I was reading a post on Gawker (if you’re interested) about a “Christian” religious extremist. In the comments below it, the conversation drifted into a discussion of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints. One commenter said,
So, I looked up Matthew 16:18
I don’t get it. How does LDS theology mean that Jesus is lying to Peter? I’m not looking for a debate on the issue. I just don’t understand the meaning here.
Because if Jesus was telling the truth, the LDS doesn’t have any standing, as the “true church” is based on what sprung from Peter (i.e. a long succession of clerics that the Roman Catholic Church is based on). If the LDS is right (i.e. that there was a whole bunch of extra teachings to come) then that statement was wrong.
The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches also claim apostolic succession from Peter.
Because the premise of LDS is that Jesus did not found his (only) church with Peter in the Roman world, but almost immediately after his Resurrection traveled to North America, home of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel (a.k.a. the Native Americans), to do another set for their benefit.
nitpick: It’s
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
I used to live in Salt Lake – it’s on the badges at Temple Square. And on the walls at the entrance of Temple Square, too, for that matter. And on Missionary badges, as well.
Though Jesus Christ and the Latterday Saints does make a good band name…
Based on:
The church was found on revelation of the Son by the Father to man. I don’t know how anyone could make a case for Jesus lying to Peter right after saying that he is blessed, and that Peter recognized Him as the Son of God.
“And on this rock I will build my church. And on this other rock I’ll build another church.” 
“But baby! You’re the one I really love! I mean, I’m dying for you FIRST, right?”
And what question are you answering? Because it sure as heck doesn’t address the OP…
No reason that Peter couldn’t also be the foundation-rock for a church on the other side of the world, or even on another planet. Obviously you have to interpret Peter’s foundational role in a different way from the Catholic Church’s version of the Papacy, but all of the protestant churches already do that, and I’ve never heard them described as non-Christian for it.
Thank you for the correction, Maggie. Honestly, I knew that. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I’m not speaking for the LDS in any way, but why couldn’t Jesus’ statement be construed as truthful when he spoke to Peter, but that the situation changed later, requiring Jesus’ intervention in North America. After all, I’m not lying if I say I am going to do something, then end up having to do something else due to changing circumstances.
Well, I don’t put any stock in this but, if you’re you, then you’re subject to the vagaries of the temporal. Presumably if you’re God incarnate, then your omniscience precludes the circumstances changing.
Because you’re not omniscient. The argument is that there are no changing circumstances for Jesus because Jesus already knows what’s going to happen. Although I suppose you could make a case that it is only lying to Peter by ommision, since what Jesus really meant was that his Western Church would be built on Peter while he was going to establish another elsewhere.
Edit: Clearly I’m not omniscient, since I didn’t see Red Skeezix’s post coming.
The specific LDS interpretation of the scripture is that the “rock” referred to is not Peter or any other individual, but the personal revelation from God referred to in the previous verse. Former Mormon bishop here.
Nitpick: Wasn’t it actually CalMeacham who provided the correction and **Maggie **who made a joke?
Wow, former bishop? I’m not one for pushing people to start threads, but if you ever decide to start an “Ask the ex-Mormon Bishop” thread, I’m totally there!
Well, AFAIK Peter is the rock referred to, but Mormons don’t disagree with that verse. Catholics consider Peter to be the first Pope, right? LDS are pretty much the same, only they assume a suspension of the office for centuries after a successor or two. Joseph Smith claimed apostolic succession directly from Peter.
As for the establishment of Jesus’ church on the other side of the world, I don’t quite see the problem. Given that there wasn’t communication between one group and the other, they would need their own apostolic structure. Peter & co. would be considered pre-eminent, however.
Obviously no one else is going to agree with the theology involved, but nothing in LDS thought contradicts the verse in Matthew. That’s a new one to me–I assumed this would be the verse about marriage in heaven.
Active Mormon here.
Actually in the Greek, petros and petra are 2 distinctly different things. It wasn’t to say Peter (petros) would be the rock upon which the church was built, but that the church would be built upon petra.
“You are petros and upon this petra I will build my church.” Peter is not and was not the ROCK. Jesus IS. Basically, “Bless you Peter for recognizing I AM the Messiah, but I AM the Rock that the church willbe built on.”
Cite provided upon request.
It’s been mentioned in connection with some recent news, but a Mormon bishop isn’t nearly as big a deal as it is in, say, Catholicism.
NOLA Cajun, if Jesus isn’t saying that Simon is the rock, then why is he calling him Peter in the first place?