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

[lax16]

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

But to believe the Mormon church to be His church you would have to believe that either

1. Jesus lied.
2. God didn’t have the right plan.
3. The Holy Spirit left us.
4. God wanted the world to be in darkness for 1800 years.
5. (or my personal favorite missionary comment) God is tricking us.

 

[Monkey1976]

I would ask this of the LDS members here:

Did the Apostles (including St. Paul) have full “priesthood authority”?

If so, did those whom the Apostles ordained (such as St. Titus and St. Timothy, to whom St. Paul wrote in Scripture) have this same level of authority?

If these men did have the same “priesthood authority” as the Apostles, were the men they ordained given this same authority?

If the men ordained by the Apostles did not have “priesthood authority”, why would the Apostles hold this back, and why would St. Paul write to two of his students (St. Timothy and St. Titus) as though they were in full possession of this authority, advising them on how to behave as priests and bishops of the Church?

 

[flyonthewall]

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. John 6 of course states that many that followed Christ, walked away and followed Him no more.

God had His reasons with the House of Israel, but people who met Jesus and were converted remained believers.

 

[flyonthewall]

I would ask this of the LDS members here:

Did the Apostles (including St. Paul) have full “priesthood authority”?

Peter was the presiding Apostle, the President of the Quorum of the 12. He had the fullness of priesthood authority, as Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom. As we understand now, the Quorum of the 12 is equal in authority to the President.

If so, did those whom the Apostles ordained (such as St. Titus and St. Timothy, to whom St. Paul wrote in Scripture) have this same level of authority?

If these men did have the same “priesthood authority” as the Apostles, were the men they ordained given this same authority?

The ones the Apostles ordained were given authority for the position they were ordained to, not the same as the Apostles.

If the men ordained by the Apostles did not have “priesthood authority”, why would the Apostles hold this back, and why would St. Paul write to two of his students (St. Timothy and St. Titus) as though they were in full possession of this authority, advising them on how to behave as priests and bishops of the Church?

As I stated above, they had authority for the position they were ordained to.
If they had the same authority, they would be in the same position as the Apostles.

 

[lax16]

John 6 of course states that many that followed Christ, walked away and followed Him no more.

Read the Gospel of Mark.
Mark Chapter 1
28: His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee.
33: The whole town was gathered at the door.
38-39: He told them "Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come. So he went into their synagogoues, preaching and driving out demons throughout the whole of Galilee.
45: The man went away and began to publicize the whole matter. He spread the report abroad so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town locally…
Chapter 2
2: Many gathered together so that there was no longer room for them, not even around the door, and he preached the word to them.
12: He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”
13: Once again he went out along the sea. All the crowd came to him and he taught them.
Chapter 3
7: Jesus withdrew toward the sea with his disciples. A large number of people [followed]
from Galilee and from Judea.
10: He had cured many and, as a result, those who had diseases were pressing upon him to touch him.
20: He came home. Again [the] crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat.

To say that NOT ONE person who was cured, evidenced a miracle, heard Jesus speak etc
was not truly converted is absurd.

God had His reasons with the House of Israel…for what? For miracles not to convert people and have them remain faithful?

What is the LDS obsession with the OT? You do not follow the God of the Jewish people so let it go. If you did, you would not believe that God was a man with a body who had physical relations with a woman producing Jesus Christ. Again, absurd and inconsistent.
Stop cherry picking what you will and will not accept from the OT.

Miracles are a supporting role. Those that believe will have their faith strengthened by miracles, but miracles are not a lasting source of faith or knowledge.
Miracles may sway, but conversion comes from the Spirit.

Yes and no. Obviously God is a part of every miracle. However, it is clear that Jesus’ early followers were astonished by His miracles and that God used the miracles to catch the attention of the people to get them to follow Jesus and listen to Him.

 

[lax16]

Peter was the presiding Apostle, the President of the Quorum of the 12. He had the fullness of priesthood authority, as Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom. As we understand now, the Quorum of the 12 is equal in authority to the President.

Is “Quorum of the 12” mentioned in the New Testament?
How do we “understand this now”?

The ones the Apostles ordained were given authority for the position they were ordained to, not the same as the Apostles.

Come again?

As I stated above, they had authority for the position they were ordained to.
If they had the same authority, they would be in the same position as the Apostles.

You are talking in circles. Please be more specific with your answers and cite your sources.

 

[Monkey1976]

Peter was the presiding Apostle, the President of the Quorum of the 12. He had the fullness of priesthood authority, as Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom. As we understand now, the Quorum of the 12 is equal in authority to the President.

So the fullness of priesthood authority rested only with St. Peter? From an LDS perspective, what additional authority did he have that St. Paul did not?

The ones the Apostles ordained were given authority for the position they were ordained to, not the same as the Apostles.

What of St. Mathaias? The Eleven chose him to fill the office left empty by Judas. Did he have the same authority as the other Apostles? If so, why would they not make provision for their own eventual death, ordaining men who could step into their roles when they were gone? If not, why does Scripture specifically show how the Apostles saw the need to fill their ranks after the death of Judas?

As I stated above, they had authority for the position they were ordained to.
If they had the same authority, they would be in the same position as the Apostles.

Given that these men were specifically chosen by Our Lord to lead His Church, and that we are shown in Scripture how they saw the need to fill their ranks following the death of Judas, why would they not make provision for their own deaths? They clearly had a vital role in the leadership of the Church. How is it that both these men and Our Lord would neglect the fact that these men would die in the fullness of time?

 

[flyonthewall]

To say that NOT ONE person who was cured, evidenced a miracle, heard Jesus speak etc was not truly converted is absurd.

As I stated before, miracles will sway, and strengthen what is already there, but it is the spirit that converts.

What is the LDS obsession with the OT? You do not follow the God of the Jewish people so let it go. If you did, you would not believe that God was a man with a body who had physical relations with a woman producing Jesus Christ. Again, absurd and inconsistent.
Stop cherry picking what you will and will not accept from the OT.

Do you not believe that Jesus Christ was the Great I AM? The God of the OT?
I accept the scriptures in their entirety, there are many teachings and patterns in the OT that still apply to God, and man.

And for the record, I do not believe God had physical relations with a woman producing Jesus Christ. The sooner you discard that thought the better because it is not what we teach.

Yes and no. Obviously God is a part of every miracle. However, it is clear that Jesus’ early followers were astonished by His miracles and that God used the miracles to catch the attention of the people to get them to follow Jesus and listen to Him.

Being astonished is not the same as being converted. Capturing their attention is not the same thing as being converted.
Jesus made a point with Peter, that flesh and blood did not reveal that bit of information, but it came from His Father above. He didn’t say that the miracles brought Peter to that knowledge.

 

[flyonthewall]

So the fullness of priesthood authority rested only with St. Peter? From an LDS perspective, what additional authority did he have that St. Paul did not?

The fullness rested with Peter individually, and the 12 Apostles collectively.

What of St. Mathaias? The Eleven chose him to fill the office left empty by Judas. Did he have the same authority as the other Apostles? If so, why would they not make provision for their own eventual death, ordaining men who could step into their roles when they were gone? If not, why does Scripture specifically show how the Apostles saw the need to fill their ranks after the death of Judas?

They indeed saw the need to fill their ranks at the death of Judas, and the replaced several Apostles as the need arose. But where did the Apostles go?

Given that these men were specifically chosen by Our Lord to lead His Church, and that we are shown in Scripture how they saw the need to fill their ranks following the death of Judas, why would they not make provision for their own deaths? They clearly had a vital role in the leadership of the Church. How is it that both these men and Our Lord would neglect the fact that these men would die in the fullness of time?

The Apostles were chosen to lead the church as a whole. The Apostles chose congregational leaders, Bishops and elders, but they did not have the authority to lead outside of their congregation.
As to why they did not continue replacing Apostles, I don’t have an answer, we just know that the Apostle were not replaced, and all died out.
Perhaps they thought the second coming would be so soon there was no need…afterall Jesus told them that this generation would not pass away until all the signs of the 2nd coming would be fulfilled.

 

[Monkey1976]

The fullness rested with Peter individually, and the 12 Apostles collectively.

Then what happened to the individual “fullness” when St. Peter was martyred?

They indeed saw the need to fill their ranks at the death of Judas, and the replaced several Apostles as the need arose. But where did the Apostles go?

From the perspective of the Church, and the testimony of history, we hold that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and fill the same office within the Church.

The Apostles were chosen to lead the church as a whole. The Apostles chose congregational leaders, Bishops and elders, but they did not have the authority to lead outside of their congregation.

Then why did St. Clement, a student of St. Paul, write an authoritative letter to Corinth when he was Bishop of Rome? Why would the Corinthians have obeyed if St. Clement did not have authority over them?

As to why they did not continue replacing Apostles, I don’t have an answer, we just know that the Apostle were not replaced, and all died out.
Perhaps they thought the second coming would be so soon there was no need…afterall Jesus told them that this generation would not pass away until all the signs of the 2nd coming would be fulfilled.

So the Apostles died believing Our Lord had lied to them? Or is it possible that they did in fact make provision for their own death and those successors have carried on from generation to generation in unbroken lines to the Catholic and Orthodox bishops of today, as history attests?

 

[lax16]

As I stated before, miracles will sway, and strengthen what is already there, but it is the spirit that converts.

What do you mean “miracles will strengthen what is already there”? So, people who had never seen Jesus already believed in him before witnessing miracles?

Do you not believe that Jesus Christ was the Great I AM? The God of the OT?
I accept the scriptures in their entirety, there are many teachings and patterns in the OT that still apply to God, and man.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s Promise in the OT. The God who has no body as taught to us by Judaism. To believe otherwise would mean Christianity is not the fulfillment and the promise of the Messiah.

And for the record, I do not believe God had physical relations with a woman producing Jesus Christ. The sooner you discard that thought the better because it is not what we teach.

I will not discard original teachings of the LDS Church. Why do you?

1. Mormon prophets have taught that Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse (physical union) between God the Father and Mary:

Brigham Young taught: “The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and “when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).

Brigham Young insisted: “I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ…he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it” (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); “Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).

Orson Pratt (LDS apostle) taught: “the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife…as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity” (The Seer. p.158, 1853).
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit” (Religious Truths Defined, p.44).
This teaching persists today:

Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle) states: “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).

Carfred Broderick (Mormon author) writes: “God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone…latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus…The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).
Despite the well-documented position of previous Mormon prophets, presidents, and apostles about the nature of Christ’s conception, modern LDS apologists maintain that “Christ was born of a virgin”. How can they? By changing the definition of the word “virgin”. The reasoning goes like this: since Mary had sexual relations with an immortal man, not a mortal man, the phrase “virgin birth” still applies.

McConkie explains: “Suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (The Promised Messiah, p. 466).

Being astonished is not the same as being converted. Capturing their attention is not the same thing as being converted.
Jesus made a point with Peter, that flesh and blood did not reveal that bit of information, but it came from His Father above. He didn’t say that the miracles brought Peter to that knowledge.

You speak as if you were there. How do you KNOW they were not converted - not even ONE of them?
More importantly, why do Mormons insist on this? Is it to prove there was not a Church of believers already forming, therefore making the whole apostasy theory unbelievable?

 

[flyonthewall]

Then what happened to the individual “fullness” when St. Peter was martyred?

It was lost.

From the perspective of the Church, and the testimony of history, we hold that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and fill the same office within the Church.

I understand this is your position.

Then why did St. Clement, a student of St. Paul, write an authoritative letter to Corinth when he was Bishop of Rome? Why would the Corinthians have obeyed if St. Clement did not have authority over them?

It was a letter of admonishment and encouragement from one Bishop to another congregation that removed the leaders that were put in place by the Apostles. He was shocked that it had occured, and deemed its cause as envy and jealousy. This does not bode well for that congregation.

So the Apostles died believing Our Lord had lied to them? Or is it possible that they did in fact make provision for their own death and those successors have carried on from generation to generation in unbroken lines to the Catholic and Orthodox bishops of today, as history attests?

I don’t think they died thinking Jesus lied to them.
They did appoint people to lead individual congregations, but the Apostleship ended.
It is possible that the church at Corinth was not alone in their sedition and rejection of that which was put in place by those with proper authority. In fact, the Galatians were also identified as leaving the gospel as taught by the Apostles. Paul also foretold the Ephesians were going to go the same way.

The evidence is there, I would not call it proof, but simply evidence. The proof for me is the fact that there was a restoration, which of course you would not agree with.

 

[flyonthewall]

What do you mean “miracles will strengthen what is already there”? So, people who had never seen Jesus already believed in him before witnessing miracles?

Beleived there would be a Messiah. Believed in prophets that could perform miracles. Miracles were part and parcel of the history of their faith.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s Promise in the OT. The God who has no body as taught to us by Judaism. To believe otherwise would mean Christianity is not the fulfillment and the promise of the Messiah.

Good.

I will not discard original teachings of the LDS Church. Why do you?

1. Mormon prophets have taught that Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse (physical union) between God the Father and Mary:

No prophet, not one ever taught that sex was involved. This is something that critics come up with and assign to us. If you come up with it, the tout it as your own belief not ours. All our leaders have all taught that Mary was a virgin. Why do you ignore that? I know people that have had children that were not a result of sex…If we as mortals can come up with a way to accomlish that, why is it inconceivable for you that God can do it too?
The point of your quotes, when put into context is that the Holy Ghost was not the Father of Jesus, but God the Father was…which is the reason why Jesus refers to Him as His Father. Mary’s pregnancy, aside from its miraculous begining was just like all other pregnancies and Jesus was born just like any other person.
Now that you have been corrected on our belief, that has never changed, cross that off your list. Plus that is a thread derail so let it go.

You speak as if you were there. How do you KNOW they were not converted - not even ONE of them?

Because the Holy Ghost is the testator of all truth. When someone comes to know the truth of something, it is only by the Holy Ghost, which is a revelation from God. Until that time it is faith or belief

More importantly, why do Mormons insist on this? Is it to prove there was not a Church of believers already forming, therefore making the whole apostasy theory unbelievable?

This is the way Jesus said it works.
John 15
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1Corinthians 2
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[lax16]

No prophet, not one ever taught that sex was involved. This is something that critics come up with and assign to us. If you come up with it, the tout it as your own belief not ours. All our leaders have all taught that Mary was a virgin. Why do you ignore that? I know people that have had children that were not a result of sex…If we as mortals can come up with a way to accomlish that, why is it inconceivable for you that God can do it too?

Wilford Woodruff - 4th President 1887-1989
“And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. Jesus, our elder brother, **was begotten in the flesh **by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Brigham Young - 2nd President 1847-1877
“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; **it was the result **of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.”

Ezra Taft Benson - 13th President 1985-1994
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in **the most literal sense. ** The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.”

Joseph Fielding Smith - 10th President 1970-72
“Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of man, and that man was God! They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge this statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible.”

Joseph F. Smith - 6th President 1901-1918
“You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers, you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. **Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ ****was begotten of his father. ** The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overhsadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?”

 

[pablope]

Wilford Woodruff - 4th President 1887-1989
“And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. Jesus, our elder brother, **was begotten in the flesh **by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Joseph F. Smith - 6th President 1901-1918
“You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers, you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. **Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ ****was begotten of his father. ** The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overhsadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?”

Good retort, Lax…but I am predicting that the response you will get is along this line…these are out of context, are opinions, does not reflect true LDS doctrine, and other contrived reason to get away from or disown these quotes.

 

[lax16]

Good retort, Lax…but I am predicting that the response you will get is along this line…these are out of context, are opinions, does not reflect true LDS doctrine, and other contrived reason to get away from or disown these quotes.

Hi pablope - Yes, I am sure you are right.

The quotes presented are from the presidents/prophets of the LDS church. There are many others from apostles that are just as explicit.

There is no doubt that this was a part of LDS teaching for a very long time. But now, they are distancing themselves from the teachings of their very own prophets and apostles. Even they find it offensive that Mormons were taught that God and Mary had a physical relationship.

 

[KathleenGee]

They are really working on past teachings…and they are building the new Temple in the countryside of Rome…most Italians are not aware of their teachings.

It will be interesting to see where Mormonism is 50 years from now.

I also am noting that the closed thread on the Apostasy started by Soren has had close to 18,000 visits now, and still growing.

 

[rainman10]

Good retort, Lax…but I am predicting that the response you will get is along this line…these are out of context, are opinions, does not reflect true LDS doctrine, and other contrived reason to get away from or disown these quotes.

You forgot one…or new revelation.

 

[Monkey1976]

It was lost.

So, was Our Lord ignorant of the fact that St. Peter, whom He invested with the “individual fullness of the priesthood”, would die?

I understand this is your position.

As supported by history.

It was a letter of admonishment and encouragement from one Bishop to another congregation that removed the leaders that were put in place by the Apostles. He was shocked that it had occured, and deemed its cause as envy and jealousy. This does not bode well for that congregation.

But, if St. Clement’s authority was only over his local congregation (Rome), why would Corinth have listened to him when they dismissed their bishop? Why would St. Clement have expected them to report back to him instead of their local bishop when peace had been restored?

I don’t think they died thinking Jesus lied to them.
They did appoint people to lead individual congregations, but the Apostleship ended.
It is possible that the church at Corinth was not alone in their sedition and rejection of that which was put in place by those with proper authority. In fact, the Galatians were also identified as leaving the gospel as taught by the Apostles. Paul also foretold the Ephesians were going to go the same way.

But this doesn’t address the underlying question: Why, if they had previously appointed men to fill the office of apostle (witness St. Mathias being elevated to the office left vacant by Judas), would they simply neglect this as the Apostles were martyred one by one?

The evidence is there, I would not call it proof, but simply evidence. The proof for me is the fact that there was a restoration, which of course you would not agree with.

Even if I were to agree that Joseph Smith “restored” the Church, I could not in good conscience call that proof. We are called by Scripture to test things as they are presented to us. Therefore, if someone claims to be “restoring” the Church, we cannot simply accept his claim of restoration as evidence that the Church was absent, as it would be a logical fallacy - post hoc, ergo propter hoc. We have historical evidence that the Church saw the bishops as the successors to the office of apostle from the earliest days. We have no evidence showing that any authority was lost upon the death of the Apostles. Therefore, from the standpoint of simple logic, we would be right to dismiss the claims of one who claimed to be “restoring” something that - from the standpoint of historical testimony - has never been lost. If there was early testimony of a loss of “priestly authority” in the Church, then it would be reasonable to accept the claim that a particular man was now restoring it.

God gave us both faith and reasoning. He would not ask us to accept something on faith that directly violates our reasoning. There are several Truths that cannot be deduced by reason alone, but none of them directly violate reason. God doesn’t ask us to switch off the logical thought which He granted to us when presented with matters of faith.

 

[ParkerD]

(To continue a discussion from another thread that was closed because it was at the
1000+ mark)

**How do you know that God took away priesthood authority from the earth? Why would God do that?
**

flyonthewall said:
The Apostles were given the keys of the kingdom. They began replacing their members as needed, but then stopped. The very fact that the Apostles did not continue is evidence enough.

How do you know this?

Lax16,

Not to detract from the excellent points that Flyonthewall has made, but just to give an analogy that at least might help you or someone else to approach this topic from a perspective that could be a change in perspective:

Let’s suppose that a Very Important Person owns a very special car. From time to time, He gives the keys to that car to people He selects, asking them to be very careful, to obey all laws, to never loan out the keys or loan out the car, and that He is going away but will come back some day soon and retrieve His keys to the car and still share them, but would like a report about how the car and its keys were taken care of. He also lets the people He has selected, who were given the keys to take care of His car, know that they can communicate with Him about the use of the car and are expected to do that–that they should not do anything with the car or with the keys without asking Him about it, unless He has given specific instructions already.

What if those people take it upon themselves to give the keys to someone without getting specific instructions from Him, as He said they should do? Those others may still be “driving the car”, but is it right? Is it what He authorized? They could say to themselves, “we’re driving safely, and we are sharing this safe car with many people”.

The “Owner of the very nice car” said He could and should be asked about the use of His keys to His car. He loves all, but has a plan that includes needing to ask, because of free will and choice that is very important to Him.

One can ask Him, and be specific in their questions, and be guided to know the answers to their questions, including those such as the ones you have asked.

I know we’re really talking about something far more important than a very nice car, but hey, it’s just an analogy.