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

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly. IMO the truth of the matter is that when a “revealed” belief or practice becomes unpopular or illegal, conversions begin to drop off. That is when they retire to the upper rooms of the Temple and then come back with a “new” revelation. Can a Mormon poster please address this? Was not polygamy a practice revealed to Joseph Smith? Why, if it was truly revealed, would God then reveal that it was not good? Was God wrong the first time around? The same goes for finally allowing blacks into the LDS “priesthood”. Was it ok when racial predjudice against blacks was widely accepted by society, and then wrong after the civil rights movement in this country?

The relevance to this thread is that if you cannot trust that your own “revealed truth” will remain a revealed truth, even from your founding “prophet”, how can you trust any supposed revelation, such as priesthood authority being taken away from the Church Christ founded?

Theres an intersting concept.

 

[ADouglass]

Theres an intersting concept.

And might I suggest we all stop posting on this thread so that this main point will be easier for others to see if we do stop.

 

[Peter_John]

Exactly. IMO the truth of the matter is that when a “revealed” belief or practice becomes unpopular or illegal, conversions begin to drop off. That is when they retire to the upper rooms of the Temple and then come back with a “new” revelation. Can a Mormon poster please address this? Was not polygamy a practice revealed to Joseph Smith? Why, if it was truly revealed, would God then reveal that it was not good? Was God wrong the first time around? The same goes for finally allowing blacks into the LDS “priesthood”. Was it ok when racial predjudice against blacks was widely accepted by society, and then wrong after the civil rights movement in this country?

The relevance to this thread is that if you cannot trust that your own “revealed truth” will remain a revealed truth, even from your founding “prophet”, how can you trust any supposed revelation, such as priesthood authority being taken away from the Church Christ founded?

I have to take the devil’s advocate side on this one

1. Polygamy
   A) "Some early LDS split off groups from Mormonism affirm that Joseph Smith did not teach polygamy.
   B) The primary group, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, did not abandon the practive until faced with complete divestiture of all Church property. The "revelation: releasing members from the practice makes that a claear antecedent, They had done, the proclamation states, all within their power. The law had opposed them (a law specifically outlawing polygamy in the territories, and not in the U.S., allowing confiscation of the property of those paracticing it). Their tenets affirmed being subjest to governments, and as long as they had appeals available, they continued practicing. When no legal recourse remained, they abandoned it. There is a great old issue of the Ensign that has pictures of all the differrent quorums of the Twelve,
   and there is a big period when all the photos were taken in prison,

On the one hand, it is not just like they toppled over at resistance. They help out as long as they can.

On the other hand, had the early Christians had such an attitude of submission to the law, nobody would have to have accepted being fed to the Lions!

Well, and that might explain how the earliest Christians really believed as Mormons. So when it came time to be fed to the Lions, they recanted, leaving only apostates who were dedicated unto death, but did not believe that God submits to governments as the ones who died.

1. Blacks and the Priesthood.
   On the one hand, mid -1978 is a long time to hold out against public pressure in the US. The fact regarding this is that the decision to change had to be unanimous, and Delbert L. Stapley was the last true segregationist in the Quorum of the Twelve. He died abiut 2 months after the change.

On the other, Brazil had just built a new temple. It had taken contributions from members all over the country, many of whom would not have been allowed temple recommends because of their skin color. They knew this and contributed to having the tempole built anyway. This was a sacrifice that the quorum of the 12 could not ignore – that and the vast rate of baptisms in the country. Hundreds of new members were coming in each month, and as long as black people were not allowed to hold the priesthood, they could not have new leaders, just more new members. They could not create new wards and stakes, so that certainly had an influence.​

Back to point on polygamy? Did the early Christians who allegedly believe as modern Mormons choose to comply with the law, and avoid being killed, while apostates who did not recognize the law went to martyrdom? That could explain where the “true authority” went.

 

[Peter_John]

Parker - Are you saying that the LDS have NEVER taught that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers?

So the LDS own publications show that they alter what they teach publicly when those teachings become unpopular?

When did you become aware of this change?

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

President Kimball (who wasn’t president when he wrote “Faith Precedes the Miracle”) is not a current leader, as you know.

The Gospel Principles updated manual is the current teaching of the current leaders, and it was reviewed by the Twelve. The scriptures provide the doctrinal foundation, the “formative doctrine”. They provide the “iron rod.”

By the way, I consider Jesus as my dear and loving Savior far more than as my Elder Brother, even though that expression is used by some; and as the Beloved Only Begotten Son and Alpha and Omega, He of course has unique qualities that make Him so very much more than an “Elder Brother”. He knows us intimately, like the closest of brothers, but is much more like a father than a brother in that He becomes the spiritual father and Source of our salvation and eternal life through our spiritual rebirth and then enduring in faith by keeping our covenants, and by hearing and heeding His voice.

Iwas wondering when the “not President yet” argument would come in. Joseph Smith wasn’t President of the Church when the Book of Moormon was prepared for press either. Kimball was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and as such – by your own affirmation – had a share in continuing LDS authority int he absence of an indicidual leader. The chapters of “Faith Precedes the Miracle” came from General Conference addresses, in his official capacity.

He was also not the President when “Miracle of Forgiveness” was published, and I have never heard anyone try to use that argument to diminish its authority. Instead it is held nearly on a par with “Jesus the Christ” (Talmage, also not President - ever), “Articles of Faith” (Talmage again), and “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” (Richards, never President).

D., this is not about what you believe. It is about what your Church teaches. You cannot defend what your Church teaches by affirming your personal belief in something different.

 

[Peter_John]

I had been going to “let it go”, but I suppose you might as well know that the current Gospel Principles Manual was updated last year, and has a change in that the sentence you highlighted has been deleted:
.

Doesn’t it bother you that this this change happened after the teaching complicated an LDS candidate’s campaign?

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

So what would you think I would tell my Stake President? (a good friend of mine from my childhood, by the way). That I agree with the change in the new Gospel Essentials manual, which is the designated instruction manual for Gospel Doctrine classes for two years for all adults and young adults in the LDS church priesthood and Relief Society classes? Why would he disagree about that change? Of course he wouldn’t. These things are only hard to accept for people who make them some kind of dogma for their life and aren’t grounded in the scriptures.

By the way, I don’t think I’ve seen that Joseph Smith wrote in a way that said Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers–otherwise, I wouldn’t have made the statement I originally made disagreeing that it was doctrinally taught. Others, perhaps, Elder Kimball, yes (which I had skimmed past the reading of), but I had already looked for such a statement from Joseph Smith, and hadn’t found such to be the case.

How could you disagree in a change of a teaching of which you had never heard?

 

[Peter_John]

By the way, I don’t think I’ve seen that Joseph Smith wrote in a way that said Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers–otherwise, I wouldn’t have made the statement I originally made disagreeing that it was doctrinally taught. Others, perhaps, Elder Kimball, yes (which I had skimmed past the reading of), but I had already looked for such a statement from Joseph Smith, and hadn’t found such to be the case.

So that means that all the leaders who have taught this – several of which were cited here – werew apostates? When has there been a revelation clarifying this? I am beginning to wish they had a wading boots smiley.

Regarding your Stake President, what if diruring a temple recommend interview when it came to the part about affirming LDS teachings, you affirmed that you do not think the doctirne that Satan was Jesus’ brother is supported by scripture. You would then have to explain where Satan came from, and since Joseph Smith clearly wrote that all angels were part of the same heavenly family, you will have a hard time explaining ti otherwise.

So far I see no evidence that an apostasy occurred, but I see plenty of evidence of institutionally sanctioned apostasy within LDS own teachings. Your arguments are about as sound as Zeezrom’s or Korihor’s.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - Are you saying that the LDS have NEVER taught that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers?

Hi, Lax16,

I think you have evidence that it has been taught in a lesson manual and in a book by an apostle, so of course I would not now say “never”. I’m glad for the change in the Gospel Principles manual, however, having seen your post about the older manual’s wording.

 

[lax16]

Hi, Lax16,

I think you have evidence that it has been taught in a lesson manual and in a book by an apostle, so of course I would not now say “never”. I’m glad for the change in the Gospel Principles manual, however, having seen your post about the older manual’s wording.

Parker - Don’t you think a religion should have truths that don’t change?

Isn’t that why we choose a church, because we “buy into” their teachings?

How do you justify the changes - do you continue to tell yourself that God is evolving and that is how everyone sees God?

God and His Truth never change. There is nothing that has changed in thousands of years.

 

[SteveVH]

I have to take the devil’s advocate side on this one

1. Polygamy
   A) "Some early LDS split off groups from Mormonism affirm that Joseph Smith did not teach polygamy.

The comments of LDS splinter groups are not convincing to me. If he didn’t teach it in words (which I believe he did), he certainly taught it by practice. My point, however, is that polygamy was purportedly a revealed truth:

***“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866***

On the other hand, had the early Christians had such an attitude of submission to the law, nobody would have to have accepted being fed to the Lions!

Well, and that might explain how the earliest Christians really believed as Mormons. So when it came time to be fed to the Lions, they recanted, leaving only apostates who were dedicated unto death, but did not believe that God submits to governments as the ones who died.

I see you still know how to reason as a Mormon. I could never have summoned that kind of logic no matter how hard I tried.

1. Blacks and the Priesthood.
   On the one hand, mid -1978 is a long time to hold out against public pressure in the US. The fact regarding this is that the decision to change had to be unanimous, and Delbert L. Stapley was the last true segregationist in the Quorum of the Twelve. He died abiut 2 months after the change.

Not sure I see your point here. It still remains true that this was held as a revelation from God having its basis in the Book of Mormon,correct? For whatever reason, this revealed truth changed.

Back to point on polygamy? Did the early Christians who allegedly believe as modern Mormons choose to comply with the law, and avoid being killed, while apostates who did not recognize the law went to martyrdom? That could explain where the “true authority” went.

I think you may be on to something here. I’m visiting the nearest ward tomorrow to sign up.

 

[ParkerD]

So, would you then describe this cleansing of manuals, of understandings of previous teachings a form of apostasy from the old LDS to a more Christian-like LDS?

It seems like saying that was what once truth is no longer truth and changed into a new truth.

Pablope,

I can see why this might be the impression one could have. What I have tried to emphasize is that the scriptures that form the doctrinal basis of the LDS church’s teachings did not change with that particular change in wording and semantics. The scriptures didn’t say “brothers”.

If you will look at Matthew 3:12, and think of the concept of wheat being separated from chaff by a blowing process that blows off the chaff and thus purges the wheat to purify it for being gathered into a safe and secure “garner”, then with that picture in your mind’s eye, think about the many ways that can be accomplished by the Savior, the Good Shepherd.

One way that process is accomplished is to find who among men and women are interested in having semantic tug-of-wars, versus who are interested in listening to the quiet, comforting, assuring voice of the Good Shepherd. I am not interested in having semantic tug-of-wars.

The knowledge we have is that Jesus is the Firstborn, Alpha, and will be the Finisher of the faith, Omega. Lucifer was also brought into being from an existing intelligence, by Heavenly Father, and later rebelled from having been a son of the morning, and became a fallen angel–cast down to the earth for what turns out to be the purposes of God to be part of the sifting process because of the opposition he causes in the world.

If we had a chalk board, I would circle a line drawn from the Good Shepherd to us individually. Call that line "pure communication from the Good Shepherd through the Holy Spirit.’ Then show darts or arrows or lightening flashes with words such as “anger, fear, belittling, temptation, discouragement, doubt, teachings of others who doubt, teachings of others who fear, teachings of others who belittle”–and those impacts on the pure communication will potentially clog the communication purity, which is what Lucifer wants to happen.

The adversary doesn’t want us to even believe we can have that kind of communication. I know differently. I also know the scriptures form part of the foundation for that pure doctrine, with knowledge of that communication channel with the Savior as a fundamental truth.

The Savior has purposes in sifting or separating or purging the wheat from the chaff. We should expect this to happen in many different ways, such as this case of semantics. The Pharisees were all about semantics, as you will recall. It’s just not something I am going to take interest in bothering about.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - Don’t you think a religion should have truths that don’t change?

Isn’t that why we choose a church, because we “buy into” their teachings?

How do you justify the changes - do you continue to tell yourself that God is evolving and that is how everyone sees God?

God and His Truth never change. There is nothing that has changed in thousands of years.

Lax16,

How quickly we can all seem to forget that only God is expected to be and is perfect. He can use imperfect people to do His perfect work, and does that very thing. My post to Pablope was intended for you to read also, and bears on this subject. A semantics item that was not in the scriptures does not change a doctrine that was in the scriptures.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, how can you be sure that the updated manual is actually the correct teaching? When the previous wording was used, did anyone question its accuracy? I certainly doubt it. And how many changes or “updates” have there been? What is to stop another update from occurring which would change the meaning of the current wording? It seems that Mormon teaching is relative to the social norms of the day. If something seems to be offending the current population, or man-made laws change (i.e. polygamy, racial issues), then God purportedly gives a new revelation. Can you not see that each time this happens that Mormon claims to modern prophecy and revelation loose more and more credibility?

SteveVH,

Please read my recent post to Pablope. I actually believe that there probably was a discussion in a committee about the wording of that sentence in the earlier manual. The fact of the matter is that the scriptures weren’t changed just because someone thought the word “brothers” described the situation. The scriptures are the doctrinal foundation, and sometimes even LDS members need to be reminded of that and encouraged in their study of the scriptures.

As far as credibility, the relationship that is key is between an individual and the Good Shepherd, through the Holy Spirit and through personal righteousness. Lucifer makes every effort to distract, annoy, dissipate, dislodge, discourage, and detract from the purity of that pure relationship. There is no credibility loss when the key communication relationship is between the individual and the Good Shepherd, and He is interested in purging to find His sheep who are wanting to listen and willing to follow His voice, leading to growth, change, peace, and joy in the journey.

That’s all I have time for right now, folks. Sorry to disappoint. Peace to all.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Please read my recent post to Pablope. I actually believe that there probably was a discussion in a committee about the wording of that sentence in the earlier manual. The fact of the matter is that the scriptures weren’t changed just because someone thought the word “brothers” described the situation. The scriptures are the doctrinal foundation, and sometimes even LDS members need to be reminded of that and encouraged in their study of the scriptures.

But Parker, do you realize that you are saying you really can’t trust the content of your teaching manuals? I realize that human error can find its way into any human publication, and that such an error would not change the truth found in Scripture. But this was not really that type of error. It is more a doctrinal matter. Personally I disagree wih the current version anyway so its probably a moot point.

As far as credibility, the relationship that is key is between an individual and the Good Shepherd, through the Holy Spirit and through personal righteousness. Lucifer makes every effort to distract, annoy, dissipate, dislodge, discourage, and detract from the purity of that pure relationship. There is no credibility loss when the key communication relationship is between the individual and the Good Shepherd, and He is interested in purging to find His sheep who are wanting to listen and willing to follow His voice, leading to growth, change, peace, and joy in the journey.

Yes, I think everyone would agree that a personal relationship with God is very important, but you didn’t acquire your belief system by sitting on a mountain top communing with God. You received it from the LDS church. If you have evidence that what is being taught by this church is in error you have a responsibility, morally, intellectually and spiritually, to question whether or not you have received the truth as proposed by that church. That would apply to all of us.

That’s all I have time for right now, folks. Sorry to disappoint. Peace to all.

No disappointment. Thanks for answering my post. Have a good night.

 

[Peter_John]

The Pharisees were all about semantics, as you will recall. It’s just not something I am going to take interest in bothering about.

ANd you have been spending a lot of semantics to defend your position: are you correct or is the church correct?
OR Have you been right all along and the LDS Church is finally coming around to see it your way?

 

[Peter_John]

I’m glad for the change in the Gospel Principles manual, however, having seen your post about the older manual’s wording.

Does the fact that they changed it in the manual change it as a an LDS teaching?

 

[ParkerD]

Does the fact that they changed it in the manual change it as an LDS teaching?

Peter John,

Not for me, no. I don’t rely on manuals for my doctrinal foundation. That has been the point I have been trying to make. Lesson manuals are important, providing guidance for teachers, but every LDS teacher is instructed to seek the Spirit and to search the scriptures as they prepare their lessons, and to have uplifting class discussions that lead class members to also search the scriptures and seek the Spirit in their lives, day by day–and also to seek unity and not create an atmosphere of dissension and disunity.

If I had been teaching that lesson (which I did a few years ago, by the way, with the old manual, but prepared mostly using the scriptural sources and had discussion centered in the scriptures, and hadn’t remembered reading that sentence and may have skimmed over it), then I would have not used the word “brothers” because it wasn’t in the scriptures. That is how I approach teaching the gospel. My interest is in people getting the Spirit into their lives, through loving the scriptures as their doctrinal guide.

 

[Peter_John]

Not sure I see your point here. It still remains true that this was held as a revelation from God having its basis in the Book of Mormon,correct? For whatever reason, this revealed truth changed.

The basis for this is actually not in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does include the concept of skin color being changed as a curse from God, bit the ose of the darker races in the Book of Mormon were not denied the Priesthood. Mormons believe them to be ancestors of Native Americans, North and South America, and of the Polynesians.
The LDS belief about Priesthood attributes better to things in the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham (in the LDS book of scripture called “The Pearl of Great Price” and in the Bible as understood within the light of those and in Joseph Smith’s transliteration of it.

They believe that Cain entered into a covenant with the Devil, in which the Devil taught Cain that he could murder and get gain. See, the whole thing about God being satisfied with Abel’s offering was that Abel was more greatly blessed, hence more prosperous. When Cain was not as greatly blessed, he wanted what Abel had, and the Devil told him how to get it.

The Mark on Cain was that his skin was turned Black (though I have been told recently that the LDS Church no longer teaches this, either – can’t verify it, but the record speaks for itself) . Part of the curse was that he and his ancestors would not be permitted to hold the Priesthood untill the curse was removed, which would take a revelation from God.

There has been a lot of discussion and rhetoric, speculation often stated from authoritative individuals, but not from “seats of authority” like official statements, as to what the reason was – and delving into those would be an unneccessary tangent. The official reason for the ban was that God has never given a reason, and as God he does not have to. That has been consistent. Even Joseph Smith, despite what people specualte, said no more about it than I have said here.

The important thing is that it was also doctrine that someday black people would be allowed to hold the priesthood, and get all of what they consider the blessings associated with it – being able to serve missions, receive tample ordinances(sacraments) and marry in the temple for time and all eternity. The LDS Church always taught that the day would come when it would be allowed.

I can tell you that the Sunday before the “revelation” allowin this was announced, I heard some discussioon on it, and everyone – including at the time “Bruce’s Bible” said it would not happen until the 1,000 years of peace following Christ’s return.

Like I said – it reached a point where the Church could not grow in other countries without it, and where one segregationist holdout remained in the Quorum of the Twelve, and he was on his deathbed, This was one change they said would happen someday, so the change is actually a consistencly.

Polygamy is another story form standard LDS reasoning – nothing in most LDS dialogue suggested it would be temporary in the restoration. They resisted abandoning it until they had no more legal recourse. The fact is the Book of Mormon makes it clear that God despises polygamy, and only justifies it when he specifically commands to " raise up seed" but only then.

So, allowing universal male membership in the priesthood is actually filfillment of prophecy – it was always expected to happen someday. Abandonong ht practice of polygamy is specifically related to the laws against it – in this cae the LDS god changes hos mind because of the laws of men.

Lie I said, that concept applied during the major early persecutions would keep people from marytrdom rather than encouraging them to accept it.

Mormons should not find this offensive, since their position affirm – even if it does not spell it out – that the Christian martyrs of the first three centuries could not have been real Christians anyway.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Not for me, no. I don’t rely on manuals for my doctrinal foundation. That has been the point I have been trying to make. Lesson manuals are important, providing guidance for teachers, but every LDS teacher is instructed to seek the Spirit and to search the scriptures as they prepare their lessons, and to have uplifting class discussions that lead class members to also search the scriptures and seek the Spirit in their lives, day by day–and also to seek unity and not create an atmosphere of dissension and disunity.

If I had been teaching that lesson (which I did a few years ago, by the way, with the old manual, but prepared mostly using the scriptural sources and had discussion centered in the scriptures, and hadn’t remembered reading that sentence and may have skimmed over it), then I would have not used the word “brothers” because it wasn’t in the scriptures. That is how I approach teaching the gospel. My interest is in people getting the Spirit into their lives, through loving the scriptures as their doctrinal guide.

Then you have to agree with one of these two statements:

1. The LDS Church teaches that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers in the pre-Earth life, what ever it chooses to put in the manuals, and you accept this teaching.
   OR
   2)The LDS Church teaches that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers in the pre-Earth life, what ever it chooses to put in the manuals, and you reject this teaching.