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

[Peter_John]

Peter John,
Hi again,

(1) The exact phrase from the words of Joseph Smith are “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;”

In other words, the only drawback from saying the Bible is the word of God precisely and exactly, is that there was a translation process that could potentially introduce changes from being precisely and exactly the “word of God”. That does not make it “not true”. It only makes it “less than perfectly true in every single word and phrase”. It also means that “sola scriptora” would not be what the LDS would teach about the Bible, but yet the LDS use and love the Bible as the word of God.

(2) Yes, I think it would be important to figure out their purpose when they were written by those who wrote them.

(3) I disagree that Hyrum was the “designated successor” to Joseph Smith, and certainly the Lord knew they would both be killed at the same time, and this was a “two witnesses sealing their testimony” situation.

It does not need to say “John was the head of the church”. John was one of the Twelve, and the Twelve were the designated leaders of the church on the earth. They all had callings as leaders–not just Peter.

(4) It would matter to me, even if the Holy Spirit weren’t involved to certify truth.

Your last question is a completely useless question. Of course there would not be a group that was identifiable in history who had the “same doctrines” as the LDS church. It was a splintering effect, and changes were generally gradual although it seems the two changes most influenced by the “remnant believers in circumcision” were evidently quite immediate changes (i.e. the beliefs in the Eucharist as described by Catholics and in infant baptism and a non-immersion baptism ).

Again, peace to you.

1. Joseph Smith changed a lot of words and phrases.
2. Intersting somewhat evasive answer, as it could also imply they were fabricated. They fit very nicely in the full Biblkical narrative in context of History and culture roght where they are, and Jesus referred to them. You cannot understand the new testament fully without knowing the deuterocanonical books.
3. Regarding Hyrum’s designation by Revelation, track through your D&C, and check the manuals and GA talks.

The idea that any Apostle other than Peter was in charge of the whole Church is not spelled out in the Bible. The idea that the twelve governed the Church as a centralized body is inconsistent with the geographic realities of the time. The Twelve dispersed so widely that they could not even all have have kept any reasonable contact with each other. Apostle means one who is sent – they went and spread teh word as far as they could. It is also an assumption with disregard for other written records indicating that John remained in communion with other Church fathers who in turn referred to the Bishop of Rome.

1. It is circular reasoning to use liturgical application which you dispute as evidence the apostasy happened. In both the Book of Mormon and the Bible the Eucharist was instituted with wine, and you find it completley acceptable for those you consider valid authorities to change that. Therefore by your reasoning the valid authorities could designate any form of baptism as valid that the Holy Spirit led them to. You cannot dictate what the Holy Spirit would or would not do based on what you believe to be valid or not.

Regarding the Eucharist specifically, Jesus affirmed it to be literally His body and blood so adamantly that many disciples left when he suggested it.​

I am just expound on one thought: As long as you believe any part of you exists independently of God you cannot have trust in God’s absolute omnipotence. By believing your intelligence is co-eternal with God you deny God’s omnipotence, because that means He did not create your will, you halways had that. It means he has to give you free agency, or he exercises power over you unjustly. If God is bound to do anything, He is not omnipotent. God does not have to do anything, He does as He wills. We have free agency because He wants us to, not because we are coeternal with Him – we cannot be.

Belieivng that you are co-eternal with God is therefore heresy already, because it denies the omnipotence of God.

I have pretty much decided that this is a pointless discussion. Mormonism and Catholicism are two different sides of the same tapestry, and if all you have ever seen is one side the other side will always look wrong because the colors are otu of place. You have to be able to see each without bias or expectation of what you believe it should be to accurately determine which makes the most valid picture, and which is the negative. I have done that, and the outcome surprised me, but here I am, a Catholic despite myself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ah, so you’ve come to a truth…

The foundation of the Mormon faith is based on what it means to a mormon, its self evident. Once we have enough sense to realize that any proof that is self-evident must necessarily be illusory. Then we can correctly see this in the proper text.

There are no self-evident first principles, as a foundation for reasoning to conclusions that are not immediately apparent, how can you construct any kind of philosophy? If you have to prove the basic axioms of your metaphysics, you will never have a metaphysics, because you will never have any strict proof of anything, your first proof will involve you in an infinate regress, proving, that you are proving, what you are proving???

Let me further simplify. If E=IXR which it does, we cannot take that as FACT. Its a theory at this point, it must be proven to be “LAW”. We must further escalate to E/R=I and also E/I=R. Then we have something to look at. And in this case we “know” E=IXR, in your case you “believe” E=IXR. We are on first theory unproven logic here.

You have a first step working theory and want to jump it to graduation through denial??? Its Impossible, IMPOSSIBLE!

Once you can step outside your “theory” and the denial of bold thinking, that you have come to some profound truth the rest of world missed. Then we can clearly and in depth study this and see where it leads. And if its as we believe, based on self evident first principles. That will continue to go around in a circle. Which is where this has been going.

History, history cannot be ignored. As much as that hurts to hear, You need to back up all these claims will something. Not self-evident first principles. Next, the time need be taken, with an “open-mind” go through all this with other Christians, who actually eat with a fork and understand Bible. You cannot simply reject their claim based on your own understanding. Your the one that needs to “prove” your claim. Do you actually understand this? You didn’t arrive right, you arrived with simply an unproven concept, Period!

Amazing how often people come here and would like to tell us how smart they are. Does that mean we should roll out the red-carpet and bow down and accept all this as Automatic Fact? You do realize others here have actually read the Bible and have an education?

You have a working “theory” with NO PROOF of anything. I’m sorry, your going to have to do better, and if you don’t realize this, you will continue to live in a 4-cornered room. Or you can break down the wall of denial to find truth.

You can be the nicest guy in the world and there are some nice people speaking here, nonetheless if learned behavior and denial is the basis of your thinking compounded by first principles then there’s a problem. You must understand this and you owe it to yourself. YOURSELF< not the mormon community. And I repeat it even goes futher than this because 19th century history doesn’t prove anything here as factual.

Did anyone even bother to do Archaeological/Geographical digs to back any of this up? Why is that we can trace Jesus Christs movements for 2000-years back, and we can’t find a single trace of him in the Westerm Hemisphere? No movement here, or anything to correspond with these civilization’s the mormons claim to have existed? Do you know what this looks like to those who actually work in these fields? None have set out to prove this claim, because they have already concluded its Illusion! They dedicate there live’s and their lives saving to what thy whole heartedly believe to be Fact! Such as with Sodom and Gommorah, Exodus and yes Peter, Paul and Rome and the Catholic Church all factual. It was really, really there. And it was, not from 2000 years ago but some from 4000 years ago with the OT events.

The Dinosaurs existed here in the US in the Bad-Lands and we can prove it. Do you know old they are?? Where are these civilizations that the American Indians evolved from? This may have sounded great in the 1800’s and even the early 1900’s. But today we need to do better, I’m sorry. I honestly truly am. Its its a fact than History must prove it to be a fact.

At this point all we can say is its Christian heresy. How does your situation differ from Islam? Islam existed 600 years after Christ, and again we see correlation, yet theres no factual proof but self-evident first principles. Which come around to God said and it is? Well whenever God said anything He has backed it up with fact or miracles like at Exodus, Sodma and Gommorah, like at Fatima etc.

We dealing at this point with “is it possible” yes it is possible. But is it probable? At this point, especially what 170 years later, its not looking good. And its on you to prove it right. Many empires were built on false thinking, so the fact you are where your at today, also doesn’t prove anything. Again look at Islam. Why isn’t their interpretation of God right?

There are much better proofs of Gods existence and message than this one.

God Bless All, GT

 

[ParkerD]

Peter John and Gary Taylor,

This is to let each of you know I have read your latest posts, and as Peter John noted, we disagree so completely that there is no point in a further discussion of the issues, particularly since the question about when it was decided that the bishop of Rome after Peter was the leader of the church on the earth occurred, which would have answered the question about when the apostasy had fully happened, doesn’t seem to be able to be answered definitively.

Gary Taylor, if you’re saying there are no archeological evidences that someone lived in the Americas during the time period of the Book of Mormon, then that is an amazing point of view for someone to have, given the current broad base of knowledge to the contrary.

Peter John or anyone else, where did the Savior refer specifically to one of the deuterocanonical books and say that they were the word of God? And where specifically in the D & C does it say that Hyrum Smith was the designated successor to Joseph Smith?

Peace to each and all.

 

[1stOrderKoC]

Im not the smartest man in here and im certainly less educated in religious teachings than most but I must say this. Now if we love and trust Jesus’ words are true, shouldnt we just focus on being good people and not worry about whos right? If God wanted us to know everything there is to know then He would have made it so. Also, if believing what you believe makes you a betterGod fearing person, then that should be enough. God knows whats in your heart and mind. Thats all I have to say.

Peace be with all of you friends.

 

[rainman10]

**So as I stated before in a previous post:

Jesus said he will be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail. We were, also, warned to be aware of false prophets.

Joseph Smith said he saw God, Jesus, and whomever else he claims to have seen, and was told that all religions are an abomination and that Joseph needs to restore the church.

Which story do you believe??
If you believe Jesus, nothing else really needs to be said. How can anyone possibly believe Joseph Smiths word over that of Jesus??? **

 

[1stOrderKoC]

**So as I stated before in a previous post:

Jesus said he will be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail. We were, also, warned to be aware of false prophets.

Joseph Smith said he saw God, Jesus, and whomever else he claims to have seen, and was told that all religions are an abomination and that Joseph needs to restore the church.

Which story do you believe??
If you believe Jesus, nothing else really needs to be said. How can anyone possibly believe Joseph Smiths word over that of Jesus??? **

Valid point Rainman. But this I know. The LDS have gotten away from alot of what JS taught. Is it for the better? Im not sure but the LDS people ive talked to (which are many, I live in Utah) are slowly changing some of their beliefs. I do understand what you are saying but lets give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they do change for the better.

Peace be with you!!!

 

[pablope]

Valid point Rainman. But this I know. The LDS have gotten away from alot of what JS taught. Is it for the better? Im not sure but the LDS people ive talked to (which are many, I live in Utah) are slowly changing some of their beliefs. I do understand what you are saying but lets give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they do change for the better.

Peace be with you!!!

Hi, IstOKofC…

If this is happening, then the LDS are the ones in apostasy, getting away from the teaching of a their prophet. This only means JS is a fraud, what the LDS has taught in all years of its existence is not true…and they continue to lead people into error.

 

[rainman10]

Valid point Rainman. But this I know. The LDS have gotten away from alot of what JS taught. Is it for the better? Im not sure but the LDS people ive talked to (which are many, I live in Utah) are slowly changing some of their beliefs. I do understand what you are saying but lets give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they do change for the better.

Peace be with you!!!

Yes, I understand that they have gotten away from what JS taught, but doesn’t this show that he was a false prophet?? I have seen posts that say that JS would not recognize his church today, they have changed many of his “truths” and seem to be slowly trying to distance themselves from those teachings. In my mind that would make it obvious that he is a false prophet and, therefore, the Mormon religion a false religion. Don’t get me wrong, I am not intending to criticize Mormons, I used to be one, Many of them are wonderful people, but very misled.

 

[1stOrderKoC]

Yes, I understand that they have gotten away from what JS taught, but doesn’t this show that he was a false prophet?? I have seen posts that say that JS would not recognize his church today, they have changed many of his “truths” and seem to be slowly trying to distance themselves from those teachings. In my mind that would make it obvious that he is a false prophet and, therefore, the Mormon religion a false religion. Don’t get me wrong, I am not intending to criticize Mormons, I used to be one, Many of them are wonderful people, but very misled.

Do I beleive JS is/was a false prophet? Yes, I do. It clearly states it in the NT numerous times to be aware of false prophets and false teachings. And if they are moving away from their leaders teachings then something is wrong. Im just trying to give them a little credit.

 

[Monkey1976]

Peter John and Gary Taylor,

This is to let each of you know I have read your latest posts, and as Peter John noted, we disagree so completely that there is no point in a further discussion of the issues, particularly since the question about when it was decided that the bishop of Rome after Peter was the leader of the church on the earth occurred, which would have answered the question about when the apostasy had fully happened, doesn’t seem to be able to be answered definitively.

In St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he notes that Corinth consulted him regarding their problem. The Apostle St. John was alive at the time this letter was written, and lived much closer to Corinth than St. Clement. Why would the Corinthians appeal to a bishop further away if his authority was less than the Apostle who was nearby?

Gary Taylor, if you’re saying there are no archeological evidences that someone lived in the Americas during the time period of the Book of Mormon, then that is an amazing point of view for someone to have, given the current broad base of knowledge to the contrary.

The point is the lack of archaeological evidence for any of the specific claims made by the Book of Mormon or the peoples it describes.

 

[ParkerD]

In St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he notes that Corinth consulted him regarding their problem. The Apostle St. John was alive at the time this letter was written, and lived much closer to Corinth than St. Clement. Why would the Corinthians appeal to a bishop further away if his authority was less than the Apostle who was nearby?

Hi, Monkey1976,

A quick note:

Here is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about whether “Corinth consulted him regarding their problem”. (Answer: they didn’t actually consult him.)

“The Epistle to the Corinthians
The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity.”

Source:

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Have a good day.

P.S. to those who made comments about Joseph Smith. The LDS church hasn’t distanced itself from the teachings of Joseph Smith, unless you mean that some of his words have been taken out of context and that has been clarified. The teachings need to be understood in their context and time.

 

[Peter_John]

Hi, Monkey1976,

… to those who made comments about Joseph Smith. The LDS church hasn’t distanced itself from the teachings of Joseph Smith, unless you mean that some of his words have been taken out of context and that has been clarified. The teachings need to be understood in their context and time.

Then apparently the entire King Follet discourse has been taken out of context for the better part of two centuries, because that is the main reference I have heard to such “distancing” it self. That and the teaching that the mark of Cain was black skin.

 

[1stOrderKoC]

P.S. to those who made comments about Joseph Smith. The LDS church hasn’t distanced itself from the teachings of Joseph Smith, unless you mean that some of his words have been taken out of context and that has been clarified. The teachings need to be understood in their context and time.

Hi Parker, I wouldnt say distancing themselves, rather going in a different direction from the old beliefs. I would call these people ive talked to my friends (ive worked with them for 2 years now everyday) and they even told me that their views and what has been taught to them from when they were young till now has changed. For the better? From what they tell me it is. And thats good. They have an open mind about other beliefs and some of them have actually read the New American Bible to have a better understanding of what us Catholics beleive.

Peace be with you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Peter John and Gary Taylor,

This is to let each of you know I have read your latest posts, and as Peter John noted, we disagree so completely that there is no point in a further discussion of the issues, particularly since the question about when it was decided that the bishop of Rome after Peter was the leader of the church on the earth occurred, which would have answered the question about when the apostasy had fully happened, doesn’t seem to be able to be answered definitively./quote\

It is a meaningless question, as the Apostles appointed Bishops as their successors, and nowhere can Mormons site that something other occurred.

Whether or not you believe the Pope holds primacy is moot to the question of apostasy, as the Orthodox churches do accept the ruling of Bishops, as successors to the Apostles, but do not accept the Bishop of Rome as having primacy.

Therefore, if you are basing your date of apostasy on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, you then must content with our Orthodox brothers, and how it is they they are in apostasy.

 

[pablope]

Hi, Monkey1976,

A quick note:

Here is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about whether “Corinth consulted him regarding their problem”. (Answer: they didn’t actually consult him.)

“The Epistle to the Corinthians
The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity.”

Source:

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

I will add some more:

The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. ]No appeal **seems **

 

[pablope]

Peter John,

Here are answers to your specific questions:

(4) You tell me when a bishop of Rome was designated as the leader of the church on earth after Peter, and that will be the exact point in time when an apostasy had occurred, since John was the real leader after Peter’s death. I have never seen anyone say exactly when that designation occurred, so that would be up to someone who knows from your history.

This seems to be your main issue, Parker, that John should have been the head of the Church. Don’t you realize that by insisting on this, you are putting into question the wisdom of God to guide and protect His Church? You are putting into question our trust in Jesus and His divine providence to provide for His Church’s needs. Don’t you think Peter was guided in choosing his successor, and his successor’s successor, and so forth?

As I have stated previously, if what you wished happened, then you are making Jesus a liar. Jesus told John he would die a natural death, and this is proven by history. If John had become pope, he would have been executed by the Romans. In John’s lifetime, Peter’s immediate successors were all executed by the Romans. And history bears this out too. Then we would not have his Gospel and the Book of Revelation. But we do. And it was because of Jesus and His promise to protect His Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Therefore, if you are basing your date of apostasy on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, you then must content with our Orthodox brothers, and how it is they they are in apostasy.

OK, I typed that in a hurry, should be “contend with”.

 

[Peter_John]

First Parker, thnak you for asking productive and not merely contentious questions.

Peter John and Gary Taylor,

… since the question about when it was decided that the bishop of Rome after Peter was the leader of the church on the earth occurred, which would have answered the question about when the apostasy had fully happened,…

Actually the strongest affirmation of the Bishop of Rome as the Leader of the Church of which I am aware came with the Great Schism, which compares to the Schism in Mormonism after the death of Joseph and Hyrum. However, most Mormons would agree that the Apostasy would have been complete before that time anyway, so the succession would not matter. I do not understand how affirming that designation of the Bishop of Rome as successor with the keys indicates Apostasy.

The first few popes after Peter happened while John was still alive, and he remained in communion with them. I think what Mormons do not understand is that we have one High Priest, and He is the same one who put Peter in charge of organizing His CHurch.

Peter John or anyone else, where did the Savior refer specifically to one of the deuterocanonical books and say that they were the word of God?

The reference to the woman married to seven men is from the Book of Tobit. He never declared any scripture I know of the Word of God, and he would not have distinguished the Deuterocanonical books from the rest of the Jewish canon because it was all the same. The Jews only eliminated them from their canon after the fall of Jerusalem when they had a fundamentalist revival, and dropped anything for which they did not have original writings in Hebrew.

After the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles (the new Christians) these plain and precious books were removed, and the Jewish canon of the Old Testament extant in the time of Mortin Luther is what he adopted in his apostasy from Catholicism…

There are so many references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament that, as I have said, you camnnot fully understand it – understand the impact of the teachings to thosew who heard them – without them. They are not all references in dialogue. Some are referecnces in composition, establishing the integral nature of the full Biblical account.

Many references to the Deuterocanonical books would have been recognized, even if not spelled out, as the Pharisees and Saducees certainly recognized reference to Psalm 22 in Jesus’ last expressions on the cross (which, the way he made the statement was considered equivalent in Hebrew scholarship to reciting the whole thing. he said the first line, they understood all of Psalm 22). Jesus similarly littered his dialogue with expressions from the Deutrocanonical books, as wellas the rest of the Bible, and the authors included them framing their naratives in ways that the references would have been recognized.

The Book of Wisdom (also known as Ecclesiasticus) is most telling. The book itself the most adamant condemnations of false Gods in the poetic traditions (consistent with the concurretnpositions expressed historically in the Maccabees). It seems like Israel was finally beginning to understand, especially since only 150-200 years before the Advent, it also offers the most clear foreshadowing of Christ:

From Wisdom 7:3-6
And I too, when born, inhaled the common air, and fell upon the kindred earth; wailing, I uttered that first sound common to all. In swaddling clothes and with constant care I was nurtured. For no king has any different origin or birth, but one is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it.

and Wisdon 2:12-22
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

It is easier to refer you to a list from another Website: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

And where specifically in the D & C does it say that Hyrum Smith was the designated successor to Joseph Smith?.

In section 124 of the LDS edition of the Doctrine and Covenants Hyrum is not only appointed Patriarch, but given the keys, and given the place previously designated for Oliver Cowdery. The Community of Christ has different numbering, as it recognizes different revelations as valid. And while I am at it I should probably point out that the refence most justifying the 12 as successors would be in D&C 112, but this is an arguable distinction not a definitive one. I think that if Mormons get the leeway for a merely arguable stance as well – though our position is more than arguable. We do not have a near 2000 year gap in degrees of direct separation from Christ and the First Apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

To SteveVH and Lax16 and whomever:

The Bible, in and of itself and if taught well, meets the needs and desires of many, many people, and was treasured by many people who received much light as they participated in bringing it to the world.

I’m going to leave it at that. Peace to all.

This begs the question. Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? There are many writings which contain truth, are very inspiring and good for one to read and which shed light in one’s life, but they are not the word of God. I very well could be misunderstanding you, but what I get from this statement is that what the Christian world has always considered word of God does not mean the same thing to you. It is fine for those who’s needs and desires are met by it, but that is about as far as it goes.

Am I missing something? What is your definition of “Scripture”?

Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

Peter John,

(4) You tell me when a bishop of Rome was designated as the leader of the church on earth after Peter, and that will be the exact point in time when an apostasy had occurred, since John was the real leader after Peter’s death. I have never seen anyone say exactly when that designation occurred, so that would be up to someone who knows from your history.

Parker,

There is no indication in history or in Scripture that John was the “real leader”. You must admit that this assumption is derived from your belief that “Apostles” had to be first among the rest of Christianity and that the office of “bishop” holds no real authority. You must also admit that this is a uniquely Mormon concept stemming from its own hierarchical structure.