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

[GaryTaylor]

What about these Bible verse’s?

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

2:39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call."

John 1:29-31 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water”

There is no salvation without Baptism. Im not sure how you can believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in retrospect.

So no-original sin either? So how does this theory work? Surely you don’t believe anyone is born “not” of original sin?

Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”

Psalm 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.”

Ephesians 2:3 “Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest”

Rom. 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”

Rom. 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”

OT was fulfilled with the messianic prophecy, Christ doesn’t come to abolish sin or wage war. He comes to redeem from obvious destruction. Adds to Gods commandments, changes Blood sacrifice with His Blood on the Cross.

Whats the significance of John the Baptist?

The Cross “is” the most significant event in the NT. Annuniciation one of the most venereated events in world history. 2500 biographys on Mary. No-where is any woman more venerated in Art either.

So by the disobediance of one women man is condemned, by the obediance of one woman, man is redeemed.

 

[Peter_John]

So no-original sin either? So how does this theory work? Surely you don’t believe anyone is born “not” of original sin?

Mormons believe that the concept of original sin is heresy, in our terms. They also do not understand it. Just as some Catholics misunderstand it to mean that it has something to do with the sexual act, Mormons misunderstand it to mean that we are personally guilty of Adam’s choice to sin.

“child of God”- Mormons believe that we all existed as Spirit Children in the presence of God before we were born. They believe this literally. When we are born we forget this to test our faith. SO-they believe that everyone is born a Child of God, comes straight from the presence of God.

The Catechism teaches that we are not literally creatred at all until conception. We are not born children of God, but become so through baptism. That is why we baptize infants, Not to forgive sins they do not have, but to give them the advanctage of growing up Children of God.

Mormons believe that baptism is only for forgiveness of personal sins, and has to be by total immersion (even if hair floats on top of the water they will do it over.

Catholics believe that baptism can only happen once, and as we accept the common priesthood of the faithful we accept baptisms by protestant groups with enough common beliefs to fall under the general umberella of Christianity. If they baptize by using water, pouring or immersion, and use the proper words, it is considered valid. In addition if they do not have a valid concept of the Trinity or of man’s relationship with God the Church it can decide that Church’s baptism is not valid. If the Chuch consider s a baptism valid it does not rebaptize people as Catholics, just confirms them.

Mormons consider that only LDS priesthood authority is valid, and accept no other. They baptize new members. When someone has been caught or admitted to doing something serious enough to be excommunicated, Mormons believe that invalidates their baptism. Should they repent and return to the Church thay must go through an intense judgment proceeding, and then be re-baptized.

Few Mormons realize that during a “reentrencment” movement in the 1850s, Mormons were as a body recatechized in their faith and strongly encouraged to be re-baptized. In England they were required to be re-baptized or no longer be a member.

Catholics find the idea of rebaptism heresy. Baptism is permanent, and repentance after baptism is sanctified through confession/reconcilliation. Regular communion with deity is solifidified through the Eucharist.

So the need for immaculate conception of Mary has no foundation in Mormon theology, and is hard for Mormon to understand.

 

[pablope]

Peter had learned and understood that the Gentiles had been given the “gift” of being able to repent of their sins, unto “life” meaning both a newness of life on earth (being born again through an inward change of heart and through atoning grace) and to eternal life if they continued to repent.

Except that Christ taught all about being “doers” and not just “hearers”. See Matthew 7:21-27, Matthew 25 (entire chapter), and so forth.

Peace.

Being able to repent is a gift? How so?

Being able to repent is of one’s own free will to do so. This is after receiving the gospel of Christ, being baptized to renew one’s life and then repent one’s past sins and transgression. But it does not stop there…one must continue to lead a life in Christ, avoiding sin and this is our daily struggle, our cross if you will, as Jesus so stated in the Gospels, to pick up one’s cross and strive to be perfect. And continue to receive Christ body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharistic celebration.

 

[pablope]

Zaffiroborant,

It was the choice to use a particular word that always not only has negative connotations, but conveys an attitude of disrespect because of the implications of the word. I don’t think I need to repeat the word. I think you can find it, and it has been used twice by Peter John. Maybe some people think it is merely a literary device, but I simply don’t.

A wish of peace and good will.

Sorry, must have missed it, which post are your describing this? Why don’t you file a complaint with the moderator?

You know, the CC has been called a harlot, whore of Babylon, in apostasy, and other unsavory words…yet we catholics stand firm and defend her, and cause it to strengthen our faith, instead of running away.

Why don’t you instead cite PJ’s particular post or word and request for an apology. I am sure it is the christian way that PJ will apologize.

 

[pablope]

Is anyone interested in hearing the answers to the questions I have raised? If not I will shut up.[/SIGN]

Peter J…please continue to do so. I would say your posts have very informative and have learned alot.

Your responses are just not for us, it is also for those who lurk and may come upon this thread, that they will learn from your posts too.

 

[pablope]

Oh, my heck! I fetching misundertood. I apologize for the flipping misunderstanding, and realize you weren’t just trying to scrud out on the question.

“Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven.
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with god’s he can plan for his brethren.
Death cannot conquer the hero again.”

But yet for some reason praying a “Hail Mary” is heretical.

s.

Is this prayed as a prayer of intercession (in the catholic sense) or prayed to JS as if he is a god?

 

[pablope]

Another LDS thread…regarding Christ in the CC vs LDS understanding…if interested…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=287824

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - Surely you are not unaccustomed to harsh language?
The BoM is ripe with “spicy” words - harlots, whore, fornication…

Lax16,

Since the Old Testament (particularly Hosea which I have come to really appreciate as both a warning to the house of Judah and of Ephraim and as a prophecy), and the book of Revelation use those words to describe the loss of spiritual connection between the Israelites and Jehovah and that they had assimilated instead the worship practices of their neighbors, then I am certainly familiar that those words are used within the particular context of describing rebellious Israel, yes, and imploring Israel to come back to Jehovah as their Savior and their “betrothed”, yes–very familiar.

The Book of Mormon uses those words less than the Bible, but it is always within this spiritual symbolism that is very clear to a discerning reader, and the ultimate prophecy that is so joyous is that Israel will indeed find their Savior during the end times–both Judah and Ephraim, and Jehovah promises to the descendants of Judah and Ephraim and the other tribes, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.” (Hosea 2:19)

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

Since the Old Testament (particularly Hosea which I have come to really appreciate as both a warning to the house of Judah and of Ephraim and as a prophecy), and the book of Revelation use those words to describe the loss of spiritual connection between the Israelites and Jehovah and that they had assimilated instead the worship practices of their neighbors, then I am certainly familiar that those words are used within the particular context of describing rebellious Israel, yes, and imploring Israel to come back to Jehovah as their Savior and their “betrothed”, yes–very familiar.

The Book of Mormon uses those words less than the Bible, but it is always within this spiritual symbolism that is very clear to a discerning reader, and the ultimate prophecy that is so joyous is that Israel will indeed find their Savior during the end times–both Judah and Ephraim, and Jehovah promises to the descendants of Judah and Ephraim and the other tribes, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.” (Hosea 2:19)

Hi Parker - Yes, you are right. I just couldn’t resist giving you a “little heck” over your offense taken at the use of Peter John’s choice of words.

I wonder if Peter John is originally from Utah? He’s got the lingo down pretty good! I thought only locals knew to say flip and fetch!

 

[ParkerD]

And don’t I feel like the fool. I looked and couldn’t figure out which word was causing all the commotion. I thought the word was quite appropriate. I don’t think it was your use of the word , it was that your point was hitting a little too close to home.

SteveVH,

Like I had remarked earlier, bring on the filters, but I assure you that the assumption made about those passages not only does not “come close to home” but isn’t even in the same city or state–it is in a place by itself where a person creates a private world looking at everything happening around them through a prism of suspicion with the unfortunate belief that no one can be genuine who does not happen to believe as they individually believe.

Fortunately, that is not a common happening among people who become familiar enough with literature to see patterns of originality and detect genuineness even in a literary work that they may initially think “sounds like something they’ve read before.” It means they would need to spend more time really comparing, contrasting, sensing tone and style and “genuineness”, which I suppose some people don’t have much experience with.

So, again, it was the word itself that could have been said in other ways and could have been less derogatory.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Like I had remarked earlier, bring on the filters, but I assure you that the assumption made about those passages not only does not “come close to home” but isn’t even in the same city or state–it is in a place by itself where a person creates a private world looking at everything happening around them through a prism of suspicion with the unfortunate belief that no one can be genuine who does not happen to believe as they individually believe.

Fortunately, that is not a common happening among people who become familiar enough with literature to see patterns of originality and detect genuineness even in a literary work that they may initially think “sounds like something they’ve read before.” It means they would need to spend more time really comparing, contrasting, sensing tone and style and “genuineness”, which I suppose some people don’t have much experience with.

So, again, it was the word itself that could have been said in other ways and could have been less derogatory.

As you deleted the word from my post, after its useage had been very well explained and defined by Peter John, I think you are choosing to give it your own meaning and I think everyone should just get over it. As another poster said, if you really think it was uncharitable or worse you should report it to the Moderators. Why don’t we get back to the topic. There have been, IMO, some very good posts that are very much to the point which have gone unanswered.

 

[Peter_John]

Is this prayed as a prayer of intercession (in the catholic sense) or prayed to JS as if he is a god?

It is an act of Praise. The intercession for the Church and its members collectively is inherent in the LDS teachings of the eternal role of Joseph Smith, although they would not put it in those words.

They would also not generally think that they were praying, but according to their scriptures, they are:

D&C 25:12 “For my soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads.” lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/25.12?lang=eng#11

That makes it inviolable Word of God. I am not taking liberties with this interpretation. President Heber J. Grant emphasized the interpretation of hymns as prayers, as have several discourses of their leaders. Even the introduction to the LDS hymnal emphasizes the point: lds.org/cm/display/0,17631,4781,00.html

LDS teachings interpret the Savior’s charge not to pray in vain repetitions as simply an injunction against repetitive prayers, but the role of the hymnal in LDS worship is more like prayer books in Catholicism than it is like the use of hymnals. LDS members encourage members to memorize the hymns and sing them repeatedly, hence they encourage their members to memorize repetitive prayers, even as they call the practice in other churches heretical.

All LDS Churches use the same hymnal (variations are only in language). Last I knew they were not allowed to use any music in sacrament meetings – the primary Sunday service – that was not from an official hymnal.

Just as Catholics learn to recite particular prayers when dealing with troubling thoughts or temptations, LDS leaders encourage Mormons to sing vigorous hymns in the same circumstances. The LDS hymns serve the same functions as Catholic prayers in function, intent, and – as the verse shows – defintion.

The particular hymn/prayer to which I refer is called “Praise to the Man” The first of four verses:

“Praise to the Man who communed with Jehovah.
Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.”

The third:
“Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true he wil enter his kingdom
Crowned in the midst of the prohets of old.”

Here’s the Link – and it is a great interface. I’d love to find a site this good for Catholic hymns. lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=1&searchseqstart=27&searchsubseqstart= &searchseqend=27&searchsubseqend=ZZZ
I have known LDS converts who never heard or noticed this song before joining the Church, and refused to sing it.

Another song worth looking at is “O My Father”. It is one of the more specific expressions of the LDS belief in a Mother in Heaven:
"In the heavens are parents single?
No the thought makes reason stare.
Truth is reason. Truth Eternal
Tells me I’ve a mother there.

“When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I meet you
In your royal courts on high? …”

lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=1&searchseqstart=292&searchsubseqstart= &searchseqend=292&searchsubseqend=ZZZ

That doctrine is very vague, and the Church basically teaches that God tells us no more about the Heavenly Mother so that we will not disrespect her. Like so many other things I’ve mentioned, I think there is a powerful, compelling, and magnetic truth here, wrapped in a cloak of confusion. In LDS sealing of families, parents are sealed to each other, but children are sealed to the mother.

LDS Doctrine, as I understood it, was that – as exemplified by His baptism --Jesus had to comply with every ordinance (“sacrament” in Catholispeak) required of other men and women. Jesus would have to be sealed to His Mother as her child for Time and all eternity.

Jesus is our heavenly Brother, so in the Celestial Kingdom, who would be our Heavenly Mother?

I do not argue that as LDS doctrine, just present it to show where the truth that attracts people to Mormonism is buried, even as it draws them away from Catholicism. I so much want to say to every Mormon I meet, “How much do you know about your Hevenly Mother? Would you like to know more?”

 

[Peter_John]

I assure you that the assumption made about those passages not only does not “come close to home” but isn’t even in the same city or state.

I assume that a later work with sufficient similarity to a well-known existing work alludes or appropriates material from that work. In the case of Book of Mormon passages which have previously extant corollaries in Catholic History, the overall adjusted framework has the specific intent of diverting people from other Christianity, and Catholicism specifically.

I can even give you a reasonable Mormon apologetic for this state of letters: (what follows is not my opinion)

In the Book of Mormon chronology these thinga happened even before Christ, so they actually happened before their comparable events in Catholic History. The Adversary would have known that, and could have engineered the circumstances of history for these things to happen, simply to create doubt of the Book of Mormon later. Since all Divine authority had been removed from the Earth by then, the devil was in charge anyway, and this is more proof of it. (end of idea)

That reasoning could go on for ever. If Jesus could restore the Gospel so that it would never again be taken form the Earth, why couldn’t he establish it permanently in the first place? That seems much more plain and precious. Jesus did it right.

The other pasages, the ones regarding praying for grace that have been sidelined in this diversion, are in context, and can onlybe interpreted differently with external interpretation.

… it is in a place by itself where a person creates a private world looking at everything happening around them through a prism of suspicion with the unfortunate belief that no one can be genuine who does not happen to believe as they individually believe…

That sounds like a description of how LDS discourse has historically drawn its observations on Catholicism, so its just more circles.

Fortunately, that is not a common happening among people who become familiar enough with literature to see patterns of originality and detect genuineness even in a literary work that they may initially think “sounds like something they’ve read before.” It means they would need to spend more time really comparing, contrasting, sensing tone and style and “genuineness”, which I suppose some people don’t have much experience with.

By that reasoning someone familiar with “The Taming of the Shrew” would not be justified in identifying a causal relationship between that and “Kiss Me Kate” or “10 Things I Hate About You.” There would be no justifiable comparison between “Les Miserables” and “The Fugitive”.

The simple way to solve this is to examine the realtionship of the early Church fathers with the Apostles, and see if they practiced anything significantly different from those who immediately followed them. We’ve got it down to about 100 to 150 years after Christ that the Apostasy had to have been complete, so that should not be too hard.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

It was the choice to use a particular word that always not only has negative connotations, but conveys an attitude of disrespect because of the implications of the word. I don’t think I need to repeat the word. I think you can find it, and it has been used twice by Peter John. Maybe some people think it is merely a literary device, but I simply don’t.

A wish of peace and good will.

Very much the same reaction people have when they hear their creeds referred to as an abomination. But I suspect you are not able to put yourself in their shoes and empathize with their reaction.

 

[ParkerD]

Very much the same reaction people have when they hear their creeds referred to as an abomination. But I suspect you are not able to put yourself in their shoes and empathize with their reaction.

Zaffiroborant,

Of course I empathize with their reaction. That would be why whenever I have it come up as an issue, I point them straight into the Bible so they can understand that for Jehovah or an angel to use the word through prophets meant a particular meaning and that meaning should be understood within the context where it was used, such as in the book of Revelation. I don’t think of Joseph Smith as having originated a meaning for the word, nor the Savior as He used it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh, religious bigotry is OK when you say a prophet got a phone call from God…typical Mormon response.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

** the word … meant a particular meaning and that meaning should be understood within the context where it was used**,

And yet you do not grant Peter John the same courtesy, instead of asking for clarification or voicing your problem with the word, you filter him.

 

[Peter_John]

Zaffiroborant,

Of course I empathize with their reaction. That would be why whenever I have it come up as an issue, I point them straight into the Bible so they can understand that for Jehovah or an angel to use the word through prophets meant a particular meaning and that meaning should be understood within the context where it was used, such as in the book of Revelation. I don’t think of Joseph Smith as having originated a meaning for the word, nor the Savior as He used it.

Yet you may remain unaware of wht you oppose:

THE APOSTLE’S CREED
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth …
Mormons believe this.

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord
Mormons believe this

Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Some LDS assaults on Catholicism have interpreted the Catholic position to be that we believe the Holy Spirit to be the Father of Jesus – that is incorrect. The idea that the Holy Spirit could even Father someone is antithetical to His nature. We understand, the Bible states, and the Catechism clarifies that this means conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mormons believe this.

Born of the Virgin Mary
Mormons believe this

Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Mormons believe this

Was crucified, died, and was buried
Mormons believe this

He descended to the Dead
Some translations say “Hell” but “the Dead” is more correct. This is clear he went to the “spirits in prison”, the place of eternal torment would be pointless, as nobody gets out of it. The Catechism, again, specifies this. Mormons agree with this definition of where Jesus went during the days his body lay in the tomb. Mormons believe this.

On the third day he rose again from the Dead
Mormons believe this

He ascended into Heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
Mormons believe this.

From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead
Mormons believe this

I believe in the Holy Spirit
Mormons believe this.

The Holy Catholic Church
*Episcopals and Presbyterians use the word “Universal”, as the translation of “Catholic”. The earliest use of the word “Catholic” to describe the Church was from St. Ignatius of Antioch, contemporary and in communion with the Apostle John. The word has been ultimately translated to mean “one and only” or “one in all”. *

In any sense it applies – the Book of Mormon talks of two churches only one of God and one of the Devil. AS a Sunday school teacher you know that passage does not refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but the group of all true believers in Christ – which will exclude some who call themselves Christian and some Mormons. Whether “Catholic” translates to “Universal”, “One and only” or “one in all”, it applies to that Book of Mormon passage, as well as many teachings of LDS leaders. That is also what this verse means – all validly baptized Christians, including those baptized by desire or blood, belong to this one in all, universal, one and only “ecclesia” (gathering).

Mormons believe this.

The communion of Saints.
*This is what “crowned in the midst of the prophets of old” means in the song. This what Mormons believe when they discuss meeting loved ones who have passed away, or getting visits from Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Elijah, Moroni, and Raphael *(who incidentally is only in the Book of Tobit in the Bible, a Deuterocanonical). *It is what doing temple work is about – and Mormons believe that only through what Catholics call Communion of Saints can all the Temple Work ever be done. *

The forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Mormons believe all of this.

Sice Mormons believe in all of thses things, and this is the oldest affrimation of belief in Christianity, why would Jesus tell Joseph Smith that “all their creeds are an abomination” and then instruct him to teach the same things?

 

[Peter_John]

I wonder if Peter John is originally from Utah? He’s got the lingo down pretty good! I thought only locals knew to say flip and fetch!

You caught me! I grew up near a little town called Sharon, VT – the Joseph Smith birthplace.

I spent 9 weeks in Utah in 1982. There I heard the joke about telling an RM by the use of creative words like fetch, flip, and scrud. (notice I used them) I didn’t go back to Utah until about 20 years later to meet up with some old friends. It was a pleasant reunion, even though I was unable to join them in the temple.

LDS missionaries and classes teach that our purpose in life is to achieve the Celestial Kingdom, even as it teaches that not everyone will achive it. That means – again, the Church misexpresses its own teachings. If only some people are here to achieve the Celestial Kingdom, then the real purpose in life is to learn our place.

The more I immersed myself in Mormonism, the harder a time I had complying with LDS rules. I never lied about it, and had the Church status to prove it. Only three men on Earth have the authority to approve my Mormon rebaptism. I was amazed how many people who were keeping secrets about their behavior asked me what to expect if they confessed, but I always encouraged them to. I kept attending, studying, memorizing scripture – that was from about 2002-2006, between 1989 and 2002 I tried all kinds of other things open mindedly, until I felt the urge to return to Mormonism. I never criticized the church, just myself.

Accepting in 2006 that my place was not in the Celestial Kingdom, unless God exercises severe mercy, a terrible weight lifted off my shoulders. I sought nothing else to believe in. The Book of Mormon remained my favorite book. I just accepted my place and kept studying. I specifically studied the Book of Mormon. I interpreted everything I read according to what the Book of Mormon said.

I only attended a Catholic Mass because it was the only church in my neighborhood on Christmas Eve. When I recognized how misrepresented it had been to me, I attended again about two weeks later determined to give it the open-minded consideration I had given Atheism (for about six months), Pantheism, Theistic Humanisnm, Wicca, Native American Sweat Lodges, Episcopaliansim, and Mormonism again.

That was when the Priest blessed me during the Eucharist, I suddenly realized the two things I emphasize in these posts: 1) Jesus does not have a double standard, 2) As long as we believe that any part of us can exist independently of God, we cannot belive God is omnipotent. That was the first time in my life I believed that I had not existed at all until my conception – and believing that changed my perception of everything.

I developed most of the ideas I express in these posts since then. I live more like a good Mormon now with less effort than I ever did trying to be a good Mormon – so this is my place. Jesus’ yoke is easy and his burden is light.

You cannot imagine how hard it is for a Mormon to reject a pre-existence. It is easier to believe in reincarnation than believe in no pre-existence at all. It is downright terrifying. I KNOW how Mormons feel about their beliefs. I would not try to talk an LDS youth from serving a mission, because mine was a fantastic experience. If God has put them in a life situation to have their World view depend on it, He has a reason for it.

I know that God recognizes Christianity in the hearts of Mormons with true faith, even if the Church “alters those teachings with disparate elements”. I know that he hears everyone’s prayers, because a prayer I made as a missionary gave me the experience that later kept me from atheism, however open-mindedly a looked at it. I know that God reaches out to Man, man responds, and the more man responds positively the more He reveals himself.

I know that He reveals Himself in The Eucharist, that it is more than just a symbol. I had one of those shake my head moments when I learned that St. John was still alive and in communion with St. Ignatius of Antioch when the Bishop was fighting one of the earliest heresies – using water instead of wine for Eucharist, like Mormons do, Mormons do this even though the Book of Mormon also specifies Bread and Wine.

In case anyone doubts my sincerity, or I draw an inevitable judgment that I must never really have believed it anyway, I wrote the following and sold it eight years before the publication date, just before I left on my mission:
lds.org/new-era/1990/05/the-man-who-counted-stars?lang=eng&query=man+Counted+Stars

Finally, the definitive answer in this post: Mormons believe that John the Beloved never died. He remained in a translated form, they believe, all the time, until joining the resurrected Peter and James to pass the Priesthood Keysto Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Sometimes they present it as uncertain, but I was 13 at the dedication of the Washington D.C. Temple when Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged “John the Beloved, who is among us.”

So there you have it. The proof is that St. John himself broke communion with the Bishops, and quietly working behind the scenes throughout history, preparing for the Restoration – for all we know he whispered into Luther’s ear. They also believe 3 Book of Mormon Apostles will, like John, remain until Christ’s return. The authority was not removed, it just stopped being given out. It went unbroken, Jesus to John To Joseph. Even the historical record cannot counter the interlocking and self-referential.

Anyone wants to ask to be on my Friends list, I more than welcome it. I never turn anyone down.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wow Peter John, you took the long road to Rome. Welcome home.