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

[lax16]

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.

Hi Monkey - I know the LDS like to point to Martin Luther and the Reformation as proof of the Apostasy, but that was about 1500 years later.
Wouldn’t there be something written much earlier explicitly detailing that there were scores of believers but nobody left to lead them?
Wouldn’t the believers have done something about it? To say the faith of the people who saw Jesus, listened to Him speak, watched Him heal the infirmed, witnessed the dead come alive, and who most importantly heard about the Resurrection from those who saw Him after He rose from the dead…went away without a fight…defies logic.

I agree. One must accept illogical assumptions to accept the teachings of Mormonism.

 

[lax16]

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.

Hi Parker - But you forgot to add: What if the owner of the very nice car promises to leave the Holy Spirit, to help the people he selected, knowing that he is going on a very long vacation and will not be back in their lifetimes?

 

[lax16]

You forgot one…or new revelation.

I have read on several LDS websites that there is no official teaching on the matter.
That is the new revelation, I guess, that they don’t know.

 

[flyonthewall]

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

He was not ignorant of that, but was well aware that it was not a permanent set up. Just after Jesus was transfigured, the Apostles asked Him if this is what the prophets foretold of Elias coming first to restore all things. Jesus told them “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.”, speaking of a future event. Then he told them the John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elias to prepare the way for Him, the current happenings.
After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, Peter states that Jesus was the prophet spoken of by Moses whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restitution of all things.

As supported by history.

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?

Why do people listen to wisdom even if it doesn’t come from their own leader?
Clement wanted to hear when peace and harmony was restored so they could rejoice about it. He was not taking an active role in fixing their problems, otherwise he would have traveled there and taken charge, re-instituted the leaders of his choice and called it good.

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?

I don’t know why the Apostles didn’t do it, they would have to answer that question themselves, but we do know that they did not continue the apostleship by continuing to replace them as needed.

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.

I do not offer it as proof, only as evidence. You will need to interpret the evidence and arrive at your own conclusion.

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.

God would not ask us to accept something on faith that directly violates our reasoning? Religion as a whole violates reason. Can one use reason for the existence of God? A supposedly invisible, formless, shapeless entity that is master of the universe? Can reason explain the resurrection? the dead coming back to life?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Even many of the people of Israel, those who understood that God, Father and Son, led them over their long jouney in the Old Testament, knew that God the Father, for example, was the power behind the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, and the thunder and trumpet sounds at Mount Sinai. They had Moses’ first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, including Genesis, where it is stated that God said "Let us make man in OUR image. Moses saw for form of the Lord, even though, as Jesus said, “No man hath seen the Father. Only He who is of Him hath seen the Father.”

Thus, the Jews, who before Christ’s birth had the books of Daniel, and Ezekiel, knew that the Messiah would be born, would meet all the prophetic writings that spoke of Him, and would die on the cross, thereby leaving mankind the Holy Spirit to help man do as Ezekiel said in Ezekiel 36, verses 26 and 27, "keep My laws, My Statutes and My Judgments and DO them. The Law came from God, the Father and Son, the prophecies came to the prophets from God. When Daniel in chapter 9 said “in the middle of the week, He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” he knew He was speaking of God the Son because no other could have caused the sacrificial system that they all knew was set up by God with our first parents, Adam and Eve,

The Jews knew from Whom the the then coming of Messiah to earth, would come. They just simply misunderstood, through selfishness, and neglect of Scripture, what their Messiah would do, and what they would need to do, give up their selfishness and deceiptful treatment of the poor, widows, orphans, the strangers, etc., and serve others. in order for Jesus to do to the Romans what He easily could have done. Jesus revealed the Father to them, even though they should have recognized the Father in Him. They were just too selfish and conceited to see how Jesus’ dependence on God, His Father had produced the many miracles He worked in their sight. Seeing wasn’t believing to the more selfish among the Jews. Other Jews did see God in His Son, believed and were converted to that belief in Jesus. Nothing else in their religion or religious practices changed.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Only God the Father and Son could take actions which would “cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.” The Jews knew that. It is a great mistake to think that some Jews did not recognize Jesus as the coming Son of God. They knew that long before Jesus was born because it is contained in the words of God’s prophets. They were what many call “Old Testament Christians.” When, in the Shema, Jews say, as Jesus, Himself, said
"Hear of Israel. The Lord our God is one God…, they knew that God Yahwahavha, is the Lord (Yehashua). That is, Father and Son.

 

[Monkey1976]

He was not ignorant of that, but was well aware that it was not a permanent set up. Just after Jesus was transfigured, the Apostles asked Him if this is what the prophets foretold of Elias coming first to restore all things. Jesus told them “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.”, speaking of a future event. Then he told them the John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elias to prepare the way for Him, the current happenings.
After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, Peter states that Jesus was the prophet spoken of by Moses whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restitution of all things.

Just so I can fully understand this: The LDS asserts that Joseph Smith fully and permanently restored the “fullness of priesthood authority” to earth. The previous holders of the “fullness of priesthood authority” were the Apostles, and it was given to them directly by the the Son of God. However, the authority granted by Our Lord was “not a permanent setup”, while the authority granted by a treasure-hunter from Palmyra, New York is permanent? I hate to put it in such black-and-white terms, but it seems to me that the LDS are asserting that Joseph Smith is a greater leader of the Church than Jesus Himself.

Why do people listen to wisdom even if it doesn’t come from their own leader?
Clement wanted to hear when peace and harmony was restored so they could rejoice about it. He was not taking an active role in fixing their problems, otherwise he would have traveled there and taken charge, re-instituted the leaders of his choice and called it good.

But if these persons were so far gone in rebellion that they had deposed their own bishops, why would they suddenly listen to a bishop from far away?

I don’t know why the Apostles didn’t do it, they would have to answer that question themselves, but we do know that they did not continue the apostleship by continuing to replace them as needed.

But the “why” is the crux of the argument. Catholics and Orthodox can show that the Apostles did indeed plan for their own demise and ordain men who would succeed their offices so as to ensure the continuation of the Church established by Christ. When the LDS claim that this did not happen, that the Apostles failed to plan for the continuation of the Church (even after they showed diligence regarding this in replacing Judas), any reasonable person has to ask why.

I do not offer it as proof, only as evidence. You will need to interpret the evidence and arrive at your own conclusion.

The proof for me is the fact that there was a restoration, which of course you would not agree with.

God would not ask us to accept something on faith that directly violates our reasoning? Religion as a whole violates reason. Can one use reason for the existence of God? A supposedly invisible, formless, shapeless entity that is master of the universe? Can reason explain the resurrection? the dead coming back to life?

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, does exactly this.

 

[flyonthewall]

Just so I can fully understand this: The LDS asserts that Joseph Smith fully and permanently restored the “fullness of priesthood authority” to earth. The previous holders of the “fullness of priesthood authority” were the Apostles, and it was given to them directly by the the Son of God. However, the authority granted by Our Lord was “not a permanent setup”, while the authority granted by a treasure-hunter from Palmyra, New York is permanent? I hate to put it in such black-and-white terms, but it seems to me that the LDS are asserting that Joseph Smith is a greater leader of the Church than Jesus Himself.

I suppose the simple answer to this would be “yes”.
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

But if these persons were so far gone in rebellion that they had deposed their own bishops, why would they suddenly listen to a bishop from far away?

I am sure Clement deemed it a worthy effort on his part, but did they really listen?

But the “why” is the crux of the argument. Catholics and Orthodox can show that the Apostles did indeed plan for their own demise and ordain men who would succeed their offices so as to ensure the continuation of the Church established by Christ. When the LDS claim that this did not happen, that the Apostles failed to plan for the continuation of the Church (even after they showed diligence regarding this in replacing Judas), any reasonable person has to ask why.

I am sure Catholics and Orthodox can show that, just as we have records that show that it happened. Though you do not take our records as authorative,

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, does exactly this.

Thomas is coming from a position of faith to begin with so obviously there are some leaps in logic that faith bridges. No matter how you slice it, faith is involved when it comes to matters of theology.

 

[Monkey1976]

I suppose the simple answer to this would be “yes”.
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I truly have to say that this shocks me to my core, and makes me seriously question the assertion that the LDS is a Christian entity. Jesus is God made flesh, but a treasure-hunter from Palmyra is greater than God Himself?

I am sure Clement deemed it a worthy effort on his part, but did they really listen?

In fact, they did. Not only did they listen, but St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was read as Scripture in that church for a couple hundred years, until Pope St. Damasus I fixed the canon of Scripture.

I am sure Catholics and Orthodox can show that, just as we have records that show that it happened. Though you do not take our records as authorative,

If you have these records, then produce them.

Thomas is coming from a position of faith to begin with so obviously there are some leaps in logic that faith bridges. No matter how you slice it, faith is involved when it comes to matters of theology.

Take a look at the Summa. St. Thomas was very strict in his application of logic and reasoning, and provided logical proofs for every point you cited.

 

[KathleenGee]

We can’t just have faith, we have to look at the context and circumstances.

I would wonder if the Messiah came from another people other than the Jewish race.
The circumstantial evidence is that it was from the Jewish race who was anticipating the appearance of the Messiah. If he ended up coming out of somewhere else, making such claims, I would not believe he is the messiah.

We just can’t have faith without supportive evidence of a faith practiced. That is why it is incredible to believe that the lost tribe of Israel was here in the USA…that here, outside of Israel…is supposed to be the place of the real church.

Over and over and over, the writings of Sacred Scripture point to Israel, not the United States and Palmyra. All that the world needed for the Messiah and His church happened there, and like a fountain of faith, has its streams which have flowed out into the world…streams of living waters of faith in Christ Jesus and no one else.

 

[flyonthewall]

I truly have to say that this shocks me to my core, and makes me seriously question the assertion that the LDS is a Christian entity. Jesus is God made flesh, but a treasure-hunter from Palmyra is greater than God Himself?

I should clarify that the “yes” applies only to the question you asked, not the assertion you made about us thinking Joseph is greater than Jesus Christ, as there are none greater than Christ.

In fact, they did. Not only did they listen, but St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was read as Scripture in that church for a couple hundred years, until Pope St. Damasus I fixed the canon of Scripture.

Who were the leaders that were rejected that caused the schism? Were they put back in place? if not, who selected the new leaders? Was it the Apostles?

If you have these records, then produce them.

They have been published for several hundred years and are part of our cannon… Joseph Smith History, and the D&C.

Take a look at the Summa. St. Thomas was very strict in his application of logic and reasoning, and provided logical proofs for every point you cited.

I have looked at it and as I stated, his reasoning takes leaps of faith to bridge the gaps…
For example, he states that God is self evident to itself but not to us so the proof is in the effects. So if the effects exist, then the cause exists. His effects are known to us so therefore, God exists…Sorry. His effects are not known to us without first having faith in Him. This is a gap of reason that is bridged only by a leap of faith. Reason will only take you so far in matters of theology, then that leap of faith must kick in.

 

[Stephen168]

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?

You just restated the OP’s question, not answer it.

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

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”.

How do YOU KNOW they don’t have permission when the owner isn’t physically available to ask? Again

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

 

[ParkerD]

How do YOU KNOW they don’t have permission when the owner isn’t physically available to ask? Again

Stephen,

The Owner is spiritually available to ask. That was the point I was making, along with the point about free will and choice, which means that the Owner will not force the issue. He will make Himself available, but not in a way that deprives or detracts from individual choice–(to ask, or not to ask and rely on what has been told by others whether from 200 AD or from 2011 AD, is a choice they can make individually).

The Owner being spiritually available today is a pretty important foundational principle of the gospel as taught by Christ and confirmed by the teachings of the apostles.

 

[Stephen168]

Not to detract from the excellent points that Flyonthewall has made,………

points? I’ve seen only one:

Joseph Smith said so.

The most convincing evidence to me is that a prophet of God stated it.

Which BartBurk made clear.

Mormons don’t have to prove there was an apostasy. If Joseph Smith’s claims are true then it follows the Catholic Church was apostate. I don’t think our Catholic idea of an unbroken chain of authority means anything if God was speaking to Joseph Smith in the 19th century. If God was speaking to Joseph Smith and telling him the authority was lost, then the authority was lost. In my opinion there is no evidence that God was really speaking to Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Joseph Smith’s scriptures aren’t very convincing.

 

[pablope]

You forgot one…or new revelation.

Yes, Rainman…forgot that one too…

But if it is going to be a new revelation, thus begs the question: what of the previous revelation?

Was the previous revelation wrong to begin with, that God would change His mind? That God did not know what was going to happen next? If God knew, why would he wait for 1800 years to reveal something new or change his mind?

 

[pablope]

I should clarify that the “yes” applies only to the question you asked, not the assertion you made about us thinking Joseph is greater than Jesus
n.

They have been published for several hundred years and are part of our cannon… Joseph Smith History, and the D&C.

Just stating it is in your cannon, D&C, JS history does not prove it, Fly…it has to be backed up by historical data, historical studies, footnotes, references, actual events, and there should be a ton of independent studies and data, footnotes, references, that supports your contention.

So far, I have not found one or seen one.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,

The Owner is spiritually available to ask. That was the point I was making, along with the point about free will and choice, which means that the Owner will not force the issue. He will make Himself available, but not in a way that deprives or detracts from individual choice–(to ask, or not to ask and rely on what has been told by others whether from 200 AD or from 2011 AD, is a choice they can make individually).

The Owner being spiritually available today is a pretty important foundational principle of the gospel as taught by Christ and confirmed by the teachings of the apostles.

The spirit who Christ left to guide his Church, told me that Joseph Smith was a fraud and I could look to his claims about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Aaronic Priesthood, and Melchizedek Priesthood as proof.

He told me that the keys of the kingdom are with the See of Peter in Rome just as Christ promised, and I could tell by the consistent Catholic teachings on abortion, marriage, and the Eucharist as proof. The spirit said this is a universal truth; it does not depend on me choosing it, but I am free to accept it or reject it.

 

[lax16]

Stephen,

The Owner is spiritually available to ask. That was the point I was making, along with the point about free will and choice, which means that the Owner will not force the issue. He will make Himself available, but not in a way that deprives or detracts from individual choice–(to ask, or not to ask and rely on what has been told by others whether from 200 AD or from 2011 AD, is a choice they can make individually).

The Owner being spiritually available today is a pretty important foundational principle of the gospel as taught by Christ and confirmed by the teachings of the apostles.

In defense of the early Christians and martyrs, I personally take offense at the Mormons saying they did not ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In honor of the dead who struggled against great adversity with the help of the Holy Spirit, STOP IT!!

YOU WERE NOT THERE AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF. Do not speak ill of our dead brothers and sisters in Christ! It is offensive!!

 

[ParkerD]

The spirit who Christ left to guide his Church, told me that Joseph Smith was a fraud and I could look to his claims about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Aaronic Priesthood, and Melchizedek Priesthood as proof.

He told me that the keys of the kingdom are with the See of Peter in Rome just as Christ promised, and I could tell by the consistent Catholic teachings on abortion, marriage, and the Eucharist as proof. The spirit said this is a universal truth; it does not depend on me choosing it, but I am free to accept it or reject it.

Stephen,

I’m glad you understood the point I was making. Evidently, you have:

1. Done His will so that you know His doctrine (“whether it be of God”);
2. Understood such foundational doctrines as the “burning in the bosom” whereby the Holy Spirit communicates knowledge from God about truths of God;
3. Prayed sincerely and specifically (asking questions directly to God) to know about the truths you desired to know about, such as whether priesthood authority has continued in an authorized way since 60 AD;
4. Waited patiently for the answer from God to your question(s), accompanied by peace and calm assurance that He has heard your prayers.

So, that’s great. I’ve done that, too, and there is not a more joyful principle in this life than the principle of personal revelation from God through revealed answers from the Holy Ghost.

 

[Stephen168]

So, that’s great. I’ve done that, too, and there is not a more joyful principle in this life than the principle of personal revelation from God through revealed answers from the Holy Ghost.

True, and to have it supported by his creation: history, science and reason makes it even better.