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

[ParkerD]

lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/28?lang=eng

Well, Since the Apostle John and maybe these three Nephites had the priesthood, it is clear the priesthood could not have left the earth even according to your own records.

Hi, BD,

You are technically correct, but the issue has to do with mortal men holding the priesthood keys on the earth, to carry out the functions and duties of that authority including presiding over other mortal men and presiding over or carrying out ordinances with the authority of the priesthood.

Translated beings are no longer “mortal”, since their bodies have been changed so they don’t age and don’t suffer pain, nor do they suffer death–so they moved into having a different stewardship wherein the works they do on the earth are done anonymously, without their stating to anyone who they are. That was part of what they were told they would do–that they would not “be known” among those they visit as preparers of the way for the full message of the gospel.

 

[ParkerD]

My dear friend, again you misconstrue what I have written. Christ appointed only twelve directly to be His Apostles. Barnabas was called to replace Judas by the Holy Spirit and Paul calls himself “an Apostle”. Other than these there is no biblical support for any others. Shalom haMeshiach.

Shalom Aleichem

Hi, again, JAVL,

I think that either you mixed up Barnabas with Matthias, or that you have a belief that is unique to yourself as I’ve never heard that before. Catholics usually emphasize that Matthias was called to replace Judas Iscariot, which I agree with as it’s very clear in Acts.

Paul stated that he was called to be an apostle. He didn’t appoint himself, nor would he have used that title without knowing what he was doing.

The Biblical support is very plain, as I had previously cited the verses that apply and they are clear. But I see no need to force the issue with you or anyone else.

Peace to you also, kind friend.

 

[ParkerD]

They did not replace any of The Twelve. If fact, they seem to have lived at the same time as The Twelve.

Sevphen168,

They weren’t born as apostles. James the brother of John was killed early on as noted in Acts 12:2. There was no mention of any new apostle besides Matthias before Acts 12. Just because they “lived” when the Twelve lived, does not mean that those such as Paul and Barnabas could not be called as apostles at a later point in time during their life, and be a part of the Twelve as Paul implies in his writings.

 

[ParkerD]

This quote brings up three questions:

1. What and where is this Church Jesus established with the Nephites?
2. If Jesus established a Church among the Nephites then why was it necessary for
   Joseph Smith to establish one?
3. Did the Nephites also apostacize?

Just curious.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,

Before reading this answer, please read my post answering BD’s question about the “three Nephites” and John.

1. It was a congregation of believers in Christ, and it was among the Nephites and the Lamanites, but there was a general apostasy during the 300’s AD.
2. Yes.
3. Because of a general apostasy and the deaths of the last prophets among them, Mormon and Moroni.

 

[ParkerD]

(Repeating part of prior conversation with Lax16)–tags to allow someone to follow if desired.

To Steve VH in response to the question about “what king would allow an apostasy to happen” (or words to that effect):

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.

Removed or minimized as a reason for children (or adults) to hold onto their religious beliefs without seeking to really confirm them in their heart through a personal relationship with the living Christ would be “tradition” as their fall-back position.

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. These are not bad outcomes–they allow personal free will choice, and actions based fully on inner desires and pure motives.

Wishing great peace to you, your family, and all readers.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Then you are making everything arbitrary…every which way.

And so we are where we are…divided and invalidating…

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Then you are making everything arbitrary…every which way.

And so we are where we are…divided and invalidating…

Hi, Kathleen,

The gospel has always been about following the Spirit and not following the majority.

Christ’s teachings are certainly about unity, and that is resounded fully in LDS teachings, with Christ’s intercessory prayer being understood to be talking about our becoming “one” just as Christ and the Father are “one”, and with Ephesians 4:11-14 being resounded as a very important passage about the “unity of the faith” and about prophets and apostles and their role–but the steps toward gaining that kind of unity, the unity of a Zion people, mean that the people have become converted, healed, and that the Holy Ghost and the burning in their bosom to guide their actions, with love at the center of those actions, are part and parcel of the lives of most every member as their “hearts are knit together in love”.

 

[Stephen168]

Sevphen168,

They weren’t born as apostles. James the brother of John was killed early on as noted in Acts 12:2. There was no mention of any new apostle besides Matthias before Acts 12. Just because they “lived” when the Twelve lived, does not mean that those such as Paul and Barnabas could not be called as apostles at a later point in time during their life, and be a part of the Twelve as Paul implies in his writings.

What I meant by ‘lived’ was they were called Apostles at the same time The Twelve were living. Only Matthias replaced one of The Twelve due to the Apostasy and death of Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Paul was never one of The Twelve; because he did not qualify (Acts 1:21-22). He may have been taught and ‘been sent’ by The Twelve, but he was never one of them for the same reason no one after the first century could be one of them. There is nothing in the biblical record that Barnabas ever replaced one of The Twelve.

 

[rainman10]

JAVL,

Before reading this answer, please read my post answering BD’s question about the “three Nephites” and John.

1. It was a congregation of believers in Christ, and it was among the Nephites and the Lamanites, but there was a general apostasy during the 300’s AD.
2. Yes.
3. Because of a general apostasy and the deaths of the last prophets among them, Mormon and Moroni.

So now there have been two apostacies?

 

[Javl]

Hi, again, JAVL,

I think that either you mixed up Barnabas with Matthias, or that you have a belief that is unique to yourself as I’ve never heard that before. Catholics usually emphasize that Matthias was called to replace Judas Iscariot, which I agree with as it’s very clear in Acts.

Paul stated that he was called to be an apostle. He didn’t appoint himself, nor would he have used that title without knowing what he was doing.

The Biblical support is very plain, as I had previously cited the verses that apply and they are clear. But I see no need to force the issue with you or anyone else.

Peace to you also, kind friend.

My apologies for my error of naming Barnabas instead of Mathias, thank you for the correction. My excuse is old age. When you get as old as I am you lose three things; 1) Memory, 2) …I don’t remember what the other two were…

Anyway, what I had posted is common knowledge. There aren’t any more Apostles. there is not anything in scripture to support any others so there is no need for any. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

JAVL,

Before reading this answer, please read my post answering BD’s question about the “three Nephites” and John.

1. It was a congregation of believers in Christ, and it was among the Nephites and the Lamanites, but there was a general apostasy during the 300’s AD.
2. Yes.
3. Because of a general apostasy and the deaths of the last prophets among them, Mormon and Moroni.

Thank you again for your answer. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SteveVH]

To Steve VH in response to the question about “what king would allow an apostasy to happen” (or words to that effect):

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.

Removed or minimized as a reason for children (or adults) to hold onto their religious beliefs without seeking to really confirm them in their heart through a personal relationship with the living Christ would be “tradition” as their fall-back position.

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. These are not bad outcomes–they allow personal free will choice, and actions based fully on inner desires and pure motives.

Wishing great peace to you, your family, and all readers.

Let me see if I can put this in a nutshell. You believe that Christ directed the Holy Spirit to instruct the Apostles to destroy the very kingdom he came to establish so that the very people for which he died could exercise their free will, because receiving the truth would somehow enslave them.

You also believe, apparently, that truth is relative and we can just create our own truth depending on the particular personal decision with which we are faced.

Parker, I have a feeling you are just playing here because I have a very difficult time believing you are serious.

PS: If you actually do believe this, why would it not also apply to the LDS?

 

[ParkerD]

Let me see if I can put this in a nutshell. You believe that Christ directed the Holy Spirit to instruct the Apostles to destroy the very kingdom he came to establish so that the very people for which he died could exercise their free will, because receiving the truth would somehow enslave them.

You also believe, apparently, that truth is relative and we can just create our own truth depending on the particular personal decision with which we are faced.

Parker, I have a feeling you are just playing here because I have a very difficult time believing you are serious.

PS: If you actually do believe this, why would it not also apply to the LDS?

SteveVH,

Christ came to free people through the truth, not to enslave them, as you know. There is such a huge difference!

When John saw in vision that power was given “unto the beast” (Revelation 13:4) to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them (v. 7)”, “and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations”, then what was John to do–complain to God and “destroy the Kingdom”? Of course not–he understood that he was to do the best he could to warn the saints (which he did as we read in his epistles and in Revelation 1-4), to encourage them and strengthen them, but to also see a bigger picture about what was going to happen, an eventuality that he was allowed to see.

Always, when God allows bad things to happen, even to good people, it is for their good–that is how God works, being infinitely wise and infinitely loving. There is never a question about that–He will always do the very best thing that can be done for the ultimate triumph of (1) free will choice, (2) freely chosen love, and (3) the triumph of grace for the benefit and blessing of humankind, through His Beloved Only Begotten Son, our Redeemer.

I do indeed believe that people “create their own truth”, if by that you mean they choose deep within their soul what they want to live by, and then they do live by that, ultimately. They live by what they decide is true for themselves personally.

For example, this thread has talked about living apostles. When my children sit and watch and listen or read the teachings and encouragement of living apostles, then that is a reality that sows deep within their heart the testimony of faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, in their own ability to repent and come unto Christ, and instills a desire to be an example among their peers of being a follower of Christ and also to be of service to others. That is the reality I live with every day–it is not fake, it is not a front–it is genuine root choices being made by young adults, and they are choosing truths they desire to live by, witnessed to them by the Holy Ghost through having heard, read, seen, and understood.

 

[KathleenGee]

I wouldn’t call the early Christians a majority, Parker…it was just beginning…and the church authority’s greatest concern was to pass on the truth in Christ through the Gospels, Epistles…the ‘Last Supper’/Breaking of Bread/Eucharist as center of worship…public revelation of inspired Scripture including Old and New Testament, and the composition of the Creed, along with developed ecclesial authority that was essentially drawn from Jewish tradition.

To have a Church, does not mean to have a few dissenting people…but those in general. And the believers also faced heresies from earliest times.

You don’t have any Christianity 1800 years after the fact, and then have another group claim it is the right one…and has to use another source to validate itself…

 

[ParkerD]

I wouldn’t call the early Christians a majority, Parker…it was just beginning…
You don’t have any Christianity 1800 years after the fact, and then have another group claim it is the right one…and has to use another source to validate itself…

Kathleen,

I realize that you don’t (of course). I also am fully aware that John saw that it would happen the way it has happened and is happening, and that Daniel saw a glimpse of the same situation of which he also prophesied. I realize that that unfolding goes against “logic” since we are all about “winners” and “losers” and people want to view Christ as continuously “winning”–but John saw that it simply was not going to be that way for “time, and times, and the dividing of time (half a time)”–since the beast was going to be given power by which he would prevail for a period of time “over all kindreds, tongues,…”

The other source is prophesied also, and shows that God had more involvement on this earth than just with the Jews at Jerusalem, which was certainly prophesied in the Old Testament. The Lord is simply not going to make these things obvious, and thus destroy the free will choice of humankind. Everything He does will foster free will choice.

Peace to you and your family, Kathleen.

 

[Stephen168]

For example, this thread has talked about living apostles. When my children sit and watch and listen or read the teachings and encouragement of living apostles, then that is a reality that sows deep within their heart the testimony of faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, in their own ability to repent and come unto Christ, and instills a desire to be an example among their peers of being a follower of Christ and also to be of service to others. That is the reality I live with every day–it is not fake, it is not a front–it is genuine root choices being made by young adults, and they are choosing truths they desire to live by, witnessed to them by the Holy Ghost through having heard, read, seen, and understood.

If what you mean by ‘not fake’ is that you and your children believe in living Apostles, I can accept that.

But this thread is about priesthood authority and it has been shown biblically and historically that authority and the title ‘Apostle’ are not linked. They are not linked in Christian history and they are not linked in Mormon history.

I will say that trying to link authority with the title of apostle is a slightly better argument then ‘Joseph Smith said authority was taken from the earth,’ or ‘voices in my head said it was true.’ A better argument but it still fails the test of history.

Is there any proof that priesthood authority was taken from the earth?

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,
I assume when you put in the 300 AD, you are referring to the coming of Constantine, his impact on Christianity…who was pagan until his death bed conversion.

Again, you are not understanding Constantine in context of Christianity. Christians were considered dangerous because they believed their God the one true God. They were a threat to the belief system of the Roman Empire. There were periods of peace during this time.

But with the invasion of the barbarians, and the Roman Empire starting to break down, this in turn brought the most severe persecutions against Christianity…the latter years with the exception of Nero, who was responsible for the death of St. Paul.

Constantine was a temporal ruler who had a dream to fight those with the cross as the banner. He esteemed Christianity. As a temporal ruler, when he had victory, he was the one who formalized Sunday as a day of worship for the temporal society.

But he in no way affected the personal beliefs of the Christians. They were the same then as they were in the beginning. There was the rise in Arianism, and then the Council of Nicea addressed the nature of Christ – true God and true Man.

So is the apostasy beginning then with the Council of Nicea?..theology of Christ as True God…The Theophany of Christ at his baptism at the River Jordan where God came over Him and said, ‘You are my beloved son, of whom I am well pleased’, with the Holy Spirit as a dove verifies before John the Baptist and his followers as witness that here is the beginning entry of Christ’s public ministry that He is truly the Son of God, …

and also True Man who ate, slept, wept, had joy, angered, taught, and healed?

You put out quotes and dates with no context. The Church has always protected its people from apostasy. And this through the consecrated priesthood–in spirit and Truth.

Jesus is Truth. We believe in Jesus Who is Truth. If it is not in the Bible, peoples and places are not relevant to the deposit of faith.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Christ came to free people through the truth, not to enslave them, as you know. There is such a huge difference!

When John saw in vision that power was given “unto the beast” (Revelation 13:4) to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them (v. 7)”, “and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations”, then what was John to do–complain to God and “destroy the Kingdom”? Of course not–he understood that he was to do the best he could to warn the saints (which he did as we read in his epistles and in Revelation 1-4), to encourage them and strengthen them, but to also see a bigger picture about what was going to happen, an eventuality that he was allowed to see.

Always, when God allows bad things to happen, even to good people, it is for their good–that is how God works, being infinitely wise and infinitely loving. There is never a question about that–He will always do the very best thing that can be done for the ultimate triumph of (1) free will choice, (2) freely chosen love, and (3) the triumph of grace for the benefit and blessing of humankind, through His Beloved Only Begotten Son, our Redeemer.

I do indeed believe that people “create their own truth”, if by that you mean they choose deep within their soul what they want to live by, and then they do live by that, ultimately. They live by what they decide is true for themselves personally.

For example, this thread has talked about living apostles. When my children sit and watch and listen or read the teachings and encouragement of living apostles, then that is a reality that sows deep within their heart the testimony of faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, in their own ability to repent and come unto Christ, and instills a desire to be an example among their peers of being a follower of Christ and also to be of service to others. That is the reality I live with every day–it is not fake, it is not a front–it is genuine root choices being made by young adults, and they are choosing truths they desire to live by, witnessed to them by the Holy Ghost through having heard, read, seen, and understood.

Parker, the “beast” has had power since the fall. That is, rather, the point of salvation, isn’t it? We are in a spiritual battle and will be until Christ returns. But we know how the story ends. You are avoiding my question, however. Christ ushered in the kingdom of God and founded his Church to extend his kingdom to the ends of earth. You have proposed that the Holy Spirit instructed the Apostles to withhold the authority necessary for his Church to accomplish this.

The support you have offered for this proposition, in my opinion, defies all logic and human reason, as well as Scripture itself. I will ask again. Why would a king wish to destroy his own kingdom, a kingdom established for the purpose of defeating the “beast” who roams about the world seeking to devour the king’s own children? And, lets not forget that the King promised that he would remain with his Church until the end of time. Your proposition necessarily makes Christ not only a failure, but also a liar.

As to your view of truth, it doesn’t matter how much I want snow to be colored orange, it is still white, and if I believe it is orange, it would behoove me to see an optometrist, or possibly psychiatric help.

 

[ParkerD]

Is there any proof that priesthood authority was taken from the earth?

Not the kind of proof you’re looking for, but certainly the kind of proof I have sought. It’s fine–we differ in the kind of proof we are interested in about these kinds of things.

Peace to you and yours.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, the “beast” has had power since the fall. That is, rather, the point of salvation, isn’t it? We are in a spiritual battle and will be until Christ returns. But we know how the story ends. You are avoiding my question, however. Christ ushered in the kingdom of God and founded his Church to extend his kingdom to the ends of earth. You have proposed that the Holy Spirit instructed the Apostles to withhold the authority necessary for his Church to accomplish this…

SteveVH,

I guess you could put it that way. The church was being taken into the wilderness, so the authority was going to be gone away, so it would have been contrary to the Holy Spirit for the apostles to have insisted on naming new apostles anyway.

As far as your other statements, it will be nice when you can someday meet with the transcribers and the translators and thank them for presenting the teaching of Christ in a way that allowed you to justify the statements you like to make, and justify your personal religious choices, which I differ with but to each their own.