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

[KathleenGee]

You know…there were alot of people born between Adam and Eve and the people living in the time of Christ.

The world was witness to the great Roman Empire at its height…and the world today is still marveling at it, some of its roads and other engineering feats still in use.

But as Isaiah and then Christ Himself said, the world was walking in darkness. And when Christ began to preach, so many people in the land were drawn to Him. On His walk to Calvary, many people followed Him and wept, in spite of those others who abandoned Him and rejected Him. Christ came to lead people out of darkness.

What a great event it must have been to those who lived in those days and to see such a remarkable dwelling of Divine Grace to come to this world, that it most likely touched many, many people.

The Last Apostle died around 90 AD. And Christ died 60 years earlier.

With such a tremendous and life changing event as putting one’s faith in Jesus to the point that many died for Him for over 300 years, it is hard to fathom that only a few were true Christians according to the Mormon perspective.

Christ changed time that the use of Anno Domini was in use up to our times.

The Holy Spirit never left us, and the Apostles knew their solemn duty was to discern and elect successors, that the practice of the Breaking of Bread was the form of worship both practiced by Jewish/Nazarene Christians as well as the Gentile Christians, that the presbyter/bishop/priest was in use, and that the administrative form of the Jewish Christians of having a head bishop of the local church rather than a council became the best fit for universal faith.

If we had a man made church, considering some of the scandals we are witnessing in the particularly English speaking church, the Catholic Church would have died out a long time ago.

There has been too much emphasis on those who fell out of grace, vs the many faithful clerics who were true successors to the Apostles.

There were many Christian Jews who survived the Diaspora because of their faith in Christ. There were many

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Because you offer none, I’ll take that as a no.

To summarize this thread so far: No Mormon has offered any proof of priesthood authority being taken from the earth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry, I timed out…

To continue…many Christian Jews survived the Diaspora…intermarried with converted Arab Christians, and to this day have a special Breaking of the Bread in Palestine.

Why try to justify a most questionableJewish tribe without any artifacts showing their Jewish origins…some where in America…that Jews themselves do not know of…

…taking away the promise by God that the Jews were the chosen race to bring forth the Messiah as if Christ did not complete His job establishing His church so we have now the Book of Mormon with a brand new theology and many new stories – yet ignore the Palestinian Jewish Christians who Break Bread for 2,000 years??? and the established history in the Sacred Scripture…

And why do the Mormons use a Protestant bible rather than a Catholic one???

The Apostasy is about the Catholic Church as apostate.

History and anthropology alone can point the way even if people chose not to believe.

Christian spiritual teachers always exhort us never to base our faith on our emotions or to trust them…and that our great reward in the next life will be Jesus Christ.

 

[pablope]

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.

Parker, if what you stated or claim the Bible predicted did happen, there should be an independent confirmation of the event in the annals of history.

Case in point: The destruction of the temple in AD 70, which was predicted. Historical accounts prove the temple was destroyed.

So far, you have not presented any collaboration of anything you have claimed. All you give are biblical verses or statements from the LDS, which in itself does not prove anything.
By now, there should have been books, studies, archeological evidence, or any evidence of what you claim which you could point at.

So far, nothing.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Good eschatology is usually based upon arriving at truth after examination of the evidence, not before. Approaching evidence with an assumed truth and then manipulating the meaning of that evidence in order to support the assumption is a waste of your time and mine.

 

[flyonthewall]

Parker, if what you stated or claim the Bible predicted did happen, there should be an independent confirmation of the event in the annals of history.

Case in point: The destruction of the temple in AD 70, which was predicted. Historical accounts prove the temple was destroyed.

So far, you have not presented any collaboration of anything you have claimed. All you give are biblical verses or statements from the LDS, which in itself does not prove anything.
By now, there should have been books, studies, archeological evidence, or any evidence of what you claim which you could point at.

So far, nothing.

What historical or archeological evidence would prove the priesthood was removed? Is the priesthood something physical that it can be tracked by independent(non-Catholic) means or the annals of history?
We rely on the word of the Lord for confirmation.

It really seems that the participants in this discussion want us to provide definitive proof that your own beliefs are wrong. That is not going to happen just like there is nothing you could bring forward to prove my beliefs are wrong.
We can only offer the reasons why we believe something, whether or not if convinces you is a different issue. You are free to agree or disagree as you like. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am just answering questions.

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholicism is most Christ centric. The Apostles being given the duty to preach the Good News, and to pass on to their successors the truth of Jesus Christ.

Certainly, truth requires circumstantial evidence, testimony of faith, and reason.

I find it incredible there are those who deny history but will believe in things with no evidence.

You can’t call that faith.

We image God in our use of reason and the intellect. And there is plenty of circumstantial evidence…the documents of liturgy of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and another great feat…the uniformity of worship throughout the ancient Christian world…back to back to a prior world set in darkness.

Of course, you will have many coming to the faith in many regions…and is in these many regions of the Christian world that there was uniformity of worship, Scripture, and creed.

You can’t say well, that doesn’t mean the majority is right.

When you compare darkness with the light of Christ, I would think that the Savior and Redeemer of the world and His sanctifying grace present after His glorious ascension into heaven would have some impact on the world…or else what we believe Who Christ is and all His greatness is not the same as Mormonism…where Christ failed to establish His priesthood and Church.

Christ did not fail us. He left us His church and His priesthood. He is both God and man.

 

[ParkerD]

To Lax16 and other thread participants:

Thanks for participating and for being kindhearted along the way. I have appreciated those qualities of this thread.

I have also appreciated being able to get the points across that I have thought were pertinent to the subject, so thanks! As far as I have been concerned, it has been a win-win conversation–not a waste of time for me at all. Have a great weekend.

 

[KathleenGee]

God bless you, Parker.

 

[pablope]

What historical or archeological evidence would prove the priesthood was removed? Is the priesthood something physical that it can be tracked by independent(non-Catholic) means or the annals of history?
We rely on the word of the Lord for confirmation.

That is not going to happen just like there is nothing you could bring forward to prove my beliefs are wrong.
We can only offer the reasons why we believe something, whether or not if convinces you is a different issue. You are free to agree or disagree as you like. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am just answering questions.

The LDS has the burden of proof for their claim, which you seem to be avoiding, because nothing tangible or concrete has been offered, which if there was, it would have been available by this time.

The priesthood is the physical presence of Christ’s ministry to his Church, so yes, it’s history is easy to track.

We rely on the word of the Lord for confirmation.

Again, the usual response for lack of evidence.

It really seems that the participants in this discussion want us to provide definitive proof that your own beliefs are wrong.

The LDS came here stating they are the true one, the CC is false, and other claims. So the burden of proof is on you to substantiate what the LDS claims-with definitive, incorruptible evidence. Why should it be less?

 

[Stephen168]

What historical or archeological evidence would prove the priesthood was removed? Is the priesthood something physical that it can be tracked by independent(non-Catholic) means or the annals of history?
We rely on the word of the Lord for confirmation.

It really seems that the participants in this discussion want us to provide definitive proof that your own beliefs are wrong. That is not going to happen just like there is nothing you could bring forward to prove my beliefs are wrong.
We can only offer the reasons why we believe something, whether or not if convinces you is a different issue. You are free to agree or disagree as you like. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am just answering questions.

Actually it is the opposite. We want you to prove the Mormon teaching that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth. Contrary to Parkers claim, and by the rules of logic, two things cannot be true at the same time. So, yes, if you can prove that Mormon teaching true, then logically it would show there is no authority in the Catholic Church.

Of course the same is true on the other side. If the Catholic Church can prove it still has the authority left to it by Christ then the teaching of the Mormon Church if false.

So far the only objective proof, offered by a Mormon, is Joseph Smith said it happened. The problem is that Oliver Cowdery, who was supposed to have been with Smith at the time, and Joseph Smith offered no objective proof. Without objective proof all we have is their stories, which don’t match.

On the Catholic side, we have the physical laying on of hands from Christ to the present without a break. You are correct in saying that you can not prove this fact wrong, because it is a fact.

You are also correct in claiming, we can not stop you from believing the story of Joseph Smith, but historically and rationally, it is just a story with no facts to back it up.

Of course the offer is still open to provide facts

 

[KathleenGee]

The ongoing problem I see in Mormonism is its inclination to form belief on feelings rather than contextual facts and verifiable history and its work in bringing forth the Oral Tradition…the means people have used in Salvation History…

Not glasses, or foreign Egyptian scrolls whose scrolls were finally de-coded—instructions on how to prepare a body for mummification…on and on…

 

[bjryman]

I suppose it would be non-productive to note that Jesus warned us according to the bible to be vigilent against others who would claim to be “the chosen” Also, throughout early church history, we the people…those that comprised the church communion, often disagreed rather vehemently about the what, how , and where of the "pathway to holiness’

Along the way, it was quite often whoever had the power, both religious and secular, that persectued the ones that disagreed. (Think Inquisition as just one example).

…and then of course, just about all Protestant demominations claim to “be with the Holy Spirit” who led them to reset the “proper way to follow Christ”.

I note all this because so often we Catholics speak as absolutists…that is state what we claim to be an absolute truth.

That creates a condition like the far left and far right secular USA government, or almost like non-violent extremism.

Do we really understand in our hearts and souls that the glue that holds our Church together is a faith that we profess in the Creed every Sunday?

Neither we nor any other religion can speak with absolute physical proof assurity…thus each of us can “cherry pick” each others beliefs.

I’m rather ambivalent to it all because I believe only two items are irrevocable 1. We are all sinners and Christ is our Salvation and 2. When we accept Christ as our Savior and receive the Holy Spirit we will yearn to change our lives and walk down our own “pathway to holiness”

 

[KathleenGee]

The earliest Christians referred to themselves as ‘saints’ until they realized Christ was not coming back in their lifetime…but that He is the God of all ages.

 

[ParkerD]

The ongoing problem I see in Mormonism is its inclination to form belief on feelings rather than contextual facts and verifiable history and its work in bringing forth the Oral Tradition…the means people have used in Salvation History…

Kathleen,

As usual, you have written about a core issue. Not trusting “feelings”, thus having no inclination toward discernment but instead looking for cold, hard “facts”.

That will be one of the tougher things to overcome during the early part of the Millennium, but with Christ’s help and the help of people finally hearing apostles’ testimonies and letting their hearts be softened of their own accord, no doubt even this basic distrust will be able to be overcome–I have no doubt about it! That will be a great day of rejoicing as that happens, one person at a time.

 

[JeanMichel]

Kathleen,

As usual, you have written about a core issue. Not trusting “feelings”, thus having no inclination toward discernment but instead looking for cold, hard “facts”.

That will be one of the tougher things to overcome during the early part of the Millennium, but with Christ’s help and the help of people finally hearing apostles’ testimonies and letting their hearts be softened of their own accord, no doubt even this basic distrust will be able to be overcome–I have no doubt about it! That will be a great day of rejoicing as that happens, one person at a time.

I am generally very concerned with this type of argument…not to trust one’s feelings. It is Christ that set up that we are blest when we follow the Holy Spirit when he asked Simon Barjona, Peter, who he thought he was. Peter responded the Christ. Jesus answered saying that he was blest because God told him who he was. How does God communicate to man? Is it as one man speaks to another? Sometimes as with Moses he does, but the vast majority of times he speaks to mankind through the Holy Spirit, which is a feeling.

I also find it disingenuous when we make fun of Mormons and their burning feeling in their bosom. Yet, Acts tells of the two who hearts burned within them when speaking to the Christ.

Let us not be foolish and criticize things that are in our own teachings and understandings. The problem with faith is that is has nothing to do with facts. Facts are about knowing and has nothing to do with faith. We live only by faith.

 

[Stephen168]

Feelings are irrational. The fact that I love my children is based on feelings. I can not explain it; it is without reason; so feelings can be good. I chose my wife based on reason, so the love I have for her is based on reason and feelings.

When someone puts their feelings above things that factual, and real that is when there are problems. When people ‘feel’ they can afford to buy something they factual can not, and then act on their feelings; they go bankrupt. I saw a documentary on cults, and every cult leader insisted people suspend reason and just go with their feelings. Feelings completely disconnected from reality can be a bad thing.

Mormons claim that the authority Christ gave to his Apostles was taken from the earth but there is no realty behind it. Because someone ‘feels’ like it was or ‘feels’ like Joseph Smith was telling the truth doesn’t make it so. Many people had ‘feelings’ Jim Jones was a prophet and all around good guy, and it cost them their lives.

As Catholics it would be nice to hear Mormons explore the facts of their claim instead of how they ‘feel’ about it.

 

[rainman10]

As Catholics it would be nice to hear Mormons explore the facts of their claim instead of how they ‘feel’ about it.

But they can’t do that, because then they would have face reality. That is the beauty of their belief in “feeling”. I feel it and that makes it true, no need to look any further. Feelings are facts??

 

[ParkerD]

But they can’t do that, because then they would have faced reality. That is the beauty of their belief in “feeling”. I feel it and that makes it true, no need to look any further. Feelings are facts??

You seem not to have read the thread here or much at all about Mormons. Mormons have “looked further”, and their testimony of what they live by lines up with no disconnect between:

(1) Biblical scripture–factual information given by God and His prophets and apostles, but the reading of which should be accompanied by seeking the Holy Spirit since they were written in a way to preserve free will choice, although showing how disobedience brings unhappiness.

(2) Living by the teachings–this and the Biblical scripture foundation are where the silly and meaningless points brought up about this or that charismatic leader who was able to lead people with neither knowledge of scripture nor with the practice of living by the teachings of scripture fall by the wayside as completely irrelevant. Yet the defense mechanism kicks in and those kinds of comparisons jump out so the person feels like they have justified their own rejection of clear and simple Biblical teachings (which can be noted here that JeanMichel understands so it is not so “out there” that no one can get what “burning in their bosom” means).

(3) Having leaders who live by the teachings and lead by example, and having teachers and everyday run-of-the-mill members who do that also, and having thousands of examples of people whose hearts “burn within them” with the testimony of Jesus Christ and of His saving grace and redemption.

(4) Receiving every day the blessings of having lived by the teachings, yielding lives filled with peace, meaning, rejoicing, understanding when adversities happen and thus the Lord continues to guide the process of sanctification through not having an “easy life” where everything goes right at every moment.

“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God…” (John 7:17) Jesus also affirmed, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” (v. 16)

(5) Only with those pillars in place, can someone find and receive a “burning in their bosom” that testifies to their soul that what they have read, have heard, have understood, and have lived are true, and then they are in a path where the Holy Ghost speaks to their heart with more knowledge and spiritual guidance to change their lives even more, and thus be on a path leading toward becoming more like Christ.

That’s what the Savior beckons people to do–to change their lives and be healed by Him in a path of change toward holiness. But He won’t be able to do that if their heart is hard–that was one of the clear, repeated messages of the Old Testament.

 

[SteveVH]

I am generally very concerned with this type of argument…not to trust one’s feelings. It is Christ that set up that we are blest when we follow the Holy Spirit when he asked Simon Barjona, Peter, who he thought he was. Peter responded the Christ. Jesus answered saying that he was blest because God told him who he was. How does God communicate to man? Is it as one man speaks to another? Sometimes as with Moses he does, but the vast majority of times he speaks to mankind through the Holy Spirit, which is a feeling.

I also find it disingenuous when we make fun of Mormons and their burning feeling in their bosom. Yet, Acts tells of the two who hearts burned within them when speaking to the Christ.

Let us not be foolish and criticize things that are in our own teachings and understandings. The problem with faith is that is has nothing to do with facts. Facts are about knowing and has nothing to do with faith. We live only by faith.

When Peter answered Jesus’ question “who do you say I am”, he gave a definitive answer
based upon a revealed truth from the Father.

I don’t find anyone “making fun” of Mormons and the burning in the bosom. We cannot help but have “feelings”, but our faith is not based upon feelings. Hopefully we will all feel good about our faith, but we also have a duty to inform our faith. God also gave us reason as a means to bring us to faith. He gives us trials to exercise that faith. Yes, we live by faith, but not by feelings. Feelings and emotions are fleeting. Faith, based upon an informed conscience, based upon wisdom, knowledge, understanding and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as irrefutable facts which are evident to all, is faith indeed. If our faith is based only upon feelings, then we have no greater standing than our neighbor who’s faith disagrees with ours.

When evidence is provided that refutes a claim against our faith and that evidence is ignored and answered with internal feelings which can neither be proven nor disproven,
meaningful conversation comes to a sudden halt. Feelings become a place of retreat, not evidence of truth. If faith is equivalent to feelings, we have nothing more on which to stand then does an atheist.