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

[flyonthewall]

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.

There is no contradiction as we say the priesthood was not removed until AFTER the death of the Apostles. Paul being the one that wrote the letter, means that the priesthood was still around in the timeframe you are referring to.

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?

“These keys are the right of presidency; they are the power and authority to govern and direct all of the Lord’s affairs on earth. Those who hold them have power to govern and control the manner in which all others may serve in the priesthood. All of us may hold the priesthood, but we can only use it as authorized and directed so to do by those who hold the keys”

What is the difference between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood? (The priesthood is the power or authority of God. The keys are the right to use this power or authority in specific ways.)

Hope that helps

 

[ParkerD]

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?

Lax16,

I guess I haven’t answered that particular question though I think I have explained what a follower of Christ is and does, so here goes:

If one looks up the actual use of the word “Christian” in the New Testament, it is used in three places–in Acts 11:26 (“the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch”); in Acts 26:28 (“almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”); and in 1 Peter 4:16 (“if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God”).

From those uses, which really comprise the “long-standing definition” since they comprise the original use of the word in its context as used by its users, the word “Christian” would mean “a disciple of Christ” who believes in His resurrection and is willing if necessary to undergo “the fiery trial which is to try you” (1 Peter 4:12). A disciple of Christ means, from the origin of the word disciple, a “pupil of the Master Teacher Jesus Christ, wherein the pupil submits voluntarily to His teachings, instruction, or training which corrects, molds, strengthens, and perfects as the pupil follows the corrective teachings of Jesus, our Savior and Redeemer.”

In short, a Christian, as used in the New Testament, has the above general meaning and includes all the teachings of Jesus as being part of the meaning, since the teachings are directed toward “be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” A Christian isn’t perfect, but is sincerely following Christ’s training and correction toward becoming perfect in Christ. I would say from the teachings of Paul and John and the Savior that love of God and our fellow men is at the center of those teachings.

Mormons adhere to the above beliefs and knowledge about Christ and His mission, so by the original use of the word, Mormons are “Christians”.

I will need to answer your other questions later on, and bid all a “good night”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Who is ignoring who?..

It doesn’t seem that you are ignored just that little attention is paid to the whole of what you say.

 

[Peter_John]

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?

Though that answer is unresponsive to the question, it is really a moot point. The LDS answer to the Titus verse is that it is relative. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only accepts the Bible as scripture as far as it has been translated correctly. The Book of Mormon it considers “The most correct of all books and the keystone of our religion, and a man my draw closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.” (Joseph Smith)

That sounds as if all scripture should be interpreted by the Book of Mormon, except the later published Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are also considered superior to the Bible, and with “revelations” more contemporary, they are often used to interpret “the most correct” book.

Debating a position based on the Bible with a Latter-day Saint defies logic. The LDS classic book book “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LDS Apostle Elder LeGrand Richards makes it very clear that the Church claims no Biblical basis in its teachings – if all the Bible’s were destroyed it would teach the same things.

There is no point arguing any doctrinal points related to Mormonism using the Bible. If an argument seems to make sense based on the Bible, it can easily be dismissed as an error in translation – and about every imaginable argument already has.

I am not stating this as a criticism of the LDS Church. I state this as a recognition of its doctrine, and if any LDS members posting to this board consider tht inaccurate, please tell me how so.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Ok, I understand the point you were trying to make except my version of the Bible does not contain the phrase “I have given you” in Titus 2:15. So when Paul wrote ‘all authority,’ he meant ALL authority.

The Catholic Church was started by Christ, given the key to the kingdom, and is still here to this day. The Catholic Church selected readings, to include in the New Testament, worthy of reflection and reading at Mass. They were not selected to refute every claim that someone could possibly invent against Apostolic teaching; that is what his Church is for. Taking the New Testament as a whole and the facts of history, we know authority has never left the Catholic Church.

Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 18:17-18
Matthew 28:18-20
Luke 1:32-33
Luke 10:16
John 14:16-17, 26
John 16:13
Acts 1:20-22
Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5
1 Timothy 3:15
1 Timothy 4:14

Mormons only have the word of Joseph Smith and him writing it down doesn’t change the fact that it is only his word. Catholic history and Mormon history both support the idea that having authority has nothing to do with having the title ‘Apostle.’ At least you have told me why you believe what you do, which is more that I’ve got from the other two Mormons that have entered the discussion.

 

[Monkey1976]

There is no contradiction as we say the priesthood was not removed until AFTER the death of the Apostles. Paul being the one that wrote the letter, means that the priesthood was still around in the timeframe you are referring to.

So, what happened to all those who held the office of bishop when the last Apostle died?

“These keys are the right of presidency; they are the power and authority to govern and direct all of the Lord’s affairs on earth. Those who hold them have power to govern and control the manner in which all others may serve in the priesthood. All of us may hold the priesthood, but we can only use it as authorized and directed so to do by those who hold the keys”

What is the difference between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood? (The priesthood is the power or authority of God. The keys are the right to use this power or authority in specific ways.)

Hope that helps

That simply brings us right back to the question of St. Clement’s letter. If a bishop’s authority is strictly local, and authority on a global scale resides only in the Apostles, why did Corinth appeal to St. Clement, the bishop of Rome instead of to the Apostle St. John in Ephesus? Ephesus is much closer, and wouldn’t word from an Apostle hold more authority for them then the word of a bishop only in charge of a local Church?

 

[KathleenGee]

Zafforibant…

When I say who is ignoring who, I speak collectively…

 

[flyonthewall]

So, what happened to all those who held the office of bishop when the last Apostle died?

They continued until they died or were unrighteously removed. However, since the death of the Apostles, there were none left to replace those bishops.

That simply brings us right back to the question of St. Clement’s letter. If a bishop’s authority is strictly local, and authority on a global scale resides only in the Apostles, why did Corinth appeal to St. Clement, the bishop of Rome instead of to the Apostle St. John in Ephesus? Ephesus is much closer, and wouldn’t word from an Apostle hold more authority for them then the word of a bishop only in charge of a local Church?

As I understand the letters from Clement, Clement appealed to Corinth out of concern, not authority. Corinth removed the leadership that was validly appointed by Apostles, and selected their own.
If Clement had the authority to do anything with the Corinth situation, he would have traveled there to put back in place the proper leadership or at the very least, given instructions to put back in place the leadership originally appointed.
Instead, he wrote a letter encouraging them to stop their rebellion and hoped to hear back that peace and harmony had been restored, so they could rejoice with them. No instructions on who should be put back in leadership. Not even a mention that he would be coming to take care of the issue.
This is not a letter of authority but of concern.

As to why John did not address the issue in Corinth, I’m not sure. Perhaps he was dealing with his own problems, since the date of Clelmen’ts letter and the date of the trouble with Domitian was around the same timeframe, he could have been dealing with his own legal troubles. Just a suggestion.

 

[Monkey1976]

They continued until they died or were unrighteously removed. However, since the death of the Apostles, there were none left to replace those bishops.

Then why would the students of the Apostles continue to ordain bishops across the world? Were they all, to a man, mistaken in their understanding of their authority?

As I understand the letters from Clement, Clement appealed to Corinth out of concern, not authority. Corinth removed the leadership that was validly appointed by Apostles, and selected their own.
If Clement had the authority to do anything with the Corinth situation, he would have traveled there to put back in place the proper leadership or at the very least, given instructions to put back in place the leadership originally appointed.
Instead, he wrote a letter encouraging them to stop their rebellion and hoped to hear back that peace and harmony had been restored, so they could rejoice with them. No instructions on who should be put back in leadership. Not even a mention that he would be coming to take care of the issue.
This is not a letter of authority but of concern.

As to why John did not address the issue in Corinth, I’m not sure. Perhaps he was dealing with his own problems, since the date of Clelmen’ts letter and the date of the trouble with Domitian was around the same timeframe, he could have been dealing with his own legal troubles. Just a suggestion.

The question isn’t about why St. Clement wrote to Corinth. The question is why did Corinth write to St. Clement instead of St. John. St. Clement’s letter makes it clear that this is a response to a direct appeal:
St. Clement:

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;

 

[Javl]

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

Thank you for the links. As soon as I am able to I will delve into and investigate them.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[GaryTaylor]

They continued until they died or were unrighteously removed. However, since the death of the Apostles, there were none left to replace those bishops.

As I understand the letters from Clement, Clement appealed to Corinth out of concern, not authority. Corinth removed the leadership that was validly appointed by Apostles, and selected their own.
If Clement had the authority to do anything with the Corinth situation, he would have traveled there to put back in place the proper leadership or at the very least, given instructions to put back in place the leadership originally appointed.
Instead, he wrote a letter encouraging them to stop their rebellion and hoped to hear back that peace and harmony had been restored, so they could rejoice with them. No instructions on who should be put back in leadership. Not even a mention that he would be coming to take care of the issue.
This is not a letter of authority but of concern.

As to why John did not address the issue in Corinth, I’m not sure. Perhaps he was dealing with his own problems, since the date of Clelmen’ts letter and the date of the trouble with Domitian was around the same timeframe, he could have been dealing with his own legal troubles. Just a suggestion.

Maybe this would help?

The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession

Tertullian {c. AD 197} speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor {De Praescrip Haer 32}.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON {c. 180-199 AD}

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.”

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I guess I haven’t answered that particular question though I think I have explained what a follower of Christ is and does, so here goes:

If one looks up the actual use of the word “Christian” in the New Testament, it is used in three places–in Acts 11:26 (“the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch”); in Acts 26:28 (“almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”); and in 1 Peter 4:16 (“if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God”).

From those uses, which really comprise the “long-standing definition” since they comprise the original use of the word in its context as used by its users, the word “Christian” would mean “a disciple of Christ” who believes in His resurrection and is willing if necessary to undergo “the fiery trial which is to try you” (1 Peter 4:12). A disciple of Christ means, from the origin of the word disciple, a “pupil of the Master Teacher Jesus Christ, wherein the pupil submits voluntarily to His teachings, instruction, or training which corrects, molds, strengthens, and perfects as the pupil follows the corrective teachings of Jesus, our Savior and Redeemer.”

In short, a Christian, as used in the New Testament, has the above general meaning and includes all the teachings of Jesus as being part of the meaning, since the teachings are directed toward “be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” A Christian isn’t perfect, but is sincerely following Christ’s training and correction toward becoming perfect in Christ. I would say from the teachings of Paul and John and the Savior that love of God and our fellow men is at the center of those teachings.

Mormons adhere to the above beliefs and knowledge about Christ and His mission, so by the original use of the word, Mormons are “Christians”.

I will need to answer your other questions later on, and bid all a “good night”.

Hi Parker - I understand your response, however, I have a question. Can we massage a definition to fit the way we want it to?

If vegetarianism is the avoidance of meat and fish consumption in the diet, and I eat fish, can I call myself a vegetarian?
Obviously I can, no one will arrest me for it, however, among vegetarians I would not be considered a vegetarian.

So, can we pick and choose the parts of a definition that we want and yet still wear the label?
I can’t just avoid red meat and fowl and call myself a vegetarian and be accurate. There is more to it, such as the avoidance of fish, as well. I did not define vegetarianism because it was defined before my existence, however, the first vegetarians obviously decided the avoidance of fish was a necessary part of being considered a true vegetarian.

Obviously, being an early Christian involved the items you mentioned, however we know there was much more. That is why there was disagreement in the early Church with circumcision, for example. And dietary laws. Just as we cannot stand here today and demand that Christians must follow Jewish dietary laws I do not believe we can today say that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers or that Jesus was the literal son of God and his goddess wife.

This is re-defining Christianity to suit your needs as a Mormon.
Can we re-define what the Early Church taught about Christianity in its entirety and pick and choose only the parts we like?

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Parker - I understand your response, however, I have a question. Can we massage a definition to fit the way we want it to?

If vegetarianism is the avoidance of meat and fish consumption in the diet, and I eat fish, can I call myself a vegetarian?
Obviously I can, no one will arrest me for it, however, among vegetarians I would not be considered a vegetarian.

So, can we pick and choose the parts of a definition that we want and yet still wear the label?
I can’t just avoid red meat and fowl and call myself a vegetarian and be accurate. There is more to it, such as the avoidance of fish, as well. I did not define vegetarianism because it was defined before my existence, however, the first vegetarians obviously decided the avoidance of fish was a necessary part of being considered a true vegetarian.

Obviously, being an early Christian involved the items you mentioned, however we know there was much more. That is why there was disagreement in the early Church with circumcision, for example. And dietary laws. Just as we cannot stand here today and demand that Christians must follow Jewish dietary laws I do not believe we can today say that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers or that Jesus was the literal son of God and his goddess wife.

This is re-defining Christianity to suit your needs as a Mormon.
Can we re-define what the Early Church taught about Christianity in its entirety and pick and choose only the parts we like?

And would it not make perfect sense that the definition of “Christianity” must be defined in light of the beliefs of the only “Christian” Church in existence for the first 1500 years of Christian history? The manipulation of language is a hallmark of Mormonism, from “Christian” to “eternal”, to “Godhead” to “atonement” and on and on and on… It makes coherent communication a near impossibility. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Christian also, while denying the divinity of Christ. Mormons do not deny Christ’s divinity, per se, but believe he is another god altogether. Neither of these beliefs would be recognized as “Christian” doctrine by reasonable, intellectually honest people who have a respect for language as a means of communication.

 

[Javl]

And would it not make perfect sense that the definition of “Christianity” must be defined in light of the beliefs of the only “Christian” Church in existence for the first 1500 years of Christian history? The manipulation of language is a hallmark of Mormonism, from “Christian” to “eternal”, to “Godhead” to “atonement” and on and on and on… It makes coherent communication a near impossibility. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Christian also, while denying the divinity of Christ. Mormons do not deny Christ’s divinity, per se, but believe he is another god altogether. Neither of these beliefs would be recognized as “Christian” doctrine by reasonable, intellectually honest people who have a respect for language as a means of communication.

Neither Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, nor any other non-mainline so-called “Christian” organization, follow to the letter what Christ and the Apostles taught. They may consider themselves Christians, but only in their own eyes. An apple is an apple and an orange is an orange and never the twain shall meet( maybe in fruit salad, but then…).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[lax16]

And would it not make perfect sense that the definition of “Christianity” must be defined in light of the beliefs of the only “Christian” Church in existence for the first 1500 years of Christian history? The manipulation of language is a hallmark of Mormonism, from “Christian” to “eternal”, to “Godhead” to “atonement” and on and on and on… It makes coherent communication a near impossibility. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Christian also, while denying the divinity of Christ. Mormons do not deny Christ’s divinity, per se, but believe he is another god altogether. Neither of these beliefs would be recognized as “Christian” doctrine by reasonable, intellectually honest people who have a respect for language as a means of communication.

Yes, Mormons use these terms and it takes someone with a questioning mind to do some digging.

It is really interesting/frustrating to discuss the LDS faith because they work backwards - from Joseph Smith’s ideas and his teachings about Jesus and the OT etc - where the Catholics/Protestants move forward from the beginning of Christianity.

It is worth repeating - it is not possible to cross-reference Mormonism with anything other than JS and their own church teachings. Frankly, that would drive me crazy! I love being a part of something that is thousands of years in the making!

 

[flyonthewall]

Then why would the students of the Apostles continue to ordain bishops across the world? Were they all, to a man, mistaken in their understanding of their authority?

Perhaps…

The question isn’t about why St. Clement wrote to Corinth. The question is why did Corinth write to St. Clement instead of St. John. St. Clement’s letter makes it clear that this is a response to a direct appeal:

I wish I had the same translation as you do, here is what I am looking at:

1 Clem. 1:1 By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled.

As you can see, there is no mention of any consultation.

Even if we use your translation, who is the “we” that the Corinthians consulted? And who is it that consulted them?
If Clement, singular, was consulted, why would he not identify himself and his authority? Instead, it is a general greeting that is used, as one peer/church/congregation to another, and a reference to a group that is responding.
This is very obviously not a letter of authority, like Paul’s letter to the Galatians, but a letter of complaint about their procedure…not a command to correct it.
It lacks any reference to the author’s authority to do anything, or even a hint that he is going to do anything.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - I understand your response, however, I have a question. Can we massage a definition to fit the way we want it to?

Lax16,

I gave you a plain enough definition using the New Testament and the definition of “disciple” as the sources. Obviously, you and those you follow can certainly define any word you want to define, in any way you want to define it. It doesn’t bother me, at all, and is not the slightest concern of mine, since it is neither here nor there as to how I am going to live my life and understand the real and vibrant relationship with Christ that we and those I associate with feel is the living vitality of our lives.

As to your questions, I don’t believe the things your questions asserted, and what delights me is that your questions are off topic of the thread, so I can’t be accused of “going away” because it is against the forum rules to answer off topic questions. But I indeed have much else to do. Thanks for being the sifter that you offer in your comments and questions–it is a delightful process to watch unfold, as it fulfills prophecy every day.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I gave you a plain enough definition using the New Testament and the definition of “disciple” as the sources. Obviously, you and those you follow can certainly define any word you want to define, in any way you want to define it. It doesn’t bother me, at all, and is not the slightest concern of mine, since it is neither here nor there as to how I am going to live my life and understand the real and vibrant relationship with Christ that we and those I associate with feel is the living vitality of our lives.

Hi Parker - I am not defining anything. The words and their meanings were defined a long time ago and are in no way in need of my help!
I wasn’t trying to bother you, only engage in religious discussion.
You are a concern of mine and I hope to continue our discussions!

As to your questions, I don’t believe the things your questions asserted, and what delights me is that your questions are off topic of the thread, so I can’t be accused of “going away” because it is against the forum rules to answer off topic questions. But I indeed have much else to do. Thanks for being the sifter that you offer in your comments and questions–it is a delightful process to watch unfold, as it fulfills prophecy every day.

You are right, the questions have moved off topic as they often do in lengthy posts that go back and forth. However, why does that delight you?
Anyway, I hope being a sifter is a good thing!

 

[KathleenGee]

When I read ideas that some where in Christiandom some were removed, etc., it sounds like a shot in the dark…a passing thought…with no substance.

I would think there would be some organized and publicly recognized group that history can point to that removed errant…clergy. I assume it is clergy of our apostolic line.

We disagree very much on what is authorized and what is not, how to discern truth from falsehood.

 

[PaulDupre]

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.

How do square that with this teaching from President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church? He said, "As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off" (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213).

If that is true for the LDS church, why would it not be true for the Catholic Church? If Titus, Timothy and others were given the priesthood by Paul and other apostles, then why could they not "organize the church even though all of the apostles… were killed off"???

I’m just sayin’.

Paul