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

[ParkerD]

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

Stephen,

Indeed! Those are some of the aspects about the gospel of Jesus Christ that I delight in also! It is a continuous delight, and a marvelous work and a wonder!

I am continuously awed at how perfectly planned and carried out the gospel plan for humankind is, with free will and choice continously in place perfectly, and with perfectly allowed filtration processes to separate the wheat and gather it into the garners, and allow for the highest choice good that every person wants to receive with all their heart.

 

[lax16]

Parker, flyonthewall, etc.

I am sure you are familiar with the commandments.
Bearing false witness is a big no-no. What does that mean to you?

If you were told by a neighbor that somebody did something 10 years ago (in reality, 2,000years ago) and the information was extremely damaging to their character, would you believe it without getting all the facts?

Would you spread the word around about this person openly and without careful consideration of what you are saying? Would you want somebody to spread a rumor about you and or your family without checking out all the facts?

If you are careful to check the facts and not rely on the old saying “I believe because so and so told me so”, then provide the facts about the apostles not asking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You are repeating a rumor (started by Joseph Smith) about people who lived 2,000 years ago and are not here to speak for themselves.

edited from the Ensign: “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” By Robert J. Matthews
Robert J. Matthews, ““Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness””, Ensign, Oct. 1994, 53

---

His life had been affected by someone who had borne false witness. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16) is the ninth of the ten commandments given to Moses for the governing and blessing of the children of Israel. But its place on the list does not mean it is less consequential than other commandments. Peace, happiness, security, trust, and tranquility are in jeopardy when this commandment is ignored. The danger may be as obvious as the punishment of an individual for crimes he did not commit. It may be as subtle as the teaching of our children, by negative example, that shading the truth just a bit is acceptable so long as there is no chance of getting caught. In any case, bearing false witness—of which lying is just one aspect—erodes the souls of individuals and snips away at the cords of common trust that must bind any society together if it is to survive.

Thus our obedience to the commandment not to bear false witness should be rooted in both our love of God and our love of our fellowmen. But the violation of the ninth commandment is among the most common of sins. Elder Adam S. Bennion of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote:

“Murder, adultery, and stealing, dealing respectively with life, virtue, and property, are generally considered more serious offenses before the law than the bearing of false witness. And yet, what the latter may lack in severity, it more than makes up for in prevalence” (“The Ninth Commandment,” in The Ten Commandments Today, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955, p. 134).

Whereas murder involves the taking of human life, bearing false witness involves the destruction of character and reputation. To do so maliciously is the sin of calumny, or character assassination, described in Shakespeare’s Othello:

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
(Act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61)

The Truth, and Nothing But
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” plainly is more than a prohibition against inventing falsehoods. The language of the commandment requires that an honest and straightforward answer be given whenever we are asked to share our knowledge of the truth, as in a court of law when being questioned under oath. Lying under oath is called perjury. The ninth commandment’s broad injunction forbids this and all other forms of giving false evidence or manipulating information. Our words are to agree with the facts.

Thus, the ninth commandment is a strong declaration against covenant breaking, oath breaking, and all forms of untruth, including exaggeration, gross understatement, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts. Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give a full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

My problem with this LDS belief and some have addressed it a little on this thread as it is, is don’t they understand believing this makes Jesus a liar.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16: 16-19[/BIBLEDRB]

If that gates of Hell won’t prevail against it, there is no need for removal of priestly authority.

 

[Stephen168]

I am continuously awed at how perfectly planned and carried out the gospel plan for humankind is, with free will and choice continously in place perfectly, and with perfectly allowed filtration processes to separate the wheat and gather it into the garners, and allow for the highest choice good that every person wants to receive with all their heart.

Oh yea, verily, verily, we are free to gird our loins and skip over to the garner of our choice. Harken ye people with wheat, ye know one garner is as good as the other. Behold ye landlubbers, avast using the creation of the Lord, and verily, rely only on the voices in your head.

So the two proofs provided so far are:

Joseph Smith said so.

A voice in my head said so.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

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.
.

God does not lie. He reveals Himself as He always has to mankind after sin: Through the Holy Spirit as it ipacted the minds and hearts of the prophets and the kings, even those who turned to idol worship and gave up God’s moedim. Jesus (Yeshua) was God in human flesh. He was born at the time of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles in October. He tabernacled with human kind at that time. Peter, as a loyal Jew who, though sinful as he said, knew of the coming Messiah through the prophets of God contained in the only Scriptures available to the God the Son’s believing Jews (J-E-W means “one who praises God”). Those “Jews” who went through the motions of animal sacrifices, did not see in those sacrifices the coming of the prophecied Messiah.

Thus, Peter knew who (“Emmanuel, God with us”) who would come and live His own Law that He gave to Moses at Mt. Sinai, perfectly through His access to the Holy Spirit, just as we have access to today, and for the same exact reason, to live His Law (laws, statutes and judgments) just as Exekiel, in chapter 36, vss. 26 and 27 said He would cause us to do. The laws, statutes and judgments Exekiel spoke about are found in Exodus, 20-23, 33 and 34, and Leviticus 23. God the Son gave them to Moses. He, as Jesus Christ on earth, never changed any of them, except to end the animal sacrifices, Temple on earth, and priestood, now that the High Priest is in Heaven at the right hand of His Father, God the Father.

 

[Bataar]

It doesn’t bother mormons at all, that the same “logic” used to justify their beliefs can be used to justify belief in the “flying spaghetti monster” or any other pagan/false/made up belief system? God gave us reason and logic so we could use it to help us follow him. Any false religion can say all that’s needed is faith. Without any evidence or history, there’s nothing to set it apart.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, flyonthewall, etc.

I am sure you are familiar with the commandments.
Bearing false witness is a big no-no. What does that mean to you?

If you were told by a neighbor that somebody did something 10 years ago (in reality, 2,000years ago) and the information was extremely damaging to their character, would you believe it without getting all the facts?

Would you spread the word around about this person openly and without careful consideration of what you are saying? Would you want somebody to spread a rumor about you and or your family without checking out all the facts?

If you are careful to check the facts and not rely on the old saying “I believe because so and so told me so”, then provide the facts about the apostles not asking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You are repeating a rumor (started by Joseph Smith) about people who lived 2,000 years ago and are not here to speak for themselves.

edited from the Ensign: “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” By Robert J. Matthews
Robert J. Matthews, ““Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness””, Ensign, Oct. 1994, 53

---

His life had been affected by someone who had borne false witness. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16) is the ninth of the ten commandments given to Moses for the governing and blessing of the children of Israel. But its place on the list does not mean it is less consequential than other commandments. Peace, happiness, security, trust, and tranquility are in jeopardy when this commandment is ignored. The danger may be as obvious as the punishment of an individual for crimes he did not commit. It may be as subtle as the teaching of our children, by negative example, that shading the truth just a bit is acceptable so long as there is no chance of getting caught. In any case, bearing false witness—of which lying is just one aspect—erodes the souls of individuals and snips away at the cords of common trust that must bind any society together if it is to survive.

Thus our obedience to the commandment not to bear false witness should be rooted in both our love of God and our love of our fellowmen. But the violation of the ninth commandment is among the most common of sins. Elder Adam S. Bennion of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote:

“Murder, adultery, and stealing, dealing respectively with life, virtue, and property, are generally considered more serious offenses before the law than the bearing of false witness. And yet, what the latter may lack in severity, it more than makes up for in prevalence” (“The Ninth Commandment,” in The Ten Commandments Today, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955, p. 134).

Whereas murder involves the taking of human life, bearing false witness involves the destruction of character and reputation. To do so maliciously is the sin of calumny, or character assassination, described in Shakespeare’s Othello:

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
(Act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61)

The Truth, and Nothing But
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” plainly is more than a prohibition against inventing falsehoods. The language of the commandment requires that an honest and straightforward answer be given whenever we are asked to share our knowledge of the truth, as in a court of law when being questioned under oath. Lying under oath is called perjury. The ninth commandment’s broad injunction forbids this and all other forms of giving false evidence or manipulating information. Our words are to agree with the facts.

Thus, the ninth commandment is a strong declaration against covenant breaking, oath breaking, and all forms of untruth, including exaggeration, gross understatement, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts. Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give a full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered.

Lax16,

The difference between how we view things in this particular issue, is that I don’t view the loss of priesthood authority as “extremely damaging” to the character of anyone. People did what people do–they did a human thing, and did the best they could using their reasoning and their background. Why should this be held “against them” as being “damaging to their character?” Given the human condition, it was a predictable outcome.

I view it as a necessary outcome in order for free will choice to operate fully on the earth. The fall-back logic moves from “if you don’t believe this, then (whatever reason that is a type of forced logic)” to "there really is such a thing as divine guidance that is a higher and purer source of knowledge than logic, however well-intended the logic.

This also allows for those who want their religion to be “true”, to have it be so for them, because their logic is going to work to that particular personal decision. Then they have as much light and knowledge in their life as they desire and seek after with all their heart, hopefully with love in the center of those desires.

Wishing you much peace.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

The difference between how we view things in this particular issue, is that I don’t view the loss of priesthood authority as “extremely damaging” to the character of anyone. People did what people do–they did a human thing, and did the best they could using their reasoning and their background. Why should this be held “against them” as being “damaging to their character?” Given the human condition, it was a predictable outcome.

Hi Parker - It is not the loss of priesthood authority in and of itself that is “extremely damaging” to the character of our first apostles, it is the allegation that they did not “for some reason” call upon on the Holy Spirit to pass on the priesthood authority as commanded by Jesus.
What is wrong is to continue to insist that they fouled up BIG TIME even though you don’t have any proof to back it up - there lies the breaking of a commandment.
The apostles were not doing just a human thing! They were Jesus’ best friends and they were entrusted with His Church.
How could it be a predictable outcome with the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading them?

I view it as a necessary outcome in order for free will choice to operate fully on the earth. The fall-back logic moves from “if you don’t believe this, then (whatever reason that is a type of forced logic)” to "there really is such a thing as divine guidance that is a higher and purer source of knowledge than logic, however well-intended the logic.

Why would the failure of God’s Promise through His Son Jesus Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit be a necessary outcome?
Parker, we all know that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit provides for us divine guidance. Of course it is a source of higher purer knowledge. So, why didn’t the apostles have access to it?

This also allows for those who want their religion to be “true”, to have it be so for them, because their logic is going to work to that particular personal decision. Then they have as much light and knowledge in their life as they desire and seek after with all their heart, hopefully with love in the center of those desires.

I have never met a Catholic that WANTS their religion to be true. It is because God set it up that way with His Son and the Holy Spirit until the end of the time. And in His infinite goodness and wisdom, gave us history, saints, sacraments, to help us to continue and to help others find him.

Wishing you much peace.

And you, too, Parker!

 

[lax16]

God does not lie. He reveals Himself as He always has to mankind after sin: Through the Holy Spirit as it ipacted the minds and hearts of the prophets and the kings, even those who turned to idol worship and gave up God’s moedim. Jesus (Yeshua) was God in human flesh. He was born at the time of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles in October. He tabernacled with human kind at that time. Peter, as a loyal Jew who, though sinful as he said, knew of the coming Messiah through the prophets of God contained in the only Scriptures available to the God the Son’s believing Jews (J-E-W means “one who praises God”). Those “Jews” who went through the motions of animal sacrifices, did not see in those sacrifices the coming of the prophecied Messiah.

Thus, Peter knew who (“Emmanuel, God with us”) who would come and live His own Law that He gave to Moses at Mt. Sinai, perfectly through His access to the Holy Spirit, just as we have access to today, and for the same exact reason, to live His Law (laws, statutes and judgments) just as Exekiel, in chapter 36, vss. 26 and 27 said He would cause us to do. The laws, statutes and judgments Exekiel spoke about are found in Exodus, 20-23, 33 and 34, and Leviticus 23. God the Son gave them to Moses. He, as Jesus Christ on earth, never changed any of them, except to end the animal sacrifices, Temple on earth, and priestood, now that the High Priest is in Heaven at the right hand of His Father, God the Father.

Hi Ron - Do you think that Peter knew that the Messiah would come in his lifetime?
Did Peter think that Jesus would come as a sacrificial lamb as opposed to a great king/liberator?

 

[flyonthewall]

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.

It is also a matter of hisorical record of who has lead the church from Joseph Smith on down to the current President, Thomas S. Monson. All who have been Apostles are also a matter of historical records.

Was an independent study required when Jesus called the 12? Or when Jesus selected Peter to lead the church? Were non-Jews called in to confirm anything Jesus did?

 

[flyonthewall]

My problem with this LDS belief and some have addressed it a little on this thread as it is, is don’t they understand believing this makes Jesus a liar.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16: 16-19[/BIBLEDRB]

If that gates of Hell won’t prevail against it, there is no need for removal of priestly authority.

What is “hell” referring to? What do “the gates of Hell” represent? How can gates prevail?
I believe whole heartedly that the gates of hell will not prevail.
I do not believe that a belief in an apostasy or the removal of the priesthood makes Jesus a liar.

 

[Monkey1976]

It is also a matter of hisorical record of who has lead the church from Joseph Smith on down to the current President, Thomas S. Monson. All who have been Apostles are also a matter of historical records.

But what is missing is the historical record of the loss of priestly authority.

Was an independent study required when Jesus called the 12? Or when Jesus selected Peter to lead the church? Were non-Jews called in to confirm anything Jesus did?

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Joseph Smith was a treasure-hunter from Palmyra.

Our Lord made the extraordinary claim that He was (and is) is Son of God. In proof of this, He rose from the dead on the third day.

Joseph Smith made the extraordinary claim that the Church founded by Christ had failed and disappeared from the earth, and he was the prophet appointed by God to restore it.

I’m sure you can understand if we ask for an extraordinary proof.

 

[flyonthewall]

But what is missing is the historical record of the loss of priestly authority.

It is not historical records that will record proper authority, but church records. Historical records will only show who took over, not if they had the proper authority.
The schism of the Corinthians should illustrate this. The proper leadership was deposed and new leaders selected. History would ony show who the new leaders were, not if they had proper authority. It is only the letter of Clement that brings up the issue of proper authority, which is a church record.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Joseph Smith was a treasure-hunter from Palmyra.

And Peter was a fisherman and Matthew was a tax collector. You speak as if that is the only thing Joseph did was hunt for treasure. You could very well say Joseph was a farmer or a hired hand, which he did with more frequency and much longer.
If you have ever used a metal detector, you too could be called a treasure hunter.

Our Lord made the extraordinary claim that He was (and is) is Son of God. In proof of this, He rose from the dead on the third day.

Joseph Smith made the extraordinary claim that the Church founded by Christ had failed and disappeared from the earth, and he was the prophet appointed by God to restore it.

I’m sure you can understand if we ask for an extraordinary proof.

Of course it is understandable…many people asked Jesus for a sign too…what was His response?
This is a matter of faith. I can offer only evidence of what I believe, it is the Holy Spirit that will provide the proof, or confirmation of one’s faith.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Jesus is saying that His Church would not disappear, that evil would not overtake it. Jesus made numerous promises that he would never leave us orphaned. That he would send the Spirit to protect the Church.

[BIBLEDRB]John 14: 16[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 16: 13[/BIBLEDRB]

I don’t see any way that believing in total apostasy doesn’t make Jesus a liar or a fool.

What is “hell” referring to? What do “the gates of Hell” represent? How can gates prevail?
I believe whole heartedly that the gates of hell will not prevail.
I do not believe that a belief in an apostasy or the removal of the priesthood makes Jesus a liar.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - It is not the loss of priesthood authority in and of itself that is “extremely damaging” to the character of our first apostles, it is the allegation that they did not “for some reason” call upon on the Holy Spirit to pass on the priesthood authority as commanded by Jesus.

Lax16,

Somehow the disconnect seems to be in understanding that the apostles understood that they had the keys and authority, understood that those keys and authority would need to be passed on (including ordaining new apostles such as Paul and Barnabas), and understood that that act of ordaining new apostles needed always to be under the direct guiding influence of the Holy Ghost–but that the Holy Ghost could indeed guide them not to ordain new apostles.

The LDS believe very firmly and strongly in a concept called “foreordination” that has to do with the planning stage, before Adam and Eve were placed on this earth, when Christ volunteered to be our Redeemer and when there were also other pre-planned assignments for designated prophets, apostles, and leaders who would take part in important roles and assignments during the history of this world. God foreknew that part of the plan for this world was that there was going to be an allowance for the priesthood authority to be taken away from the earth. So it was not contrary to the Holy Ghost that the apostles ordained only a few new apostles and then stopped doing that–it was in accordance with the allowance that had been planned by God before the history of this world. The impression would be clear to them, as confirmed by the vision John had–that they were not being told by the Holy Ghost to go ahead and replace an apostle when one died. So this was not for “some unknown reason”–it was for a planned reason, an allowed occurrence.
The apostles were not “breaking a commandment”, at all. They were following the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

The apostles were not doing just a human thing! They were Jesus’ best friends and they were entrusted with His Church.
How could it be a predictable outcome with the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading them?

I was not referring to the apostles. I was referring to what happened after there were no longer apostles around.

Why would the failure of God’s Promise through His Son Jesus Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit be a necessary outcome?

You have understood the “promise” far differently than I and many others have understood that promise. I already explained about free will and choice, and not being forced into a choice about religion.

Parker, we all know that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit provides for us divine guidance. Of course it is a source of higher purer knowledge. So, why didn’t the apostles have access to it?

They did, including access to know when they were being told not to ordain new apostles after one had died.

I have never met a Catholic that WANTS their religion to be true.

I would think they would want their religion to be true.

It is because God set it up that way with His Son and the Holy Spirit until the end of the time. And in His infinite goodness and wisdom, gave us history, saints, sacraments, to help us to continue and to help others find him.

That was part of my point about a type of “force”, which God simply would not do as part of His perfect plan. He would have an allowance (as confirmed by Biblical prophecy) for there to be greater opportunity on the earth for choices about religion, even in the midst of that which was perfectly true. This does not go against the Savior’s promise. It merely moves the time frame for the promise to be fulfilled in its fullness.

Again, peace to you and your family.

 

[BartBurk]

Anyone can claim the Holy Spirit led them to become apostles:

nak.org/en/about-the-nac/history-of-our-church/

 

[ParkerD]

Anyone can claim the Holy Spirit led them to become apostles:

Bart,
That example shows that many readers of the Bible recognize that there are spiritual gifts and spiritual promptings indicated in the Bible that are more real than a “voice in my head”. Part of the filtration process I had noted to Lax16 is that when a person or group wants that aspect of the gospel in their life, then they come into the scenario where they need to deal with how to recognize the pure from the “counterfeit” or the “partly true but not quite”. There always needs to be a separating or “filtration” process to gather the wheat into the garners and allow free will choice with not even a hint of compulsion.

 

[rainman10]

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?

In my opinion, that is one belief where Mormonism fails. There is no new revelation to be made because God did not make any mistakes or change His mind. But this is what has to happen for Mormonism’s new revelations theology to work. But God can’t be wrong, because then He would not be God.

 

[BartBurk]

Bart,
That example shows that many readers of the Bible recognize that there are spiritual gifts and spiritual promptings indicated in the Bible that are more real than a “voice in my head”. Part of the filtration process I had noted to Lax16 is that when a person or group wants that aspect of the gospel in their life, then they come into the scenario where they need to deal with how to recognize the pure from the “counterfeit” or the “partly true but not quite”. There always needs to be a separating or “filtration” process to gather the wheat into the garners and allow free will choice with not even a hint of compulsion.

But the spiritual gifts have never left the church from the day of Pentecost! We have an entire history of spiritual gifts being manifest for almost 2000 years within the Catholic Church itself. The Catholic Church doesn’t accept just any claim of a miracle – the Church studies and then approves a miracle based on the available evidence. Unfortunately for Mormons, Joseph Smith’s “miracles” don’t pass the test.

 

[ParkerD]

But the spiritual gifts have never left the church from the day of Pentecost! We have an entire history of spiritual gifts being manifest for almost 2000 years within the Catholic Church itself. The Catholic Church doesn’t accept just any claim of a miracle – the Church studies and then approves a miracle based on the available evidence. Unfortunately for Mormons, Joseph Smith’s “miracles” don’t pass the test.

Bart,

Correct that they don’t pass your test. Incorrect that it is “unfortunately for Mormons”.

Just because they don’t have the same history or kinds of “spiritual gifts” that are “approved”, does not mean those spiritual gifts aren’t real and genuine–just not within the parameters of your particular test that you apply. This is fine, and as it should be. It’s a good thing.

Peace is a fruit that we both can enjoy in this process, so wishing you a peaceful and joyful day.