LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
flyonthewall: can you please prove the following false?
Perhaps the most irrefutable evidence for the fraudulent character of the Book of Mormon came to light in the mid-1970s through the research of three young Americans, Wayne Cowdrey, Howard Davis, and Donald Scales.
Click to expand...
From a very early date, the relatives and acquaintances of a retired Congregationalist minister, Rev. Solomon Spalding, who died in 1816, had complained against the Latter-Day Saints that the Book of Mormon was really a plagiarized version of an unpublished novel, Manuscript Found, which the deceased clergyman had written and circulated among his friends. A number of affidavits were sworn to this effect, but their publication and propagation was sporadic and poorly organized. The LDS church launched a massive counterattack that capitalized on the fact that the original draft of Manuscript Found could not be produced to verify the affidavits.
Click to expand...
Naturally, the Mormons claimed that these were malicious, satanically inspired falsehoods. All that remained was an earlier Spalding novel, Manuscript Story, which shows some definite stylistic similarities to the Book of Mormon but also some marked differences. Eventually, most anti-Mormon writers stopped appealing to the Spalding theory as an explanation for the Book of Mormon because the available evidence seemed incapable of being substantiated.
Click to expand...
But Cowdrey, Davis, and Scales pieced together a long chain of events connecting Smith and Spalding. The chief link in the chain was an itinerant evangelist named Sidney Rigdon, who had a close friend who worked at the print shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from which Spalding’s second manuscript disappeared. A Dr. Winter later claimed to have been shown the manuscript by Rigdon in 1822.
Click to expand...
Rigdon was eventually baptized into the Mormon Church in November 1830 and always claimed that he had known nothing of Smith or Mormonism until late that year. Cowdrey et al found at least ten people who testified that they had seen Smith and Rigdon together a number of times from 1827 onwards—the very period when Smith was preparing the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
The climax came in 1976 when Cowdrey and his friends were examining some old manuscripts in an LDS church library. They came across a few pages from the Book of Mormon in handwriting no one had been able to identify. But before this the researchers had managed to track down some undisputed samples of Spalding’s handwriting at Oberlin College in Ohio, including a deed from January 1811 bearing his signature.
Click to expand...
There, amid the quiet and rather dull surroundings of paper and bookshelves, the awesome truth dawned on them: These harmless-looking scraps of aging paper had the potential to shatter once and for all the myth of Joseph Smith the saint and prophet—a great, historic, American myth for which men and women had lived and died and suffered and killed; a myth that had pioneered part of the Wild West, built the state of Utah, and now ruled the hearts and lives and fortunes of millions round the world.
Click to expand...
This extract from the Book of Mormon (“translated” from “golden plates” in 1828) was in the handwriting of Solomon Spalding (died 1816)! What the young men had stumbled on was part of the long-lost manuscript of Spalding’s second novel—crushing evidence of Smith’s plagiarism and deceit that had been preserved by the unsuspecting Mormons themselves.
Click to expand...
The three men proceeded to write a book detailing the results of their research (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? Vision House Publishers, 1977). The LDS Church issued denials of the identification and prohibited any further examination of the relevant manuscript. But the detailed testimonies of two independent handwriting experts, William Kaye and Henry Silver, are photographically reproduced for all to see: the unquestioned Spalding documents and the supposed Book of Mormon extract are judged professionally to be definitely in the same hand.
Click to expand...
PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
BYUChemAlum said:
Perhaps you may be interested in the book “From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church” by Francis A. Sullivan S.J. (Paulist Press). I’ve read it, and his historical and doctrinal treatise shows that your above statements are not accurate.
Click to expand...
So that I don’t have to repeat all that I have already said in concerns to Sullivan, I just redirect you to this post I have made in a different thread.

Basically, if your indeed trying to verify your position using a heterodox scholars’ work, your argument has already failed. You might as well be using Hans Kung’s scholastic work to ratify your own.
 
I love this statement by Joe Smith, “the early church was perfect, but a ‘strange organization’ came along called the ‘ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH’ which perverted the teachings of God.”

You guys find those ‘Gold Tablets’ from NY yet? You do realize Joe Smith and his brother were killed while escaping from prison here in the US, during one of his many convictions. But he’s a Martyred Saint in the Mormon Faith. matter of fact if you study the history of the Mormons, Joe Smith is ran out of many states including his own home state of NY by the Protestant Church, Of course he couldn’t just comdemn the Catholic Church, he went for the Trifecta, All Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Joe Smith excommunicated us all. Of course he steals the entire idea of his religion from Islam. Angel “Moroni” comes to Joe in the woods, and tells Joe “ALL CHRISTIAN churchs” are heresy. Wait let me find the “exact” words here of the Angel Moroni…OK Joe Smith asks what Church he should join?, Morini: “None of them for they are all wrong, and all their creeds are an abomination in the Lords sight”

Theres some “secret knowledge” of the Mormon Faith for you. Can’t tell you this because your not ready for “Solid Food” yet. But any Library world wide is full of works to clearly explain The Infallible Joe Smith Faith!

Don’t even get me going on Moroni, theres a literary piece of work to behold. If Joe Smith didn’t pay himself to publish the Book of Mormon “which he did at 5000 copys”, it never in the history of the world gets published. Read “Understanding the Book of Mormon” by Grant Hardy,
 
Irish_Polock said:
So that I don’t have to repeat all that I have already said in concerns to Sullivan, I just redirect you to this post I have made in a different thread.

Basically, if your indeed trying to verify your position using a heterodox scholars’ work, your argument has already failed. You might as well be using Hans Kung’s scholastic work to ratify your own.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, Irish. I thought this was probably the case with this character. The fact that BYU suggested reading it told me all I really needed to know but its always good to have the evidence. 👍
 
To be charitable and in all fairness let me quote out of another book I happen to have here. “American Born Religions + The Genius Behind Them” by Edward Rice. Page 67.

"The Book of Mormon is treated differently in various churchs. The main group, that in Utah, now tends to play down the work, for its Doctrines are difficult for more sophisticated members to accept. Utah Literature ignores the book entirely, while other Mormon Churchs draw upon it as needed.

The churchs are supported by “tithing” the “gift” of 10% of ones income to the church, and very few church executives are paid. Each male in Salt Lake City is expected to serve a term as missionary, without pay, in there teens or of college age. "Which you see happening right on this forum’. The very controversial teaching of polygamy, practiced for many years in the Utah Church was forced to be abandoned after the United States Government made it clear it was against the law. Still there are remnants of Mormons living quietly who subscribe to the practice of plural marriage’s. Reported as of recent in New Mexico and Arizona.

All in all Mormons have shown themselves fervent in their faith, charitable,active proselytizers who are convinced that theirs is the true “Restored” church that Jesus Christ Himself founded!"
 
GaryTaylor said:
I love this statement by Joe Smith, “the early church was perfect, but a ‘strange organization’ came along called the ‘ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH’ which perverted the teachings of God.”

You guys find those ‘Gold Tablets’ from NY yet? You do realize Joe Smith and his brother were killed while escaping from prison here in the US, during one of his many convictions. But he’s a Martyred Saint in the Mormon Faith. matter of fact if you study the history of the Mormons, Joe Smith is ran out of many states including his own home state of NY by the Protestant Church, Of course he couldn’t just comdemn the Catholic Church, he went for the Trifecta, All Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Joe Smith excommunicated us all. Of course he steals the entire idea of his religion from Islam. Angel “Moroni” comes to Joe in the woods, and tells Joe “ALL CHRISTIAN churchs” are heresy. Wait let me find the “exact” words here of the Angel Moroni…OK Joe Smith asks what Church he should join?, Morini: “None of them for they are all wrong, and all their creeds are an abomination in the Lords sight”

Theres some “secret knowledge” of the Mormon Faith for you. Can’t tell you this because your not ready for “Solid Food” yet. But any Library world wide is full of works to clearly explain The Infallible Joe Smith Faith!

Don’t even get me going on Moroni, theres a literary piece of work to behold. If Joe Smith didn’t pay himself to publish the Book of Mormon “which he did at 5000 copys”, it never in the history of the world gets published. Read “Understanding the Book of Mormon” by Grant Hardy,
Click to expand...
This is absolutely laughable. This is soooo outrageously inaccurate that I must conclude that this is just a spoof.
 
The devout Roman Catholics know their shepherd and their shepherd knows them…in reference to the reference to a heterodox priest…the work of the error of modernism and false interpretations of Vatican II…

Whoever wants to use this unorthodox priest’s writings to refute authentic priesthood is like using a false image to support another falsehood.
 
I expect everyone participating in this thread to do so in a charitable and adult manner as per forum rules.
Thank you
 
lax16 said:
Parker,
…
Jesus was a practicing Jew who went to temple to teach and discuss his Father with the rabbis. If He claimed God to be something other than what they already believed, it would have been written in the bible, don’t you think?
They would have probably killed Him for it.
…
Click to expand...
Lax16,
I’ve already answered your other assertions and questions many times in this forum. Mary was a virgin when she conceived and when Jesus was born. He was indeed the literal offspring of God the Father, but not by the means you listed–it was through a means He knew about and provided through the power of the Holy Ghost. I would call it a miraculous means.

As to the above question, they did kill Him for it, when they realized He was not only not going away, but that He was pulling down their order of things including their position as being the experts on defining God.

Peace to all readers, and have a good day.
 
ParkerD said:
Lax16,
I’ve already answered your other assertions and questions many times in this forum. Mary was a virgin when she conceived and when Jesus was born. He was indeed the literal offspring of God the Father, but not by the means you listed–it was through a means He knew about and provided through the power of the Holy Ghost. I would call it a miraculous means.

As to the above question, they did kill Him for it, when they realized He was not only not going away, but that He was pulling down their order of things including their position as being the experts on defining God.

Peace to all readers, and have a good day.
Click to expand...
Hi Parker - I don’t remember you ever answering how Mormons can claim to be a Christian religion and yet not adhere to the long-standing definition of Christianity?

Also, how can Mormons claim to follow the OT when they do not adhere to the long-standing definition of God as brought to us from our Jewish brothers and sisters?

If you have answered these questions on other threads, please forgive my lack of memory!🙂

How can Mormonism be the fulfillment of God’s promise if these criteria are not met?
If the LDS have the only valid priesthood authority on the earth, then how do you connect the dots from the OT promise to now from the LDS point of view?

And, no, it was not because Jesus re-defined “God as a man with a body” that they killed Him. Jesus was God in a human body, but don’t Mormons teach that God was a man with a previous life and relationships?
 
flyonthewall said:
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Spaulding_Manuscript

This is rather lengthy but is worth the read:
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/pdf/review/1130454543-17-2.pdf

Here is another:
fairlds.org/Lie_in_Wait_to_Deceive/v2/V2P02f.pdf
Click to expand...
Doctor[1] Philastus Hurlbut (February 3, 1809 – June 16, 1883)[2] was a 19th-century Latter Day Saint dissenter. Hurlbut is best known for his collection of affidavits which in 1834 were published in Eber D. Howe’s anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed [sic]. The purpose of these affidavits was to produce damaging evidence related to the character of Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith’s family, and his associates.

Hurlbut had previously been excommunicated from the Latter Day Saint church on charges of sexual immorality. A contemporary author discusses Hurlbut’s background, noting that, prior to joining the Mormons, he was a member of a Methodist congregation but was “expelled for unvirtuous conduct with a young lady.”[3] As a member of the Latter Day Saint church, Hurlbut “immediately commenced his old practices, **in attempting to seduce a young female **…. [F]or this crime he was immediately expelled from the church.” In response to his expulsion from the church, Hurlbut “now determined to demolish, as far as practicable, what he had once endeavoured to build up.”[4] Hurlbut began travelling throughout the country giving lectures against the Mormon church.[5]

Are you kidding?
 
Just wondering how, in light of the assertion that “priesthood authority” disappeared with the death of the last Apostle, the LDS would answer Titus 2:15:

[BIBLEDRB]Titus 2:15[/BIBLEDRB]
How was St. Titus to speak, exhort, and rebuke with ALL authority if the authority granted to him as a bishop ordained by St. Paul was deficient in that it was not the “fullness of priesthood authority”?

If it was that same authority exercised by St. Paul, wouldn’t it follow that that Apostles did in fact pass on this “fullness of priesthood authority” in some cases?
 
The Mormon Church really needs to allow its people to study Catholicism through objective, not competitive or dubious sources.

Mormons ask for proof, and we refer them to the world’s greatest library which is at the Vatican because, they consider whatever they read will show a Catholic bias. This is understandable.

But what the Mormons do not realize is the objectivity of these records and the impact and response they have had on members of the Church. The rebuttals, criticisms, and concerns are recorded as well.

The Church’s form of documentation has been most open, objective, and fair to appease one’s greatest critics.

The Jewish organization, Pave the Way, sought to look at Vatican documents to further criticize the church. When they went through the documents, they were changed because for one thing, they finally witnessed all the good the Church had done in that particular situation, as well as its objectivity. They thought the Church did not do enough to defend itself.

But if Mormons are not allowed to study sources outside Mormonism, then the disputes will go round and round.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Just wondering how, in light of the assertion that “priesthood authority” disappeared with the death of the last Apostle, the LDS would answer Titus 2:15:

[BIBLEDRB]Titus 2:15[/BIBLEDRB]
How was St. Titus to speak, exhort, and rebuke with ALL authority if the authority granted to him as a bishop ordained by St. Paul was deficient in that it was not the “fullness of priesthood authority”?

If it was that same authority exercised by St. Paul, wouldn’t it follow that that Apostles did in fact pass on this “fullness of priesthood authority” in some cases?
Click to expand...
Would you say the authority of a congregational leader is the same as the authority of the Pope? Or does the Pope carry more authority?
 
flyonthewall said:
Would you say the authority of a congregational leader is the same as the authority of the Pope? Or does the Pope carry more authority?
Click to expand...
Paul was not the Pope. Paul was an Apostle who gave authority to Titus to ‘appoint elders’ and ‘reprove with ALL authority.’
I don’t understand your questions in reference to Monkey1976’s statement. What does the Pope having more authority than a Priest in 2011AD have to do with an Apostle giving his authority to a Bishop in 55AD?
 
flyonthewall said:
Would you say the authority of a congregational leader is the same as the authority of the Pope? Or does the Pope carry more authority?
Click to expand...
False comparison. We’re talking about a letter written by an Apostle to a bishop that he ordained for the purpose of instructing him. Please answer the question posed.

As an aside, I don’t recall seeing in this thread exactly what the “fullness of priesthood authority” consists of. Exactly what authority do the LDS assert was held back from those the Apostles ordained?
 
Stephen168 said:
Paul was not the Pope. Paul was an Apostle who gave authority to Titus to ‘appoint elders’ and ‘reprove with ALL authority.’
I don’t understand your questions in reference to Monkey1976’s statement. What does the Pope having more authority than a Priest in 2011AD have to do with an Apostle giving his authority to a Bishop in 55AD?
Click to expand...
A Priest carrys only the authority given him and can function within that authority. A Priest cannot function in a capacity that exceeds his authority.
Likewise, congregational leaders were selected and could function as such in selecting leadership within the congregation. Outside of that congregation though, they have no authority.
That being said, a leader in the church can function with ALL the authority they are given.

And besides, Paul was one of the Apostles and the priesthood remained as long as the Apostles were alive…so I’m not quite sure how this scripture would demonstrate that the priesthood was not taken away later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top