matter). Before then, Joseph had designated Whitmer to be his successor. Imagine if Joseph Smith had died during those years, then a pattern of succession could have emerged that resembles Roman Catholic succession. I get the impression that the Pope also wears two hats, providing both local and general leadership. He administers an exemplary see in Rome as a standard for other bishops and their sees to strive to emulate while functioning in Peter’s role as the general leader.

Nibley’s book is divided into two parts. The first is a broad survey of apostles and bishops over the time and geography of the entire early church. The second part, which is at times redundant to the first takes a more narrow look at the activity around Rome. Nibley looks at two contrasting scholarly models for understanding development of early Christian leadership. The first claims Christianity borrowed broadly from Jewish and pagan element, the second theorizes that the hierarchy arose from adapting the Jewish college of presbyters (elders or priests) which came to be presided over by a Bishop in the early Christian communities. The latter view is more intriguing to me but the editors represent it as the less popular of the two views. Mormonism offers some interesting comparisons, the Bishop is the president of his congregation’s priests’ quorum. One might also say that a bishop presides over the elders in his ward, inasmuch the term “elder” is used to denote any one currently holding the Melchizedek Priesthood (MP). I am greatly simplifying here because Mormon priesthood organization is highly complex and employs overlapping self-similar structures that reminds me of some of work I have done with fractals. Just as there are scholarly theories on early Christian development, one might explore the influences on Mormon priesthood formation such as borrowing from Methodists, Campbellites, the Bible and the Book of Mormon; or explore how much can be attributed to cutting-edge innovation originating in Joseph Smith’s revelations.

For Nibley the apostles in early Christianity were traveling, supervising, general leaders primarily concerned with spiritual aspects of the church such as sharing their special witness of Christ. Bishops were stationary, local leaders who performed judicial and administrative duties. The crucial argument is that these offices had distinctly different responsibilities and that bishops didn’t have the qualifications to fill the void left by the depletion of the original apostles. For a time bishops do not appear to function in apostolic roles, continuing to behave like local bishops, albeit with no supervising central leadership. Nibley notes a change in how bishops came to be selected; whereas they had been appointed by superiors, they came to be elected by the masses.

A Mormon might complain about the potential for politicking in such an arrangement, however we also vote on whether to sustain appointments. It is important to recognize two sources of authority, one stemming from the willingness of people to be led and one flowing from God via recognized channels of calling and choosing leaders. Mormonism recognizes both with “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.” [AoF 1:5] and “For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” [D&C 28: 13] These principles act as a check and balance at least theoretically. The voice and consent of the church becomes a peer review of sorts for items advanced along orderly, yet fallible revelation channel “Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of man; and some revelations are of the devil.” [History of the Church, 1:165] and “And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments” [Mos. 23:14]

More citations could be provided about how a righteous people can prevent being lead astray by errant leaders. This helps prevent a loss or corruption of priesthood authority transferred in a lineage. Disaster is more likely to strike when a people, for whatever reason, fail to follow divinely appointed leadership. “And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you.” [Mos. 29:27]. Put in less harsh terms, I think God adapts his organizations to meet the needs of his people and works around their free agency. If they lack the capacity to participate in the most optimal earthly organization that facilitates living His full gospel, then He won’t coerce the them to abide such. Blake Ostler suggests these words ought to apply to God: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion.” [D&C 121:41]

I see the transition from apostolic priesthood to a episcopal priesthood as God providing a lesser structure that would nevertheless continue to inspire much faith and devotion. I see the same kind of divine, temporary, compromise to collective mortal willing in occasions of letting the Israelites appoint a King in the stead of a more optimal prophet-leader and in His giving of the lesser Law of Moses. For example, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” [Matt 19:8] The disadvantage of being in a lesser, sub-optimal ecclesiastical assembly is that God withholds some blessings and knowledge that might otherwise be enjoyed. The advantage is that one, at least temporarily, isn’t held accountable for what doesn’t know or doesn’t have an opportunity to come to a knowledge of through some diligent prayerful, seeking or from living righteously according one’s current knowledge of God’s will [John 7:17]. I think God is justified in maintaining a sub-optimal church for one group of people while restoring or beginning a new church for seekers looking for blessings other churches can’t sustain or facilitate. I appear to be making a defense for religious plurality and freedom of choice that are not easily harmonized with “one true church” beliefs or references to “gates of hell”, so I hope such ideas can be taken in moderation and as part of a more complex whole in which there is room for thoughtful, intelligent disagreement.