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

[SteveVH]

My defense is the witness of the Holy Spirit I have that the revelations Joseph Smith received were true and came from God.

Ok, zerinus. I have a witness from the Holy Spirit that says the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. In addition I have 2000 years of history and testimony to provide evidence that this witness is indeed true and not just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[BartBurk]

Ok, zerinus. I have a witness from the Holy Spirit that says the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. In addition I have 2000 of history and testimony to provide evidence that this witness is indeed true and not just wishful thinking on my part.

It’s kind of hard to deny 2000 years of miracles – Mormonism began in critique of Protestant Christians who claimed that miracles died away shortly after the apostolic age. The Catholic Church has centuries of Eucharistic miracles, healings, and approved visions to draw upon to show that God never abandoned the Catholic Church. The gifts of the Spirit have always been present with the Catholic Church so it is hard to believe in the Mormon claim of an apostasy.

 

[rainman10]

Here is a scripture that states the priesthood would never AGAIN be taken away:

This is scripture to me, but somehow I doubt you will agree.

How do we now that God is not lying to us again? Since He lied to us once regarding protecting His Church, He certainly can do it again. By Mormon standards we have no guarantee that it will “never AGAIN be taken away”. Since Mormon doctrines can change by “new revelation”, anything is vulnerable to change, nothing is really safeguarded from future “prophets” coming around with new revelations.

 

[rainman10]

To say “I believe in the Apostacy because I have faith” is really no argument at all. It is a statement that cuts off any attempt to discuss the issue. But it does set my teeth on edge because what it also does is assert the dominance of one person’s “faith” over what another person believes by “faith.”

Two people led by faith to accept contradictory positions cannot both be right. Either there was a “Great Apostacy” or there was not. Those asserting only their “faith” for or against the position end any possibility for a rational discussion. It leaves the other side with no other option but to attack this amorphous concept of another’s unprovable personal faith. And the more one’s faith is attacked, the more one is confirmed in it. Through the process charity fails and the Devil wins. It is simply inappropriate to assert one’s personal “faith” as an argument in this way. We have faith that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, but we can all present reasoned arguments for this position.

Does not the Lord say: “Come now, let us reason together.” (Isa. 1:18)

Surely, there is a reasoned argument for the Great Apostacy? Let’s hear it, or at least a link to one.

Peace,
Robert

There is no proof. Nothing, nada, zilch that the Mormons can provide. AND I HAVE FAITH THAT THIS IT TRUE!!

 

[Javl]

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert in SD
To say “I believe in the Apostacy because I have faith” is really no argument at all. It is a statement that cuts off any attempt to discuss the issue. But it does set my teeth on edge because what it also does is assert the dominance of one person’s “faith” over what another person believes by “faith.”

Two people led by faith to accept contradictory positions cannot both be right. Either there was a “Great Apostacy” or there was not. Those asserting only their “faith” for or against the position end any possibility for a rational discussion. It leaves the other side with no other option but to attack this amorphous concept of another’s unprovable personal faith. And the more one’s faith is attacked, the more one is confirmed in it. Through the process charity fails and the Devil wins. It is simply inappropriate to assert one’s personal “faith” as an argument in this way. We have faith that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, but we can all present reasoned arguments for this position.

Does not the Lord say: “Come now, let us reason together.” (Isa. 1:18)

Surely, there is a reasoned argument for the Great Apostacy? Let’s hear it, or at least a link to one.

Peace,
Robert

There is no proof. Nothing, nada, zilch that the Mormons can provide. AND I HAVE FAITH THAT THIS IT TRUE!!

Faith is a wonderful thing but to make someone else understand or know what you have faith in you must have tangible proof. We Christians have always provided this proof to show and explain our faith but the LDS falls far short and on its face when it come to providing reason or cause. Every answer to our questions is “It’s on faith”, or “You have to have faith”, etc. Yes we do, but on, or in, what? Show us, give us proof, that’s all we ask.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[lax16]

Mormons believe that Peter, James and John had the keys to the Melchizedek Priesthood and that John the Baptist had the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood. Peter, James and John in the Mormon view were the original First Presidency of the ancient church. John the Baptist had baptized Jesus because he had the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood. Like Catholics, Mormons believe that Peter had been given the keys by Jesus and it was appropriate for him to be the one who conferred them on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey.

BartBurk - Please help me to understand something.

Mormons say that John the Baptist, having the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood, baptized Joseph and Oliver giving them the First Presidency.

But John the Baptist baptized many. Wouldn’t they also have received the priesthood based on the fact that they were baptized by John who was of the lineage of Aaron?

If not, what is the difference?

 

[BartBurk]

BartBurk - Please help me to understand something.

Mormons say that John the Baptist, having the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood, baptized Joseph and Oliver giving them the First Presidency.

But John the Baptist baptized many. Wouldn’t they also have received the priesthood based on the fact that they were baptized by John who was of the lineage of Aaron?

If not, what is the difference?

There is a difference between baptizing people and giving them the priesthood. Those are two different ordinances. John the Baptist supposedly first gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the priesthood and then had them baptize each other. John was not ordaining people at the time of Christ as far as I know – just baptizing them. The LDS would say that he was performing those baptisms at the time of Christ with the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood.

 

[lax16]

There is a difference between baptizing people and giving them the priesthood. Those are two different ordinances. John the Baptist supposedly first gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the priesthood and then had them baptize each other. John was not ordaining people at the time of Christ as far as I know – just baptizing them. The LDS would say that he was performing those baptisms at the time of Christ with the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood.

How could non-baptized persons become priests?

I would not think John was ordaining anyone (at least I have never heard of it), however according to the LDS example set by JS and OC, first comes ordination then baptism?

 

[BartBurk]

How could non-baptized persons become priests?

I would not think John was ordaining anyone (at least I have never heard of it), however according to the LDS example set by JS and OC, first comes ordination then baptism?

Yep, that’s a problem, but not the worst one. One of Joseph’s revelations says you can’t see the face of God without the priesthood, but Joseph didn’t have the priesthood when he received his supposed First Vision. Of course the First Vision was written up well after his revelation about not seeing God without the priesthood so maybe he just forgot.

 

[lax16]

Yep, that’s a problem, but not the worst one. One of Joseph’s revelations says you can’t see the face of God without the priesthood, but Joseph didn’t have the priesthood when he received his supposed First Vision. Of course the First Vision was written up well after his revelation about not seeing God without the priesthood so maybe he just forgot.

How does the Mormon Church get around this?

Does the average LDS person know this? Do they ask? Do they care?

What about the revisions to the “first vision?” Does that seem to bother anyone?

How about the fact that it has always been accepted that God has no body? Anyone find this troublesome?

I’ve said this before- I really think people become/stay Mormon because of all the activities that the church offers: scouts, missions, ordinances…and I guess some people just like to stay busy. It must be mind-numbing but I guess that’s the point. And then maybe everyone will be too tired to ask questions about their founding prophet.

 

[BartBurk]

How does the Mormon Church get around this?

Does the average LDS person know this? Do they ask? Do they care?

What about the revisions to the “first vision?” Does that seem to bother anyone?

How about the fact that it has always been accepted that God has no body? Anyone find this troublesome?

I’ve said this before- I really think people become/stay Mormon because of all the activities that the church offers: scouts, missions, ordinances…and I guess some people just like to stay busy. It must be mind-numbing but I guess that’s the point. And then maybe everyone will be too tired to ask questions about their founding prophet.

It’s not mind-numbing. It’s nice to have a social connection with good people who share your values. I loved being a Mormon.

I think it is easy to believe the Father has a body if you take the scriptures literally. Jesus’ statement that God is spirit really doesn’t faze Mormons because Mormons believe we all have a spiritual body and a physical body.

I actually believe the differences in the various versions of the First Vision are minimal. I don’t think they really mean that much. It doesn’t dawn on most Mormons when they read the Doctrine and Covenants that there is a problem with the statement that you can’t see God without the priesthood. If it does dawn on them they just assume that Joseph Smith was an exception to the rule because God needed to visit Joseph to set up the last dispensation. There really is no definitive statement on the First Vision from Joseph until the late 1830’s and it seems to have been invented at that time as a way to justify his new understanding of God.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi flyonthewall -

I don’t understand why you are asking me if I said Jesus Christ was misinformed - please explain.

Yes, so you agree with me that Peter was moved, as were countless others, by the miracles of Jesus Christ.

You stated: “Peter could point to the many miracles that Jesus performed. It was not through revelation that Peter came to know Jesus as the Son of God.
Please provide scripture references for this.”
I pointed to Matthew 16:17, where Jesus states that Peter’s knowledge of Him being the Son of God was revealed by God the Father.
And you replied: “That came later. However, when Peter first met Jesus he came to believe by a miracle. Luke 5:4-11”
So was Jesus misinformed, when He stated Peter’s knowledge was revealed to him by God the Father? or are you stating Peter’s knowledge came from witnessing miracles?

I agree with you that Peter was “moved” by the miracles Jesus performed, that is where Peter’s faith began, but his knowledge did not come by the miracles Jesus performed, but by revelation from the Father.

It is very evident from the OT and NT that miracles are not a reliable source of conversion and knowledge. If they were, the House of Israel would never have apostasized due to all the miracles that they witnessed.

 

[flyonthewall]

How do we now that God is not lying to us again? Since He lied to us once regarding protecting His Church, He certainly can do it again.

God does not lie. If you believe He does, that is something you will have to come to grips with.

By Mormon standards we have no guarantee that it will “never AGAIN be taken away”.

I gave you a scripture that guarantees that it will never again be taken away. As I stated before, I believe that God will guide His church always.

Since Mormon doctrines can change by “new revelation”, anything is vulnerable to change, nothing is really safeguarded from future “prophets” coming around with new revelations.

This is a common accusation that is due to not understanding our doctrines.

 

[flyonthewall]

It’s not mind-numbing. It’s nice to have a social connection with good people who share your values. I loved being a Mormon.

I think it is easy to believe the Father has a body if you take the scriptures literally. Jesus’ statement that God is spirit really doesn’t faze Mormons because Mormons believe we all have a spiritual body and a physical body.

I actually believe the differences in the various versions of the First Vision are minimal. I don’t think they really mean that much. It doesn’t dawn on most Mormons when they read the Doctrine and Covenants that there is a problem with the statement that you can’t see God without the priesthood. If it does dawn on them they just assume that Joseph Smith was an exception to the rule because God needed to visit Joseph to set up the last dispensation. There really is no definitive statement on the First Vision from Joseph until the late 1830’s and it seems to have been invented at that time as a way to justify his new understanding of God.

There really isn’t a problem if the section in the D&C you referred to as stating that no man can see God without the priesthood, is understood in the context it was given in. There is a response to this specific criticism on farilds.org
en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Doctrine_and_Covenants_84_says_God_not_seen_without_priesthood

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Here is a brief synopsis of the doctrinal problem:
If one believes that the Jews to whom God the Son (the preincarnate Christ in Heaven before His incarnation into human life here on earth, understood that God is Adonai Elohim (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and that He said “I shall not alter the thing that has gone out of My lips”.(.the words of God’s Torah, the statement describing His character in the form of all of His laws, statutes and judgments, then His unchanging Torah is the knowledge which is called “keys.”

Daniel, the prophet of the Lord, said “He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.”
This was to be done by the Lord at His sacrifice on the cross. Thus, the earthly priesthood and it’s duties of activities surrounding the effectuating of forgiveness of sin though blood sacrifices, was to cease on the earth. It is now going on by the High Priest in Heaven for each penitent sinner.

The “days of unleavened bread” (Passover) was kiept by Paul, the apostle, with his
converts from the surrounding pagan religions, but without animal sacrifices or the requirement of circumcision as a blood sign of allegiance to God’s everlasting covenant found in Leviticus 20-23, Exodus 33 and 34. This was long after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) which is when Judeo-Christians worshipped in the synagogues every Shabbat and Pesach, Shavuot, Yom Teruah, etc. The only additional requirements for Paul’s new converts to Judeo-Christianity, were four things having to do with sexual morality, meat and blood. All contained in God the Son’s holy Torah.

When Yeshua said, “This cup is My blood of the New Covenant,” He then referred back to the only New Covenant that ever has existed. It is the covenant with God’s promises to man. Not man’s earlier promises to God. After God re-established His relationship with His
people, it was only ratified by blood when He gave Himself to provide us a way out of constantly sinning by breaking His laws, statutes and judgments: faith in His power to
take us back to His holy Law and, with the power of the Holy Spirit to show us how to live it. Christians become then God’s Torah-ot. His bride waiting for her Husband to leave His
chamber, and knock on the door.

Each individual, not a corporate entity based on tradition, but with the Holy Spirit helping’
him or her see God’s Law as a lamp unto the person’s feet.

 

[lax16]

It’s not mind-numbing. It’s nice to have a social connection with good people who share your values. I loved being a Mormon.

I am glad to hear it. Not too much deep conversation going on here in my neck of the woods.

I think it is easy to believe the Father has a body if you take the scriptures literally. Jesus’ statement that God is spirit really doesn’t faze Mormons because Mormons believe we all have a spiritual body and a physical body.

Not if one is familiar with Old Testament teachings and beliefs. God is incorporeal and that is an ancient teaching of the Jews.
I guess you are making my point. Mormons are not concerned with their religion being a continuation/fulfillment of Judaism. To attempt to change ancient Jewish teachings just because someone told you so is not too impressive.

I actually believe the differences in the various versions of the First Vision are minimal. I don’t think they really mean that much. It doesn’t dawn on most Mormons when they read the Doctrine and Covenants that there is a problem with the statement that you can’t see God without the priesthood. If it does dawn on them they just assume that Joseph Smith was an exception to the rule because God needed to visit Joseph to set up the last dispensation. There really is no definitive statement on the First Vision from Joseph until the late 1830’s and it seems to have been invented at that time as a way to justify his new understanding of God.

I think it is very strange that JS changed his rendition of the first vision multiple times and added things years later. This would be a major red flag to anyone who does an honest study of religion.

 

[rainman10]

God does not lie. If you believe He does, that is something you will have to come to grips with.

I gave you a scripture that guarantees that it will never again be taken away. As I stated before, I believe that God will guide His church always.

This is a common accusation that is due to not understanding our doctrines.

I don’t believe that God lies, that is why I would NEVER believe in the Mormon church or Joseph Smith, because God does not lie. He promised he would protect His Church until the end of time and that is what He has done.

I believe the scripture that is in the Bible, that He will protect His Church, not what is in the BOM. Show me where in the Bible He says he will protect the Mormon church.

 

[pablope]

To my fellow Catholics – what are we looking for from the LDS? Are we looking for an historical statement from a Pope in 80 A.D. such as “On May 1, I, Pope Anacletus, officially declare that I am apostatizing from the faith that Christ taught us, and am officially demanding that all of those Christians under my authority apostatize with me.”?

The Mormon claim of apostasy is based on what they consider to be the wickedness and false teaching of early Catholic Church leaders. They obviously could never prove to us there was an apostasy as long as we believe in the Catholic Church. Asking them to provide us with proof of an apostasy is ridiculous since we wouldn’t ever agree to their proof.

Well, for one thing, would not there be an independent study, historical account, or other proof that would prove an apostasy? If it was true, wouldn’t the LDS have come up with any proof backed up by scholarly studies, historical document, and other proof. All proof I have seen so far, is it is in the Bible, quoting a verse here and there…but quoting a verse does not prove anything. If the quoted verse is indeed true, then there must be a historical proof somewhere that would prove the verse or prophesy occurred. I have seen none of this from the LDS.

 

[flyonthewall]

I don’t believe that God lies, that is why I would NEVER believe in the Mormon church or Joseph Smith, because God does not lie. He promised he would protect His Church until the end of time and that is what He has done.

I believe the scripture that is in the Bible, that He will protect His Church, not what is in the BOM. Show me where in the Bible He says he will protect the Mormon church.

Well, since I believe the Mormon church to be His church…

 

[lax16]

You stated: “Peter could point to the many miracles that Jesus performed. It was not through revelation that Peter came to know Jesus as the Son of God.
Please provide scripture references for this.”
I pointed to Matthew 16:17, where Jesus states that Peter’s knowledge of Him being the Son of God was revealed by God the Father.
And you replied: “That came later. However, when Peter first met Jesus he came to believe by a miracle. Luke 5:4-11”
So was Jesus misinformed, when He stated Peter’s knowledge was revealed to him by God the Father? or are you stating Peter’s knowledge came from witnessing miracles?

No, I think it is pretty clear that when Peter FIRST MET Jesus he came to believe/understood who Jesus was through the miracle of the fishing net:
"When Simon Peter SAW THIS, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man. For ASTONISHMENT AT THE CATCH OF FISH they had made SEIZED HIM AND ALL THOSE WITH HIM…”
I am not sure what the disagreement is. By the time Jesus said to Peter, “For flesh and blood has not revealed this too you, but my heavenly Father” they had been together for a long time and Peter had witnessed many miracles and of course had listened to Jesus’ teachings. All conversions ultimately must come from God. Just as Paul was converted after Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him and he was struck blind then healed…did Paul have the conversion. Miracles + God’s will = conversion.
I don’t see how one can separate the two. When I think about IT most conversion stories are miraculous!

I agree with you that Peter was “moved” by the miracles Jesus performed, that is where Peter’s faith began, but his knowledge did not come by the miracles Jesus performed, but by revelation from the Father.

Can we really separate the two?

It is very evident from the OT and NT that miracles are not a reliable source of conversion and knowledge. If they were, the House of Israel would never have apostasized due to all the miracles that they witnessed.

It is very evident that the miracles performed by Jesus converted many. And the conversions were lasting and the people spread the good news to others helping to build the Early Church.
God had His reasons with the House of Israel, but people who met Jesus and were converted remained believers.
And of course the greatest miracle of all was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Then everyone knew that he was not only the Son of God, but God Himself.
.