NOTE: Inherently religiously oriented material!!!
Recently The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints underwent a change in the hierarchical leadership. Essentially, the former President and presiding authority over the Church, Gordon Bitner Hinckley passed away due to complications brought on by old age, and his First Counselor and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles took the place as President of the Church, President of the First Presidency, and presiding authority. The only wait in the change was a courtesy to the Hinckley family until after President Hinckley was buried - which took place approximately six days after President Hinckley passed away.
The process of succession within the Church is that the senior most apostle, determined by time served within the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, becomes the presiding authority. After Joseph Smith, the founder and first President of the Church passed away, the Church fell into an interregnum where Brigham Young, the senior member of the Quorum (or Council) of the Twelve took over leadership of the Church. Records indicate that he had two councilors, but the presiding body, the first presidency, was not re-established for three nearly three years after the passing of Joseph Smith.
This pattern, an interregnum of leadership, was followed by John Taylor who, after a period of time, also re-organized the First Presidency. Upon John Taylor's passing Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints received revelation that there would be no period of interregnum and the First Presidency of the Church was established immediately upon burial of John Taylor.
As a result of this, the pattern of succession has been very well established and guessing who the next leader of the Church will be is not necessary. In order for anyone but President Thomas S. Monson to be the presiding authority over the Church one of two things would have to happen:
First: President Monson would have to pass away;
Second: President Monson would have to suggest another member of the Quorum to take his place as presiding authority.
As a result of this, the longest surviving member of the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the presiding authority over the Church.
However, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one of the tenets of our religion is that Joseph Smith (founder/first prophet) restored the gospel of Jesus Christ as Christ taught it when he was on the Earth. Essentially, we believe that there was a falling away, or apostasy, and as a result not only was the authority to lead God's ordained church lost to the world, but the Priesthood authority, and many basic principles of the gospel were lost to the world.
After Christ was crucified on the Cross, died, was resurrected, and then ministered unto the 11 Apostles of the time, the presiding authority being Peter, he left the Apostles to determine who would be the next member of that governing body. At that time Peter created a list of requirements for the new member of the body:
- Had to be at Christ's baptism by John
- Had to be present at the death of Christ
- Had to be a disciple of Christ during his lifetime
The outcome to these requirements was an eventual termination of authority, or an eventual termination of who could be a member of the presiding body of the Church at that time. Since Luke, one of the writer's of the Gospels (also bears his name) is also the writer of Acts, and it is in Acts that we discover Peter's rules for a new apostle, it is also important to note that at no time (in the New Testament) does he offer any further evidence of a presiding authority having changed the requirements for becoming one of the Twelve.
Since the Twelve were the recognized presiding body of the Church, and since you had to know Christ to be a member of this body, it then becomes necessary to determine whether or not it was intentional, on Peter's part, to create a body that cannot survive past the first generation. Essentially, was Peter intentionally destroying the Quorum of Twelve or was this an oversight on his part?
Regardless, the membership of this body is important enough to note that Luke takes the time (joining the Church after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and being an historian and someone who had to gather information to write the books he writes) to tell us how members of the governing body were selected; but at no time does he rescind this and explain that a successor to Peter, or Peter himself, made a change to the hierarchy and membership into the Twelve.
What Luke does do is lay out a narrative concerning the transition from a Jewish preaching missionary effort to a Gentile preaching missionary effort. More specifically, he outlines how Peter was requested, and went, to a Roman town and met with a God Fearer (someone who practices Judaism but does not fully convert due to significant physical requirements). At the same time he introduces Paul, who was a persecutor of the Church and someone who may (or may not) have been a murderer of early Christians.
Throughout the early Christian narrative, and at no time, does anyone take the time to indicate a change in how the authority to lead the Church changes from those who personally knew Christ and worshipped with him to people who were Gentile converts of the Gospel or Jewish converts. Rather, this is omitted - even though a change like this would be very significant to the Church at that time.
What does happen is that the Church narrative moves from Peter to Paul. In this context Paul is rightfully referred to as an "apostle" but not necessarily as one of the Twelve Apostles. The term apostle, very broadly, refers to anyone who is engaged in the missionary work of the Church. So, any disciple of Christ who was sent out to preach Christ's gospel was also an Apostle of Christ. Granted, we restrict the meaning of the word, probably as a result of various changes in English lexicon since the 16th century when the New Testament was translated for King James (e.g. what gives us the King James version of the Bible) what this does not mean is how we look at Paul.
We can draw similarities between various religions and leadership roles, as well as business and leadership roles, and historical leadership roles to indicate that Paul was (most likely) a leader of some kind within the Church. That is not in contention. What is in contention was whether or not he held the authority necessary to lead the Church if all of the other Apostles (in this case membership in the Quorum of the Twelve) passed on.
Keeping in mind that the method of leadership and that membership in the presiding body of the Church at that time required you to know Christ and that a period of no greater than 70 years could've passed before that leadership was extinguished, the question of Paul having that authority is a significant question that can be explored.
However, right of authority and succession of authority become two separate arguments in this instance. Where in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have a clearly defined succession of authority and where any worthy male member of the Church can become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, right of authority is less of an issue than succession of authority.
During Peter's presiding over the Church, there was a period of extreme expansion. The new Christian theology was spread not only to Jews but also to God-fearers and from them to the Gentile nations as a whole. Historical methodology of the Roman Catholic church had allowed for Priests to go among the heathen in the Old and New Worlds thereby converting large numbers of people. These conversion, however, were not always without some cost to the principles of Christ's Gospel. Specifically, over time, various traditions of the people being converted, those who worshiped idols or other gods, crept into the burgeoning Christian faith.
This is what Paul is best known for. Paul's letters to the various peoples he converted or helped convert was an effect to try and stifle the influx of non-orthodox ideas to the new religion. He was both verbose and opinionated. He may have also had the power (as a Roman citizen) to travel how and where he wanted without recourse. As a missionary, and a convert, this is a powerful tool to have in Peter's arsenal. This, however, does not denote that Paul was one of the leading Apostles. It does mean he was a leader of some influence.
Consider that Paul, as a missionary or as a regional leader of the growing faith is tasked with trying to keep that faith as pure as possible. In order to do that he had a couple of options: first, he could spend all of his time traveling from region to region trying to correct the errors in practice and worship that were creeping up; or second, he could write letters (to the literate) in the hopes that his letters would hold some sway over how the religion was to be practiced.
The first option is actually a given. Even today the leadership (this includes the 12, the 70, and the auxiliary leadership) not only writes talks, writes, letters, but they travel extensively to keep the Church in check. Corporations write memos and travel to regional centers and operations to make sure the corporate ethos is being followed. In organizing a body of people, it makes sense that Paul, like Peter and others, would be called upon to travel and write and censure when they could not be in person.
Paul, however, was doomed to failure. Christianity, as a new faith, was not popular and there were a lot of people, not the least of which were the Jews of the time, who wanted to see it destroyed. Moreover, it flew in the face of the pagan religions; and regardless of Paul's ability (as a Roman) to travel, he was subject to Roman law. This law would eventually lead him to petition a death sentence with the Caesar of the time.
Still, Paul has not been established as a) a member of the governing body; or b) the successor to Peter. Rather what he was, was someone who was assigned to keep people in line, preach the Gospel, and to write letters helping new converts remain true to the faith he was preaching. He was a man of some authority, though how much authority, is in question. And, since he was not a disciple of Christ during his life, and no other evidence of succession exists, he was not likely to have been allowed into the governing body of the Church at that time.
Moreover, the Church at the time of Peter was growing rapidly with a lot of coverts. As people would discuss the new teachings, they would (in effect) become missionaries, though not ordained, and would spread that word to friends and family. This would then spread to others who would discuss the ideas (Greeks) and how it affected their current faith (Jews). The outcome was a conversion process that required a wider base of leadership.
On top of that, the members of the governing body of would be required, to keep order within the Church, to travel rather extensively. This would keep them separated for long periods of time. As men died, replacing them would require that the presiding officer (Peter) find out about the death and then locate a worthy disciple who met his requirements. The outcome from this, though not impossible, would mean that succession of leadership would be limited by time, distance, and association.
Whether or not Christ, who prophesied that the Church would have a "falling away" before his death knew about these restriction on the leadership, on preaching his Gospel, and on succession is not known. What we can infer, however, is that rapid growth, difficulty in choosing a successive leadership, intentionally limiting who can be a member of the governing body, and geography as well as the political atmosphere and government and persecution from established religious practices all led to an eventual disintegration of the Church and a floundering for a period of time.
After the death of the Apostles (who knew Christ) Christianity did not die. Instead, the leadership and responsibility of the faith went into receivership with lower-level leaders (those that did not know Christ, converts, Gentiles, Jews, and etc.) taking charge of the Church as a whole and spreading the word. At the same time, these leaders, having to rely upon their own wisdom, understanding, and learning, could not keep in check the encroachment of pagan ideas into the religion. Also, having to interpret the gospel, they made changes to help support their interpretations.
All of this led to a period of apostasy where the Church was without keys, authority, or ordained leadership. It also led to an apostasy where decisions were made without the influence of the Holy Spirit and as a result changes were made to the basic tenets of the pure Gospel. The apostles died. the Church fell into ruins. And ultimately, other faiths (based off of Christian ethics) rose to fill the void. These faiths furthered the expansion of Christianity.
Ultimately, today, we have a clear succession of leadership. There is no infighting. There are no contests to be one. We don't appoint elders to decide who is the best one to lead the body of Saints. In the time of Peter, I would imagine this was true as well; though the succession, after Peter, becomes somewhat ambiguous and as far as the historical record indicates, does not show who would succeed him, who did succeed him (other than a member of the 12), or how that succession took place - it does show how succession was meant to happen and a couple of examples of how it happened.
John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West
Real Heroes Fly