Was the very first apostle Mary Magdalene, a woman?

[_sock puppet]

The word "apostle" has applied in many contexts in the church. The Seventy are apostles. In the 19th century the church ordained 10 year old boys as apostles. President McKay had a counselor, Alvin R Dyer who had the title of apostle but was never in the Quurom.

People, including women, can be apostles in the church.

Correct. Being in the Club of the 12 (or 15) is not necessary for one to be an apostle.

Again, the teaching that an apostle must be one who has seen Christ is nowhere in the Bible. It was invented by the Protestants, who deny the Pope's title as Apostle, who deny his authority, and who assert that the Bible is the only authority they need because there the apostles saw Christ.

Damn those Protestants for believing Acts 1:21. Must be a hang up for them to latch on to provisions of Mormon canon.

[_sock puppet]

Well Mr Yahoo, that's because I spent too much time reading the Book of Mormon, serving in my calling, and listening to Afterglow.

Sure thing. You've become a nasty apostate because your Primary teacher taught you a myth which you perpetuated on your mission? Ye gads, yer not very discriminating in yer thought processes?

Keep in mind, folks, this from someone who believes entire Mormon mythology based on ... oh, that's right: no facts. Very discriminating thought processes from Mr Bot.

[_Yahoo Bot]

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Damn those Protestants for believing Acts 1:21. Must be a hang up for them to latch on to provisions of Mormon canon

Paul wouldn't qualify for this test, although this is the proof-text of the Protestants.

Has Holland denied what you imply to be this slander that he claimed something he did not? Has the LDS Church hired you to sue Sister Thomas?

Very interesting rejoinder. But I'm more interested to know whether you can point to any church publication, handbook or conference address which supports your position that the prerequisite to being an apostle is that he must have seen the risen Lord. Is there one?

Keep in mind, folks, this from someone who believes entire Mormon mythology based on ... oh, that's right: no facts. Very discriminating thought processes from Mr Bot.

Is there any way to focus upon the issue at hand -- whether this is or is not contained in Church teachings -- rather than slam me anonymously? Such courage from a member of the Utah bar, to hide the way you do.

[_consiglieri]

I just started Quinn's Mormon Heirarchy: Extensions of Power last night, and found the first chapter appropros to this discussion.

The 1835 injunction to apostles by Oliver Cowdery enjoined them all to not cease striving until they had seen the face of God.

This injunction continued throughout the rest of the century to new apostles, and many reported having attained to its fulfillment.

In 1900, the injunction was changed to omit the striving to see the face of God part, and focused more on submitting themselves to the senior apostles.

Though there have been a couple of rare instances of 20th century apostles claiming to have seen the face of God, the whole idea has been watered down to the point where they basically just say they know by the power of the Holy Ghost, same as anybody.

BUT they continue to use language meant to be understood by the membership that they have actually seen Jesus.

WHILE simultaneously avoiding printing in official Church material the substance of Oliver Cowdery's 1835 apostolic injunction.

Historically speaking, there really is no dispute about this.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_SteelHead]

In a mission reunion some 6 or 7 years ago, my mission president who was am area 70 at the time, described in great detail the appearance of the resurrected Christ, and testified that he had seen him.

Now if this was with his physical eyes, or spiritual eyes, in a vision, or in a dream he never delineated, only that he had seen him.

[_MsJack]

A couple of more thoughts on this:

The term ἀπόστολος in the New Testament does not always mean "authoritative, top leader of the early church." I conducted a word study this semester for one of my classes on ἀπόστολος in the Pauline corpus (everything that's attributed to Paul). I found that Paul uses the term in at least three senses:

(1) In reference to a group of authoritative, evangelistic leaders within the Church, including but not limited to the Twelve (1 Cor 4:9, 12:12, 12:28; Eph 2:20, 3:5; 1 Th 2:7), or imitators of this group of leaders (2 Cor 11:5,13; 12:1). This is the widest usage of ἀπόστολος. Paul speaks often of his own apostleship and locates himself within this group.

(2) In the classical sense of the term, to mean a messenger or envoy of the churches (2 Cor 8:23; Php 2:25). An apostolic calling does not seem to be in view here.

(3) To refer to a wider group of people outside of the Twelve to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection (1 Cor 15:5).

I've heard it said that ἀπόστολος can mean "missionary" in the New Testament, but I'm not sure where this occurs. Not in the Pauline corpus.

The point of this is, for someone to be called an ἀπόστολος isn't a slam-dunk case that said person was an authoritative leader on the same level as the Twelve. Apostleship was connected with having witnessed the resurrected Christ and receiving a commission from him to proclaim a message, and Mary Magdalene and the other women who witnessed the resurrection certainly had that (Mt 28:1-10, Mk 16:7, Jn 20:17-18). Although they vary in the details, the Gospels generally agree that the women witnessed the resurrected Christ and were given a commission to proclaim to the Eleven that Christ had risen. It is in this sense in which medieval tradition and possibly the ECFs heralded Mary Magdalene and the other women as the "apostles to the apostles." While this is incredibly significant for other reasons, it still isn't enough to insist that Mormons must conclude that these women occupied what Mormons view as apostolic offices.

As far as modern-day Mormonism goes, I don't mind that Mormons seek to define "apostle" on their own terms, and that those terms don't necessarily include witness to an appearance of the resurrected Christ. But I do think that being an "apostle" or "special witness of Christ" should mean being and doing something different from the leaders of the local Methodist denomination. As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes Mormon leaders "special" witnesses of Christ is that Mormons insist that they are.

Paul wouldn't qualify for this test, although this is the proof-text of the Protestants.

There are multiple texts indicating that an apostle needs to have seen the resurrected Christ, several of which are found in Paul's own writings. Rob Bowman did a post on this over at MADB a few years ago, here. I would say the three texts which most directly indicate that seeing the risen Christ is a requirement for apostleship are 1 Corinthians 9:1, Acts 1:21-22, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-9.

But, I'd never heard that the idea was originally a polemic against Catholicism, or that the Pope is considered an apostle. I'd like to learn more about the history of it.

[_DarkHelmet]

In a mission reunion some 6 or 7 years ago, my mission president who was am area 70 at the time, described in great detail the appearance of the resurrected Christ, and testified that he had seen him.

Now if this was with his physical eyes, or spiritual eyes, in a vision, or in a dream he never delineated, only that he had seen him.

Maybe he saw a picture of him on the wall at church. Was he wearing a red robe with white t shirt underneath, blondish brown hair, blue eyes, trimmed beard, sexy?

[_SteelHead]

Nope, said he was brilliant white, with eyes of fire.