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

[lax16]

Lax16,

That would be if a person doesn’t have the Holy Spirit with them and thus must trust that every word is exactly and precisely the word God would have used if He had been originating or translating the message. I consider the KJV as the word of God, and am fine that there is an important need for the Holy Spirit when studying the Bible.
.

from the **Catechism of the Catholic Church: **
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT"

687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."7 Now God’s Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who “has spoken through the prophets” makes us hear the Father’s Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which he reveals the Word to us and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who “unveils” Christ to us "will not speak on his own."8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why “the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him,” while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them.9

688 The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit:

• in the Scriptures he inspired;
• in the Tradition, to which the Church Fathers are always timely witnesses;
• in the Church’s Magisterium, which he assists;
• in the sacramental liturgy, through its words and symbols, in which the Holy Spirit puts us into communion with Christ;
• in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us;
• in the charisms and ministries by which the Church is built up;
• in the signs of apostolic and missionary life;
• in the witness of saints through whom he manifests his holiness and continues the work of salvation.

 

[lax16]

He probably missed that issue.

One would like to think so… I would hate to think that one would knowingly mislead people…

It **is doctrine **and Parker you are a religion teacher, right?

The $1,000,000 question - Why say that this is not official teaching and pretend not to know about it???

 

[Peter_John]

Rainman10,

You are mistaken in the assumption that I “don’t believe ALL that is taught in the Bible.” I do indeed, as I seem to have to explain over and over again. The promise you alluded to is misunderstood and misconstrued, as I’ve also explained over and over again. That doesn’t make it that I don’t believe the Bible. It means I don’t subscribe to the misconstrual of some verses by some people.

As Catholics we also do not subscribe to the misconstrual of certain Bible verses, such as the misconstrual that He considered the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper symbolic. The scriptures are clear that when his disciples did not understand a parable he explained it to them. When they asked what this parable about eating his flesh and drinking his blood meant, he said, “It means you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” Not much ambiguity there.

He was born in a city called House of Bread. His first bed was a feeding trough. His first miracle showed that he could change the nature of substance. Later miracles showed that he could multiply substance with no apparent limits. He showed that the substance of his body had miraculous properties on its own, and that no power of nature could bind hime – rather , they had to do what he said – and at least, He was revealed in the breaking of the bread.

There is no symbol in any of that.

 

[pablope]

Thanks, Peter John.

I hadn’t read that manual. Now that I have read that lesson, I’ll explain to my sons that some manuals include information that may include a bit of speculative misconception due to the principle of free will choice even for a lesson manual committee, and that it is best to stick with the primary doctrinal sources, which are the scriptures.

So, thanks for pointing it out so I can talk with my scripturally motivated sons about this. I think they will be able to understand the difference.

Parker,

Why would it be in a LDS manual in the first place if it is “speculative misconception”? It looks like somebody was asleep at the wheel.

Or is this another one of you defense mechanisms to justify to yourself why this has not caused you to do a deep introspection? A deep critical thinking?

 

[Peter_John]

from the **Catechism of the Catholic Church: **
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT"

687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."7 Now God’s Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who “has spoken through the prophets” makes us hear the Father’s Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which he reveals the Word to us and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who “unveils” Christ to us "will not speak on his own."8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why “the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him,” while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them.9

688 The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit:

• in the Scriptures he inspired;
• in the Tradition, to which the Church Fathers are always timely witnesses;
• in the Church’s Magisterium, which he assists;
• in the sacramental liturgy, through its words and symbols, in which the Holy Spirit puts us into communion with Christ;
• in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us;
• in the charisms and ministries by which the Church is built up;
• in the signs of apostolic and missionary life;
• in the witness of saints through whom he manifests his holiness and continues the work of salvation.

Good points. There is an impression within Mormonism that the because the scriptures suddenly stop, the early Church writings were interrupted, but the Chruch Fathers letters and the works of the Apostles actually blend together seamlessly. That was one reason there was such a debate over what to put in the New Testament when it was compiled.

 

[Peter_John]

Rainman10,

You are mistaken in the assumption that I “don’t believe ALL that is taught in the Bible.” I do indeed, as I seem to have to explain over and over again. The promise you alluded to is misunderstood and misconstrued, as I’ve also explained over and over again. That doesn’t make it that I don’t believe the Bible. It means I don’t subscribe to the misconstrual of some verses by some people.

More semantics. You believe manythings in addition to what the Bible teaches, and that these inform as to what the Bible is supposed to teach.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I really don’t want to do this–I respect your beliefs and understand that you hold them just as sacred as I hold my beliefs.
(1) Here is the context for the belief in one God:

Isaiah 43:3
For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Isaiah 55:5
Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

Isaiah 30:15
For thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

Isaiah 48:17
Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Isaiah 54:5
For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

It is abundantly clear that the God of Israel, the Redeemer, is Jehovah, Immanuel, Jesus the Christ (the Anointed One).

(2) “Only son” is not Biblical. “Only Begotten Son” is Biblical. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth lines are non-Biblical.

(7) “catholic and apostolic Church” is a non-Biblical term.

Also, the non-mention of repentance before “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is a non-Biblical application of the ordinance of baptism. Repentance and baptism are always mentioned in context together in the New Testament. Baptism without repentance creates an incorrect assumption regarding the ordinance of baptism.

Peace to all…

Thanks, Parker. Please know that I am always open to disagreement and do not take it personally!

Obviously Parker, there are words that are not IN the bible but they are derived from meaning out of the bible.

If that is the case, from where do LDS get their Articles of Faith?

Article 8 states: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Obviously, the words “The Book of Mormon” are not in the bible but you probably would say it was alluded to in scripture, right?

Anyway, I do not see much disagreement. To say that we left out the repentance part doesn’t mean we are wrong in our creed. Penance is a sacrament. We also ask for forgiveness of sins at mass and in our daily prayers. People offer up their sufferings as penance. I could go on and on.
I think the Catholics are really good at defining repentance even if it is not in our creed.

 

[ParkerD]

One would like to think so… I would hate to think that one would knowingly mislead people…

It **is doctrine **and Parker you are a religion teacher, right?

The $1,000,000 question - Why say that this is not official teaching and pretend not to know about it???

Lax16,

I had not read the 1986 article you cited as far as my memory of 1986. I personally don’t consider an institute director to be an authoritative source, nor the other links posted from writers about LDS beliefs, except when they actually quote the scriptures.

I have not had it confirmed by the Holy Ghost as to whether the idea that Lucifer and Jesus are “brothers” is correct, and that doctrine is not directly stated in the Bible nor in other LDS scriptures, and I feel that it is missing something we don’t know. We certainly understand that he was an angel of light, a “son of the morning” who rebelled with a vengeance.

Lucifer deceives with everything he does or says.

Peace, all.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I had not read the 1986 article you cited as far as my memory of 1986. I personally don’t consider an institute director to be an authoritative source, nor the other links posted from writers about LDS beliefs, except when they actually quote the scriptures.

I have not had it confirmed by the Holy Ghost as to whether the idea that Lucifer and Jesus are “brothers” is correct, and that doctrine is not directly stated in the Bible nor in other LDS scriptures, and I feel that it is missing something we don’t know. We certainly understand that he was an angel of light, a “son of the morning” who rebelled with a vengeance.

Lucifer deceives with everything he does or says.

Peace, all.

Parker, certainly this is not new to you??

Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior,” Gospel Principles, 17
A Savior and Leader Was Needed
When the plan for our salvation was presented to us in the spirit world, we were so happy that we shouted for joy (see Job 38:7).

We understood that we would have to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not live in the presence of our heavenly parents. While we were away from them, all of us would sin and some of us would lose our way. Our Heavenly Father knew and loved each one of us. He knew we would need help, so he planned a way to help us.

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give his life for us, and take upon himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation.

 

[rainman10]

Rainman10,

You are mistaken in the assumption that I “don’t believe ALL that is taught in the Bible.” I do indeed, as I seem to have to explain over and over again. The promise you alluded to is misunderstood and misconstrued, as I’ve also explained over and over again. That doesn’t make it that I don’t believe the Bible. It means I don’t subscribe to the misconstrual of some verses by some people.

What about the Mormon belief that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

As far as it is translated correctly by whom? Mormons? On what authority? Because that is what Joseph Smith says? If you believe ALL that is in the Bible then why do you need the BOM to make corrections in the Bible?

 

[Peter_John]

Lax16,

I had not read the 1986 article you cited as far as my memory of 1986. I personally don’t consider an institute director to be an authoritative source, nor the other links posted from writers about LDS beliefs, except when they actually quote the scriptures.

I have not had it confirmed by the Holy Ghost as to whether the idea that Lucifer and Jesus are “brothers” is correct, and that doctrine is not directly stated in the Bible nor in other LDS scriptures, and I feel that it is missing something we don’t know. We certainly understand that he was an angel of light, a “son of the morning” who rebelled with a vengeance.

Lucifer deceives with everything he does or says.

Peace, all.

Assuming this is new to you, should not your church’s misrepresentations of its own belief for all this time give you reason to reconsider if it is telling you the truth about other things? This seems like a pretty big teaching to heide fro someone for so long. They taught me this in Promary when I was bout five, in Sunday school, in Seminary, it was the subject of talks in Sacrament meetings, of District, Stake, and General Conference discourses. When I served my mission they certainly wanted us to know who believed our enemy was.

It is that crucial a doctrine, and if you have been manipulated to believe it is not, you should probably reconsider the whole thing.

 

[Peter_John]

What about the Mormon belief that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

As far as it is translated correctly by whom? Mormons? On what authority? Because that is what Joseph Smith says? If you believe ALL that is in the Bible then why do you need the BOM to make corrections in the Bible?

(REferring to Joseph Smith) The Prophet later said: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. … " lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c5a720596a845110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

 

[SteveVH]

(REferring to Joseph Smith) The Prophet later said: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. … " lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c5a720596a845110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

I would love to see the Mormon copies of the Bible from the pen of the original writers. What does this say about the KJV?

 

[Peter_John]

Lucifer deceives with everything he does or says…

Actually he tells us a thousand truths to convince us of one crucial lie. he’ll pack a book with true Catholicity if it convinces of a couple of heresies, and keeps people from getting legitimately baptized.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I had not read the 1986 article you cited as far as my memory of 1986. I personally don’t consider an institute director to be an authoritative source, nor the other links posted from writers about LDS beliefs, except when they actually quote the scriptures.

Peace, all.

Are presidents/prophets and apostles authoritative sources?

**Apostle John A. Widtsoe **explained:

The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. … He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ. When his proposition was rejected, he forsook all that he had gained, … He was no longer Lucifer, bearer of truth, who walked in light, but Satan, teacher of untruth, who slunk in darkness. He became the enemy of God and of all who try to walk according to the Lord’s commandments. One-third of the spirits present in that vast assembly supported Satan and became enemies of the truth that they had formerly cherished. With him these rebellious spirits lost their fellowship with the valiant sons of God. (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 209)

**Apostle Bruce R. McConkie **stated:

God lives in the family unit. He is our Father in heaven—the literal and personal Father of the spirits of all men. He begat us; we are the offspring of Heavenly Parents: we have an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother. We were born as spirits, and we dwelt in the presence of our Eternal Parents; we lived before our mortal birth. As spirits we were in all respects as we are now save only that we were not housed in mortal bodies as is the present circumstance. Christ was the Firstborn of all the heavenly host; Lucifer was a son of the morning: each of us came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order; and Christ is our Elder Brother. (The Mortal Messiah, vol. 1, p. 21)

**President Spencer W. Kimball **commented on the relationship of Lucifer to Jesus:

The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior’s example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by saying, “All right, Satan, I’ll listen to your proposition. I need not succumb, I need not yield, I need not accept—but I’ll listen.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 163)

**President Spencer W. Kimball **also wrote:

Similarly Satan had contended for the subservience of Moses. Satan, also a son of God, had rebelled and had been cast out of heaven and not permitted an earthly body as had his brother Jehovah. Much depended upon the outcome of this spectacular duel. Could Lucifer control and dominate this prophet Moses, who had learned so much directly from his Lord? (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 87)

In 1949 Apostle Joseph F. Merrill stated:

Now there is another personality of which I desire to speak, … that person is Satan, the Devil. But according to our understanding and teaching, Satan is a person with a spirit body, in form like that of all other men. He is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Elder Brother in the spirit world. The earth was in course of development for the abode of man in mortality. A Redeemer was to be sent down and make it possible for the Father’s children to return to him. (LDS Conference Report, April 1949, p. 27)

Speaking in 1857, **Apostle Joseph Young **taught:

Who is it that is at the head of this? It is the Devil, the mighty Lucifer, the great prince of the angels, and the brother of Jesus. He left the province of his Father, and took with him a third part of his Father’s kingdom, and there was no other alternative but to banish him. God would have saved him if he could; but he could not. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 207-208, October 11, 1857)

In 1844 **LDS author W. W. Phelps **wrote:

And again, we exclaim, O Mormonism! No wonder that Lucifer, son of the morning, the ]next heir to Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, should fight so hard against his brethren; he lost the glory, the honor, power, and dominion of a God and the knowledge, spirit, authority and keys of the priesthood of the son of God!

Christ kept his first estate—Lucifer lost his by offering to save men in their sins on the honor of a God, or on his father’s honor.—Christ hated sin, and loved righteousness, therefore he was anointed with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things. (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 758, Jan. 1, 1844, art. by W. W. Phelps)

 

[lax16]

Assuming this is new to you, should not your church’s misrepresentations of its own belief for all this time give you reason to reconsider if it is telling you the truth about other things? This seems like a pretty big teaching to heide fro someone for so long. They taught me this in Promary when I was bout five, in Sunday school, in Seminary, it was the subject of talks in Sacrament meetings, of District, Stake, and General Conference discourses. When I served my mission they certainly wanted us to know who believed our enemy was.

It is that crucial a doctrine, and if you have been manipulated to believe it is not, you should probably reconsider the whole thing.

Absolutely! Parker, if you aren’t sure you agree with this teaching then you really need to examine all of the teachings of your church!

No church that claims to have the truth would have doctrines that are wrong!

This teaching IS DOCTRINE and did come from your prophets.

 

[ParkerD]

Assuming this is new to you, should not your church’s misrepresentations of its own belief for all this time give you reason to reconsider if it is telling you the truth about other things? This seems like a pretty big teaching to heide fro someone for so long. They taught me this in Promary when I was bout five, in Sunday school, in Seminary, it was the subject of talks in Sacrament meetings, of District, Stake, and General Conference discourses. When I served my mission they certainly wanted us to know who believed our enemy was.

It is that crucial a doctrine, and if you have been manipulated to believe it is not, you should probably reconsider the whole thing.

Peter John,

I think I indicated I had heard the belief expressed before. I have never heard it taught in General Conference, so if you have such a talk, then that would be a new one on me.

Again, I use and love the scriptures, and they are the basis for my beliefs and understanding. I think if people spoke in those terms in a Sacrament meeting talk, they were not being helpful if they didn’t just quote the scriptures and leave the words as the scriptures present the words, not inferring anything else from the words as they are.

And of course I don’t feel “manipulated”–far from it. I don’t worry about some teacher off on a tangent. We’re all learning together in this life. I’m simply not going to hold it against someone if they feel like a word infers something to them that it doesn’t mean to me.

Peace.

 

[Peter_John]

Are presidents/prophets and apostles authoritative sources? … (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 758, Jan. 1, 1844, art. by W. W. Phelps)

:bowdown: Great research. I’m not worthy. You saved me a lot of digging. It just goes to show that it is important to hold on to hard copies of bboks.

The “Faith Precedes the Miracle” references is a good one, becuase it comes from talks given at General Conferences. One of its chapters expounds on a verse in the Book of Mormon that originally said that someday the Lamanites (American Indians) will be a “white and delightsome” people. The chapter interprets that verse literally in exposition, yet the text in the Book of Mormon was later changed to read “Pure and delightsome”.

 

[ParkerD]

Absolutely! Parker, if you aren’t sure you agree with this teaching then you really need to examine all of the teachings of your church!

No church that claims to have the truth would have doctrines that are wrong!

This teaching IS DOCTRINE and did come from your prophets.

Lax16,

“Prophet” may mean something to you differently than it means to me. An institute director is not that, and an apostle who writes a book, if not specifically assigned and reviewed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, is writing their own doctrinal understanding, although sustained as a “prophet, seer, and revelator.” The writing needs to have been unanimously sustained by those two quorums for it to be considered doctrinally binding.

I agree what you posted earlier that Bruce R McConkie wrote on that subject, since he quoted directly from scripture and didn’t change words.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

I think I indicated I had heard the belief expressed before. I have never heard it taught in General Conference, so if you have such a talk, then that would be a new one on me.

Again, I use and love the scriptures, and they are the basis for my beliefs and understanding. I think if people spoke in those terms in a Sacrament meeting talk, they were not being helpful if they didn’t just quote the scriptures and leave the words as the scriptures present the words, not inferring anything else from the words as they are.

And of course I don’t feel “manipulated”–far from it. I don’t worry about some teacher off on a tangent. We’re all learning together in this life. I’m simply not going to hold it against someone if they feel like a word infers something to them that it doesn’t mean to me.

Peace.

How old are you, how long have you been LDS, and how often do you attend Church? Have you served a mission?