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

[flyonthewall]

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.

Answer the 3 questions I asked, and you will come to understand what Jesus was saying.

 

[Stephen168]

It is also a matter of historical 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.

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.

Interesting

 

[rainman10]

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?

No, but how many VERIFIABLE miracles did Joseph Smith perform in front of non-Mormons and how many OT prophesies did JS fulfill?

 

[flyonthewall]

No, but how many VERIFIABLE miracles did Joseph Smith perform in front of non-Mormons and how many OT prophesies did JS fulfill?

Tell me…how many verifiable miracles did Jesus perform in front of non-Jews? How many non-believers of Christ will verfiy the miracles He did?
I was not aware that a prophet had to fulfill an OT prophesy…where did that come from?

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…verifying is the work of the Holy Spirit Who brings to light and completion the prophecies of the Old Testament.

There have been countless miracles performed by the saints all down through Christian history. There have been countless martyrs who willingly offered their life for Christ.

Revelations speaks of the cup of the blood of martyrs…The apostolic church has many…priests, brothers and sisters, and lay. We are also seeing many non-denominational Christians be willing to suffer and die for Christ in Pakistan, Africa.

I do not see the desire to shed blood apparent in Mormonism, and I do not see any accounts of miracles of healing within Mormonism that can be compared to those in the lives of the saints.

We have a good source, Fr Butler’s, “Lives of the Saints” a good comparative study for the Mormons who have great interest in us…

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I did answer your questions. I do understand what he was saying. Answer me this question fly…Jesus says if you have a problem with someone to take them to the Church…why would he say that if His Church “disappeared” for 1800 years roughly, where were people supposed to go.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 18: 15-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Answer the 3 questions I asked, and you will come to understand what Jesus was saying.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

There is a disconnect in what you imply that we should have peace between us. To a certain point yes, but your religion’s premise is that all of Christianity except the faith of the apostles, is not true, an abomination.

And we know that is not true, through faith in Christ as God and through reason.

 

[flyonthewall]

I did answer your questions. I do understand what he was saying. Answer me this question fly…Jesus says if you have a problem with someone to take them to the Church…why would he say that if His Church “disappeared” for 1800 years roughly, where were people supposed to go.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 18: 15-17[/BIBLEDRB]

No, you did not answer the 3 questions I asked. I will ask them again:
What is “hell” referring to?
What do “the gates of Hell” represent?
How can gates prevail?

In answer to your question, Jesus gave good counsel that works both in and out of the church…the church was the mediator, the judge…if you have a personal dispute that cannot be rectified, take several witnesses to the judge(church) to mediate…
However, at the time Jesus said that, what church did He mean? The “christian” church did not exist.

 

[pablope]

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?

No, but a lot of historians, archaelogists, and others, did independent studies that confirm the 12 apostles Jesus selected, on Peter’s authority, on the continuation of Peter’s authority to this day, on the continuity of Apostolic succession and authority to this day, on the continuity of the Catholic Church. The Bereans did to confirm Jesus as the Messiah.

Has anybody done an independent study to confirm what the LDS claims? I have seen some and these all say the LDS claims are bogus. It seems it is only those in the LDS that says otherwise.

 

[lax16]

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.

You must have access to information that I don’t have. Let’s remove Joseph Smith or whoever you are getting your information from for just a minute. Where can I access this information that you have on the matter of the apostles not understanding that they needed to pass on the priesthood?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to not 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.

But, Parker, this thinking is not line with Judaism’s understanding of God. Mormonism is in direct contradiction to Jewish teaching.
Jesus was a practicing Jew, was He not? So, how does a Jewish messiah fit it in with JS new definition of God and His existence?
Other than JS, can you cross-reference this teaching?

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

Were people just sitting around twiddling their thumbs? Come on, read early church history!

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.

And within what framework has your understanding of Jesus’ promise been formed?
Without JS can you point to anything else that would support the LDS view?

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

So Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit told the apostles NOT to ordain new apostles?
Please reference the scripture in the bible where I can find out this information for myself.

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

I guess, but Catholics don’t talk that way. They just go find out for themselves if they have questions, not just hope they are right.

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.

Who says the time frame was moved? Why did it change? Who moved it?

Again, peace to you and your family.

 

[SteveVH]

What is “hell” referring to?
What do “the gates of Hell” represent?
How can gates prevail?

“Hell” refers to the abode of Satan and his demons; the enemy.

Gates are defensive in nature. The “gates of hell” are in reference to the fact that Christ and his Church will defeat evil; Christ and his Church will crash in the gates of hell and defeat the enemy. In other words, the gates will not prevail.

Gates can only prevail if they remain intact and keep the one outside from coming in.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Fly, since you didn’t like my response and since Steve answered you quite ably consider this a +1 to this point. Bottom line any loss of the church Jesus built on Peter equals the gates of Hell prevailing.

If they prevail Jesus is a liar and ALL Christian faith falls.

Since the Trinity is Truth itself, Jesus cannot lie by nature. Ergo the priesthood authority cannot have been removed.

“Hell” refers to the abode of Satan and his demons; the enemy.

Gates are defensive in nature. The “gates of hell” are in reference to the fact that Christ and his Church will defeat evil; Christ and his Church will crash in the gates of hell and defeat the enemy. In other words, the gates will not prevail.

Gates can only prevail if they remain intact and keep the one outside from coming in.

 

[ParkerD]

You must have access to information that I don’t have. Let’s remove Joseph Smith or whoever you are getting your information from for just a minute. Where can I access this information that you have on the matter of the apostles not understanding that they needed to pass on the priesthood?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to not ordain new apostles?

Hi, Lax16,

“Yes” is the answer to your second question. I had tried to convey that the apostles were proceeding based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that was the basis of whether they did or didn’t ordain a new apostle at any point in time. I didn’t mean that they didn’t understand the need for new apostles, if the Lord directed such, but they would be acting under the Lord’s guidance and direction.

But, Parker, this thinking is not line with Judaism’s understanding of God. Mormonism is in direct contradiction to Jewish teaching.
Jesus was a practicing Jew, was He not? So, how does a Jewish Messiah fit it in with JS new definition of God and His existence?
Other than JS, can you cross-reference this teaching?

The Jewish understanding of God is developed primarily from the time of Moses onward. The children of Israel weren’t ready for more than basic knowledge about God, so that is the amount of knowledge they received. When Jesus announced that He was both the Messiah and was Jehovah, many Jews rejected that because of their teachings, so it wouldn’t be such a great idea to think they had correct concepts in their traditions about the promised Messiah.

As far as cross references, you could think about “all the sons of God shouted for joy” and note that “sons of God” means “covenant people”. (Job 38:7) You could also think about the “war in heaven” which showed that there were events that preceded the populating of the earth, and could think about God having a plan beyond just one day deciding to create the earth and Adam and Eve, with no fore-planning involved. What if He actually had a plan for all these important things? What if there are purposes in His plan that included allowing free will and choice even before this earth was created, thus being consistent with how He has done on this earth?

Were people just sitting around twiddling their thumbs? Come on, read early church history!

No, I assume most everyone did their best with the knowledge they had. But it’s pretty plain that there was a disconnect about apostles having presiding authority, when your history bypasses John even though acknowledging he was the last living apostle.

And within what framework has your understanding of Jesus’ promise been formed?

The Bible is plain about these promises, and context is certainly important to understand those promises.

Without JS can you point to anything else that would support the LDS view?

Yes–the entire book of Revelation, and several of the Savior’s parables and teachings.

So Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit told the apostles NOT to ordain new apostles?
Please reference the scripture in the bible where I can find out this information for myself.

Yes, and as I had noted John saw this in vision and so stated in Revelation 12:14 and Revelation 13:7. But those verses won’t make the same sense to you that they do to me, and part of the reason is that God will always and forever preserve free will agency and not force beliefs onto anyone. That is one of the reasons Jesus taught in parables, and one of the reasons many scriptures contain veiled knowledge.

Who says the time frame was moved? Why did it change? Who moved it?

The time frame for the culmination of God’s success story, wherein Christ prevails against all evil and all opposing influences, is completed during the Millenium. For any one person, “the end” could be today or tomorrow since they could die, but the real “end of the world” is going to be during the Millenium when the earth is changed.

Thanks!

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, Lax16,

I had tried to convey that the apostles were proceeding based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that was the basis of whether they did or didn’t ordain a new apostle at any point in time. I didn’t mean that they didn’t understand the need for new apostles, if the Lord directed such, but they would be acting under the Lord’s guidance and direction.

:

Christ initiated the “new and everlasting covenant”. He founded a Church, his Church, and promised to remain with it until “the end of time”. The entire notion that Christ would then allow his Church to end; not to mention the Holy Spirit directing the Apostles to act in such a way as to bring it to an end, is simply not credible. For what purpose would God do such a thing? You are saying that God destroyed his own Church by directing the Apostles to withhold the very authority required to sustain it.

 

[flyonthewall]

No, but a lot of historians, archaelogists, and others, did independent studies that confirm the 12 apostles Jesus selected, on Peter’s authority, on the continuation of Peter’s authority to this day, on the continuity of Apostolic succession and authority to this day, on the continuity of the Catholic Church. The Bereans did to confirm Jesus as the Messiah.

Has anybody done an independent study to confirm what the LDS claims? I have seen some and these all say the LDS claims are bogus. It seems it is only those in the LDS that says otherwise.

What records were used? There is scant historical evidence of Jesus at all let alone those with details on who he selected, and zero archeology evidence…so what records were used?

 

[pablope]

What records were used? There is scant historical evidence of Jesus at all let alone those with details on who he selected, and zero archeology evidence…so what records were used?

It is in the Vatican archives…where there is great repository of records, where all we know today, if you care to look, and which is voluminous in itself…contains the writings of early historians, scriptures, and what not. Researchers, historians, who have looked, researched, studied, and wrote their studies and findings are what we know today. Of course, it started with the oral tradition, then was written.

So you are saying that because there is scant historical evidence of Jesus, you are not believing or questioning Jesus? and His apostles too? We know who Jesus selected, and we know the Apostles did not leave orphans when they moved on to another area to preach, they left somebody in charge.

 

[pablope]

What records were used? There is scant historical evidence of Jesus at all let alone those with details on who he selected, and zero archeology evidence…so what records were used?

Irenaeus,
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Here is another quote from Irenaeus,

“The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us.” [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

 

[flyonthewall]

It is in the Vatican archives…where there is great repository of records, where all we know today, if you care to look, and which is voluminous in itself…contains the writings of early historians, scriptures, and what not. Researchers, historians, who have looked, researched, studied, and wrote their studies and findings are what we know today. Of course, it started with the oral tradition, then was written.

So you are saying that because there is scant historical evidence of Jesus, you are not believing or questioning Jesus? and His apostles too? We know who Jesus selected, and we know the Apostles did not leave orphans when they moved on to another area to preach, they left somebody in charge.

I am saying that because there is scant historical evidence of Jesus, historical evidence is not going to be used to verify or confirm anything about Jesus.
It is Catholic records and Catholic traditions that verify Catholic claims…which is not surprising.
There is no doubt that there have been a string of leaders in the Catholic church

 

[flyonthewall]

Irenaeus,
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Here is another quote from Irenaeus,

“The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us.” [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

So are you saying Irenaeus was not Catholic? Was an independent neutral 3rd party?

 

[ParkerD]

:

Christ initiated the “new and everlasting covenant”. He founded a Church, his Church, and promised to remain with it until “the end of time”. The entire notion that Christ would then allow his Church to end; not to mention the Holy Spirit directing the Apostles to act in such a way as to bring it to an end, is simply not credible. For what purpose would God do such a thing? You are saying that God destroyed his own Church by directing the Apostles to withhold the very authority required to sustain it.

SteveVH,

Christ confirmed an everlasting covenant that had already been described in the Old Testament:

Genesis 17:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Genesis 17:13
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Ezekiel 37:26
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Isaiah 55:3
Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

The sure mercies of David, even the blessings of grace through the atonement of Christ, and the promise of redemption and of a joint throne with Christ for covenant keepers of the new and everlasting covenant, are what are everlasting promises.