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

[GaryTaylor]

It is actually referred to as the transfiguration of Brigham Young in some LDS writing, even some older lesson manuals. There is no indication that anyone “summoned” Joseph Smith’s spirit, and it would certainly contradict Mormonism to believe that Joseph Smtih’s spirit was involved at all. It is poresented as the perception of those there with no invocation or involvement of the dead at all. It does not qualify as dabbling with familiar spirits, because no spirits were involved. It was a perceptual experience for those affected.

We have to be fair. Is what this describes really so much stranger than stigmata, bilocation, or levitation? Is it all that stranger than Balaam’s talking donkey in the Old Testament, or the dry bones rising up in Ezekiel? I put my money on the last one as the strangest.

It is in fact not represented as a manifestation of Joseph Smith, but a sign that Brigham Young rightfully stood in his place. Our beliefs could just as easily be ridiculed, and have been – and there is no need. The entire account is all pointless if there was no Great Apostasy to begin with, and the reasoning that the methods described here are acceptble in Apostolic succession only reinforce Catholic claim to it when applied equally to our history, rendering the need for Mormonism’s professed restoration nil.

The Book of Mormon itself defines its own lack of necessity. It states that it will come forth at a time when it would be said, suggesting generally said, that miracles had been done away. Yet, at the time it came forth the majority of Christians in the world still believed in miracles, because Catholics never stopped believing in them. Joseph Smith just did not knoiw that, because he quickly dismissed Catholicism as silly before his prfessed first vision.

Most denominations around Palmyra, NY may have taught that visions and miracles were done away, but most Christians in the world still believed in them, so the Book of Mormon did not have to restore those either – just one more reason why no Restoration was necessary because nothing had been lost but unity(Protetantism). Mormonism has served to further fracture Christianity, not to restore communion.

Exactly, …and add “Historical Evidence” to the equation. Here’s a Historical Fact…There is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever visited North America, nor is there any evidence of any of the tribes ever existing in the Book of Mormon. Not a broken piece of pottery, cup, ruin, tool, nothing. Now I may be missing something which I would certainly be willing to view objectively. But since I live in New England and have studied the American Indians for decades, I find these twisted facts on how their existence came to be facinating.

This along with reading this book has left me convinced that the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, and that there is nothing about it that cannot be explained in terms of a purely human origin. As a matter of fact the same errors exist in this book which exist in the KJV which would further indicate the KJV is the obvious source to write the book.

For example, the New Testament went through the Greek language before it made it to the King James Version. Did this same Spirit that inspired the Hebrews, inspire the Nephites in a language they couldn’t understand like Greek? That is the only explaination, even though incredibly credulous, as to how the Greek language influence made it into the portions of the Book of Mormon that quote from the KJV of the New Testament.

This further complicates the issues, if Christ had visited North America, he didn’t speak Greek as we see from the Cross? So why not in the original language at this point?

Maybe we’ll start a new thread if our Mormon Brothers are willing to participate? We’ll let them answer for many of these unanswered questions.

 

[flyonthewall]

“Once the decision is made to reorganize, the new prophet is selected in a unanimous decision by the apostles.”

Please read again. There is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. The decision is unanimous for a reason.

“The new prophet has always, from the beginnings of the church, been the longest serving apostle, which is why there is no surprise. Everyone knows who to expect, long before the need arises.”

Talking in circles.

No. I am being straight forward.

So Joseph Smith’s voice coming out of Brigham Young’s mouth was not channeling?
What is channeling then?

No.

Please give an example from scripture when God has passed on authority in this way.

Please give an example from scripture when God has passed on authority they way Elijah did to Elisha.

Either way, a person looking like and speaking in the voice of a dead person is certainly not the Holy Spirit.

I would disagree with you on this instance.
You really don’t want to go down that avenue because of the double standard you are required to use.

I noticed you haven’t responded to the “voting” that you said Mormons don’t do when selecting a prophet, but clearly do as the links you provided demonstrate.

Consider it responded to.

How is the selection process of a person speaking/looking like a dead person and taking a vote on the new prophet like the original twelve apostles?

This was an isolated incident. It happened because the process had not been put into place yet.

What better way to select a successor than the Holy Spirit manifesting itself upon a person to appear in the same authority as his predecessor?

Afterward, the process was given and has been followed ever since.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What better way to select a successor than the Holy Spirit manifesting itself upon a person to appear in the same authority as his predecessor?

By this same logic the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima and the Prophecys of the Seers their would also confirm the Catholic Church. Which BTW were predicted, dated, than occured on schedule as foretold by the Holy Spirit. And witnessed by 70-Thousand.

 

[Stephen168]

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

Seems like Joseph Fielding Smith was supporting Brigham Young in his idea that the keys were with the church.
"Brigham Young upon hearing the news of Joseph Smiths death asked himself:

whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth, but he immediately felt assured that the “keys of the kingdom” rested with the church

That is actually my point. Every argument that Mormons use to justify the irrefutable – and immutable “shall never again be taken from the Earth” authority of the Quorum of the Twelve, when applied to the Apostles and their successors negates the concept of Apostasy, or the need for a Restoration.
They cannot apply a double standard in presenting evidence of an Apostasy – of the Priesthood authority being removed from the Earth.

I agree and it also seems like the argument that the “keys are with the church’ doesn’t apply to the Catholic Church

 

[lax16]

Perosnally I consider making such a judgment a bit above my spiritual pay grade. I find the account of the conference where the decision was made to differ little in general style, if not specific content, frome descriptions of many events in the lives of our own Saints. A Mormon would consider many of our accounts as unusual and non-representative of the actions of the Holy Spirit as we may perceive this.

Peter John - You and I do not see eye to eye. I feel that you have not been following the posts.
It was said that there was NO VOTING in the selection of the LDS prophets. BY certainly took a vote, as proven by the link provided.
What Catholic saints are you referring to? I am not seeing a connection at all.
Again, it is not a judgment call on my part. If someone says that the HS chooses the LDS prophet then we read that they were chosen by vote after BY turned into JS (AND THAT IS WHAT THE TESTIMONY SAYS) then it is not the same at all.

As i think I have thoroughly expressed, I see no need to even be concerned with the details. Approving the general concept of succession of authority happening in this way validates some actions in Catholic history, and therefore indicates double standard if it is acceptable now but was not then.

That is fine. You can choose to discuss what you want to and I will choose what I want to discuss.
How is the Catholic method of choosing successors to Peter similar to the Mormon method of BY following JS?

Whether or not ti was the Holy Spirit God can judge, but it certainly seems unnecesary if authority contiued through similar trials in the past.

Agreed. But the LDS claim is that there is no voting and clearly there is and was.
What similar trials in the past?
I am confused.

 

[lax16]

It is actually referred to as the transfiguration of Brigham Young in some LDS writing, even some older lesson manuals. There is no indication that anyone “summoned” Joseph Smith’s spirit, and it would certainly contradict Mormonism to believe that Joseph Smtih’s spirit was involved at all. It is poresented as the perception of those there with no invocation or involvement of the dead at all. It does not qualify as dabbling with familiar spirits, because no spirits were involved. It was a perceptual experience for those affected.

So a person morphing into a dead person and speaking with their voice is what you agree is called “transfiguration?” I suggest you read your dictionary. It involves a person becoming new not becoming somebody else.

We have to be fair. Is what this describes really so much stranger than stigmata, bilocation, or levitation? Is it all that stranger than Balaam’s talking donkey in the Old Testament, or the dry bones rising up in Ezekiel? I put my money on the last one as the strangest.

Does the Bible tell us to be aware of these things specifically?
If so, please cite the scripture.

It is in fact not represented as a manifestation of Joseph Smith, but a sign that Brigham Young rightfully stood in his place. Our beliefs could just as easily be ridiculed, and have been – and there is no need. The entire account is all pointless if there was no Great Apostasy to begin with, and the reasoning that the methods described here are acceptble in Apostolic succession only reinforce Catholic claim to it when applied equally to our history, rendering the need for Mormonism’s professed restoration nil.

Yes, Joseph Smith manifested himself in Brigham Young. Read the testimony.
I am not ridiculing! For goodness sake…
Please stop responding to my posts to others and telling me they are pointless.

The Book of Mormon itself defines its own lack of necessity. It states that it will come forth at a time when it would be said, suggesting generally said, that miracles had been done away. Yet, at the time it came forth the majority of Christians in the world still believed in miracles, because Catholics never stopped believing in them. Joseph Smith just did not knoiw that, because he quickly dismissed Catholicism as silly before his prfessed first vision.

Yes, Our Lady of Lourdes was appearing somewhere in the time frame of the BoM coming into existence.

Most denominations around Palmyra, NY may have taught that visions and miracles were done away, but most Christians in the world still believed in them, so the Book of Mormon did not have to restore those either – just one more reason why no Restoration was necessary because nothing had been lost but unity(Protetantism). Mormonism has served to further fracture Christianity, not to restore communion.

Yes.

 

[pablope]

It is actually referred to as the transfiguration of Brigham Young in some LDS writing, even some older lesson manuals.

 

[ParkerD]

Okay. To attempt to bring the thread back somewhat to the original topic…

After reading the provided links, it is interesting to note that there is not a clear involvement of the Holy Spirit when the LDS passed on the role of prophet from JS to BY.

Because the LDS believe the first apostles “didn’t do it right”, how did the LDS first apostles “do it right”?

I am sure most non-LDS posters feel that proof has not been provided proving the priesthood authority was taken from the earth, however, how about proof that the LDS are “doing it right”?

Lax16,

Please be aware that the LDS do believe that the first apostles performed correctly and honorably in their office as apostles. They “did it right”. Most importantly, then listened to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Brigham Young did that also, and also explained about the established pattern that the leadership of the church rested with the twelve, which was not a new concept–it was a New Testament concept.

You might look up the experience the prophet Elias had when the prophet Elijah was being taken up into heaven, and how the young man observing saw that the mantle of Elijah rested upon Elias. This was a spiritual manifestation to the young man that Elias was a prophet who would have the power that Elijah had, and the same kind of direct communication with God.

I doubt that anyone will ever think the LDS apostles are “doing it right” without their own personal prayerful question and yearning, then listening and seeing (they do speak, they can be seen easily, and their messages can be read and are not difficult messages to understand).

Peace to you and all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

listening and seeing (they do speak, they can be seen easily, and their messages can be read and are not difficult messages to understand).

But contain nothing prophetic, in the seeing, reading or listening.

 

[flyonthewall]

Peter John;7560107:

This is really shocking…Christ transfigured because He is God. BY is not God or a god, unless the LDS claim BY is a god or is God.

God can transfigure anyone He wishes.

I certainly agree with Lax…the manifestatin of JS on BY as per the account given is certainly, if not borderline, the occult or divination.

And this cannot be compared with the intercession of the saints, or the Stigmata and other miracles, as these are attributed to God himself and it is as per God’s will. The humans these occured, Catholics, had proven chaste, worthy, prayerful, saintly lives, in a unitive state of grace with Jesus.

Can the same be said of BY? Unless I am missing something, there is not this element in BY’s supposed transfiguration.

We attribute it to God as manifesting His will.

Agreed…I have not seen any evidence from the LDS, except stringing verses and twisting the meanings, and mainly conjecture. They cannot cite any independent historical evidence attesting to such.

You have been given evidence, you simply do not believe it.
Again with the independent historical evidence. Sounds like God cannot do anything without some independent historical evidence…We do not limit Him like that.

 

[Chip_Barrett]

Matt. 21:43 would be a good place to start…the kingdom of God was taken from Israel and was given to “another nation” - what nation? a fruitful nation… And what nation has been blessed beyond measure?

Acts 3:19-21 …wouldn’t need to restore all things if something was not lost…

Hebrews 5:4 … I can’t just decide one day that I want to be in the ministry - someone has to call me to the ministry. That someone must be in the ministry and be able to trace his authority… like Moses who called Aaron…

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 …Christ was not going to return until after a falling away occured.

Revelation 14:6 …The gospel shall be restored in the last days by angelic ministry…

 

[ParkerD]

But contain nothing prophetic, in the seeing, reading or listening.

RJ,

Nothing prophetic for you, correct. Certainly prophetic for me, my parents, my wife, my children, my siblings, my friends, my grandparents, and many other people I know.

But it’s OK that those things aren’t prophetic for you or others. This is all part of free will choice on the part of the receiver or listener. Plus, it seems you have what you want and need and aren’t looking for something “prophetic”, so why would God give you something unwanted?–that would be contrary to free will choice. It would be contrary to how He does His work on this earth among all of us, and contrary to Biblical patterns and teachings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,

Nothing prophetic for you, correct. Certainly prophetic for me, my parents, my wife, my children, my siblings, my friends, my grandparents, and many other people I know.

But it’s OK that those things aren’t prophetic for you or others. This is all part of free will choice on the part of the receiver or listener. Plus, it seems you have what you want and need and aren’t looking for something “prophetic”, so why would God give you something unwanted?–that would be contrary to free will choice. It would be contrary to how He does His work on this earth among all of us, and contrary to Biblical patterns and teachings.

PD,

Jesus Christ is my Prophet, Priest and King. His Word is everlasting life. He is my rock and my salvation, I have no need, or desire, to choose a facade.

 

[Peter_John]

So a person morphing into a dead person and speaking with their voice is what you agree is called “transfiguration?” I suggest you read your dictionary. It involves a person becoming new not becoming somebody else…

You are taking unjustified liberties with the account they present. First they are not saying that a person literally morphed into the form and presentation of a dead person. They are saying that many people there perceived that Joseph Smith was there in the place of Brigham Young. The fact that it specifies that not every one so perceived is evidence that it is not a claim that any actual physical transformation took place. It is not my definition of transfiguration, but it is what Mormons have called it in this case.

You know, if all you want to do is insult Mormons, you should start a thread called “Mormon Haters” and let any Mormons who want to be insulted and denigrated post there. Hope you ahve a lot of takers.

This is, as I understand it suppose to be a reasonable objective discussion over the legitimacy of Catholic claims to Apostolic succession. The only thing that matters in this LDS account is that it does nothing to refute that claim, and reinforces the Catholic position regarding the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches.

Does the Bible tell us to be aware of these things specifically?
If so, please cite the scripture…

Yes, Joseph Smith manifested himself in Brigham Young. Read the testimony.
I am not ridiculing! For goodness sake…
Please stop responding to my posts to others and telling me they are pointless.
…

It did not say that Joseph Smith manifested himself in Brigham Young. The account, as presented and as Mormons understand it, as that many people perceived Brigham Young as being their late leader himself standing there. It was clearly a matter of perception, because not everyone saw it therefore it was not a literal event. Those who perceived it took this as an indication that the mantle of the prophet rightfully fell on Brigham Young.

We need to be fair. If we invite non-Catholics to participate in a discussion about their faith only to not consider their own perspective, we may as well be the bully in the schoolyard calling the little kid over just to push himover the cohort kneeling behind him.

Yes, Our Lady of Lourdes was appearing somewhere in the time frame of the BoM coming into existence…

And millions of other miracles before, including the miracle of the Eucharist literally turning into the body and blood of Christ at every mass. To be Catholic is to believe in miracles.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John - You and I do not see eye to eye. I feel that you have not been following the posts.
It was said that there was NO VOTING in the selection of the LDS prophets. BY certainly took a vote, as proven by the link provided. .

It is not saying that this is the regular method of choosing the next leader. This was anaction in crisis, and has to be so considered. The successor designated by Revelation had been killed first.

What Catholic saints are you referring to?.

I am comparing this to general claims of spiritual manifestations in the lives of the Saints. To non-Catholics, and especially non-Christians stories of stigmata, levitation, and bilocation sound downright bizarre. Transubstantiation sounds delusional and pseudo-cannibalistic (No wonder so many followers walked away when Jesus mentioned it). The stories of our saints are full of such things. Saints flaying their flesh in penance seems shocking.

Even having crucifixes and images of the crucifixion all over our homes could disturb people of some non-Christian religions. Just because something seems strange does not alone invalidate the spiritual basis for it. The important thing is that whether or not Mormons believe it, it has at worst no bearing on Catholic claims to Apostolic succession, and at best a reinforcing application to it.

I am not seeing a connection at all.
Again, it is not a judgment call on my part. If someone says that the HS chooses the LDS prophet then we read that they were chosen by vote after BY turned into JS (AND THAT IS WHAT THE TESTIMONY SAYS) then it is not the same at all .

Again, they beleive the Holy Spirit manifests the choosing of new leaders. They beleive tht in this case it was done by showing the people which leader they should follow – and though it was a vote, it was also a crisis situation, this is the only case when it deviated from what has become the regular manner of succession.

That is fine. You can choose to discuss what you want to and I will choose what I want to discuss.
How is the Catholic method of choosing successors to Peter similar to the Mormon method of BY following JS?
.

The general method is not, but it sounds like you need to read some of my earlier posts. This equates to the Great Schism separating the Eastern and Western Churches, and people decided which they would follow. Both groups were not in communion immediately. After the incident the article described, there were also other groups formed, some continuing today. I have been to Independence Missouri and there are at least three groups claiming top be the proper heirs of Joseph Smith’s legacy within a block of the place where the great Temple of Zion is believed destined for construction. The one that owns that property believes they have built it.

It directly compares to the Great Schism, and if the people’s choice was accepted in 1844, it certainly applied then.

Agreed. But the LDS claim is that there is no voting and clearly there is and was.
What similar trials in the past?
I am confused.

The Great Schism in Catholicism.

 

[Peter_John]

So a person morphing into a dead person and speaking with their voice is what you agree is called “transfiguration?” I suggest you read your dictionary. It involves a person becoming new not becoming somebody…

I apologize. On my prior post I put my brackets in the wrong place and the second item listed as a quaote is actually my response to the line before it. I had already made the next post before I noticed and sould not edit.

 

[ParkerD]

PD,

Jesus Christ is my Prophet, Priest and King. His Word is everlasting life. He is my rock and my salvation, I have no need, or desire, to choose a facade.

RJ,

I understand that it seems as a facade to many. When the Savior said that before His Second Coming, the times would be just like in the days of Noah (who was a prophet), then that prophecy is going to be fulfilled, and is being fulfilled. These things are going to be a matter of perception on the part of the hearer or listener. It will be a “facade” to many people, and that is their right. It is exactly as it should be.

 

[Peter_John]

pablope;7562758:

God can transfigure anyone He wishes.

We attribute it to God as manifesting His will.

You have been given evidence, you simply do not believe it.
Again with the independent historical evidence. Sounds like God cannot do anything without some independent historical evidence…We do not limit Him like that.

The evidence is relative to the question of whether authority was removed from the Earth in the first place. To say the authority was removed from the Earth because in 1844 God manifested that the Latter-day Saints should follow Brigham Young is circular reasoning.

If the authority had not been taken away this would only indicate that a number of memebers of heretical organization perceived who the next person to lead that organization would be.

The easiest way to address the main question of this discussion is to start with a time, work backward, and see when you can affirm the Apostolic succession is broken. I will suggest that we start with the Great Schism (I will some of the more specificity oriented contributors to this discussion provide the year),

The reason I suggest this is that an argument of this as evidence of Apostasy has no bearing coming from a Mormon, since the method of resolution is objectively the same. That is, the people respectively decided which of the contending factions they would follow and did so. For the LDS position to be true, the alleged Great Apostasy would have to have preceded CAtholicism’s Great Schism by some great time.

How far before that do you suggest we look?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The successor designated by Revelation had been killed first.

Maybe, maybe not. JSjr appointed his son JS III as his successor, by laying on of hands, at least four times. Of course he was too young to lead at the time of his father’s murder, but eventually these “blessings” were fulfilled, when JS III was made the President of the RLDS (now Community of Christ).

So, it all depends on your POV, and which prophet is the “true prophet”, and which is not.

Of course, there is the POV that they are all false prophets.

 

[Peter_John]

Matt. 21:43 would be a good place to start…the kingdom of God was taken from Israel and was given to “another nation” - what nation? a fruitful nation… And what nation has been blessed beyond measure?

Acts 3:19-21 …wouldn’t need to restore all things if something was not lost…

Hebrews 5:4 … I can’t just decide one day that I want to be in the ministry - someone has to call me to the ministry. That someone must be in the ministry and be able to trace his authority… like Moses who called Aaron…

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 …Christ was not going to return until after a falling away occured.

Revelation 14:6 …The gospel shall be restored in the last days by angelic ministry…

Using Biblical verses to support your position on this question is irrelevant, unless you can state that you believe the Bible to be the Word of God without qualification. Correct me if I am wrong that you cannot.

You may not realize it, but despite what the Protestants say, there is no point trying to refute Catholicism with the Bible because it was specifically compiled for its use in our worship. It can only be completely understood in the context of Catholic dogma, doctrine, tradition, and practice. Anything else can only apply it selectively, as in Protestantism deleting numerous plain and precious books to begin with.

This argument will have to rest on the historical record, which does exist despite what Elders LeGrand Richards, Mark E. Petersen, and John A, Widstoe said.