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

[BartBurk]

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.

 

[lax16]

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.

Hi Bartburk - Yes. Of course they should have an official statement to back up their claims. Is there any other group that you would take statements from at face value without a question of “how do you know”?

If someone claims the world is ending, someone you love has terminal cancer, your car needs $1,000 worth of work…don’t you ask, “how do you know?”

If their job is to convert others, and believe me if they are the only true priests on the face of the planet we really need them, they should have a good argument at the ready.
Why would God send out anyone on a mission without answers to good questions?

I have literature from the Mormon missionaries that states the priesthood authority was taken from the earth.
When? After the apostles were killed (which is incorrect because they were not all killed off).
How do you know? I know because JS said so.
Who is JS? A prophet that was called by God to restore the church.

It is not the wickedness of the CC that is what they always claim to be the Great Apostasy. Please know, my literature calls **the event **the Great Apostasy and it caused God to take away priesthood authority from the earth.

Anyone can say there were bad people during the early church period, but to make claims bigger than this should be backed up with something.

If you don’t feel the need for an explanation, that is fine. I live in Utah and like to have more information about the Mormons.
Also, I love this topic because if you were to ask this question of every pair of missionaries you meet you will get a different answer.

The missionaries that came to my house said it happened somewhere between 300-400a.d. Another one turned red in the face, said he didn’t know, but handed me a BoM instead. My literature calls it the Great Apostasy, but I noticed they are moving towards a more general “apostasy.”

 

[lax16]

The Mormons would claim there was an apostasy because Joseph Smith was told by God that such an apostasy occurred. It is not a matter of proving historically that one occurred. The Mormon (and Protestant) position is the authority of the Catholic Church is asserted falsely. The Protestants don’t claim it was necessary and the Mormons claim it because there were no longer apostles succeeding the original apostles. The Mormon claim is based on the revelation of God to Joseph Smith, not on some historical study which proves it. Apostasy is in the eyes of the beholder. Luther would never have considered himself an apostate, but seemed to believe the Catholic Church was in apostasy. The Mormons are not stepping away from their claim of a Catholic apostasy, they are just basing it on something we reject.

No offense, but I am not following you.

All religions claim something different and back it up with information. There is tons and tons of information regarding Luther and his theses. People can then make a decision about it after reading about it. Putting the Protestants and the Mormons together…? We know what happened with ML.

Mormons can claim God took away the priesthood authority, but don’t you think it would appear somewhere in the history books? Or at least they would have a good comeback?
Or does God want us to be struggling with our faith?

 

[lax16]

To my fellow Catholics –

Are you Catholic?

 

[BartBurk]

Hi Bartburk - Yes. Of course they should have an official statement to back up their claims. Is there any other group that you would take statements from at face value without a question of “how do you know”?

If someone claims the world is ending, someone you love has terminal cancer, your car needs $1,000 worth of work…don’t you ask, “how do you know?”

If their job is to convert others, and believe me if they are the only true priests on the face of the planet we really need them, they should have a good argument at the ready.
Why would God send out anyone on a mission without answers to good questions?

I have literature from the Mormon missionaries that states the priesthood authority was taken from the earth.
When? After the apostles were killed (which is incorrect because they were not all killed off).
How do you know? I know because JS said so.
Who is JS? A prophet that was called by God to restore the church.

It is not the wickedness of the CC that is what they always claim to be the Great Apostasy. Please know, my literature calls **the event **the Great Apostasy and it caused God to take away priesthood authority from the earth.

Anyone can say there were bad people during the early church period, but to make claims bigger than this should be backed up with something.

If you don’t feel the need for an explanation, that is fine. I live in Utah and like to have more information about the Mormons.
Also, I love this topic because if you were to ask this question of every pair of missionaries you meet you will get a different answer.

The missionaries that came to my house said it happened somewhere between 300-400a.d. Another one turned red in the face, said he didn’t know, but handed me a BoM instead. My literature calls it the Great Apostasy, but I noticed they are moving towards a more general “apostasy.”

You’ll never get an answer that will satisfy you. And you will never give them an answer that will satisfy them. You might want to read the book “The Great Apostasy” by James Talmage. That would be their answer to your question from an official source. They aren’t going to be able to give you a complete answer on a web site such as this. And after you read the book you’re not going to agree with Talmage either (I hope). I’m simply suggesting you are asking the wrong question rather than the real question which is: Was Joseph Smith a prophet? That question can be answered without even considering questions of a supposed “Great Apostasy”. The facts strongly show that Joseph Smith was making it all up. I suppose Catholics are bound to get offended by the suggestion there was a great apostasy – if being offended is the only problem then I suggest we ignore that and go onto the nub of the question which is Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon and other scriptures. The supposed Great Apostasy which Mormons talk about is a side question at best. And quite frankly most Protestants would agree with the Mormons that the Catholic Church apostatized in one way or the other. That’s why there are Protestants. The Protestants are just rebelling against authority while the Mormons are insisting they are the proper authority. They’re both wrong.

The next time the Mormon missionaries come to you discussing the Great Apostasy you might want to show them how they have apostatized from Book of Mormon teachings. That should shut them up.

 

[BartBurk]

Are you Catholic?

Ex-Mormon Catholic.

 

[BartBurk]

No offense, but I am not following you.

All religions claim something different and back it up with information. There is tons and tons of information regarding Luther and his theses. People can then make a decision about it after reading about it. Putting the Protestants and the Mormons together…? We know what happened with ML.

Mormons can claim God took away the priesthood authority, but don’t you think it would appear somewhere in the history books? Or at least they would have a good comeback?
Or does God want us to be struggling with our faith?

It wouldn’t appear in the history books because the Mormon belief is opinion based on their interpretation of history. Our opinion is based on our interpretation of history. And that interpretation is dependent upon our faith. Just being able to legalistically show that priesthood authority was handed down from one person to another through history does not prove that that priesthood is legitimate. Claiming that priesthood was lost because the priests supposedly quit following a person’s interpretation of Bible doctrine doesn’t prove anything either. I believe in the Catholic Church’s position because I have faith in Christ’s words that he would send the Holy Spirit to bring us into all truth and it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that God would let the Church go astray. Obviously, Mormons and Protestants who reject the teaching of the Catholic Church don’t have that faith. In the end only the Holy Spirit can lead an individual to faith in the Catholic Church’s authority and doctrine. And the only way to show a Mormon his/her faith is in vain is to help them either see the beauty of the Catholic Church or the flaws in their own teaching. I think the best way to do that is to help them understand why the Book of Mormon does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[lax16]

You’ll never get an answer that will satisfy you. And you will never give them an answer that will satisfy them. You might want to read the book “The Great Apostasy” by James Talmage. That would be their answer to your question from an official source. They aren’t going to be able to give you a complete answer on a web site such as this. And after you read the book you’re not going to agree with Talmage either (I hope). I’m simply suggesting you are asking the wrong question rather than the real question which is: Was Joseph Smith a prophet? That question can be answered without even considering questions of a supposed “Great Apostasy”. The facts strongly show that Joseph Smith was making it all up. I suppose Catholics are bound to get offended by the suggestion there was a great apostasy – if being offended is the only problem then I suggest we ignore that and go onto the nub of the question which is Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon and other scriptures. The supposed Great Apostasy which Mormons talk about is a side question at best. And quite frankly most Protestants would agree with the Mormons that the Catholic Church apostatized in one way or the other. That’s why there are Protestants. The Protestants are just rebelling against authority while the Mormons are insisting they are the proper authority. They’re both wrong.

Interesting points. I am not offended, nor do I get offended, when Mormons speak of an apostasy. It is what their whole religion hinges upon, and I think it is worth discussing.
The question about whether or not JS was a prophet has been raised here on CAF and I find it seems to deeply offend most LDS posters.
IMHO, this topic is one that we should all be able to learn from because it is not based upon faith only - we have the Bible and early church writings to back it up - whereas the topic of JS is all about faith. I am very surprised our LDS posters couldn’t come up with much of an argument.
The protestants don’t believe the early church was in apostasy. That came about 1500 years later. I don’t hear Protestants criticize the early Christians.

The next time the Mormon missionaries come to you discussing the Great Apostasy you might want to show them how they have apostatized from Book of Mormon teachings. That should shut them up.

Yes, there are so many things to bring up to them. I just happen to get a kick out of the fact that the “best and brightest” of their religion don’t know the basics when it comes to the Great Apostasy.

 

[lax16]

It wouldn’t appear in the history books because the Mormon belief is opinion based on their interpretation of history. Our opinion is based on our interpretation of history. And that interpretation is dependent upon our faith. Just being able to legalistically show that priesthood authority was handed down from one person to another through history does not prove that that priesthood is legitimate. Claiming that priesthood was lost because the priests supposedly quit following a person’s interpretation of Bible doctrine doesn’t prove anything either. I believe in the Catholic Church’s position because I have faith in Christ’s words that he would send the Holy Spirit to bring us into all truth and it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that God would let the Church go astray. Obviously, Mormons and Protestants who reject the teaching of the Catholic Church don’t have that faith. In the end only the Holy Spirit can lead an individual to faith in the Catholic Church’s authority and doctrine. And the only way to show a Mormon his/her faith is in vain is to help them either see the beauty of the Catholic Church or the flaws in their own teaching. I think the best way to do that is to help them understand why the Book of Mormon does not stand up to scrutiny.

But if Christ promised to guide His Church until the end of time, then it is not my opinion or anyone’s opinion. It is God’s promise.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is ultimately the one to help one see the Truth but everyone is different. Some are converted from reading the Early Church Fathers/History, some through a visit to Mass, some because of reading the lives of the saints…and I am assuming if Mormons come to CAF they enjoy debating/discussing religion. Therefore, I meet them at that point.

The Book of Mormon, Cumorah, JS…have all been discussed many times. But the priesthood authority question is one I notice they are not interested in discussing.

 

[lax16]

Ex-Mormon Catholic.

Wow, that’s great. You must have a lot to share.

 

[Javl]

Emphasis has been placed upon the LDS “priesthood” by means of belief and faith. There is a vast difference between the two. Belief is the acceptance of anything that has been proven by tangible evidence. Faith is the acceptance of anything on description alone. One does not depend upon the other. You can have one without the other or both together. Logic and reason alone demands that faith be dependent upon belief.

As to the Aaronic ( Levitical ) and Melchizidekian LDS order of priesthoods. Neither of these can be claimed or used by the LDS or anyone other than Jesus ( Melchizedek ) or the Hebrews ( Jews, Aaronic ). The priesthood of Melchizedec is a descriptive priesthood which is used to describe and depict the Holiness and Sanctity of Jesus. This is ascribed to Him by His Father through the prophets. It belongs to Him alone. Its use by anyone other than Jesus is an insult to Jesus and is blasphemy.

The Aaronic, or Levitical, priesthood belongs to the Hebrews ( Jews ) alone. It was given to the tribe of Levi, and them alone, to be exercised in the Temple. Since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priesthood has been held in abeyance until the Temple can be rebuilt. Misuse of any of the priesthoods by other than the Hebrews is subject to God’s punishments. All this is stated in the Bible and Hebrew Law (Mishna ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[lax16]

Emphasis has been placed upon the LDS “priesthood” by means of belief and faith. There is a vast difference between the two. Belief is the acceptance of anything that has been proven by tangible evidence. Faith is the acceptance of anything on description alone. One does not depend upon the other. You can have one without the other or both together. Logic and reason alone demands that faith be dependent upon belief.

As to the Aaronic ( Levitical ) and Melchizidekian LDS order of priesthoods. Neither of these can be claimed or used by the LDS or anyone other than Jesus ( Melchizedek ) or the Hebrews ( Jews, Aaronic ). The priesthood of Melchizedec is a descriptive priesthood which is used to describe and depict the Holiness and Sanctity of Jesus. This is ascribed to Him by His Father through the prophets. It belongs to Him alone. Its use by anyone other than Jesus is an insult to Jesus and is blasphemy.

The Aaronic, or Levitical, priesthood belongs to the Hebrews ( Jews ) alone. It was given to the tribe of Levi, and them alone, to be exercised in the Temple. Since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priesthood has been held in abeyance until the Temple can be rebuilt. Misuse of any of the priesthoods by other than the Hebrews is subject to God’s punishments. All this is stated in the Bible and Hebrew Law (Mishna ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Excellent points Javl.

Do you think/know that Mormon men ever question this before becoming a priest?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What would be something that would prove to you that an apostasy occurred? To Mormons (and many Protestants) the assumption of unrighteous authority by the Catholic clergy as well as the intrusion of non-Biblical theology would be enough to show them the Catholic Church apostatized. The Catholic view tends to be there was an uninterrupted legal chain of authority passed down from the apostles to the bishops and that is enough to prove that no apostasy occurred. I don’t think you can get anywhere on either side because it is all a matter of faith on both sides. As a Catholic I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the doctrinal development in the early church, but you won’t get many Protestants or Mormons to agree with that assertion. The problem with the Protestants is they don’t really have a way to argue the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire the development of doctrine. The strength of the Mormon position is they have the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures to buttress their belief that Joseph Smith was given restored authority which in their view shows the doctrine of the Catholic Church is apostate. Of course the whole Mormon framework falls apart when you actually study their scriptures and see them for the frauds they are.

Bart;

Good points, but my response is that whether I am personally convinced by the LDS argument for the apostacy or not is really not the point. (Others may be convinced.) What I find troubling is when the “faith tells me it is so” argument is the only one (or the primary one) relied upon. Similarly, reliance on the teachings of JS is putting the cart before the horse. One first has to accept the validity of Smith as the prophet of a “restored” church before placing credence in his assertion that God told him there was an apostacy. So it’s a “faith” argument which - again - gets us nowhere.

Peace,
Robert

 

[BartBurk]

Bart;

Good points, but my response is that whether I am personally convinced by the LDS argument for the apostacy or not is really not the point. (Others may be convinced.) What I find troubling is when the “faith tells me it is so” argument is the only one (or the primary one) relied upon. Similarly, reliance on the teachings of JS is putting the cart before the horse. One first has to accept the validity of Smith as the prophet of a “restored” church before placing credence in his assertion that God told him there was an apostacy. So it’s a “faith” argument which - again - gets us nowhere.

Peace,
Robert

When I was a Mormon missionary we did not ask people to pray about the apostasy. We hardly even mentioned it. We asked them to pray about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s first vision. Once you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet then you automatically accept the Great Apostasy, but not before. Most people outside of the Catholic Church accept the authority of the Catholic Church. If they believed in that authority they would be Catholic. And there are of course a large number of Catholics who reject the authority of the Catholic Church and they are the ones the Mormon missionaries make headway with. I don’t know of many faithful Catholics who have been lured into Mormonism – they were already questioning their faith.

 

[zerinus]

You are really cracking me up, although I am not sure you are kidding.

from blurtit.com

The word dispensation in common usage is defined as an exemption granted to a person from following some rule, regulation or obligation. Dispensation is also a share which has been dispensed or distributed. Dispensation is also defined as the act of dispensing or giving out in portions.

In religion, the word dispensation is defined as the method r scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men. There are usually three types of dispensations carried out by God. They are the Patriarchal disposition, the Mosaic disposition (which is also known as the Jewish disposition) and the Christian disposition.

There were many stages in God’s unfolding of his purpose of grace towards men. The word found in Scripture does not have this meaning. A dispensation basically frees, relieves or discharges a faithful from the obligations of the vows made by him or her, which allows him or her to return to the normal lifestyle of a lay Catholic person.

I’m assuming you are referring to to the second definition. Based on this definition, which type of dispensation would JS fall under: Mosaic, Patriarchal, or Christian?

In LDS scripture the word “dispensation” is used biblically, as in the “dispensation of the fullness of times” (Ephesians 1:10). We believe Joseph Smith ushered in that particular dispensation. For more uses of the word in the Bible as well as in LDS scripture, see this search result.

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

Of course there is. I have discussed this with Catholics so much that I have gotten tired of it, and posted a Blog article about it and left it at that. People can read it for themselves if they are interested.

You’ll never get an answer that will satisfy you. And you will never give them an answer that will satisfy them. You might want to read the book “The Great Apostasy” by James Talmage. That would be their answer to your question from an official source. They aren’t going to be able to give you a complete answer on a web site such as this. And after you read the book you’re not going to agree with Talmage either (I hope).

I don’t entirely agree with Talmage either. There was an apostasy, but not exactly as he envisaged it.

 

[lax16]

I don’t entirely agree with Talmage either. There was an apostasy, but not exactly as he envisaged it.

What about this? Do you agree with this at all or is this in line with church teaching?

“In the early centuries of the Christian era, the apostasy came not through persecution, **but by relinquishment of faith **caused by the superimposing of a man-made structure upon and over the divine program. Many men with no pretense nor claim to revelation, speaking without divine authority or revelation, depending only upon their own brilliant minds, but representing as they claim the congregations of the Christians and in long conference and erudite councils, sought the creation process to make a God which all could accept.

“The brilliant minds with their philosophies, knowing much about the Christian traditions and the pagan philosophies, would combine all elements to please everybody. They replaced the simple ways and program of the Christ with spectacular rituals, colorful display, impressive pageantry, and limitless pomposity, and called it Christianity. They had replaced the glorious, divine plan of exaltation of Christ with an elaborate, colorful, man-made system. They seemed to have little idea of totally dethroning the Christ, nor terminating the life of God, as in our own day, but they put together an incomprehensible God idea” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 425).

 

[lax16]

Mormons don’t believe that valid priesthood power can come from religious education or from a sense of inner calling alone. They believe it can only be conferred to a worthy person by the laying on of hands by someone who has priesthood authority himself (see Numbers 27:18-23.) Mormons believe that the priesthood, once lost, was restored to the earth in 1829 when John the Baptist and later Peter, James, and John appeared to confer the priesthood to Joseph Smith.
Read more at Suite101: Origin of Mormonism: Mormon Doctrine on the Apostasy, Restoration, and One True Church suite101.com/content/mormon-doctrine-on-the-apostasy-and-restoration-a129659#ixzz1CIkINYNl

zerinus - Please explain why John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John would need to be the ones to confer the priesthood to Joseph Smith?

 

[Javl]

Excellent points Javl.

Do you think/know that Mormon men ever question this before becoming a priest?

I do not know though I doubt very much that after indoctrination that it would be questioned. If it were questioned there would definitely be some controversy within Mormonism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[BartBurk]

Mormons don’t believe that valid priesthood power can come from religious education or from a sense of inner calling alone. They believe it can only be conferred to a worthy person by the laying on of hands by someone who has priesthood authority himself (see Numbers 27:18-23.) Mormons believe that the priesthood, once lost, was restored to the earth in 1829 when John the Baptist and later Peter, James, and John appeared to confer the priesthood to Joseph Smith.
Read more at Suite101: Origin of Mormonism: Mormon Doctrine on the Apostasy, Restoration, and One True Church suite101.com/content/mormon-doctrine-on-the-apostasy-and-restoration-a129659#ixzz1CIkINYNl

zerinus - Please explain why John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John would need to be the ones to confer the priesthood to Joseph Smith?

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.

 

[zerinus]

What about this? Do you agree with this at all or is this in line with church teaching?

“In the early centuries of the Christian era, the apostasy came not through persecution, **but by relinquishment of faith **caused by the superimposing of a man-made structure upon and over the divine program. Many men with no pretense nor claim to revelation, speaking without divine authority or revelation, depending only upon their own brilliant minds, but representing as they claim the congregations of the Christians and in long conference and erudite councils, sought the creation process to make a God which all could accept.

“The brilliant minds with their philosophies, knowing much about the Christian traditions and the pagan philosophies, would combine all elements to please everybody. They replaced the simple ways and program of the Christ with spectacular rituals, colorful display, impressive pageantry, and limitless pomposity, and called it Christianity. They had replaced the glorious, divine plan of exaltation of Christ with an elaborate, colorful, man-made system. They seemed to have little idea of totally dethroning the Christ, nor terminating the life of God, as in our own day, but they put together an incomprehensible God idea” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 425).

It is the opinion of its author. It is correct insofar as it teaches that there was an apostasy; but with the details of how it happened, or what it entails, I do not entirely agree.

Mormons don’t believe that valid priesthood power can come from religious education or from a sense of inner calling alone. They believe it can only be conferred to a worthy person by the laying on of hands by someone who has priesthood authority himself (see Numbers 27:18-23.) Mormons believe that the priesthood, once lost, was restored to the earth in 1829 when John the Baptist and later Peter, James, and John appeared to confer the priesthood to Joseph Smith.
Read more at Suite101: Origin of Mormonism: Mormon Doctrine on the Apostasy, Restoration, and One True Church suite101.com/content/mormon-doctrine-on-the-apostasy-and-restoration-a129659#ixzz1CIkINYNl

That is not a legitimate LDS website, and I don’t feel I need to justify or explain its teachings.

zerinus - Please explain why John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John would need to be the ones to confer the priesthood to Joseph Smith?

Bart gave a nearly correct answer to that question.