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

[RebeccaJ]

You cannot dispute with an organization, separate yourself from the organization over that issue, and continue maintaining that you belong to the organization. You can then only speak for yourself. We cannot criticize the Church for what those it rejects teach themselves. Is Catholicism repsonsible for what Martin Luther taught?

A more parallel comparison is the term “Christian”, and what that implies about what is taught and believed. Lutherans are Christians. Mormons are not.

RLDS are Mormons. But try making this point with a member of the LDS church.

 

[ParkerD]

It wasn’t only the lesson manual that needs changing! Don’t forget the teachings of these apostles and prophets.
Can the writer of a manual trump a prophet?
Please explain how the Holy Spirit led them to be speak incorrectly?

Apostle John A. Widtsoe explained:

The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. … He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ. When his proposition was rejected, he forsook all that he had gained, … He was no longer Lucifer, bearer of truth, who walked in light, but Satan, teacher of untruth, who slunk in darkness. He became the enemy of God and of all who try to walk according to the Lord’s commandments. One-third of the spirits present in that vast assembly supported Satan and became enemies of the truth that they had formerly cherished. With him these rebellious spirits lost their fellowship with the valiant sons of God. (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 209)

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

God lives in the family unit. He is our Father in heaven—the literal and personal Father of the spirits of all men. He begat us; we are the offspring of Heavenly Parents: we have an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother. We were born as spirits, and we dwelt in the presence of our Eternal Parents; we lived before our mortal birth. As spirits we were in all respects as we are now save only that we were not housed in mortal bodies as is the present circumstance. Christ was the Firstborn of all the heavenly host; Lucifer was a son of the morning: each of us came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order; and Christ is our Elder Brother. (The Mortal Messiah, vol. 1, p. 21)

President Spencer W. Kimball commented on the relationship of Lucifer to Jesus:

The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior’s example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by saying, “All right, Satan, I’ll listen to your proposition. I need not succumb, I need not yield, I need not accept—but I’ll listen.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 163)

President Spencer W. Kimball also wrote:

Similarly Satan had contended for the subservience of Moses. Satan, also a son of God, had rebelled and had been cast out of heaven and not permitted an earthly body as had his brother Jehovah. Much depended upon the outcome of this spectacular duel. Could Lucifer control and dominate this prophet Moses, who had learned so much directly from his Lord? (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 87)

In 1949 Apostle Joseph F. Merrill stated:

Now there is another personality of which I desire to speak, … that person is Satan, the Devil. But according to our understanding and teaching, Satan is a person with a spirit body, in form like that of all other men. He is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Elder Brother in the spirit world. The earth was in course of development for the abode of man in mortality. A Redeemer was to be sent down and make it possible for the Father’s children to return to him. (LDS Conference Report, April 1949, p. 27)

Speaking in 1857, Apostle Joseph Young taught:

Who is it that is at the head of this? It is the Devil, the mighty Lucifer, the great prince of the angels, and the brother of Jesus. He left the province of his Father, and took with him a third part of his Father’s kingdom, and there was no other alternative but to banish him. God would have saved him if he could; but he could not. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 207-208, October 11, 1857)

In 1844 LDS author W. W. Phelps wrote:

And again, we exclaim, O Mormonism! No wonder that Lucifer, son of the morning, the next heir to Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, should fight so hard against his brethren; he lost the glory, the honor, power, and dominion of a God and the knowledge, spirit, authority and keys of the priesthood of the son of God!

Christ kept his first estate—Lucifer lost his by offering to save men in their sins on the honor of a God, or on his father’s honor.—Christ hated sin, and loved righteousness, therefore he was anointed with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things. (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 758, Jan. 1, 1844, art. by W. W. Phelps)

Lax16,

Like I remarked to you previously, I agreed with the words of scripture which say that Lucifer was a “son of the morning.” I don’t agree with W W Phelps, and I don’t agree with the use of the word “brothers”. Elder Kimball was an apostle when he wrote “Faith Precedes the Miracle”–not the president of the church.

The Holy Spirit answers when specific questions are asked in prayer. If a question isn’t asked, then an answer isn’t given. A person can make an assumption, and not necessarily have the correct assumption without having specifically prayed about their assumption. Until the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve declare a word change about this subject (the latest word on it being the Gospel Principles manual which has the change we have discussed), then what I am responsible to understand is the teaching as given in the scriptures on this subject.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry bro. We are on like the eight zillionth post of this thread. Instead of directing me to a previous post, or to a passage in Revelation, do you mind just straight up answering my second question in more detail It would help me out a lot. Thanks.

Men of St Joseph,

My interest is in helping people turn to the Bible and read it, not read what I have to say about the Bible. Revelation 21:7 says “inherit all things”, “and he shall be my son”. The Savior said,
“the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (John 17:22). So the answer is there for anyone to read and see and not second-guess. To be one with Them is to be one with Them, and do what They do, and live as They live, and love as They love.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
Thanks fir the response. So are you saying that non-Mormon Christians (including Catholics) are not in danger of losing their Salvation if they do not listen to a word Joseph Smith had to say?

Correct–salvation being to live with Christ in the glorified kingdom they have desired and lived for.

If the teachings of my Church are as good at providing a ticket to Reward With Christ as LDS, then how could there have been the Great Apostasy?

Christ wants people to accept His atoning grace to be changed and sanctified every whit and learn to desire what God desires, to be able to live in the presence of the Father, which is exaltation. The Great Apostasy watered that goal down and changed the goal so that it is no longer the goal–thus letting people choose for themselves what their personal religious goal in life is going to be.

P.S. to Benidict:

Thanks for the kind words, and I wish you well over there. I think the above paragraph has answered your question about the “apostasy” versus “authority”. Peace, kind friend. Take good care!

 

[ParkerD]

…
Your interpretations of the Bible begin with the preconception that seven books in it are invalid. How is that reading it without preconception?

I’ve already commented that I have no problem with those seven books so long as what they teach has direct support in the prophetic words of the Bible using more than one verse as cross-reference. I don’t think those books should be read “stand-alone.” If they were in the Bible that I read and use, then I would have that same feeling about them, and have that same feeling about any stand-alone verse in the Bible. Any verse should be able to have cross reference in other verses to support a particular teaching.

 

[Peter_John]

I’ve already commented that I have no problem with those seven books so long as what they teach has direct support in the prophetic words of the Bible using more than one verse as cross-reference. I don’t think those books should be read “stand-alone.” If they were in the Bible that I read and use, then I would have that same feeling about them, and have that same feeling about any stand-alone verse in the Bible. Any verse should be able to have cross reference in other verses to support a particular teaching.

Your statement still reflects a preconception that they are not integral to the rest of the Bible. Catholics do not separate them from the rest of the Bible. You do.

 

[Peter_John]

The Great Apostasy watered that goal down and changed the goal so that it is no longer the goal!

All this thread asks is for you and other LDS members to prove that statement.
So far you divert, you marginalize, you refuse to respond to questions directly related to this.

 

[Peter_John]

Men of St Joseph,

My interest is in helping people turn to the Bible and read it, not read what I have to say about the Bible. Revelation 21:7 says “inherit all things”, “and he shall be my son”. The Savior said,
“the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (John 17:22). So the answer is there for anyone to read and see and not second-guess. To be one with Them is to be one with Them, and do what They do, and live as They live, and love as They love.

So you are not interested in people reading the Book of Mormon?

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD has gone down a path that is trying to make it appear as though Mormonism has a kind of sola scriptura going. To what purpose, I guess only he knows.

 

[Peter_John]

A more parallel comparison is the term “Christian”, and what that implies about what is taught and believed. Lutherans are Christians. Mormons are not.

RLDS are Mormons. But try making this point with a member of the LDS church.

As I said, it is the Associated Press that has determined that the term “Mormon” in and of itself applies specifically only to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If you want to continue using the most general term, fine, but in that case please make it a point to specify which specific Mormon belief system to which you refer.

 

[LatterDayLady]

I’m so new to this forum, that I don’t even know how to post a picture yet…

There are 50+ pages of posts, so it will take time to go through them all. I just thought I’d say hi and that, as a former Catholic and now LDS, that I have no trouble believing that the priesthood is restored. This knowledge has brought me more blessings than I could’ve imagined. It makes “sense” to me somehow, like the answers I’ve been looking for my whole life that I could not find in Catholicism were there before my eyes in the Latter Day Saints Church.

Now, let me chunk away at the 50+ pages.

 

[ParkerD]

So you are not interested in people reading the Book of Mormon?

Not until they have read the Bible (King James Version preferred as far as I’m concerned), at least three times, cover to cover. And not until they really want to know what Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 12 and 14 are talking about.

 

[Peter_John]

ParkerD has gone down a path that is trying to make it appear as though Mormonism has a kind of sola scriptura going. To what purpose, I guess only he knows.

He is actually going down a path that does not even qualify as LDS apologetics or even doctrine. In “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” Elder LeGrand Richards writes that the LDS position is that if all the bibles in the world were destroyed the Church would still teach the same things because it does not depend on the bible for its teachings.

In case he follows up with that LeGrand Richards was never the Prophet, I will point out that “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” became the basis for the missionary discussions used for several decades, including the time he claims to have served a mission.

It was also, last I knew, one of five required books aside from scripture for every LDS missionary to carry and read while serving a mission, the other four being “Jesus the Christ” and “Articles of Faith” by James E. Talmage, “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, and “Truth Restored” by Gordon B. Hinckley.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, ParkerD only follows in the tradition of the religion he claims to adhere to. If you don’t agree, just fire up your own church. This is perfectly acceptable in Mormonism, as long as when teaching you don’t teach anything that is contra. ParkerD has perfected the art of teaching contra while appearing to be a good little sheep.

 

[Peter_John]

Not until they have read the Bible (King James Version preferred as far as I’m concerned), at least three times, cover to cover. And not until they really want to know what Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 12 and 14 are talking about.

So you also have the preconception that four chapters of the Bible, none of which are in the Gospels have some supercedence over other books inthe Bible, rather than being integral to it?

I am confused about your affirmation of the King James version as superior with your affirmation that the Deuteocanonical books should only be read in context with the rest of the Bible, since the King James Translation of the Deuterocanonical books separated them out from the others, rather than as an integral part of the whole.

Does this affirmation of King James preference come from your extensive knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, or because someone has told you it is better?

 

[Peter_John]

Well, ParkerD only follows in the tradition of the religion he claims to adhere to. If you don’t agree, just fire up your own church. This is perfectly acceptable in Mormonism, as long as when teaching you don’t teach anything that is contra. ParkerD has perfected the art of teaching contra while appearing to be a good little sheep.

I begin to agree. I gave his sincerity the benefitof doubt earlier, but if I do not soon here substantive response to some ofthe meaningful questions, I will have to agree with you. At this point he does not seem to speaking for his Church at all, just hisown divergent views.

 

[Denise1957]

Catholics do read the Bible, and are encouraged by the Catholic Church to read it daily. In fact, she gives special blessings (called indulgences) to those who read it as spiritual reading. We also hear at Sunday and daily Mass two readings from the Bible, some of which are quite lengthy. After all, it was the Catholic Church that put all of the books of the Bible together between the years 350 and 406, so of course Catholics read it.

It is possible to misunderstand the Bible, and the Bible itself says so…“As also in all his (St. Paul’s) epistles, speaking in them of these things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (twist), as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

The true meaning of the Bible can only be obtained through God’s official interpreter, the Catholic Church…“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)

We Catholics are bound to believe all that is in the Bible and Tradition - all the doctrines which the Catholic Church teaches. We do not pick and choose according to our own will or “prophecy.” …“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the angels of his power: in a flame of fire, giving vengence to those who know not God, and who obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (2 Thessalonians 1 7-8)

And…“Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9).

The Catholic Church teaches all that Jesus taught, especially that we must eat of his body and blood if we are to have life in us. He said it more than once. He commanded it. He also gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. This cannot be denied, since it is in the Bible. Christians are not at liberty to pick and choose. The Catholic Church knows this, and as it works in correspondence with flawed human nature. the Catholic Church is the only Church begun by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m so new to this forum, that I don’t even know how to post a picture yet…

There are 50+ pages of posts, so it will take time to go through them all. I just thought I’d say hi and that, as a former Catholic and now LDS, that I have no trouble believing that the priesthood is restored. This knowledge has brought me more blessings than I could’ve imagined. It makes “sense” to me somehow, like the answers I’ve been looking for my whole life that I could not find in Catholicism were there before my eyes in the Latter Day Saints Church.

Now, let me chunk away at the 50+ pages.

Welcome to the forum.

When you say you believe the “priesthood was restored” you would have to believe it needed to be “restored.” The subject of this thread is what proof do Mormons have that priesthood authority was taken from the earth.

I know; 50+ pages and no proof yet that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth.

 

[Stephen168]

Nothing I wrote denies a living guiding good shepherd. The subtext of what you are saying is that you want your testimony to reach beyond any words of reason, hoping to herd in any “lost sheep”-- people you hope will recognize Christ in your appeal more than in Catholicism – in the subtext of the language you have used, as understood within an LDS context, that is what you are saying. You declare the Good Shepherd in lieu of any valid evidence to points presented, hoping others will recognize His voice in you, regardless of facts.

You just described indoctrination. Knowledge requires facts and reason. Indoctrination requires emotion and claims of personal authority.

 

[ParkerD]

Does this affirmation of King James preference come from your extensive knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, or because someone has told you it is better?

I’ve read some transliterations of verses, and do find the King James is good, and the Douay Rheims often is close to the KJV.

BYU had a symposium on the King James Translation recently. It is not as though I’m a lone sheep in the wilderness. The King James Translation is accepted in the world at large.

Peter John, I think we have conversed enough. Have a good day.