A question for the Latter-day Saints (Mormons) here:

[grandfather]

they believe they offer a broken heart and contrite spirit. they also believe they sacrifice fruits meet for repentance, tithes and offerings and their time and talent.

that’s the short answer. the more in depth is gonna end up with the fact that they don’t define their priests in the traditional sacerdotal way but rather as “empowered worshipers” who can use delegated authority to carry out God’s work

So there is no ordained Mormon priesthood, but all Mormons can offer a broken heart and contrite spirit. whatever fruits meet for repentance are, tithes, offerings and time and talent? Does that mean all Mormons of both sexes are priests, as we believe in a priesthood of the people, but they do not have a priest who participates in a religious rite?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

So there is no ordained Mormon priesthood, but all Mormons can offer a broken heart and contrite spirit. whatever fruits meet for repentance are, tithes, offerings and time and talent? Does that mean all Mormons of both sexes are priests, as we believe in a priesthood of the people, but they do not have a priest who participates in a religious rite?

No. There is an ordained LDS priesthood, its just that their concept of the purpose of the actual office of “priest” differs. You asked how a Mormon priest could be a “priest” if there is no sense of sacrifice at the Mormon “Lord Supper” (or as the Mormons ironically call it, “the Sacrament”). I believe Majick was simply explaining how the LDS answer that conflict.

No, women are not ordained in the LDS church, only men, and they must be at least 12 years old.

Keep in mind that theres a vast difference in terminology between Catholics and Mormons.

A Catholic “priest” presides at the Mass, while a Mormon “bishop” presides at the Sacrament, however a Mormon “priest” actually performs the ordinance and the “deacons” pass the bread and water out to the congregation.

So here’s a very rough breakdown:

Catholic ----------------- Mormon

Parish Priest ---------- Bishop
Bishop ------------------- Stake President

 

[RebeccaJ]

I just wanted to point out that the LDS definition of apostasy is not the traditional definition, which does not deal with the terminology of “the loss of priesthood authority,” but is more accurately a reference to a willful and deliberate turning away of individual persons from a faith or movement.

The idea that there was a “loss of priesthood authority,” or the “keys” necessary for apostolic succession for Catholics, is an addition (or a clarification) to the general concept of apostasy, which is more simply defined.

RAR

Sort of. Within Mormonism, an apostate is someone who has willfully turned away from Mormonism, and/or, speaks out against church teachings or authority (leadership).

The definition you are describing is a new innovation, as Christianity in general has asked the questions we ask, Mormons come up with more innovative answers and assign new definitions to words. This would be one of those cases.

The Mormon publication “Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy”, by Noel B. Reynolds, explains the the development of this innovation quite well. The description of this title (from BYU bookstore) states:

"*Early Christians in Disarray *takes a fresh look at the apostasy of the early Christian church. Most LDS scholars and leaders previously understood the Christian apostasy based on the findings of Protestant scholars who provided a seemingly endless array of evidences of apostasy in Christian history. The reliance on Protestant writers produced a heavy emphasis in LDS accounts of the apostasy on the late medieval corruption of the Catholic Church.

These scholars focused on the effects of the apostasy, noting the various changes to the doctrines and ordinances of the early Christian church, rather than focusing on the causes of the apostasy. Since the classic treatments of this topic were written, an enormous amount of new material and new scholarship has been made available. Thus, Early Christians in Disarray enables readers to better understand when and why the apostasy actually took place. "

The book itself goes back to how Joseph Smith and early Mormon leaders defined apostasy, which was the belief that “the loss of the church established by Jesus Christ during his life upon the earth.”

The author’s opening paragraph is this:

“When Joseph Smith emerged from the grove in 1820, he had learned first hand from Jesus Christ himself that the Christian churches of his day were all wrong and that he was forbidden to join any of them. “Their creeds were an abomination in his sight,” their “professors were all corrupt,” and they were teaching “for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,” but denying “the power thereof” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19”

Which is the basis of the Mormon religion, entirely. Without this claim there is no reason for the Mormon religion to exists.

 

[grandfather]

No. There is an ordained LDS priesthood, its just that their concept of the purpose of the actual office of “priest” differs.

Keep in mind that theres a vast difference in terminology between Catholics and Mormons.

I am sure there is a great difference in terminology there. It is not a matter of how Catholics or Mormons use the word priest. It is rather a matter of the general definition of the word. A priest or priestess is a person who offers sacrifice of some kind, no matter the religion. Catholics believe that there is an ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the laity. We all offer sacrifice, but the ordained Catholic priesthood presides over the sacrifice of the Mass. We all have broken hearts, sickness, pain, anquish and all kinds of suffering to offer and we can offer alms no matter the age or sex of the person. In any religion I know of that has people set aside as priests there is some religious rite or ceremony performed by the priest where sacrifice is offered. Aztec priests sacrificed human victims. The Jewish Levitical priesthood offered animal sacrifice. The animal was sacrificed so the human sinner could escape the penalty of his sin. The notion of sacrifice is clear. One thing is offered in substitution for another. A sacrifice is not merely handing out bread and wine or water as a Protestant minister does. Mormons have a group they call priests. Do they perform some sacrificial religious rite or ceremony that would make them priests. Is that why they are called priests, or do they just use the term priest, willy-nilly, for no reason other than liking the word?

 

[majick275]

So there is no ordained Mormon priesthood, but all Mormons can offer a broken heart and contrite spirit. whatever fruits meet for repentance are, tithes, offerings and time and talent? Does that mean all Mormons of both sexes are priests, as we believe in a priesthood of the people, but they do not have a priest who participates in a religious rite?

no! they have ordained priests but all worthy mormon males age 12 and up are ordained into the priesthood. they have many levels of it and then thee are specific callings within it as well. they have a number of rites that require the ordained.

 

[grandfather]

no! they have ordained priests but all worthy mormon males age 12 and up are ordained into the priesthood. they have many levels of it and then thee are specific callings within it as well. they have a number of rites that require the ordained.

Do those rites entail ristual sacrifice of some kind?

 

[majick275]

I am sure there is a great difference in terminology there. It is not a matter of how Catholics or Mormons use the word priest. It is rather a matter of the general definition of the word. A priest or priestess is a person who offers sacrifice of some kind, no matter the religion. Catholics believe that there is an ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the laity. We all offer sacrifice, but the ordained Catholic priesthood presides over the sacrifice of the Mass. We all have broken hearts, sickness, pain, anquish and all kinds of suffering to offer and we can offer alms no matter the age or sex of the person. In any religion I know of that has people set aside as priests there is some religious rite or ceremony performed by the priest where sacrifice is offered. Aztec priests sacrificed human victims. The Jewish Levitical priesthood offered animal sacrifice. The animal was sacrificed so the human sinner could escape the penalty of his sin. The notion of sacrifice is clear. One thing is offered in substitution for another. A sacrifice is not merely handing out bread and wine or water as a Protestant minister does. Mormons have a group they call priests. Do they perform some sacrificial religious rite or ceremony that would make them priests. Is that why they are called priests, or do they just use the term priest, willy-nilly, for no reason other than liking the word?

as i said they redefine the term priest. they also only refer to one lower order as “priests” specifically. there is also a higher order office called “high priest” but they have also redefined what that means. here are the orders and offices:

aaronic priesthood (lower order)
deacon- age 12 similar in role to an EMHC
teacher - age 14 similar in role to a sacristan
priest - age 16 can baptize and “consecrate” the bread and water used as symbols of the lord’s supper at mormon services. kind of a cross between deacon, priest and altar server.

melchisadec priesthood (higher order)
elder - age 18 can perform just about any and all ordinances but specific responsibility is either as a missionary or the care of the members. closest catholic equivalent would be KC’s but even that isn’t close.

Seventy - over 18. (in practice tend to be experienced older men) used to be common, now restricted to general authorities. kind of like a cardinal. particularly involved in missionary work.

high priest - over 18 (in practice most are over 40) fill the leadership positions at local levels.

Apostle - over 18 (in practice are all very much older) limited to 15 people at a time. all apostles are considered “prophets, seers and revelators”. they run the LDS church as a whole with 3 exercising executive authority as a “first presidency” with teh seniormost apostle always serving as president.

“callings” - each local unit has a “quorum” for each priesthood office and each quorum has a president, two counselors and a secretary. (unless they don’t have that many people) these are temporary callings made by direction of higher ups. aaronic priesthood leaders are called by the local bishop (equivalent to catholic pastor) mekchisadec priesthood leaders are called by the stake president (equivalent to catholic bishop)

each “ward” (parish) is led by a bishop with two counselors and a variety of clerks. bishops are called by general authorities who usually approve recommendations by the stake president. counselors and such are called by the stake usually approving the bishops recommendations.

the stake has a president and two counselors. (think bishop with coadjutors) they also have a “high council” that acts as representatives to the local wards.

regional representatives are the next level up and are somewhat like papal nuncios. all of these “callings” so far are rotated among the laity. regional reps can be general authorities which are the only full time paid clergy in the LDS church. the various clerks, secretaries, religious educators, etc. are unpaid positions that individuals are selected to fill by the local leaders. there are a plethora of local callings to keep everyone involved and you don’t volunteer for what you want, you take what they give you.

next comes the area presidency these are high up types and most mormons don’t really interact with them (or regional reps for that matter)

the apostles usually speak at the semiannual general conferences, write books and define the doctrines. the president is usually called THE prophet and can reverse, change, add new doctrine at any time. when he dies the quorum of apostles runs the church but the succession plan is well defined so it isn’t very long.

 

[grandfather]

as i said they redefine the term priest. they also only refer to one lower order as “priests” specifically. there is also a higher order office called “high priest” but they have also redefined what that means. here are the orders and offices:

Thank you. I understand.

So whatever a Mormon priest of any ranking does the term priest does not have the same meaning as the Bible uses the term or as it would define a priest, one who offers ritual sacrifice.

Melchesidec offered bread and wine. The Levites offered animals in the temple. Jesus, the eternal high priest offered Himself as the only acceptable sacrifice for our sins. Catholic priests offer the sacrifice of the Mass. Mormon priests perform some religious functions, but do not offer sacrifice. By any definition other than their own they are not priests.

 

[majick275]

Thank you. I understand.

So whatever a Mormon priest of any ranking does the term priest does not have the same meaning as the Bible uses the term or as it would define a priest, one who offers ritual sacrifice.

Melchesidec offered bread and wine. The Levites offered animals in the temple. Jesus, the eternal high priest offered Himself as the only acceptable sacrifice for our sins. Catholic priests offer the sacrifice of the Mass. Mormon priests perform some religious functions, but do not offer sacrifice. By any definition other than their own they are not priests.

and most do not call themselves priests. they are “elders” or “presidents” or “bishops” or “apostles”, etc.

 

[grandfather]

and most do not call themselves priests. they are “elders” or “presidents” or “bishops” or “apostles”, etc.

But I thought an essential claim of Mormonism was that in the great apostacy the priesthood was lost and needed to be retored and they accomplished this. If that is their claim then the priesthood must be very important.

 

[majick275]

But I thought an essential claim of Mormonism was that in the great apostacy the priesthood was lost and needed to be retored and they accomplished this. If that is their claim then the priesthood must be very important.

their “priesthood” isn’t composed solely of “priests”. every mormon male 12 and up is expected to hold the priesthood and if worthy is ordained. they define priesthood differently than we do. after Christ’s “atonement” they see no need for priestly “sacrifices” and thus see a re-purposed priesthood after that time. they do not define priests as those who sacrifice but as those who are authorized to act on behalf of God. they see “the priesthood” as the power by which accomplishes his works…kind of like the force but only those whom god calls can use it and then only within certain boundaries set by position and situation.

 

[grandfather]

their “priesthood” isn’t composed solely of “priests”. every mormon male 12 and up is expected to hold the priesthood and if worthy is ordained. they define priesthood differently than we do. after Christ’s “atonement” they see no need for priestly “sacrifices” and thus see a re-purposed priesthood after that time. they do not define priests as those who sacrifice but as those who are authorized to act on behalf of God. they see “the priesthood” as the power by which accomplishes his works…kind of like the force but only those whom god calls can use it and then only within certain boundaries set by position and situation.

I get it. Please understand that one person’s definition of a word versus another’s does not effect what the word means. Ice cream is not soda pop. Pizza is not a hot dog. A book is not a radio.

I can not decide that I am going to start a new local government and call mailmen by the title firemen, because I like the sound of the word fireman better. A fireman puts out fire, by definition. A math teacher teaches math. A priest offers sacrifice.

Call the Mormon office holders ministers, elders, teachers, presidents, reverends, grand exalted leaders. They are not priests.

Using the commonly accepted definition of what a priest is, the Mormon so called restored priesthood, is not a group of priests. Their functional duties are not priestly.

If they say there is no more sacrifice, for whatever reason, then they do not need or have priests. No sacrifice = no priest.

 

[ibkc]

I get it. Please understand that one person’s definition of a word versus another’s does not effect what the word means. Ice cream is not soda pop. Pizza is not a hot dog. A book is not a radio.

I can not decide that I am going to start a new local government and call mailmen by the title firemen, because I like the sound of the word fireman better. A fireman puts out fire, by definition. A math teacher teaches math. A priest offers sacrifice.

Call the Mormon office holders ministers, elders, teachers, presidents, reverends, grand exalted leaders. They are not priests.

Using the commonly accepted definition of what a priest is, the Mormon so called restored priesthood, is not a group of priests. Their functional duties are not priestly.

If they say there is no more sacrifice, for whatever reason, then they do not need or have priests. No sacrifice = no priest.

Funny, on another thread I was just commenting on this tendency of Mormons to redefine words with established meanings, and use them with no regard for those meanings. Hence the claims that they are Christian (when their definition of “Christian” is nothing like what the rest of the world calls a Christian) and their claims that they do in fact believe in the Trinity (as long as “Trinity” means 3 gods working together). This is another excellent example of that tendency.

 

[mesl4]

Interesting you have this thread because I had this conversation w/a LDS friend of mine a few months ago. At one point I had considered the LDS church, but after investigating enough, couldn’t quite stretch the Bible that far. It did get me questioning church history though, which has brought me to my current studying of Catholicism and possibly convertin from my evangelical background. ANyway, this is what my friend emailed me when I asked her when the LDS believe the apostasy took place.Sounds like they have a big distinction between what authority an apostle has, and what authority a bishop has, and that Matthias was probably the last apostle called. As a Protestant, ANY authority is news to me! (We only accepted the Bible?Jesus as authority)

I’ve never heard of
an actual date, only that the priesthood power to lead God’s church
died with the apostles. You’ve got a good point that the
priesthood was certainly spread around. It had to be so there could be
leaders over geographic areas. After the last apostle died and there was
no longer anyone who had the keys to lead the whole church, were
there still worthy disciples? Sure. I quite liked what I read on
Wikipedia about the apostacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
Your question on bishops versus apostles deserves a little background
on the priesthood and apostles and keys in the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. At the church’s biannual world
general conference where the leaders of the church speak to and
instruct us. Our prophet, President Hinckley, died several months ago.
So this particular meeting was special in that we got to sustain the
new prophet, President Thomas Monson. In light of the reorganization
of the presidency and quorum of the twelve, one of the apostles at
this meeting taught specifically about the quorum of the twelve
apostles.
about apostles and priesthood and keys:
lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-28,00.html.
Or you can download and listen to it here:
broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2008/04/40/GC_2008_04_45_PackerBK__09487_eng_.mp3

This is
what I know. One of our Articles of Faith states, “We believe that a
man must be called of God, by prophecy and by the laying on of hands
by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer
in the ordinances thereof.”
(scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/5#5) Jesus gave authority to His apostles to lead His church. And they
did after He died. The apostles called/gave authority to others
(like bishops) to lead groups of church members. For instance, Stephen
(scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/6/5-6) and others were given
authority to handle the temporal affairs of the church to allow the
apostles to focus on the spiritual matters. The scriptures indicate that
this is the roll of a bishop. ** For a time, new apostles were called
(see scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/1/13,16,25#13** where Matthias was
called as an apostle after Judas). But then, when no new apostles
were called, the authority to lead the whole church died with the
apostles. The Catholic Church’s authority is claimed to be derived from
Peter giving authority to a bishop(s) in Rome (that is, that this
bishop’s authority, received from Peter, who received authority from
Jesus, was continued through the ages to now). Could a bishop organize
the church rather than apostles? We believe the authority to call
bishops and organize churches lies with apostles, not bishops.
Anyway—a little off subject, I know. But I wanted to point out that to
lead/organize God’s church, you must have His authorization. When He
withdraws His authorization (because of iniquity), there is no church.

But one can still follow Jesus the best one knows how without God’s
authority (though I’m sure God would certainly be with and be
pleased with such a person, don’t you?). So you’re right that from
Jesus to now, there were many dedicated and righteous followers of God
and Jesus—many wonderful God-fearing Christians who did their best
to live according to His commandments and to help others to, also.
The only thing missing during this time was the priesthood–or
authority to act in God’s name, such as the authority to baptize or organize
God’s church. That is what we call the general apostasy: the
absence of God’s authority on the earth. Because of this, the church
was left without God’s leadership, therefore dividing and reforming
and changing. We see throughout the middle ages councils of various
church leaders getting together to change or reinterpret religious
beliefs and practices. Hence, a myriad of churches with veins of truth,
but very different from the original. But there were still many
great Christians and believers who did great things and led great lives.

I’m sure God was anxious to restore His church, waiting for the
right time when He could once again give His authority and His church
could take root. And I’m grateful He did bring it back. It just makes
sense to me that there’s an established pattern for leading and
guiding His church with a prophet, apostles and such. I see God’s
characteristic of organization in His church.

 

[Jash]

Hence the claims that they are Christian (when their definition of “Christian” is nothing like what the rest of the world calls a Christian) and their claims that they do in fact believe in the Trinity (as long as “Trinity” means 3 gods working together). This is another excellent example of that tendency.

Yes, I had a friend who was Catholic and we had similarly frustrating conversations. This type of miscommunication reminds me of a conversation I had with a man who was Shinto in Japan. “I believe the rock is god, the tree is god, that your Jesus is God, so I already believe in your religion.” I’m sure speaking in newly learned Japanese didn’t help the conversation. But sometimes concepts which seemingly ought to be widely understood between different religions completely aren’t.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

BUMP

I’m still interested in this if any individual Latter-day Saints would like to put their 2 cents worth in. (I understand any opinion stated is only that of author and in no way reflects official LDS doctrine).

I just thought this thought exercise of “finding the break in the chain” would be more conducive to conversing with the LDS on matters of priesthood authority.

 

[zerinus]

Who was the first “Prophet” for the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints?

Jesus Christ.

Namely, who succeeded Jesus as prophet after he ascended to heaven?

Peter.

I figure that instead of nitpicking at when an alleged apostasy occurred, it may be more conducive to discussion if we track the Mormon version of Apostolic Succession and thus determine a rough estimate.

No need. Question already addressed here.

zerinus

 

[Jash]

Who was the first “Prophet” for the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints?

Namely, who succeeded Jesus as prophet after he ascended to heaven?

I figure that instead of nitpicking at when an alleged apostasy occurred, it may be more conducive to discussion if we track the Mormon version of Apostolic Succession and thus determine a rough estimate.

Thanks.

Technically, according to our beliefs the first prophet would be Adam.
Did you ever go to primary zerinus?

Adam was a prophet,
First one that we know.
In a place called Eden,
He helped things to grow…

I know you catholics have a very different view of Adam, but Adam would be the first to have an understanding of God’s plan for the salvation of his posterity and is the first Prophet we know of.

A for a successor to Christ I am sure you are looking for Peter. Yes, we too believe he was a prophet. Yes, In Mathew 16:15-18 we read:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I believe Christ could have been making several points in 17 & 18.

1. The true church of Christ is built upon continuing revelation from our Father in Heaven. The need for/evidence of continual revelation may be addressed at another time.
2. That Christ did intend to build up his church on Peter just as he had through every Prophet preceding Peter.
3. Hell’s defenses (i.e. gates) cannot and will not stop the work of the church.

 

[Jash]

Now I’m curious, according to Catholics who succeeded Peter? Pope Linus or Clement I? I have heard different things from different sources. Also, who ordained them?

 

[pismopal]

Now I’m curious, according to Catholics who succeeded Peter? Pope Linus or Clement I? I have heard different things from different sources. Also, who ordained them?

Pope Linus. Catholic Encyclopedia