If the church was in hiding ...

[Bill_Pick]

I understand Parker. If I can help you in anyway please let me know, We are all brothers and sisters in Christ Parker and if there is anything I can do to help you understand the teachings of the CHurch please let me know.

I think like you said Parker you have been told many many untrue things about my Faith. And I am sure I of yours. But I can promise you one thing Parker if you go back to step one. study the faith on a honest and open minded level you will come home to the RCC.

But don’t go by what you hear Parker, go by what the Pope and Bishops teach. It will take you a long time to study but I promise you the answers will be found. And consistant. But you can ask me anything Parker and I will not get upset. And I may not even know the answer but I promise you one thing, I will ask Father and he will explain it to me, and then I can tell you. But I haven’t got to read this thread for the last week so I kinda think you must have had your hands full. But trust me Parker alot of these People really do understand the faith. They have had alot of study.

Trust me Parker Catholics do understand their faith. The bible was written by the Church and the Church can teach it well. Trust me Parker written and oral teachings. No one else got them. God Bless you Parker and I understand you are where you feel you need to be. But I do appreciate your time for letting us share our faith with you. And pray someday you can even possibly be on our side. I see alot of Christ in your Parker. even though we may be on opposite sides of the track, We still see the Track.

The best known of the many groups and the one with the largest membership are the Mormons with their headquarters in Salt Lake City. The Reorganized Church has its center in Independence, Missouri. All of Joseph’s descendants belong to this group.

Some of the other groups include: Church of Christ, Temple Lot; Church of Jesus Christ; Church of the First Born; Order of Aaron; the Strangites; the Bickertonites.
Most of these are all so cults like the Mormons

 

[ParkerD]

Ok Parker we are making progress. Now I gotta run today Wed. (Moms day) but lets think what you stated. Okay now do this for me when I am gone. I will check back late tonight or probally tommorow morn.

1. You said Jesus gave all of the Apostles the keys? Okay Parker where? My bible says you are Peter and to YOU not to all of the apostles I give youn’s (thats a south western Pa word as far as I know we are the only ones who use it) But show me the scipture when Jesus is not just talking to Peter, and where it does not just say YOU.
2. Okay now you said you have the authority. Okay now where did that authority come from. Because we both agree it is and always has been by the laying of hands handed down from a Apostle who was straight from that room with Jesus.
3. Now I agree that we have the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, and by that gift of GRACE we are baptised and become a part of the family of Chirst. But where did you receive the Power of the Holy Spirit to do what the Apostles did? See you admit you don’t have that power. But see they did. And you admit authority you cannot or do not have. But see Parker thats why theere are Bishops, Priests do not have the authority as Bishops, there are ranks. Just like the goverment.
4. Now here is the 2nd scripture I want to see from you tommorow. Show me where John said he received the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. I need to see that scripture. Because in my bible only Peter received them. But if you can show me where John received them I have to agree with you. Now authority given by the HS is not the same as the keys.
5. 3rd thing I want you to do for me. KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. That has another meaning also Parker it ties into the OT. Find out for me what that meaning is. I think that will help alot.

See you tommorow and have a wonderful Peaceful day!

Rinnie,
Thank you again for all the kindness and goodness you show in your posts. Your example ought to inspire everyone who reads what you have to say. Thanks! It really means a lot, and shows that you really do understand Paul’s teachings about charity (love). I can’t say enough about it–BRAVO!

Here are some answers:

1. Matthew 16:19 KJV reads thus: 19 “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (As you noted, Christ was addressing only Simon Peter.)

Matthew 18:18 reads thus: 18 “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Here, Christ was addressing the twelve apostles together, using “ye” instead of “thou”.)

The keys of the kingdom of heaven were not given to Simon Peter on the occasion where Christ spoke the words “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, since He used the words “will give” meaning it was a future event.

Matthew 18:18 can either be understood to mean that Christ was giving the authority at that moment, or His use of the word “shall” was for a future time rather than the present time. But He was addressing the entire group of apostles, and said they would have the same authority that He had said that Simon Peter would have, the authority that meant “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” He did not differentiate between Simon Peter and the others in that passage in Matthew 18. They all had the same authority to bind and loose.

1. The priesthood authority I have is through the laying on of hands of Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and through their hands to others called by the authority given to them, and so forth down to the time when hands were placed on my head to give me priesthood authority.
2. I agree that “there are ranks”, and that I do not have the authority to “bind and loose” that the apostles had then and that the apostles have today. The statement that “there are ranks” is an important statement.
3. Neither Simon Peter nor John said they “received the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM.” John seemed more interested in his writing to declare that Christ had the keys to death and hell.
4. I hope I have figured out what verse you meant for me to find. Isaiah 22:22 refers to Christ having the key of the house of David, and that verse is highlighted by John in Revelation 3:7. Christ holds the keys of salvation, always. He lives still today, and is in charge of them–not men.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Rinnie,
I absolutely know that Jesus is with every single person who is with Him. The people who need to choose whether they are with Him is every single one of us, since the day He made that statement. When He promised “I am with you always until the end of time,” He was promising to be with every person who will keep His teachings “to do them”, and to support them in their trials and struggles in life, and to offer the blessings of His atonement to them for all eternity. He always does this, to everyone who comes unto Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Parker,

you dont recognize authority just like all other protestants.
the CC has authority to lead the people of God, you dont, and neither does your church.

that is what the argument is all about. Jesus instituted authority to lead His people, that is why Jesus made that promise. Jesus never promise every single person authority, He already chose the authorities of the Church, these were the Apostles and whom the Apostles has chosen. that is how the authority was set up in the Church.

authority is not given to every single one who read the Bible. reading the Bible does not give authority to no one. assuming authority just because they read the Bible it is wrong that is not authority given, that is assuming the power that was given to someone else.

You have no authority, Parker. you can scream all day long saying that you have it, but you dont.

 

[ParkerD]

Rinnie,
By the way, have a wonderful evening and a great day tomorrow.

Wisdom Seeker,
I have no doubt that you are kinder in real life than your last post comes across as being. I am so very grateful that you are in no position to judge whether I have authority or whether Christ is with anyone other than yourself. I read things like what you wrote and think of the Wizard of Oz and the man behind the curtain pulling levers and pushing buttons and speaking “words with no knowledge.” Ah, well. Such is life.

 

[placido]

Hi, Placido,
John had a “new assignment” when he became a translated being. He had finished his assignments as a mortal person, including writing the book of Revelation.

No. If what you are saying was to be true, then John did not finish his assignment, he was a total failure.
Let us think a little bit logically for a moment, shall we?
All the apostles had authority and could pass that authority to others. After the death of Peter the authority passed to John who remained behind, but John was apparently a “failed apostle” who could not preach the gospel to covert a single person to Christ so much so that when he became a “translated being” there was no one on earth he could hand the authority to.
That means, John is to blame for the disappearance of “priestly authority” from the earth for over 1 700 years.
Fortunately, although we all do enjoy fiction, some of us don’t take it seriously.

He did join with Peter and John to give the keys and authority of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery which they held as apostles, and could have done that whenever it was the right time and the right place in God’s plan.

In other words, God’s plan was not to restore the authority as soon as possible … God is therefore to blame for the absence of “priestly authority” for 1 700 years. That is amazing!

As I had said before to you, of course John would not stand in front of everyone and say “Here I am, look at me, I am one of the original Twelve Apostles–follow me, everyone.”

No, of course he “can’t do that” because if he did every one would know he really appeared and that would cause irreparable damage to the LDS. He has to “appear” and “disappear” secretly, leaving the seer as the only “witness”. And the trick seems to produce the required results.

Why not? Because God does not work by signs to try and bring people to belief.

Oh, it seems your god differs from the God of Christianity: John 20:30 “Jesus did many other miraculous SIGNS in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

But when anyone has said “I have the keys Peter held,” if that was a true statement they would be more than just a bishop in terms of their authority, because being a bishop is not the same thing as being an apostle.

That is why I am saying, the bishops were not clever enough because they failed to first of all give themselves the titles of “apostle” like the LDS did.

I for one can discern that a person that said such a thing did not know what they were talking about, because of their logic and because such a teaching (that bishops were going to get the keys from the apostles to guide the whole church) was never, ever taught by the apostles or by Christ Himself, nor was it ever even remotely inferred that the bishop of Rome was going to be the “head bishop”.

No, there is no mention of the “bishop of Rome” being the “head bishop”, there is only mention of Joseph Smith restoring the church and getting the keys from the apostles to guide the whole church … when it comes to entertaining us, you never disappoint. Thank you very much!

Placido

 

[ParkerD]

Rinnie,
I felt that I should end this on a more positive note, if possible.

Since the topic has become “authority” as delegated to mankind from God, may I make note of the important observation that God would give authority only on the basis of trust. He would entrust with authority only those whom He could trust, and if they betrayed His trust at any point in time, He could of course and would of course withdraw that authority. They could say they still “had it”, but that would only be their words doing what men do–which is claim authority that is not theirs to claim. Such an one would be very likely to insist they still had proper authority–in fact, they might be expected to insinuate that anyone who did not agree with them was “in big trouble” with God, such as being a “heretic” or worse. That is how the men in charge would assert they had authority and seek to preserve it, but that doesn’t make that process the correct one or the legitimate one. It is God’s authority to give and to revoke, always, and that authority, to be legitimate, is always based on whether the person can be trusted by God in how they deal with others and how they act when no one is around.

 

[fbl9]

authority is not given to every single one who reads the Bible. reading the Bible does not give authority to no one. assuming authority just because they read the Bible it is wrong that is not authority given, that is assuming the power that was given to someone else.

.

This in itself is the nutshell of why there is so much confussion rendered from the word of God since someone many moon ago came up with this “new” “truth”…

In all of scripture (NT).there is only two more apostles added and there was more than one witness, that witness not being in the new apostles themsleves,
The first time is was the eleven voting and the second one Christ Himself appointed.

 

[fbl9]

Rinnie,
I felt that I should end this on a more positive note, if possible.

Since the topic has become “authority” as delegated to mankind from God, may I make note of the important observation that God would give authority only on the basis of trust. He would entrust with authority only those whom He could trust, and if they betrayed His trust at any point in time, He could of course and would of course withdraw that authority. They could say they still “had it”, but that would only be their words doing what men do–which is claim authority that is not theirs to claim. Such an one would be very likely to insist they still had proper authority–in fact, they might be expected to insinuate that anyone who did not agree with them was “in big trouble” with God, such as being a “heretic” or worse. That is how the men in charge would assert they had authority and seek to preserve it, but that doesn’t make that process the correct one or the legitimate one. It is God’s authority to give and to revoke, always, and that authority, to be legitimate, is always based on whether the person can be trusted by God in how they deal with others and how they act when no one is around.

And who is to say that God hasn’t revoked your authority and now He has given it the Catholic Church.eh?

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,
Thank you for raising a very good point that goes right along with what I was typing when you were typing your comments.

John had the visions that formed the basis of his writing the book of Revelation, when he was fairly old. He could see what was happening to the members of the church and the local leaders of the church. There were doctrinal disagreements, disagreements by supposed leaders who did not accept the apostles’ leadership (see Peter’s epistles and Paul’s epistles), and the difficulty to figure out who could be trusted as time went on and the original body of members who had been taught by Christ grew old or were killed.

To say that John “failed” is to not recognize that if men could not be trusted with authority, then that was not his fault–it was their fault. John saw it happening, and had the visions that helped him understand why that was not something to get overly upset about or think he was a personal failure, knowing that God’s plan ultimately would not be thwarted. But it truly must have been disappointing for him to see that happening before his very eyes–men not being able to be trusted with the authority of God.

 

[ParkerD]

And who is to say that God hasn’t revoked your authority and now He has given it the Catholic Church.eh?

Hi, FBL9.

Simple answer: who is to say? God Himself.
How? By revelation and by consistency with what He has already revealed.
How does one get revelation? Through sincere personal prayer.

What does this website say about doing that kind of praying? It says, “don’t do it. You can’t trust yourself to understand an answer from God. Trust ‘us’ instead.” (Why might that be?)
I simply disagree. I think one can pray and trust that God will answer a sincere prayer by each person who has studied the Bible with sincere intent to find out what it really does say, and to be able to figure out that sincere prayer asking God for guidance is entirely appropriate.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Hi, FBL9.

Simple answer: who is to say? God Himself.
How? By revelation and by consistency with what He has already revealed.
How does one get revelation? Through sincere personal prayer.

What does this website say about doing that kind of praying? It says, “don’t do it. You can’t trust yourself to understand an answer from God. Trust ‘us’ instead.” (Why might that be?)
I simply disagree. I think one can pray and trust that God will answer a sincere prayer by each person who has studied the Bible with sincere intent to find out what it really does say, and to be able to figure out that sincere prayer asking God for guidance is entirely appropriate.

Wait, are you saying that this website (CAF) says not to pray for personal revelation? That is false. Catholics believe that all people have private revelation, and some even have visits from various Heavenly peoples. We also pray for God’s guidance in reading Scripture. In fact, there is an entire devotion associated with this, called Lectio Divina (divine reading).

 

[ParkerD]

Wait, are you saying that this website (CAF) says not to pray for personal revelation? That is false. Catholics believe that all people have private revelation, and some even have visits from various Heavenly peoples. We also pray for God’s guidance in reading Scripture. In fact, there is an entire devotion associated with this, called Lectio Divina (divine reading).

ThuriferAcolyte,
Here is the verbatim quote:

“it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will.”

A person can pray to “know God’s will,” and could get a different answer than they might have been expecting, but not if they are thinking they will be foolish to pray at all about a question they might have, because then their mind would be full of doubt from the outset. Doubt and sincere prayer cannot coexist in the same mind and heart. A prayer with a doubtful heart is a waste of time. But sincere, heartfelt prayer–now that is never a waste of time.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
Here is the verbatim quote:

“it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will.”

A person can pray to “know God’s will,” and could get a different answer than they might have been expecting, but not if they are thinking they will be foolish to pray at all about a question they might have, because then their mind would be full of doubt from the outset. Doubt and sincere prayer cannot coexist in the same mind and heart. A prayer with a doubtful heart is a waste of time. But sincere, heartfelt prayer–now that is never a waste of time.

We agree, sincere, heartfelt prayer is never a waste of time. Let us look at the entire quote:

"“Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God.” "

catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp

From the Catholic perspective, it would be foolish for a believing Catholic to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true, since for us, it is not possible that it is scripture, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Likewise, it would be foolish for a believing Catholic to pray to know whether adultery is right, because we know, from the Bible and from other Church teaching, that it is false.

So, again, your original statement that this website says not to engage in sincere personal prayer for revelation is false. What it does say is that certain things we do not have to pray about. I don’t need to pray to know whether adultery is wrong. I don’t need to pray to know whether I should lie. And for a believing Catholic, I don’t need to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true scripture. That’s what the entire quote says.

 

[ParkerD]

We agree, sincere, heartfelt prayer is never a waste of time. Let us look at the entire quote:

"“Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God.” "

catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp

From the Catholic perspective, it would be foolish for a believing Catholic to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true, since for us, it is not possible that it is scripture, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Likewise, it would be foolish for a believing Catholic to pray to know whether adultery is right, because we know, from the Bible and from other Church teaching, that it is false.

So, again, your original statement that this website says not to engage in sincere personal prayer for revelation is false. What it does say is that certain things we do not have to pray about. I don’t need to pray to know whether adultery is wrong. I don’t need to pray to know whether I should lie. And for a believing Catholic, I don’t need to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true scripture. That’s what the entire quote says.

ThuriferAcolyte,
Since the question by FBL9 about authority and the possibility of its revocation is what led to my response about prayer, then perhaps you could answer whether it would be “foolish” to pray whether authority is from God, or whether there exists the possibility that such authority has been revoked?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
Since the question by FBL9 about authority and the possibility of its revocation is what led to my response about prayer, then perhaps you could answer whether it would be “foolish” to pray whether authority is from God, or whether there exists the possibility that such authority has been revoked?

In the Catholic worldview, God gave the authority to His Church, and it cannot be taken away, and this understanding is based on our interpretation of various Biblical verses. Therefore, again, for a believing Catholic (one that has a “testimony” if you will, of the Church), it would not make sense to pray to God to find out whether the Church lost its authority. The authority has always been on earth, and has never been taken away. What might make more sense to pray about is whether you are in the Church with that authority, not whether the authority has been taken away from the earth. This is from the Catholic perspective.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Thank you for raising a very good point that goes right along with what I was typing when you were typing your comments.
John had the visions that formed the basis of his writing the book of Revelation, when he was fairly old. He could see what was happening to the members of the church and the local leaders of the church. There were doctrinal disagreements, disagreements by supposed leaders who did not accept the apostles’ leadership (see Peter’s epistles and Paul’s epistles), and the difficulty to figure out who could be trusted as time went on and the original body of members who had been taught by Christ grew old or were killed.

That means exactly that John was “a failed apostle”. He grew old without converting a single person to Christ. That is why he could not trust any body with authority. That is basically what you are saying. You can deny it with as many words as possible, but that is the only logical conclusion of what you are saying.
If John was not “a failed apostle”, then he must have converted some people to Christ, and those converted to Christ can be trusted with church authority. You can dance or jump, but there is simply no way around it.

To say that John “failed” is to not recognize that if men could not be trusted with authority, then that was not his fault – it was their fault.

Oh, humanity had no one to be trusted with authority immediately after Jesus’ redemptive work. But ever since Joseph Smith’s restoration of authority in 1829, humanity no longer lacks people to be trusted with authority … do you know what that means?

John saw it happening, and had the visions that helped him understand why that was not something to get overly upset about or think he was a personal failure, knowing that God’s plan ultimately would not be thwarted. But it truly must have been disappointing for him to see that happening before his very eyes – men not being able to be trusted with the authority of God.

John “failed” to convert a single person to Christ. That is why there was none to be trusted with authority. On the contrary, Joseph Smith succeeded. That is why there has ever since been a lot of people to be trusted with authority … do you know what that means?

placido

 

[placido]

Rinnie,
I felt that I should end this on a more positive note, if possible.
Since the topic has become “authority” as delegated to mankind from God, may I make note of the important observation that God would give authority only on the basis of trust. He would entrust with authority only those whom He could trust, and if they betrayed His trust at any point in time, He could of course and would of course withdraw that authority.

What you are saying is this: from 100 AD to 1829 AD God could not find a single trustworthy person on earth, but from 1829 to 2009 God found a lot of trustworthy people on earth.
Why?
Because Jesus’ redemptive work did not produce any Grace and His apostles failed in their mission, while Joseph Smith succeeded. That makes Joseph Smith the redeemer of humanity … Ok, I know you won’t use those precise words … but that is the impression you are creating.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

In the Catholic worldview, God gave the authority to His Church, and it cannot be taken away, and this understanding is based on our interpretation of various Biblical verses. Therefore, again, for a believing Catholic (one that has a “testimony” if you will, of the Church), it would not make sense to pray to God to find out whether the Church lost its authority. The authority has always been on earth, and has never been taken away. What might make more sense to pray about is whether you are in the Church with that authority, not whether the authority has been taken away from the earth. This is from the Catholic perspective.

ThuriferAcolyte,
I would think that an objective person would see that such a foundational belief as you noted here, is completely insular. Your statement that “it would not make sense to pray to God to find out whether the Church lost its authority” means that a person, however sincere in their desire to please God or to find the “hidden truths” talked about by Paul in his epistles, would never pray in sincerity about the one basic question that God might actually want them to ask, which has to do with what this entire thread has been about: whether leaders of a church could lose the trust God had placed in them because of their actions and could thus lose the authority to act in His name.

Further to the discussion of whether prayer for “personal revelation” is understood correctly within the beliefs you noted, here is another quote from the article you already cited which I had quoted from before:

They’ll tell you that you’ll receive the witness of the Holy Ghost in the form of a “burning in the bosom”—a warm, fuzzy feeling—after reading and praying about it. This feeling is the clincher for them.

What that says to me is that the people who wrote that article have never experienced personal revelation themselves, and have never had occasion to feel as described in the following examples from the Bible:

(Luke 24:30-32) 30 “And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

(1 Kings 19:11-13) 11 “And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out…”

(Hebrews 11:5) “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

(Ephesians 1:17-18) 17 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

(1 Samuel 3: 6-11) 6 "And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.
7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.
11 And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.

Those instances of communication from God had to do with a “burning in the heart” or a “still small voice” or “eyes of understanding being enlightened” or “ears shall tingle.”

The writers of that article evidently would scoff at such communication from God, but I absolutely know that such communication is central to personal revelation and the way God wants to communicate with us by the power of the Holy Spirit. We can access that communication through sincere prayer, but not if we have doubts and fears and misunderstanding. If that be the case, our prayer would be full of doubt and could not be answered. God communicates to those who have faith and who exercise that faith by doing something about their faith and asking for His guidance.

 

[ParkerD]

That means exactly that John was “a failed apostle”. He grew old without converting a single person to Christ. That is why he could not trust any body with authority. That is basically what you are saying. You can deny it with as many words as possible, but that is the only logical conclusion of what you are saying.
If John was not “a failed apostle”, then he must have converted some people to Christ, and those converted to Christ can be trusted with church authority. You can dance or jump, but there is simply no way around it.

Oh, humanity had no one to be trusted with authority immediately after Jesus’ redemptive work. But ever since Joseph Smith’s restoration of authority in 1829, humanity no longer lacks people to be trusted with authority … do you know what that means?

John “failed” to convert a single person to Christ. That is why there was none to be trusted with authority. On the contrary, Joseph Smith succeeded. That is why there has ever since been a lot of people to be trusted with authority … do you know what that means?

placido

Placido,
We’re talking about men to lead the church in the waning days as apostles were being killed and hunted down (not women since they would not have the priesthood). We’re talking about men who would have the complete understanding of the communication from God by the spirit of revelation or in other words, the “still small voice” of the Spirit. Men who would not flinch when the whole world said they were teaching the wrong thing, and that tradition must be followed. Men who would not be influenced one iota by the desire for power or prestige or fame or having a lot of believers following them. Men who would be willing to stand before kings and law-givers and the learned and say, “This is what I know to be true, because God has revealed these truths” and not compromise even a tiny bit when that king or those law-givers or those learned people say, “What about this?” or “What about our sacred traditions?”

A door needed to be opened, Placido, a door to understanding. Until that door was re-opened, men may have wondered and wished, but until they actually trusted that God would talk to men in a way that is unmistakeable and secure and absolutely real, they were as “sheep having no shepherd” because of how they had been taught to believe. Once the door of understanding was opened, then yes, men could begin to trust that God would actually communicate openly with them, and they in turn could be trusted by God to keep completely pure the truths that God would communicate by the Holy Spirit or by visions or by angels visiting the earth.

Why such a long time with none of that authority on the earth? Why didn’t God raise up someone until the 1800’s? Well, is that my business or is that God’s business? Is God in charge of His purposes on earth, or are men in charge? Every single person who has ever lived will have the full blessings of Christ’s atonement extended to them, for them to accept either fully or partially or to reject if they so choose. The man-made constraint that all the believing had to be done during the period of mortal life, is merely a man-made constraint which is untrue. God’s ways are not man’s ways.

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,
A prophet is not a redeemer of humanity. Christ is the Redeemer of humanity. A prophet testifies of Christ’s redemptive power, and leads people to God, without flinching when the whole world is against them.