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

[Stephen168]

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??

Well, at least when it comes to the subject of this thread: **Mormons prove your claim that the authority Christ gave to his Apostles was taken from the earth. **

They wax poetic about many topics which they think are unique to Mormonism but they have not been able to answer the OP with anything more than ‘feelings’

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, Faith, Blind Faith. Leap of Faith or however one may chose to describe it still exists in all Christian Faith. But the entire basis of the Catholic/Orthodox Faith isn’t based on Blind Faith.

Here, we seem have the dilemma with the LDS. I can’t seem to understand how one can deem the Blind Faith in regards to Catholic/Orthodox with indifference, and raise the pure Blind Faith of the LDS to a higher standard of belief? Joe Smith? Thats the bottom line answer right? Come on seriously now.

How many adults actually convert to this from other areas of Christianity? Are there statistics on that?

I’m definately missing and not grasping something. Don’t how one can elevate the LDS to a point of belief and view the other as “not as significant” with 2000 years of history along with mystics confirmed miracles by God, Fatima, Zeitoun, Padre Pio and on and on. And go with Joe Smith? Its that rational?

 

[flyonthewall]

Well, Faith, Blind Faith. Leap of Faith or however one may chose to describe it still exists in all Christian Faith. But the entire basis of the Catholic/Orthodox Faith isn’t based on Blind Faith.

Here, we seem have the dilemma with the LDS. I can’t seem to understand how one can deem the Blind Faith in regards to Catholic/Orthodox with indifference, and raise the pure Blind Faith of the LDS to a higher standard of belief? Joe Smith? Thats the bottom line answer right? Come on seriously now.

How many adults actually convert to this from other areas of Christianity? Are there statistics on that?

I’m definately missing and not grasping something. Don’t how one can elevate the LDS to a point of belief and view the other as “not as significant” with 2000 years of history along with mystics confirmed miracles by God, Fatima, Zeitoun, Padre Pio and on and on. And go with Joe Smith? Its that rational?

I hear a lot of people talk about 2000 years of history. This is really not an argument that something is true…Something can be inaccurate for 2000 years which does not prove that it is correct.
The history of the Jews go back farther than Catholicism so it this were a valid argument you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
You might bring up that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and therefore Judahism is fulfilled. Do you think that holds sway with the Jews?

The Jews tried this type of argument with John the Baptist and his response was:
“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
They claim thousands of years of history and a geneological link to Abraham.
Likewise, your claim to history holds no sway. This is not proof of anything.

Then you claim that “Mystics” confirmed miracles from God? Perhaps I do not understand your use of the term “mystic”, but to me, they are on par with shamans and witch doctors, so maybe you should explain your use of the term.
All religions have claimed miracles from God. LDS history is full of miracles from God. We do not employ “Mystics” to prove that God performed a miracle. God needs no “mystics” to verify His works. This is not proof of anything.

It is said that God uses the weak things of the world to confound the wise.
Joseph Smith is indeed one of the weak things of the world.

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[ParkerD]

Well, at least when it comes to the subject of this thread: **Mormons prove your claim that the authority Christ gave to his Apostles was taken from the earth. **

They wax poetic about many topics which they think are unique to Mormonism but they have not been able to answer the OP with anything more than ‘feelings’

Stephen168,

Since Peter testified that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and did so because God had revealed this to him and not because flesh had revealed this to him, then the LDS are in quite good company when they testify by the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, because He has revealed that knowledge to them in the very same way that Peter received that knowledge. But it is not “physical proof”.

Satan challenged Christ to give to him and give to the world physical “proof” that He was the Son of God. He did that in two temptations that we read about in the New Testament. He challenged Him to change rocks to bread to satisfy His hunger, and to throw Himself down and let the angels rescue Him. (Satan even used a scripture to justify his challenge to Christ to let the angels rescue Him.)

Christ’s responses to these temptations ought to provide examples to us today about the need to not fall prey to the same logic that Satan used–the logic that challenged Christ to prove by outward, physical means that He was the Son of God and was therefore Immanuel, God with us.

So the LDS are simply not bothered by the kinds of challenges repeated over and over about “physical proof”–since they are merely right in line with the very old logic used by the one who is the deceiver, who even tried to use scripture to deceive.

 

[Monkey1976]

The problem is that the LDS are relying on the “feeling” that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when history directly contradicts him. Scripture calls us to test all things. If somebody comes along stating that all of Christian history is incorrect and the Church has been apostate since the death of the last Apostle, that’s a major claim that needs to be tested. To test the claim, we do two things: We pray about it (faith), and we look for historical support for such a claim (reason). If we THINK that this claim is confirmed by prayer, but documented history contradicts it, then it is an indication that we should not hold to that claim based only on THINKING it it is true. Our Lord created us with both faith and reason. It’s one thing to use faith to supplement reason, as we do when accepting the truth of Transubstantiation, but it’s something else entirely to use faith to the detriment of reason, as the LDS do when accepting the version of history put forth by Joseph Smith.

 

[Javl]

I hear a lot of people talk about 2000 years of history. This is really not an argument that something is true…Something can be inaccurate for 2000 years which does not prove that it is correct.
The history of the Jews go back farther than Catholicism so it this were a valid argument you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
You might bring up that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and therefore Judahism is fulfilled. Do you think that holds sway with the Jews?

I totaly disagree with you. 2000 years of written and fully documented history is an irrefutable argument. There are complete facts to prove its truthfullness, therefore we have more than a leg to stand on. Also, those Jews that followed the Pharisees are too involved with the Law to be swayed. Only the Good Lord can sway them.

The Jews tried this type of argument with John the Baptist and his response was:
“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
They claim thousands of years of history and a geneological link to Abraham.
Likewise, your claim to history holds no sway. This is not proof of anything.

Again, I repeat, we have documented and irrefutable proof. The onus is yours to prove otherwise.

Then you claim that “Mystics” confirmed miracles from God? Perhaps I do not understand your use of the term “mystic”, but to me, they are on par with shamans and witch doctors, so maybe you should explain your use of the term.
All religions have claimed miracles from God. LDS history is full of miracles from God. We do not employ “Mystics” to prove that God performed a miracle. God needs no “mystics” to verify His works. This is not proof of anything.

The term “mystic” is originally a religious term. It is used to designate a devout and holy person that has been chosen by God to witness His works and to give Glory to Him. We
Catholics have been especially blessed by the number of public miracles that have been given to us by God, not to mention all the private ones that have occured within the Church.

When God deigns to give, or perform, a public miracle, it is always through and with the Catholic Church. This prove that it is His Church and that it is still His Church and that it has not apostacized. The Catholic Church exists to give Him full Glory and Honor.

It is said that God uses the weak things of the world to confound the wise.
Joseph Smith is indeed one of the weak things of the world.

Truthfully, I know that God did not give us Joseph Smith, but I do know that Smith and you are weak in your arguments.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[flyonthewall]

I totaly disagree with you. 2000 years of written and fully documented history is an irrefutable argument. There are complete facts to prove its truthfullness, therefore we have more than a leg to stand on. Also, those Jews that followed the Pharisees are too involved with the Law to be swayed. Only the Good Lord can sway them.

Again, I repeat, we have documented and irrefutable proof. The onus is yours to prove otherwise.

You still speak of irrefutable proof, which I have seen none. The only documentation that you have is no better than the documentation we have, and it is based on where your faith lies if it is to be considered proof of anything.
We have it documented that Jesus Christ stated that His church was not to be found on the earth and Joseph Smith was to restore it. Does that sway you at all?
The very fact that Jesus Christ made that statement, and it is documented, tosses all your documentation and irrefutable proof out the window. I will believe the words of Jesus Christ over anything you can bring forward, as there are none more authoritative than He.

The term “mystic” is originally a religious term. It is used to designate a devout and holy person that has been chosen by God to witness His works and to give Glory to Him. We Catholics have been especially blessed by the number of public miracles that have been given to us by God, not to mention all the private ones that have occured within the Church.

When God deigns to give, or perform, a public miracle, it is always through and with the Catholic Church. This prove that it is His Church and that it is still His Church and that it has not apostacized. The Catholic Church exists to give Him full Glory and Honor.

So you make a difference between public and private miracles. I don’t see a difference, and no “mystic” is needed to give God glory. You either believe it is from God or you do not, and no amount of heraldry will change facts.
Again, the LDS church has many miracles in its history and we do not need a “mystic” to know who performed the miracles.

Truthfully, I know that God did not give us Joseph Smith, but I do know that Smith and you are weak in your arguments.

And I say again, it is the foolish things of the world that the Lord uses to confound the wise and the weak things of the world to confound the mighty.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am making good points when I read posts accusing me of making fun of Mormons and the issue about feelings.

The Road to Emmaus is not about burning in the bosom. How many times in Christianity are we warned in acknowledging God’s guidance to not follow our feelings…but instead to look at the will of God.

Yesterday I listened to Joyce Meier speaking in India through an interpreter. She moved away from her parents. Then they got ill. She had her ministry going. She could not imagine herself doing such a thing…caring for her parents when she had this ministry. Her first thought was, ‘Satan’ is trying to keep me from doing my ministry. But then she stopped looking at her feelings, and instead detached herself and sought God’s will. It was to take care of her parents.

So she did and she took great care of them. It is known her father had abused her as a young child. So when she cared for him, she did everything she could for him. Finally towards the end, he began sobbing. She asked why, and he told her he was sorry for how he had treated her. Then she asked if he wished to receive Jesus as His Savior, and he said yes.

She admonished her congregation not to follow one’s feelings but to always discern the will of God.

The Road to Emmaus happened after Christ;s resurrection, and was not recognized by those who knew him well…they went on a journey together.

The Road to Emmaus is the encounter with Christ who interprets the Word of God–Himself, – through dialogue – no great miracles or events. He explained everything to them.

Christ finished His encounter with the Word of God Made Flesh…teaching the Word through His active presence, and then finally, interpreting Himself as nourishment and the Bread of Life…

Breaking Bread at the end of the Road of Emmaus…after interpreting Scriptures with them in dialogue…now interpreting Himself to them as the Eucharist in the Breaking of Bread, one of the earliest names for the Mass.

The will of God is for us to discern that Jesus Himself is the Word of God just as Jesus Himself is the Eucharist.

It is not God’s will to follow unknown angels. Christ said that those who follow the will of the Father will enter heaven.

 

[SteveVH]

You still speak of irrefutable proof, which I have seen none. The only documentation that you have is no better than the documentation we have, and it is based on where your faith lies if it is to be considered proof of anything.
We have it documented that Jesus Christ stated that His church was not to be found on the earth and Joseph Smith was to restore it. Does that sway you at all?
The very fact that Jesus Christ made that statement, and it is documented, tosses all your documentation and irrefutable proof out the window. I will believe the words of Jesus Christ over anything you can bring forward, as there are none more authoritative than He.

Please show us where Christ stated that His church was not to be found on the earth and Joseph Smith was to restore it. Or was it Joseph Smith who said this about himself?

So you make a difference between public and private miracles. I don’t see a difference, and no “mystic” is needed to give God glory. You either believe it is from God or you do not, and no amount of heraldry will change facts.
Again, the LDS church has many miracles in its history and we do not need a “mystic” to know who performed the miracles.

You should not speak of the Christian Mystics as it is evident you know absolutely nothing of which you speak. The term “mystic” is a reference to a type of prayer and relationship with God that goes completely beyond the intellect. These Saints are joined in a divine embrace with God that is beyond human understanding. St. Francis of Assisi was a mystic and became so Christ-like, in every way, that he was crucified by an angel and suffered with the wounds of Christ until his death. He could not even walk after this “mystical” experience. He was found on more than one occasion levitating in the air, surrounded by light. You could also read about St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila or more recently St. Padre Pio, who also suffered with the stigmata. Check them out, Fly. The Church is still uncovering the depths of their writings and the meaning of their lives. But please do not, for your own good, speak of them as you have above. They attained a level of holiness you cannot conceive.

 

[flyonthewall]

Please show us where Christ stated that His church was not to be found on the earth and Joseph Smith was to restore it. Or was it Joseph Smith who said this about himself?

I see you are skeptical of the documentation I provide. Tell me, why should I look at your documentation as any more authoritive than ours?

You should not speak of the Christian Mystics as it is evident you know absolutely nothing of which you speak. The term “mystic” is a reference to a type of prayer and relationship with God that goes completely beyond the intellect. These Saints are joined in a divine embrace with God that is beyond human understanding. St. Francis of Assisi was a mystic and became so Christ-like, in every way, that he was crucified by an angel and suffered with the wounds of Christ until his death. He could not even walk after this “mystical” experience. He was found on more than one occasion levitating in the air, surrounded by light. You could also read about St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila or more recently St. Padre Pio, who also suffered with the stigmata. Check them out, Fly. The Church is still uncovering the depths of their writings and the meaning of their lives. But please do not, for your own good, speak of them as you have above. They attained a level of holiness you cannot conceive.

I won’t say another word about them, but I will say that I can conceive of greater levels of holiness than you are aware of.

 

[ParkerD]

I am making good points when I read posts accusing me of making fun of Mormons and the issue about feelings.

The Road to Emmaus is not about burning in the bosom. How many times in Christianity are we warned in acknowledging God’s guidance to not follow our feelings…but instead to look at the will of God…

It is not God’s will to follow unknown angels. Christ said that those who follow the will of the Father will enter heaven.

Kathleen,

I haven’t thought of you of “making fun of Mormons”, at all–but only of showing that you don’t understand a simple Biblical concept. Because you have been taught “the Road to Emmaus is not about burning in the bosom”, then you have evidently chosen to believe what you have been taught. But that concept is squarely found in Luke 24, without the slightest question about it.

Christianity is not “warned in acknowledging God’s guidance to not follow our feelings”–you may have been taught that, but it is not a sound Biblical teaching when all the scriptures on the subject are placed side by side.

An “unknown (unnamed in the Bible) angel” was prophesied to come to the earth with a special message and a special purpose from God. You can find the prophecy about this unknown angel in Revelation 14:6, and another in Revelation 14:8. To say that “it is not God’s will to follow unknown angels” means again that you are following what you have been taught, but that you have been taught a concept that is contrary to plain Biblical prophecy.

Your final sentence, however, is correct and is sound Biblical doctrine. The LDS are certainly comfortable with that teaching, and know that it is of God.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,

Since Peter testified that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and did so because God had revealed this to him and not because flesh had revealed this to him, then the LDS are in quite good company when they testify by the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, because He has revealed that knowledge to them in the very same way that Peter received that knowledge. But it is not “physical proof”.

Satan challenged Christ to give to him and give to the world physical “proof” that He was the Son of God. He did that in two temptations that we read about in the New Testament. He challenged Him to change rocks to bread to satisfy His hunger, and to throw Himself down and let the angels rescue Him. (Satan even used a scripture to justify his challenge to Christ to let the angels rescue Him.)

Christ’s responses to these temptations ought to provide examples to us today about the need to not fall prey to the same logic that Satan used–the logic that challenged Christ to prove by outward, physical means that He was the Son of God and was therefore Immanuel, God with us.

So the LDS are simply not bothered by the kinds of challenges repeated over and over about “physical proof”–since they are merely right in line with the very old logic used by the one who is the deceiver, who even tried to use scripture to deceive.

This is an excuse why there’s no proof.

 

[Stephen168]

We have it documented that Jesus Christ stated that His church was not to be found on the earth and Joseph Smith was to restore it.

Here is a claim there is proof, but no proof

 

[Stephen168]

I see you are skeptical of the documentation I provide.

Here is an accusation of not accepting proof that was never provided.

 

[ParkerD]

This is an excuse why there’s no proof.

Stephen,

If you didn’t catch the drift, it is saying that just as the devil tempted Christ to “prove” that He was the Son of God, and that Jesus didn’t follow the devil and didn’t “prove” that He was the Son of God, I don’t need to “prove” to you that modern apostles hold the authority of Christ as given to the ancient apostles, using the kind of “proof” you have asked for. It is not an excuse. It is to follow Christ’s example, and to understand His example.

What could be plainer than this example that the “proof” desired by the world is not the kind of “proof” taught by Christ as what should be sought? To want the world’s kind of proof is to want what Satan tempted Christ to do. That is not something I would hang my hat on as a desirable quality for religious beliefs, as it is contrary to His example.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Glad you did not take offense, I didn’t think you did.

Looking again at Luke 24, I don’t follow what you are getting at. There is much meaning to the entire event, considering the timing…must have been so electrifying to the populace…and the just rose from the dead on the day of the crucifixion and appeared to various people…the temple veil torn…

I see Jesus as the One who is the true interpreter of the Word of God, the author, and the true minister of the Eucharist.

Upon receiving my First Holy Communion, and my little sister seeing me in white with a veil, exclaimed I was Christ’s bride…and when at the moment of my reception, I felt my whole inner being burning as if it was being scrubbed clean to become pure in Him, that my inner sanctuary was now worthy to hold Him.

I mentioned before about my 4 year old son and our visit to the Madeline in SLC, and the elderly priest thinking he had already had his First Communion…Michael receiving the Lord, I looking back at him…his eyes enlarged…such power! he said. He really felt something. His feeling was a response to the Divine and Most Pure Presence of the Divine Lord.

My child had not been given much instruction yet on the Eucharist. He was very sick as an infant. One night he was having a hard time breathing, got up at 14 months old, wobbled to my rosary and brought it back to me, ‘Pray, Mommy!’

 

[SteveVH]

I see you are skeptical of the documentation I provide. Tell me, why should I look at your documentation as any more authoritive than ours?

You made the statement, not I. I asked you to back it up. Your response, however, is just what I expected.

I won’t say another word about them, but I will say that I can conceive of greater levels of holiness than you are aware of.

Yes, I’m sure you can, Fly. But neither you nor I can conceive of this level of divine intimacy which is beyond the senses and beyond the power of the intellect. I would encourage you to read about any of them. Read about the life of Padre Pio, who just died in the 60’s. The wounds of Christ he bore were verified as authentic by physicians outside of the Catholic Church, as well as the miracles he performed both during and after his life here on earth. The witnesses to his sacred life and miracles are almost countless. Why don’t you give it a try? It couldn’t hurt.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

I just read Rev 14: 6-8.

Repeating the exhortation of John Paul II, we acknowledge only the angels of Sacred Scripture. It is the unknown angel…and I would be dubious about those giving us a different story…that is the big issue…

 

[SteveVH]

Parker,

Glad you did not take offense, I didn’t think you did.

Looking again at Luke 24, I don’t follow what you are getting at. There is much meaning to the entire event, considering the timing…must have been so electrifying to the populace…and the just rose from the dead on the day of the crucifixion and appeared to various people…the temple veil torn…

I see Jesus as the One who is the true interpreter of the Word of God, the author, and the true minister of the Eucharist.

Upon receiving my First Holy Communion, and my little sister seeing me in white with a veil, exclaimed I was Christ’s bride…and when at the moment of my reception, I felt my whole inner being burning as if it was being scrubbed clean to become pure in Him, that my inner sanctuary was now worthy to hold Him.

I mentioned before about my 4 year old son and our visit to the Madeline in SLC, and the elderly priest thinking he had already had his First Communion…Michael receiving the Lord, I looking back at him…his eyes enlarged…such power! he said. He really felt something. His feeling was a response to the Divine and Most Pure Presence of the Divine Lord.

My child had not been given much instruction yet on the Eucharist. He was very sick as an infant. One night he was having a hard time breathing, got up at 14 months old, wobbled to my rosary and brought it back to me, ‘Pray, Mommy!’

Kathleen,

Thank you for sharing this about your son. How moving.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,

If you didn’t catch the drift, it is saying that just as the devil tempted Christ to “prove” that He was the Son of God, and that Jesus didn’t follow the devil and didn’t “prove” that He was the Son of God, I don’t need to “prove” to you that modern apostles hold the authority of Christ as given to the ancient apostles, using the kind of “proof” you have asked for. It is not an excuse. It is to follow Christ’s example, and to understand His example.

What could be plainer than this example that the “proof” desired by the world is not the kind of “proof” taught by Christ as what should be sought? To want the world’s kind of proof is to want what Satan tempted Christ to do. That is not something I would hang my hat on as a desirable quality for religious beliefs, as it is contrary to His example.

I got the drift. You are comparing yourself to our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified, died, buried, and rose again. A cult leader could make any claim and then use Matthew 4:7 to claim they don’t have to prove it. Demand you suspend reason and rely only on your faith in him.

But I personally, think you are a regular guy making an excuse.

Just to review: Mormons are not being asked to prove your apostles hold authority. Mormon history proves they don’t. You are being asked to prove the authority Christ gave his Apostles was taken from the earth.