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

[ADouglass]

Yes our soul could choose otherwise, but my point earlier was that God does not place us into these conditions of choice to “condemn us.” From ParkerD

He does however place us into conditions of choice where we have the opportunity to reject God, and be condemned by Him. If you deny this, then you deny our agency.

 

[ParkerD]

…
The problem comes up if you are so committed to a road that you neglect the destination. sometime you will have to find an exit ramp, and if you have only ever known one road, it can be scary to take that exit.

Peter John,

You know about the Bible, of course. I consider it elementary reading. It isn’t scary at all. It doesn’t have exit ramps unless a person goes off on their own tangent by their own choice. It is not a fear-based guide to finding God.

You didn’t seem to understand that the joy of the gospel, amply described in the New Testament, completely surrounds my life and is in my heart. This is not a guessing game. It is all elementary (though it is a growth process) for those inclined to seek knowledge through the Bible and through applying its teachings and finding the fruits of living by the teachings, centered in Christ, repentance, forgiveness, love, and the grace Christ offers.

 

[Peter_John]

we are allowed to draw conclusions such as the one that is easily drawn but that I don’t draw about the use of the word “spirit brother” in regards to Lucifer. I don’t feel obligated, since it’s not in the scriptures in that way. I don’t feel compelled. It’s just not important to me one way or the other–an unimportant issue.

Your leaders seem to think that it is important enough to have clearly delineated it, starting with Joseph Smith It is central enough to the LDS Plan of Salvation that the rest of it does not hold together without it. Tell your Stake President you do not believe it, and see what happens.

The nature of whre the adversary comes from is a significant aspect of any approach to Christianity – but what the LDS Chruch teaches about it is so destinctivem that you do not believe what they call the Gospel if you do not believe what they teach avout it.

Christians have a completely different view of what angels are, and of our eternal relationship with God.

Keep on kickin’ – doesn’t hurt anyone but you. I have been exactly where you are, just differnt doubts.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

You know about the Bible, of course. I consider it elementary reading. It isn’t scary at all. It doesn’t have exit ramps unless a person goes off on their own tangent by their own choice. It is not a fear-based guide to finding God.

You didn’t seem to understand that the joy of the gospel, amply described in the New Testament, completely surrounds my life and is in my heart. This is not a guessing game. It is all elementary (though it is a growth process) for those inclined to seek knowledge through the Bible and through applying its teachings and finding the fruits of living by the teachings, centered in Christ, repentance, forgiveness, love, and the grace Christ offers.

You mean tangents like the use of the name Jeusu Christ and baptism from the time of Adam? You menat tangents like baptism “for” the “dead” as a standard sacramental practice?

Did you know that every Catholic baptized today is baptized “for” someone “dead”? The greek word in that reference is very ambiguous, and could just as easily apply to taking on a Saint’s name at baptism. Why would we do that, if the dead rise not at all?

Did you know that despite the fact that fathers often leave the religious education of their children up to their wives, empirical secular studies have established that children tend toward the religious practices of their fathers. That gives a whole new meaning to John the Baptist “turning the hearts of the children to the fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children” so that God incarnate’s arrival would not smithe the Earth with a curse. John reached out to fathers inan effort to convert whole families as he prepared them for the Savior’s arrival.

It is that simple. No tangents there. God envisons our existence and looks forward to it, but we have no existence until our conception – then we are a full perosnality beginning to actualize immediately. The Bible justifies no additional details then that. Anything else is a tangent.

 

[Peter_John]

You didn’t seem to understand that the joy of the gospel, amply described in the New Testament, completely surrounds my life and is in my heart. This is not a guessing game. It is all elementary (though it is a growth process) for those inclined to seek knowledge through the Bible and through applying its teachings and finding the fruits of living by the teachings, centered in Christ, repentance, forgiveness, love, and the grace Christ offers.

I actually DO understand. You would not doubt your church’s teachings otherwise

 

[Peter_John]

No, Peter John,
I may just not be being told a particular witness about that–which is fine;

But he questions do not go away, and wherever you put them to wait is the “shelf”

 

[ParkerD]

Your leaders seem to think that it is important enough to have clearly delineated it, starting with Joseph Smith It is central enough to the LDS Plan of Salvation that the rest of it does not hold together without it. Tell your Stake President you do not believe it, and see what happens.

The nature of whre the adversary comes from is a significant aspect of any approach to Christianity – but what the LDS Chruch teaches about it is so destinctivem that you do not believe what they call the Gospel if you do not believe what they teach avout it.

Christians have a completely different view of what angels are, and of our eternal relationship with God.

Keep on kickin’ – doesn’t hurt anyone but you. I have been exactly where you are, just differnt doubts.

Peter John,

So what would you think I would tell my Stake President? (a good friend of mine from my childhood, by the way). That I agree with the change in the new Gospel Essentials manual, which is the designated instruction manual for Gospel Doctrine classes for two years for all adults and young adults in the LDS church priesthood and Relief Society classes? Why would he disagree about that change? Of course he wouldn’t. These things are only hard to accept for people who make them some kind of dogma for their life and aren’t grounded in the scriptures.

By the way, I don’t think I’ve seen that Joseph Smith wrote in a way that said Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers–otherwise, I wouldn’t have made the statement I originally made disagreeing that it was doctrinally taught. Others, perhaps, Elder Kimball, yes (which I had skimmed past the reading of), but I had already looked for such a statement from Joseph Smith, and hadn’t found such to be the case.

 

[ParkerD]

But he questions do not go away, and wherever you put them to wait is the “shelf”

Not for a person who understands that life is a process of learning patience as part of what we are here to learn.

I don’t need to know everything. I have plenty of wonderful truths I am learning by living them, and it is fantastic–the best that could possibly be, through following the clear voice of the Good Shepherd, whose “yoke is easy”, and whose “burden is light.”

 

[Peter_John]

Not for a person who understands that life is a process of learning patience as part of what we are here to learn.

I don’t need to know everything. I have plenty of wonderful truths I am learning by living them, and it is fantastic–the best that could possibly be, through following the clear voice of the Good Shepherd, whose “yoke is easy”, and whose “burden is light.”

And that clear voice tells you that there is no scriptural basis to believe that the Adversary was ever the Lord’s brother? Do I understand that?

 

[Peter_John]

I don’t need to know everything. I have plenty of wonderful truths I am learning by living them, and it is fantastic–the best that could possibly be … "

Most Mormons I have known consider this talk the best that could possibly be. It was the last general confereence address given by Elder Brice R. McConkie: lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane?lang=eng

Most Mormons I know find it the most inspiring Testimony of Christ of any they have heard from a pulpit in their lifetimes. What they do not understand – what I did not recognize myself – is that for Christians in general what he expresses is not that remarkable from what any of us affirm. We respect his testimony, but this is where Christianity begins for Christians, and there is nothing remarkable about a Christian having such a testimony as this.

 

[ParkerD]

And that clear voice tells you that there is no scriptural basis to believe that the Adversary was ever the Lord’s brother? Do I understand that?

Not in the way I view the word “brother” in its meaning.

 

[ParkerD]

Most Mormons I have known consider this talk the best that could possibly be. It was the last general confereence address given by Elder Brice R. McConkie: lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane?lang=eng

Most Mormons I know find it the most inspiring Testimony of Christ of any they have heard from a pulpit in their lifetimes. What they do not understand – what I did not recognize myself – is that for Christians in general what he expresses is not that remarkable from what any of us affirm. We respect his testimony, but this is where Christianity begins for Christians, and there is nothing remarkable about a Christian having such a testimony as this.

You’re right that a testimony of Jesus doesn’t need to be “remarkable”. I think that talk is loaded with more doctrine than most Protestants accept, but also with a very deeply felt testimony that He lives and that His atoning grace is truly offered to and for all.

Peace to you and all.

 

[Peter_John]

Not in the way I view the word “brother” in its meaning.

Then – if you interpret brother to mean the same way that we were brothers with Jesus in the pre-Earth life – that very clear voice is telling you that there is no scirptural basis for one of the formative doctrines your early prophets and current leaders teach.

 

[Peter_John]

You’re right that a testimony of Jesus doesn’t need to be “remarkable”. I think that talk is loaded with more doctrine than most Protestants accept, but also with a very deeply felt testimony that He lives and that His atoning grace is truly offered to and for all.

Peace to you and all.

You misunderstood me on that. I think a Christian testimony has to be remarkable. I think McConkie exoressed a remarkable testimony. The fact that other Christians perceive that as where it starts indicates thet their testimonies are equally remarkable What he expresses is where Christian faith begins. I think you must have a reamrkable testimony of Christ to be able to perceive the werror in something so basic to your religion as we’ve been discussing.

 

[ParkerD]

Then – if you interpret brother to mean the same way that we were brothers with Jesus in the pre-Earth life – that very clear voice is telling you that there is no scirptural basis for one of the formative doctrines your early prophets and current leaders teach.

Peter John,

President Kimball (who wasn’t president when he wrote “Faith Precedes the Miracle”) is not a current leader, as you know.

The Gospel Principles updated manual is the current teaching of the current leaders, and it was reviewed by the Twelve. The scriptures provide the doctrinal foundation, the “formative doctrine”. They provide the “iron rod.”

By the way, I consider Jesus as my dear and loving Savior far more than as my Elder Brother, even though that expression is used by some; and as the Beloved Only Begotten Son and Alpha and Omega, He of course has unique qualities that make Him so very much more than an “Elder Brother”. He knows us intimately, like the closest of brothers, but is much more like a father than a brother in that He becomes the spiritual father and Source of our salvation and eternal life through our spiritual rebirth and then enduring in faith by keeping our covenants, and by hearing and heeding His voice.

 

[pablope]

Peter John,

President Kimball (who wasn’t president when he wrote “Faith Precedes the Miracle”) is not a current leader, as you know.

The Gospel Principles updated manual is the current teaching of the current leaders, and it was reviewed by the Twelve. The scriptures provide the doctrinal foundation, the “formative doctrine”. They provide the “iron rod.”

By the way, I consider Jesus as my dear and loving Savior far more than as my Elder Brother, even though that expression is used by some; and as the Beloved Only Begotten Son and Alpha and Omega, He of course has unique qualities that make Him so very much more than an “Elder Brother”. He knows us intimately, like the closest of brothers, but is much more like a father than a brother in that He becomes the spiritual father and Source of our salvation and eternal life through our spiritual rebirth and then enduring in faith by keeping our covenants, and by hearing and heeding His voice.

So, would you then describe thjis cleansing of manuals, of understandings of previous teachings a form of apostasy from the old LDS to a more christian-like LDS?

It seems like saying that was what once truth is no longer truth and changed into a new truth.

 

[SteveVH]

Peter John,

President Kimball (who wasn’t president when he wrote “Faith Precedes the Miracle”) is not a current leader, as you know.

The Gospel Principles updated manual is the current teaching of the current leaders, and it was reviewed by the Twelve. The scriptures provide the doctrinal foundation, the “formative doctrine”. They provide the “iron rod.”

Parker, how can you be sure that the updated manual is actually the correct teaching? When the previous wording was used, did anyone question its accuracy? I certainly doubt it. And how many changes or “updates” have there been? What is to stop another update from occurring which would change the meaning of the current wording? It seems that Mormon teaching is relative to the social norms of the day. If something seems to be offending the current population, or man-made laws change (i.e. polygamy, racial issues), then God purportedly gives a new revelation. Can you not see that each time this happens that Mormon claims to modern prophecy and revelation loose more and more credibility?

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I had been going to “let it go”, but I suppose you might as well know that the current Gospel Principles Manual was updated last year, and has a change in that the sentence you highlighted has been deleted:

"When the plan for our salvation was presented to us in the premortal spirit world, we were so happy that we shouted for joy (see Job 38:7).

We understood that we would have to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not live in the presence of our Heavenly Father. While we were away from Him, all of us would sin and some of us would lose our way. Our Heavenly Father knew and loved each one of us. He knew we would need help, so He planned a way to help us.

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1–4).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give His life for us, and take upon Himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us."

Peace.

Parker - Are you saying that the LDS have NEVER taught that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers?

 

[pablope]

Parker, how can you be sure that the updated manual is actually the correct teaching? When the previous wording was used, did anyone question the current wording? It seems that Mormon teaching is relative to the social norms of the day. Can you not see that each time this happens that Mormon claims to modern prophecy and revelation loose more and more credibility?

[SIGN]If something seems to be offending the current population, or man-made laws change (i.e. polygamy, racial issues), then God purportedly gives a new revelation.[/SIGN]

When the LDS does this, it seems that God is dependent on man, his spirit children, to make or effect the changes before He gives a new revelation.

If the LDS claim is true as to being the true religion, why is it not the LDS leading the change instead of the laws of men forcing a change in the LDS?

 

[SteveVH]

[SIGN]If something seems to be offending the current population, or man-made laws change (i.e. polygamy, racial issues), then God purportedly gives a new revelation.[/SIGN]

When the LDS does this, it seems that God is dependent on man, his spirit children, to make or effect the changes before He gives a new revelation.

If the LDS claim is true as to being the true religion, why is it not the LDS leading the change instead of the laws of men forcing a change in the LDS?

Exactly. IMO the truth of the matter is that when a “revealed” belief or practice becomes unpopular or illegal, conversions begin to drop off. That is when they retire to the upper rooms of the Temple and then come back with a “new” revelation. Can a Mormon poster please address this? Was not polygamy a practice revealed to Joseph Smith? Why, if it was truly revealed, would God then reveal that it was not good? Was God wrong the first time around? The same goes for finally allowing blacks into the LDS “priesthood”. Was it ok when racial predjudice against blacks was widely accepted by society, and then wrong after the civil rights movement in this country?

The relevance to this thread is that if you cannot trust that your own “revealed truth” will remain a revealed truth, even from your founding “prophet”, how can you trust any supposed revelation, such as priesthood authority being taken away from the Church Christ founded?