>.. I don’t follow the comings and goings of the New Apostolic Church either. In fact, I don’t follow any organized church...
I believe you, Jim. You did not comment on the long list I sent of 46 people the Catholic Church calls “apostle,” all the way up to Joseph Smith’s time. (My post #1478)
Apparently, it does not annoy you when Catholics call one of their clergy an apostle.
Why does it annoy you when the Mormons do the same?
= = = = =
>...it did appear to me that they were claiming some highly divine authority for Smith that I cannot believe is true.
Jim, are you saying that an article about a church’s doctrines and teachings can only be posted if you believe that those teachings are true?
One more question: If a Catholic had posted an article saying that “Pope Benedict XVI is an Apostle of Jesus Christ” ... would you have done the same thing?
Would you?
placemarker
In the first century , there were 12 Apostles, 12 disciples.
There are many since then that are called disciples, but it's common knowledge that the 12 originals were unique.
Same with the Apostles.
This thread was obviously meant to say that Smith was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, in the same way the original 12 were.
I'm sure the LDS didn't recognize those on your list (except the original 12) as the list of Apostles that they were adding Smith's name to.
Those seeing this thread I'm sure mostly see it as saying that Smith is an Apostle along the lines of the original 1st centuary ones.
Your question at the end of your missive is a moot point, and a leading question that doesn't have a ‘right’ answer.
It's rhetoric.
Plus the Catholic church is part of main stream Christianity whereas Mormonism isn't.