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

[lax16]

Hi Parker - Fly - BYU -

One argument that does not seem to make sense regarding the priesthood authority being taken away after the death of the last apostle:

It seems that you are asserting that the apostles behaved as if they were going to live forever or that Jesus/they didn’t plan for who would take over after they died.

What is your response - certainly death is unavoidable and the apostles had to know that they had a good chance of being martyrd…so why wouldn’t they pass the baton?

 

[lax16]

Also:

How do the LDS select a new prophet/president?

What exactly is the procedure?

(I’ve tried to find the info but was unsuccessful)

Thanks!

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - Fly - BYU -

One argument that does not seem to make sense regarding the priesthood authority being taken away after the death of the last apostle:

It seems that you are asserting that the apostles behaved as if they were going to live forever or that Jesus/they didn’t plan for who would take over after they died.

What is your response - certainly death is unavoidable and the apostles had to know that they had a good chance of being martyrd…so why wouldn’t they pass the baton?

Hi, Lax16,

If you look at Matthew 21:38 and 43, then look at Titus 1:10, then perhaps (just perhaps) you might be able to see that Christ was giving a prophecy in Matthew 21:38 and 43, that was starting to be fulfilled as shown in Titus 1:10, and as most assuredly shown in the posts that you and JAVL have posted about the Jewish beliefs about God being the foundation of your beliefs. The prophecy was not only that He Himself was going to be killed, (and He was the Heir Son), but also that the perpetrators were gong to “seize on His inheritance”–His inheritance being what the gospel was given to establish on the earth, a society of peace and forgiveness and love. Thus He prophesied also that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–which means the Jews were going to not have the leadership role (which the tribe of Judah had up until the time of Christ), after His death and after the perpetrators had “seized on His inheritance”. This was an unfolding process, not a one-day-to-the-next process.

So again, Paul, Barnabas, and James the brother of Jesus were named and ordained as apostles who were part of the ongoing church and showed the pattern that would have been followed had not “they of the circumcision” seized on the inheritance, changed the ordinances, brought about a change in expectation about the leadership of bishops versus the leadership of apostles, and changed expectations about each member receiving the personal guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost–instead the leaders being able to do exactly as your post about the word “Christian” showed: not looking at the word as shown in the context of its origin, but looking at it from the context of those who had “seized the inheritance” and had changed the meaning.

Then, as I have noted to you before, John, the last surviving apostle, was told in vision that the church was being taken into the wilderness, and that there would be a restoration later through an unnamed angel but a known and seen angel who would come from the presence of God to the earth with a message to them dwelling on earth. So the Holy Ghost was inspiring the apostles to give their best efforts to teach the members and lead them, but at that point of his vision he was being told why they were not receiving inspiration about replacing apostles as one died or was killed. (They had earlier done so with Paul, Barnabas, and James, but later in time, the inspiration to do so did not come–they did not force that there be apostles anyway. They followed the inspiration that said not to ordain new apostles at that later point in time.

Have a good day.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi Parker - Fly - BYU -
One argument that does not seem to make sense regarding the priesthood authority being taken away after the death of the last apostle:

It seems that you are asserting that the apostles behaved as if they were going to live forever or that Jesus/they didn’t plan for who would take over after they died.

What is your response - certainly death is unavoidable and the apostles had to know that they had a good chance of being martyrd…so why wouldn’t they pass the baton?

Or maybe they thought that the apostasy was underway as foretold, or that the 2nd coming was eminent. I can only speculate, as I do not know the why’s or wherefor’s, only that it happened.

 

[flyonthewall]

How do square that with this teaching from President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church? He said, "As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off" (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213).

If that is true for the LDS church, why would it not be true for the Catholic Church? If Titus, Timothy and others were given the priesthood by Paul and other apostles, then why could they not "organize the church even though all of the apostles… were killed off"???

I’m just sayin’.

Paul

Since I do not have a copy of that book, could you provide the context of this snippet or a link to the rest of what was stated?
What is said before and/or after?

 

[flyonthewall]

Also:

How do the LDS select a new prophet/president?

What exactly is the procedure?

(I’ve tried to find the info but was unsuccessful)

Thanks!

“Upon the death of the President, the Quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the ultimate authority of the Church passes immediately to the Twelve, with the presiding officer being the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The counselors, if they are apostles, return to their respective positions in that quorum according to seniority of appointment. The First Presidency is reconstituted at the calling of a new President, who in every instance has been the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and then he selects his own counselors. Once this is accomplished, supreme authority returns to the First Presidency.”

 

[Denise1957]

Our priest gave a catechism class in which he taught some of the things about the Church which may be of impotance to this thread. Apologies if some of this material has already be mentioned. It is simply Catholic teaching, and none of it is my own making, or opinion. I hope that I’m conferring accurately what this excellent preist taught, since the following is from the notes I took, and I’m paraphrasing a bit. Here it is:

The Bible can be interpreted in a thousand different ways. People such as Luther, Wesley - their denominations are based on the perspectives of these men, whereas Catholic Church teaching is based on Christ. The same authority at the time of Christ is the same authority as now.

Apostolicity - Church must be apostolic in its structure, which is the final main mark of the Church, and has its basis on Church’s visibility. We have to see that authority of those who are in authority. Unity in the Church is based on unity of Church government, which must be, and is, outwardly and visibly apostolic.

Without authority the Church falls apart and collapses. Christ told the Apostles to go out and teach, and gave it specific to the Apostles. They established local churches, and established successors. It was given to the apostles to spread the faith. Authority regulates that truth is being passed on. Christ established a heirarchy because it ensures the integrity of transmission if the faith. This caused the Church to grow and spread.

St. Paul’s letter to Timothy: St. Paul is writing to the successor of the Apostles and is saying to be careful about who you impose hands on. Why? Because it’s a sacrament. Church is spread by command of bishops. Church must be apostolic in its teaching. Doctrine doesn’t change because it may (in the future) be better explained…such as ‘transubstantiation,’ which is not in scripture, but explains what happens when Christ said…“This is my body,” in relation to the Eucharist. What the Church teaches comes from the Apostles.

To be continued…

 

[Denise1957]

Notes from catechism class, continued…

Christ established the Church. What was the Church established for? To fulfill His purpose until the end of time. Christ set it up with a particular constitution, so as to apply the fruits of crucifixion and redemption until the end of time. In every deviation from the Church (protest or others) there will be a deviation from the sacraments. The sacraments are given to the Church, which has the right to regulate and administer their use. If sacraments are used outside the Church, then it is a violation of God’s rights.

The four identifying ‘Marks’ of the Church: mark, or ‘nota,’ meaning how something is known, is translated into ‘marks.’ Apostles are commissioned to teach, govern, and sanctify. Christ established Church with unequal heirarchy - those who rule, and those who are to be ruled. The commission to teach, govern, and sanctify must be carried out in the same way, always.

How do we know the successors come from Christ? One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic is not in scripture, but the Church has the power to identify what it is. The Church is visible, therefore the four signs must be visible. Christ will equip His Church with marks so that we will know. The Church constantly works with how men are put together, and established Church in mode of human nature. (The Church) must provide visible signs of what it (the Church) is, how one is a part of it, and how grace is conferred - identification, membership, and conference of grace.

First - the Church must be One: unity, but with something specific to what Christ said there must be one doctrine.

Again, there must be visible identification, visible membership, visible conference of grace.

What did Christ do? He bequeaths upon the Apostles the deposit of faith, which is the sum total of the teaching of Our Lord. The whole package must be passed on from pope to pope, from generation to generation, given by God to complete its mission, and it must bespeak unity if it is to be passed on. Deposit of faith is still there, even if it is passed on in weak manner. Deposit of faith can be further clarified or explained, but it has to be one. Protestant sects do not have unity because they do not have same deposit of faith. Unity of deposit of faith must be there. First, unity of teaching, then comes unity of government. Byzantine rite (for example) is different, but still valid because it has the same teaching. Unity is preserved through unity of government (church government).

The Church has supernatural guarantee since Chirst said the gates of Hell will not prevail.

To be continued…

 

[Denise1957]

Notes from catechism class, continued:

Catholocity means universality. Christ said to go and teach all nations until the end of time. Universality must apply to all nations at all times, since Christ died for all men. Church must be universal and apply to all people, and be extended to all people.

We can’t look at Church without looking at thread of authority. If you pull out the thread of authority, then the Church disintegrates. The Church embraces all peoples, races, classes - miraculous unity and universality. The Church must be from God, despite bad popes, bishops, laity, or scandal. Personal holiness of priest not a factor in validity of mass, sacraments.

Visible spread of Church throughout time is a visible mark. Holiness must be visible, too. Doctrines are visible signs of holiness, and there must be means to become holy. He (God) has to equip the Church with means of holiness. Visible proofs such as miracles show that god approves it. Church also teaches very high morality. What we believe is how we are going to live. Actions of members will be taken into account.

Doctrine of Church is most elevated and most high. We’re all bound under the same commandments; the same moral commandments. Vocations are a matter of precept, and not commandment.

Christ was too holy for some, and too human for others. The first visible means of holiness are the sacraments: a visible sign - we need to see visible means of grace.

To be continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, Lax16,

If you look at Matthew 21:38 and 43, then look at Titus 1:10, then perhaps (just perhaps) you might be able to see that Christ was giving a prophecy in Matthew 21:38 and 43, that was starting to be fulfilled as shown in Titus 1:10, and as most assuredly shown in the posts that you and JAVL have posted about the Jewish beliefs about God being the foundation of your beliefs. The prophecy was not only that He Himself was going to be killed, (and He was the Heir Son), but also that the perpetrators were gong to “seize on His inheritance”–His inheritance being what the gospel was given to establish on the earth, a society of peace and forgiveness and love. Thus He prophesied also that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–which means the Jews were going to not have the leadership role (which the tribe of Judah had up until the time of Christ), after His death and after the perpetrators had “seized on His inheritance”. This was an unfolding process, not a one-day-to-the-next process.

So again, Paul, Barnabas, and James the brother of Jesus were named and ordained as apostles who were part of the ongoing church and showed the pattern that would have been followed had not “they of the circumcision” seized on the inheritance, changed the ordinances, brought about a change in expectation about the leadership of bishops versus the leadership of apostles, and changed expectations about each member receiving the personal guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost–instead the leaders being able to do exactly as your post about the word “Christian” showed: not looking at the word as shown in the context of its origin, but looking at it from the context of those who had “seized the inheritance” and had changed the meaning.

Then, as I have noted to you before, John, the last surviving apostle, was told in vision that the church was being taken into the wilderness, and that there would be a restoration later through an unnamed angel but a known and seen angel who would come from the presence of God to the earth with a message to them dwelling on earth. So the Holy Ghost was inspiring the apostles to give their best efforts to teach the members and lead them, but at that point of his vision he was being told why they were not receiving inspiration about replacing apostles as one died or was killed. (They had earlier done so with Paul, Barnabas, and James, but later in time, the inspiration to do so did not come–they did not force that there be apostles anyway. They followed the inspiration that said not to ordain new apostles at that later point in time.

Have a good day.

The entire premise of this thread, the claim that “priesthood authority” suddenly left the Church, and therefore the earth, upon the death of the last Apostle, ignores the fact that the Church is not a human organization. Rather, it is Christ’s own Church, the Church established and founded by God Himself. This point has been brought up and ignored as if it is some tired argument. It is all important, however, as Jesus made promises concerning His Church that fly in the face of the Mormon claim. It has been said by Mormon posters that the Holy Spirit instructed the Apostles to withhold the authority necessary for the Church to continue. Yet Christ promised that He would never leave His Church, that He would remain with it until the end of time; He would not leave it orphaned. So the Mormon proposition necessarily requires that we believe there was a conflict between Christ and the Holy Spirit. A house divided… We are to believe that God Himself brought destruction upon His own Church almost immediately after it was founded.

It is easy to get caught in arguments based upon nothing more than speculation, manipulated definitions, confused theology, and a wrong headed approach to interpretation of Scripture. Folks, stand back, take a look at the big picture here in light of what we do know, in light of what Christ promised. Jesus established His Church in order to extend the Kingdom of God, the new and everlasting covenant, to the ends of the earth. Why would anyone suppose that He would allow, much less cause, the destruction of HIS OWN CHURCH. And then ask yourself why anyone would even propose such a thing. What motivations are behind such a notion?

 

[Denise1957]

Notes from catechism class, continued:

Christ gave specific signs by means of holiness (or how holiness is to be gained): love is to be increasing in soul. All sacraments are instituted to increase grace in the soul. Why the Eucharist? To increase grace in the soul, which God wills. The means to holiness is regulated and given to the authority of the Church. Only the Church has the right to regulate use of sacraments.

Look at the examples of the saints. The saints use the means of sanctification to obtain holiness - and are validated by the miracles associated with them. Why are miracles important to validate a saint? It shows that God validates the intercession and shows that the person (saint) is in Heaven. A saint is a finished product of God’s work.

What about miracles that take place outside of the Catholic Church? Miracles validate truth, and the miracle is depositive toward the Church. The miracle validates the truth of God’s existence and is working toward the true faith. The Church believes that miracles have to be investigated, and most miracles happen in the Catholic Church, rather than outside. One hundred thousand people saw the miracle at Fatima - not all of them Catholic - but shows how it is depositive toward the Church - and Our Lady.

 

[SteveVH]

Or maybe they thought that the apostasy was underway as foretold, or that the 2nd coming was eminent. I can only speculate, as I do not know the why’s or wherefor’s, only that it happened.

Could there be a more perfect example of approaching Scripture with a preconceived notion? Joseph Smith came up with a story, began with the end, and then wrote backwards.

 

[lax16]

“Upon the death of the President, the Quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the ultimate authority of the Church passes immediately to the Twelve, with the presiding officer being the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The counselors, if they are apostles, return to their respective positions in that quorum according to seniority of appointment. The First Presidency is reconstituted at the calling of a new President, who in every instance has been the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and then he selects his own counselors. Once this is accomplished, supreme authority returns to the First Presidency.”

Hi Fly - So when a prophet dies, he is then replaced by a member of the Twelve Apostles, usually the President, and he has supreme authority?

The prophet has the ultimate authority in matters or is there a vote on matters of the church?
Why does the presidency automatically go to the most senior member?

Is there a religious ceremony that takes place when installing a new prophet?

Is the Holy Spirit involved in the selection process?

How are the apostles selected?

Please feel free to provide a link. I looked for quite a while and couldn’t find any church sources on this. Thanks!

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Fly - So when a prophet dies, he is then replaced by a member of the Twelve Apostles, usually the President, and he has supreme authority?

The prophet has the ultimate authority in matters or is there a vote on matters of the church?
Why does the presidency automatically go to the most senior member?

Is there a religious ceremony that takes place when installing a new prophet?

Is the Holy Spirit involved in the selection process?

How are the apostles selected?

Please feel free to provide a link. I looked for quite a while and couldn’t find any church sources on this. Thanks!

Lax16,

Good morning and I hope you are having a wonderful day,

Since I had a few minutes this morning I found a talk by a Canadian brother who became a member of the LDS First Presidency after having been an apostle for many years and was a businessman and civic leader in Canada before his call as an apostle (Nathan Eldon Tanner was his name):

lds.org/ensign/1974/05/chosen-of-the-lord?lang=eng

I think it pretty much answers your questions.

Here is another that adds insight into the calling and special witness responsibility of apostles:

lds.org/liahona/2001/09/and-he-gave-some-apostles?lang=eng

Have a splendid day. ('Hope it’s as lovely as yesterday was.)

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi Fly - So when a prophet dies, he is then replaced by a member of the Twelve Apostles, usually the President, and he has supreme authority?

The prophet has the ultimate authority in matters or is there a vote on matters of the church?
Why does the presidency automatically go to the most senior member?

Is there a religious ceremony that takes place when installing a new prophet?

Is the Holy Spirit involved in the selection process?

How are the apostles selected?

Please feel free to provide a link. I looked for quite a while and couldn’t find any church sources on this. Thanks!

Here is a link to an article that goes over the process. It also gives a history of how the process came to be.
lds.org/ensign/1996/08/the-kingdom-of-god-will-roll-on-succession-in-the-presidency?lang=eng

There is no religious ceremony other than the ordination to the office.
The Holy Spirit is invovled in every aspect of the leadership of the church.

The calling to be an apostle is done throught fasting and prayer. They are called through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Peter_John]

Lax16,

The “Owner of the very nice car” said He could and should be asked about the use of His keys to His car. He loves all, but has a plan that includes needing to ask, because of free will and choice that is very important to Him.

One can ask Him, and be specific in their questions, and be guided to know the answers to their questions, including those such as the ones you have asked.
.

I have selected these quotes, but the entire analogy does not suit LDS doctrine regarding the execution of Priesthood authority.

LDS Doctrine is that the Prophet, or in lack of one the Council of Twelve, hold themselves the keys of authority that “what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” Therefore, they do not have to ask before passing on the car keys, the Owner has in advance approved whomever they choose to give the keys to or take them away from.:tsktsk:

This is the justification used in acknowledging Priesthood authority even if the person recognizing it is secretly not worthy. For example, the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) affirms, when it discusses the oath and covenant of the Priesthood that when a man exercises any degree of unrighteousness “Amen to the priesthood, or authority of that man.” This is not interpreted to invalidate what this individual does acting in his Priesthood calling, if he happens to be concealing an excommunicable sin.:newidea:
For example, fathers concealing past or current adulterous acts have baptized their children. Later when repentance settles in more, and such men confess to the Bishop, and later the Stake High Council, they have been excommunicated. Even then, when it is established that they were not worthy priesthood holders at the time of the baptism, that baptism is still recognized as valid. The fact that the father performed the ordinance (what we Catholics call a sacrament) in a state of unworthiness (a sin we Catholics call sacrilege) does not invalidate the ordinance. It heaps greater sin upon the head of the one performing it unworthily.:banghead:

So, does Jesus have a double standard? Why would He tell people in his time to respect Pharisaic authority even if they were unworthy as individuals, tell people in our time to respect LDS Priesthood authority even if those exercising it are unworthy as individuals, yet in between disavow all authority because those exercising it were unworthy?:slapfight:

That is the real question on which the issue of what Mormons call the Great Apostasy rests. Does Jesus have a double standard regarding those to whom the Apostles he called personally transferred authority?:juggle:

 

[Peter_John]

Here is a link to an article that goes over the process. It also gives a history of how the process came to be.
lds.org/ensign/1996/08/the-kingdom-of-god-will-roll-on-succession-in-the-presidency?lang=eng

There is no religious ceremony other than the ordination to the office.
The Holy Spirit is invovled in every aspect of the leadership of the church.

The calling to be an apostle is done throught fasting and prayer. They are called through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I am a little confused. If this is the process for replacing the President of the Church, why was it not established by revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants when Joseph Smith, Jr. was murdered?

As I recall the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) designated various successors to Joseph Smith by revelation (among them Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon) who were subsequently replaced in disputes. According to the (D&C) God’s designated successor to Joseph Smith at the time of his murder was his brother Hyrum. Did God not know Hyrum would be killed first in the same attack?

That is not just a flippant question. The President of the Quorum of the Twelve is usually the next President of the Church because he is usually the senior member. The actual standard is that sneior Apostle, defined by length of service in the office, not by age, is ALWAYS the successor. Sometimes that person sits on the First Presidency and an acting President of the Quorum is seated.

The justification for this is that God controls life and death. By determining when the President of the Church dies God also has decided which Apostle is in the position to take over – except that is inconsistent with the idea that God would designate Hyrum Smith as Joseph Smith’s successor, and have Hyrum killed first.

Regarding the beginning of the mantle of authority falling on the Quorum of the Twelve, this was by no means a unanimous decision of all Church members. There was a significant multiple schism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints following the mob execution of Joseph Smith. Many members went on to follow Sidney Rigdon, many subscribed to a belief that the prophet had to be a descendant of Joseph Smith.

The largest of the other groups still exists today and is called “The Community of Christ” (formerly “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”). It owns the copyright on Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Bible, which is why only selections of it are in the LDS King James edition. It also has a differing edition of the D & C, including revelations Joseph Smith received that the Salt Lake church leaves out. I have never examined it enough to see if it leaves anything out that Salt lake excepts.

None of these groups followed the clearly defined succession of authority described in the D&C at the time of Joseph Smith’s death, because that said Hyrum would lead next. In the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all of the other groups descending from this schism, the voice of the people determined whome they would follow. The majority of Joseph Smith’s followers at the time he died chose to follow the Quorum of Twelve, so it has become generally recognized as the valid successor.

The important thing here is that Mormonism recognizes the majority voice of the body of believers as a valid determinant in succession of authority. This is significant when applied to the division of the Eastern churches from Rome. The difference is that we still consider Eastern churches in full communion, and vice-versa. A member of The Community of Christ cannot get a temple recommend from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or partake of the Sacrament (Communion/Eucharist)

The Eucharist is the most sacred thing Catholicism has to offer – and truly the most miraculous religious offering on Earth. Nothing can be more sacred than the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in our midst. Despite the fact that our belief about it is mocked we display our celbration of it before the whole world. We do not require an accounting of how much money we give the Church to share the most sacred “ordinance” God has given man. We have not denied it to anyone based on race, national origin, or geographic origin of their ancestors.

Any Catholic, Eastern or Roman, can share in the Eucharist in any other Catholic Church, so despite the huge numbers involved in the split between Rome and Constantinople, it is less a split among our communion than the split that exists among LDS believers.

The latter point digresses a bit, but is integral to the overall theme. The article you provided really just shows that the basis for authority is what a conference voted it to be in 1844, perceived divine sign or not. It is also only what the largest deivision of Joseph Smith’s followers chose. The Community of Christ has its own reasons for disavowing the decision to follow the Quorum of the Twelve, and they base that in the very divine revelation that you claim validates the Salt Lake sect.

So which is it? Does the continuation of LDS Priesthood leadership go by specified revelation of God, or by the vote of the members? The article you provided said that it is by the vote of the members.

 

[KathleenGee]

The problem is that the Mormons do not consider any thing of Christianity as truthful and righteous.

But in particular, Catholicism sees Christ Himself as the Light to the world. So if people continued to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior, essentially, the Lord was continuing in His mission after the death of the Apostles to be Light to the world in everlasting glory.

On the Road to Emmaus, the companions of Christ did not open their eyes. In Mormonism, Joseph Smith had to put on glasses or spectacles to understand. But as what happened to the companions, it was Christ Himself Who opened their eyes and gave them understanding.

Christ’s presence produces faith and provides grace for man to open his eyes to Him. And Christ left them, suddenly disappearing after showing them His divine presence in ministering to them His sacramental Bread, the Eucharist. He had dialogued with His companions, interpreting them the Scriptures, and giving them understanding as well. One could say that the Lord had His Mass in the encounter at Emmaus, and that His visible human presence was no longer needed on earth…Luke 24:30-35.

Subsequently, one could partake of paradise—Christ Himself present in the Word and Eucharist from now on…at the Mass…the Lord fulfilling the Manna of Heaven, the Tree of Life.

It all happened 2,000 years ago…and Jesus came because before Him, the people of the world walked in darkness. But now His mission completed here on earth, He left His followers and believers His presence in Word and Eucharist, through which we partake of the Banquet of Heaven…the perfect sacrifice with no end.

Christ Himself is the Light of the world, the Light that never goes out.

 

[ParkerD]

I have selected these quotes, but the entire analogy does not suit LDS doctrine regarding the execution of Priesthood authority.

Peter John,

Hello and goodwill to you,

For the benefit of ease in reading continuity, here again is the part of the simple analogy example I had posted that you replied to:

"The “Owner of the very nice car” said He could and should be asked about the use of His keys to His car. He loves all, but has a plan that includes needing to ask, because of free will and choice that is very important to Him.

One can ask Him, and be specific in their questions, and be guided to know the answers to their questions, including those such as the ones you have asked."

Now, my responses will be fairly complex since this becomes a complex subject in its level of detail that you have written about.

LDS Doctrine is that the Prophet, or in lack of one the Council of Twelve, hold themselves the keys of authority that “what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” Therefore, they do not have to ask before passing on the car keys, the Owner has in advance approved whomever they choose to give the keys to or take them away from.

First, one needs to differentiate between being a holder of the priesthood and being one who holds all the keys of the priesthood. The apostles hold all the keys of the priesthood, and they certainly do not have “advance approval” that “whomever they choose to give the keys to or take them away from” was given to each of them by the Owner before they act.

They are specifically directed to act only when and as the Holy Spirit directs them to act. If they have an impression not to take action in a matter regarding the keys, then they are specifically directed not to take action–to wait on the matter until they receive confirming, specific direction. (This “waiting” does happen, in many different situations.) They also are specifically directed to act in counsel with each other in many matters, one of which is whenever they are bringing another new apostle into their ranks through being chosen as an apostle and ordained and given the keys of apostleship. They reach unanimous agreement about the choice being made, and do that through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost but also through having counseled together.

This is the justification used in acknowledging Priesthood authority even if the person recognizing it is secretly not worthy. For example, the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) affirms, when it discusses the oath and covenant of the Priesthood that when a man exercises any degree of unrighteousness “Amen to the priesthood, or authority of that man.” This is not interpreted to invalidate what this individual does acting in his Priesthood calling, if he happens to be concealing an excommunicable sin.

For example, fathers concealing past or current adulterous acts have baptized their children. Later when repentance settles in more, and such men confess to the Bishop, and later the Stake High Council, they have been excommunicated. Even then, when it is established that they were not worthy priesthood holders at the time of the baptism, that baptism is still recognized as valid. The fact that the father performed the ordinance (what we Catholics call a sacrament) in a state of unworthiness (a sin we Catholics call sacrilege) does not invalidate the ordinance. It heaps greater sin upon the head of the one performing it unworthily.

In Mormon terms, you have not presented a case of the use of priesthood keys, other than the facts that the keys were on the earth in the hands of the apostles for the father to be performing the baptism. The father doesn’t hold keys, at all. He has been delegated the use of priesthood, and his bishop was to have interviewed him and determined his worthiness regarding performing the ordinance of baptism. The bishop holds the local keys over the baptisms of members in his ward–only there, not anywhere else. The baptism is also based on personal desires and covenant making by the person who is baptized, which is why someone of age to be baptized (if a child) is interviewed by the bishop before their baptism, to see if they are desirous and have understood and are ready for this covenant with God and Christ.

If every person baptized thought that the validity of their baptism was always going to depend on the righteousness of the person who baptized them, there would be confusion and potential lack of faith on the part of a person who was baptized. Their covenant is with Christ–not with the person who baptizes them. The person who baptizes them is acting as a representative of Christ in that moment. If they were unworthy by having sinned mightily including deceiving the bishop, then their unworthiness brings the consequences of their individual sins, as always, until those sins are repented of, but the keys for doing the baptizing were held by the bishop and by the apostles, so that is why the baptismal ordinance is fully valid (along with the major understanding that the covenant is with Christ, and the one doing the baptizing has acted in behalf of Christ through delegation of priesthood authority.) Thus, “keys” versus “authority of the priesthood” are not the same thing.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation of reply to Peter John:

So, does Jesus have a double standard? Why would He tell people in his time to respect Pharisaic authority even if they were unworthy as individuals, tell people in our time to respect LDS Priesthood authority even if those exercising it are unworthy as individuals, yet in between disavow all authority because those exercising it were unworthy?

Jesus did tell some of those He healed to “go to the priest” as per the law of Moses, since the people were still living under the law of Moses until the exact moment of His resurrection. I also agree that some of those Levite priests were “unworthy as individuals”. They had a different “kind” of priesthood, in that the Levitical priesthood was a priesthood by lineage as revealed to Moses.

After His resurrection, there would have been no need to “go to the Levite priest” in such a case of having been healed from leprosy, for example, because the law of Moses was completely fulfilled and a new set of laws were in place.

The apostles held the keys of the priesthood which Christ held and He gave to them by calling and ordination. It was a different priesthood than the Levitical, as explained by Paul in Hebrews. It was not a priesthood by lineage. (See Hebrews 7:11, 12, 14, 20, 21) It was a priesthood received by an oath and a covenant of righteousness, and the keys delegated by Christ to the apostles were within that same priesthood, since Christ was from the tribe of Judah and not from the tribe of Levi as explained by Paul.

That priesthood held by Christ would always be contingent on an “oath and covenant” of righteousness, and particularly was this so for those holders of the keys of the priesthood on the earth–the apostles. Its use in righteousness would always necessitate being specifically guided by the Holy Spirit, just like when Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to go from one place to another to preach the gospel, specifically directed to do so.

That is the real question on which the issue of what Mormons call the Great Apostasy rests. Does Jesus have a double standard regarding those to whom the Apostles he called personally transferred authority?

The apostles transferred authority, but did not transfer the keys of the authority which they held and continued to hold until each of their deaths (or in John’s case, became no longer keys for exercise on earth after he was directed by the Spirit to depart from among the people). The privilege to use the priesthood was delegable by ordination as directed by the Holy Spirit, but the keys were retained by the apostles even as they delegated authority to others.