Does a Magisterium Exist Today?
To address the question of a modern magisterium, we must first review the history of the office. In the ancient times, the office of prophet was God's authoritative voice.
13 Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah, through all His prophets and every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments, My statutes according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you through My servants the prophets." 2 Ki 17:13
This office was used for three purposes. God gave direct instructions regarding specific situations (for-telling). He condemned specific actions by various people (forth-telling). And He laid down a prophetic outline of future events (fore-telling). Throughout the time of ancient Israel (after the Egyptian captivity), there was always someone with whom God was in direct (periodic) contact. The words of the prophet were recognized as containing the authority of God.
The office of prophet continued up through the time of Christ. Indeed, in Acts 7, we see Stephen in exactly that mold. After condemning the evil of the Jews, Stephen,
55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;
56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55-56
At this time, the prophetic office to the Jews ended. Never again would they have a prophet keeping them in direct contact with God. By this time, the Holy Spirit had come upon the disciples, who were preaching with power (Acts 2). They preached what they had learned directly from Jesus, and so preached with His authority. But the office of prophet appeared empty. Then in Acts 9, Paul is selected by God as His voice.
3 And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
4 and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
5 And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
6 but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do. " Acts 9:3-6
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope; 1 Tim 1:1 (This same basic statement is made 11 times in Paul's epistles.)
We also see John in the office of prophet.
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, Rev 1:1
He is joined by Peter,
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet 1:1
James,
1 James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, James 1:1a
and Jude.
1 Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, Jude 1a
These apostles served as prophets of God until about the end of the first century AD. They left us writings which contain the authority of God which was manifested through them. Unfortunately, following the death of the apostles, there has not been a clearly accepted occupant of the prophetic office. There are two major claimants. They are the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The RCC claims the office by a process it calls "Apostolic Succession". The LDS church claims that it holds the magisterium by divine appointment of a succession of "Apostles" and "Prophets". These two churches teach doctrines which are mutually incompatible, and therefore, they cannot both be true. We must have a basis for evaluating these claims.
(Both of these churches would like us to sidestep the evaluation of their claims. After all, as an authoritative teacher, their teachings are true. How do we know? Because they are authoritative! How do we know they are authoritative? Because they say so. Such a circular argument is of no value. It is a neat way to avoid criticism, if it is accepted. However, we cannot allow it to stand unverified.)
The Bible, which is accepted as authoritative by all parties to the question, RCC, LDS, and Protestant Christian, gives us a set of criteria for determining the divine character of a "prophet". We should make no mistake, there will be prophets.
17 'And it shall be in the last days,' God says, 'That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit And they shall prophesy. Acts 2:17-18 (quoting Joel 2:28)
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev 19:10
Some of them will be false prophets.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24:11,24 (KJV)
Our first step is to look to the OT.
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Is 8:20 (KJV)
This stands as the gold standard. Our LDS brethren extend this to the writings of their "prophets", so we must be careful. Isaiah was writing about the OT. In specific he was including the Torah and the prophets of his and earlier times. Any prophets of later time, including the NT, had to be measured against this standard. This is the standard we see applied by the apostles.
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Acts 17:11
Paul had been teaching about Jesus. His listeners properly applied the OT (the only scriptures they had) as the gold standard to evaluate Paul's veracity. When they had checked it out, then they accepted the message. This is the only standard we see in the NT. The apostles taught from the "scriptures", the OT, and sent letters to aid in this teaching.
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them;
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 3:14-15
Paul makes this point explicitly to Timothy. The OT writings were sufficient to give Timothy faith in Jesus. They were to be Timothy's anchor. Anything Paul taught had to agree with the OT. Likewise, anything taught by any other "magisterium" must agree with the OT! This is what we must check.
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 1 John 4:1-3
Every "prophet" must be tested against the standard of Jesus. And Jesus is God. He gave us the OT first, which verified his teaching which we see in the gospels. He gave us the apostles, who corroborated their NT teaching with the OT.
The Roman Catholic Claim
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. Matt 16:18
This is the essence of the RCC's claim to authority. Jesus said he would build His church on Peter, and Peter passed his authority as head of the church on to an unbroken succession of Popes. This apostolic succession defines a magisterium which cannot be questioned. (There are other details, but they do not contribute materially to the issue.)
The foundation of this claim is shaky at best. Let's look at the Greek of the text. Petros (Strong's 4074) is used for "Peter". Strong's Lexicon defines this word as:
4074 Petros {pet'-ros}
apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
The word for "rock" is petra (Strong's 4073).
4073 petra {pet'-ra}
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
There is a substantial difference between the two. Matthew has played a word game here to point out the difference between "Peter" and the "rock". Since Matthew was a tax collector, fluent in both Greek and Aramaic, and extremely organized in his life and writing, this cannot be an accident. Indeed, we find that only five verses later,
23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." Matt 16:23
This is not the picture of a "man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul". Peter was a very fallible man, without the strength of character required to be the foundation of the church. At Jesus' trial, Peter denied that he knew Jesus. At the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) Peter spoke, but the final verdict was given by James. In Galatians 2, Paul found it necessary to condemn hypocritical actions by Peter. Peter was not the head of the church.
The true foundation of the church was to be Jesus, and this is what Jesus was telling the disciples, to all of whom the statement in Matt 16:18 was addressed. The imagery was drawn from prophecy they were expected to understand.
13 "It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.
14 "Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Is 8:13-14
16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed. Is 28:16
Peter cannot be the cornerstone. Only Jesus is a "tested stone", a "costly cornerstone". Belief in Peter will not allow one to be undisturbed, but belief in Jesus does. Peter understood this. Indeed, this point is made by Peter himself.
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,"
8 and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 1 Pet 2:7-8
Peter is not the only one to make this point. Augustine of Hippo and Hilary, both "saints" of the RCC, agree with this interpretation. We cannot conclude anything other than the fact that the scriptural basis for apostolic succession does not exist.
(The full study of this issue is much larger, but we stand on the truth of the points made here.
Practical Issues in Apostolic Succession
The RCC publishes a list of the Popes, beginning with Peter and continuing in an unbroken line to today. This would seem to indicate that the claim of apostolic succession might be true. But the veracity of this list is questionable. The first question is Peter himself. Historically, it is by no means certain that Peter actually founded the church in Rome. It is possible, however, that he did. If he did, then he almost certainly hand selected his successor, in the pattern that was seen in the other major churches. This is the pattern defined by Paul.
2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2
We must first note that Timothy is to personally entrust the truth to "faithful men". This requires that Timothy instruct these faithful men personally. Any verbal traditions which were given to Timothy could then be passed on to his successor. Likewise, the next man along the line could receive the tradition from Timothy's successor. An unbroken chain could allow the preservation of an apostolic tradition.
Contrast this pattern with the current pattern of Papal succession. The Pope does not choose his successor. When the sitting Pope dies, the College of Cardinals elects a new Pope. This is a pattern which prevents the preservation of any verbal apostolic tradition. The death of the Pope means that any tradition he knows dies with him, and cannot be passed to his successor. But even if he passes it to the college, and then to his successor, we have a practical problem rooted deep in history. A few examples will serve to illustrate the problem.
The RCC declares that Linus was the second Pope following Peter. This is confirmed by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and Augustine. Yet Tertullian, Rufinus, and Epiphanius declare that the second Pope was Clement. Since these men are all "founding fathers" of the church, we should grant them more credibility than modern historians. It seems that at the very earliest, the idea of apostolic succession is in trouble.
In 538AD, Silverius was the sitting Pope. Vigilius contrived with the Roman Empress to have Silverius exiled to an island where he was starved to death. Vigilius then bribed the college to elect him Pope. This is a setting where it is absolutely impossible for the new Pope to be in any holy status with God, since he was a murderer. And there was no physical way for any apostolic tradition to pass from Silverius to Vigilius. The chain was broken there (if it ever existed).
In 1798, Napoleon's General Berthier took the Pope captive to France. For an extended period, there was no Pope. When a new Pope was elected, he had the same problem as Vigilius: there was no way to get the apostolic traditions from his predecessor. The chain was broken again. (We should note that this is not the only break in the chain. There were a number of occasions in which there was no Pope for extended periods.)
A few more examples (far less than an exhaustive list) will serve to finish this train of thought. During a period known as the Great Schism, there were two and at some times three popes, all claiming authority and apostolic succession. In 855, Joan (that's right, a woman) became Pope, succeeding Leo IV. She took the name John VIII. She was stoned to death after she was discovered to be a woman when she suddenly gave birth during a procession from the Vatican to the Lateran Palace. Pope John X (914-928) was imprisoned and put to death by a woman named Marozia. She then had her own son (John XI, 931-936) made Pope. John XII (955-964) was made Pope at age 18. He was sexually wanton, and was eventually indicted on charges of incest, perjury, blasphemy and murder. Leo VIII (964-965) assumed the chair of Peter. John jumped bail, assembled an army, and deposed Leo. John was eventually murdered, supposedly by a married man who surprised John with his wife.
Benedict IX also became Pope at age eighteen. He was driven from Rome by the people twice. Eventually he managed to return, but when he proposed marriage to his cousin his term was over. The next Pope was not one, but three. Benedict IX, Sylvester III, and Gregory VI all claimed to be Pope at the same time. Benedict IX sold his office to his godfather, Gregory VI, and stepped out of the fray. He soon regretted this act and reclaimed the chair.
Stephen VII (928-931) had the body of his predecessor, Formosus, exhumed and tried for heresy. The dead Pope was condemned, his fingers were cut off, and his body was thrown into the Tiber river. Stephen was soon deposed by friends of Formosus. (For further examples, click here.)
Any claim for apostolic succession must be rejected on practical grounds. If history supported an orderly progression of authority from holy man to holy man, there might be some argument for the premise. Instead, we see a progression of the most depraved men imaginable. None of the people we just described could possibly be described as "apostles". Now we are ready to examine the RCC theology.
Biblical Analysis of Key RCC Dogmas
The final issue to examine is the biblical consistency of RCC dogma. We should remember that the premise of apostolic tradition is that there are certain unwritten traditions which were taught by the apostles. These traditions are alleged to have been handed down from Pope to Pope and published from time to time as ex cathedra statements by the sitting Pope. Since these traditions are supposed to begin with the apostles, they must be in accord with the written word. It does not mean that they say the same words as are already in scripture, but rather that nothing in tradition can contradict anything in scripture. Indeed, the RCC boldly says that none of their dogmas contradict anything in the Bible.
Before we examine a few representative dogmas, we need to remember that the Bible is the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures. Our modern translations are good representations, but when detailed questions are asked, we may need to examine the original text. Our first question comes from Genesis.
15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel. " Gen 3:15
In this text, God is cursing Satan in the form of the serpent in the garden of Eden. The woman's "seed" will "bruise (Satan) on the head", while Satan will bruise the woman's seed "on the heel". This is the first prophetic outline of Jesus' (the woman's seed's) victory over sin. Note that our quote is from the New American Standard translation, and accurately represents the Hebrew original. The RCC, as a dogma which they declare must be believed in order to be saved, declares that the woman is Mary, and that Mary wins the victory over Satan. In order to do this, they use the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate, which was a poor Latin translation from poor sources. To protect their position, the RCC further states as dogma that only the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible may be used for study. Even with modern textual scholarship, the RCC steadfastly maintains this unbiblical dogma.
The RCC requires that its entire priesthood be celibate.
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Tim 3:1-5 (KJV) (emphasis added)
This prescription is repeated for deacons in the same chapter. Paul repeats it for elders in Titus 1. When the RCC requires a celibate clergy, it is acting directly contrary to scripture.
As an article faith, required for salvation, the RCC declares that Mary the mother of Jesus was born without original sin, and lived a totally sinless life. Since scripture contains no statements supporting the "Immaculate Conception", it comes totally from tradition.
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:23 (emphasis added)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- Rom 5:12 (emphasis added)
The RCC declaration that Mary never sinned is flatly contradicted by Paul. It is another dogma contrary to scripture. The RCC's claim of Mary's "powerful intercession" (RCC Catechism, dedication by Pope John Paul II) also has problems.
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. John 14:6 (emphasis added)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim 2:5 (emphasis added)
34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Rom 8:34 (emphasis added)
Intercession is the act of mediating between the sinner and God the Father to plead the sinner's case. Since Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father, he can be the only intercessor, as confirmed in 1 Tim 2:5. There Paul is using the word "one" in an exclusive sense as in "the only one", since it is in sequence with "one God", and we know that there is only one God. Any dogma which states that there is another mediator with God is contrary to scripture. This includes not only the intercession of Mary, but also the intercession of saints.
One final doctrine (of many possible) is the Sabbath. There is no allowance anywhere in scripture for a change of the Sabbath day. Yet the RCC proudly claims to have transferred the Sabbath to Sunday as an aspect of its authority. This is totally contrary to scripture. (For a detailed study of this issue, click here.) The RCC makes no bones about the fact that the Bible does not contain any indication of a change, having even published a detailed study of the issue in the Catholic Mirror in 1893.
We must conclude that the RCC fails utterly as a magisterium, first by not having any Biblical grant of authority. Next it fails a historical examination of Papal succession by not having anything even faintly resembling the claimed orderly transmission of the apostolic office from Peter to Pope to Pope. Finally, the RCC teaches as "infallible" dogma doctrines which are totally contrary to scripture. We must therefore reject any claim by the RCC to the office of magisterium.
Go to detailed studies of many RCC false doctrines.
The LDS Claim
We cannot use any issues of conventional apostolic succession to evaluate the LDS claims to hold the magisterium. Their claim arises differently. In essence, they claim that Joseph Smith was selected by God as their first prophet. He was given previously concealed or lost scriptures which he then reproduced in English as the Book of Mormon. As Prophet, he received other revelations which constitute additional foundational material These are published as the Doctrine and Covenants, Articles of Faith, and the Pearl of Great Price. After Joseph Smith's death, a continuing succession of prophets have been divinely chosen, and who from time to time are given revelations which are added to the materials listed above.
12 Behold, this is the tithing and the sacrifice which I, the Lord, require at their hands, that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion--
13 For a place of thanksgiving for all saints, and for a place of instruction for all those who are called to the work of the ministry in all their several callings and offices;
14 That they may be perfected in the understanding of their ministry, in theory, in principle, and in doctrine, in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God on the earth, the keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you.
15 And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it may not be defiled, my glory shall rest upon it;
16 Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God. Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants 97:12-16 (emphasis added) (see also D&C 76:14, 76:116-118, 84:20-22, 110:7-8)
This direct revelatory office conveys upon the prophet an infallible magisterium.
Given the nature of the LDS claim, there is only one way to determine whether it is valid. It is impossible to directly verify claims to direct audiences with God, since you and I are excluded from these events. Therefore, we must carefully examine the doctrines themselves. If they are consistent with our primary source, then they may be acceptable. Otherwise they must be rejected.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Articles of Faith 8
This gives us our starting place. All parties to this issue agree that the Bible is the word of God. So we can use it as our anchor reference. We will begin with the LDS understanding of salvation.
"The blood of Jesus Christ will never wipe out your debt from violation of the covenants." Brigham Young, LDS Prophet, Journal of Discourses Vol 3 p247 (see also Vol 4 pp 53-54 and 219-220)
7 but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 1 John 1:7 (emphasis added)
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, Heb 10:10-12 (emphasis added)
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:11,14 (emphasis added)
Immediately we see that LDS doctrine contradicts the gospel. We can never live sinlessly.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:8-9 (emphasis added)
Our claim of Jesus' forgiveness allows us to stand in the judgment. But LDS teaching contradicts this.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Articles of Faith 3 (emphasis added)
We should note that the teaching of Brigham Young in the first part of this quote appears to contradict the Articles of Faith. This is repeated more specifically by Prophet James Talmage in the Articles of Faith (1985 edition).
"As these sins are the result of individual acts, it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements-- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel'" (pp78-79)
"The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation." (P432) (emphasis added)
"The opportunity of winning the victor's reward by overcoming evil was explained to our parents, and they rejoiced." (P62)
We should compare these statements with the Bible.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Rom 3:28 (emphasis added)
1 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom 5:1 (emphasis added)
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16 (emphasis added)
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16 (emphasis added)
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:23 (emphasis added)
It is difficult to be more clear. The LDS doctrine of salvation by works is unbiblical. There is no way that a sinner can earn eternal life. God gives us an undeserved salvation.
In the early days of the LDS faith, the leaders of the church promoted polygamy. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both had many wives. This practice was one reason why the Mormons were run out of the Midwest. Polygamy continued with the blessing of the church until shortly before the territory of Utah became a state.
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3 p266
As we recall from the discussion of the RCC's celibate priesthood, Paul addressed this issue.
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Tim 3:1-2 (KJV)
This prescription is repeated for deacons in the same chapter. Paul repeats it for elders in Titus 1. The Bible is quite clear: the clergy are to have only one wife. But "the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible" (History of the Church Vol 4 p 461), so we should really look there.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Jacob 2:27-28 (BOM) (emphasis added)
This condemnation of polygamy is repeated in Jacob 1:15, Mosiah 11:2,4, and Ether 10:5,7. Only one conclusion is possible. The LDS church does not follow the Bible OR the Book of Mormon. How can it be an authoritative teacher? But there is more.
"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our father." Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol 8 p115)
23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."
24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife,
25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matt 1:23-25
The virgin birth of Jesus is one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. Yet the LDS church denies it. Space prevents a thorough discussion of LDS beliefs here. (For further information click here.) As we continue through LDS doctrines, it becomes very apparent the they are not in accordance with the Bible. The doctrines of eternal progression, the LDS Trinity, plurality of Gods, baptism for the dead, pre-existence, and others are conflict with the word of God that they claim to accept.
Conclusion:
Any authoritative teacher must teach in accordance with the Bible. As we said earlier, such a teacher may expand beyond the strict confines of the Bible, but may never contradict it. The prophetic office uses the prophet to convey the revelation of God to the people.
1 Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, Titus 1:1-2 (emphasis added)
6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; Mal 3:6a (emphasis added)
Since God does not change, and cannot lie, the original word is the standard against which later prophets must be tested. This is the test which was applied to the apostles, and it is the test which we should apply to any who claim the office now.
The RCC position has been shown to be fraudulent, as has the LDS. The RCC position comes from hubris, imagining themselves to be equal with God. The LDS position comes from a claim of personal audiences with God. If indeed the Prophet and the Apostles of the LDS church have audiences, since the resulting doctrines are not from God, there is only one possible conclusion.
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Tim 4:1 (KJV)
Both claims to authoritative teaching office are without merit. While we cannot exclude the possibility that such a teacher may arise, even that prophet will be subject to testing prior to acceptance. At this date, no true magisterium exists.