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

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,

I truly empathize with your experience regarding the group of Mormon children visiting the Cathedral. I am not sure…because the attitude is picked up…if it is a wise thing to do for all parties involved…as you say, it is the Holy Spirit Who opens up others to understand our faith. I would be disturbed at Mass knowing that these children and others of the same persuasion would not be viewing the reality of the truth around them because of their orientation.

The Mormons value their own families very much. I do mine. But I do not go about or approve of Catholics working hard to take others away from their faith. Kids who leave their parents faith…no matter what side you are on…is a very hard loss on a religious family.

I decided not to move to SLC where I would be worshipping there with you, for fear of elements in Mormonism that would work to take my children away from my church and away from my heart and soul. I met a Lutheran woman whose family moved to Utah. They had to leave because of the squiring by Mormon boys towards their daughters. My older daughter looks so much like Anne Hathaway…and even having a sense of humor like her…my younger very cute…my dad said if we moved there to have the girls wear crucifixes…

I know about the Catholic Europeans who took in Jewish children to save and protect them from the Nazis. And they went ahead and baptized them, and did not want to return them to their Jewish parents. The Catholic Church advised them to return the children to their respective parents. And the Evangelicals, many of them, think we are in a man made church and want to liberate and save our members…The European Catholic/Jew experience is very different from ours in America.

All in all, there is a tearing of the heart…when I read a sharing like yours with the young boys…what opposing religions can do…and common sense and respect and holding on to the commandments’ calling and fulfilling one’s duties to one’s family is very important to me…irregardless if people change churches or not…

Raising children in faith that is adversarial to another is not good.

Well, my family are all devout Mormons, with a few exceptions who are like I was: atheist, agnostic, apatheist (yes I know that is a new term). So I am the one who has left and broke my parent’s hearts.

Before that I was atheist, but I never rubbed my non-belief in my family’s face. I never tried to turn anyone atheist. lol.

When I was baptized Catholic, I told no one in my family. Absolutely no one. Not because I was trying to keep my faith secret, but because I really have nothing in common with my family and I saw no reason to make a huge announcement about something they would at the best, not care about at all. Word has started to get out though and the reactions and comments being made to me, the attitude of so-called family towards me, is interesting to watch. One brother-in-law writes the sort of thing we’re talking about here, for a living, and he isn’t talking to me at all.

There are LDS here who do work very hard at converting children. My daughter came home with a BoM from where she worked, as a teenager in high school. I was fit to be tied. Mormons do not hold any boundaries when it comes to other people’s children. You can be sure of that.

I didn’t talk to the children who were at the Cathedral, at all. One of their adult leaders walked up to me to ask a few questions. This is not the first time I have seen a group of Mormon kids at the Cathedral. For a while, they were showing up to Sunday morning Mass. I have yet to figure out why Mormon adults are bringing Mormon children to our church. I can’t imagine it is for a good purpose.

A few years ago a woman invited two Mormon missionaries to mass in Russia. The priest there kicked them out. I can understand that reaction, entirely, while at the same time, such an action doesn’t do any good.

“Love thy neighbor” is difficult, when you live around people who slander your beliefs as the foundation of their own.

 

[ParkerD]

Kathleen Gee (Woops–I meant Rinnie)

Thanks very kindly for sharing all this. Have a wonderful day, and may God bless your Mom with peace and joy in these days and years ahead.

Rinnie,

I was in such a rush when I was reading earlier this morning, that I just plain got mixed up, so I’m sorry about that and hope you will accept that I had meant to thank you, sincerely and with much appreciation.

 

[SteveVH]

Parker, lets try this one more time. Below is my post and your response:

Originally posted by SteveVH
As far as your statement that “…Christ is the head of the church…” you hit it on the head. This is the very reason that a total apostasy is impossible and the reason that Christ could make the promises He made concerning His Church. Its success was not left to men. He is the head. He is the One who built His house upon rock and the rains came and the winds blew, just as they do today, even on this forum, but His house, His Church, remains intact.

Your Response:

SteveVH,
Christ did indeed build His house upon the Rock–Himself as the Good Shepherd and the living Rock of salvation.

His believers should understand this because they should feel His loving leadership in their lives, so that when storms come they withstand the storms and are strengthened by them.

Will you please address my post and stop avoiding it. IMO this is the crux of the matter. To say that the Catholic Church failed is to say that Christ failed. Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

I certainly agree that God does not necessarily answer our prayers in the way we may want, though He does always in the way we need.

I’ll give a personal example. I have a daughter who had a tracheostomy operation just after birth, due to an undeveloped jaw syndrome and no jaw joints. Would I be praying with each operation that it would be successful to the greatest extent possible, that there would be no nerve damage, and that the plan for the tracheostomy to be able to no longer be necessary could come to fruition? Yes, I did. Has my family learned a great many lessons through this challenge in which our prayers haven’t been answered the way we would have wanted? Yes, absolutely. Does it make us less happy? No.

On a personal note, your daughter is also in my prayers, Parker. These are spiritual exercises that make us strong by testing our faith. I always go back to Abraham when faced with these kind of challenges. God had promised him that his descendants would number as the stars, yet he was an old man and his wife was an old woman. God asked him to count the stars if he was able. If we read a little further we find out that it was actually day time when this occurred. The point being that just because he could not see the stars did not mean that they weren’t there. God certainly hears your prayers and has a plan that none of us can see. We can always trust in His goodness, wisdom and mercy.

God bless.

 

[ParkerD]

On a personal note, your daughter is also in my prayers, Parker. These are spiritual exercises that make us strong by testing our faith. I always go back to Abraham when faced with these kind of challenges. God had promised him that his descendants would number as the stars, yet he was an old man and his wife was an old woman. God asked him to count the stars if he was able. If we read a little further we find out that it was actually day time when this occurred. The point being that just because he could not see the stars did not mean that they weren’t there. God certainly hears your prayers and has a plan that none of us can see. We can always trust in His goodness, wisdom and mercy.

God bless.

SteveVH,

Thank you sincerely. I should add that fortunately we consider ourselves very blessed in that she has had only one issue of nerve damage with all of the operations she has had, and that has not impacted her ability to smile which we so appreciate. We consider ourselves blessed in every way through her being in our family.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, lets try this one more time.

Will you please address my post and stop avoiding it. IMO this is the crux of the matter. To say that the Catholic Church failed is to say that Christ failed. Thank you.

Steve,

I’ve tried several times to explain differences in views about the meanings of words and verses.

Here are the verses about being founded upon a rock, and then Matthew 16 about another use of the word “rock” and of the word “church”:

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Word meaning differences have to do with the word “church” from verse 18 above, since it means “congregation of believers” based on the origin of the word; and the word “rock”, since it meant “knowledge that Christ is the Son of God and the Promised Messiah” in both instances.

These two instances of Christ’s teachings convey the same message: that a “wise man” will “build his house” (i.e. live his life and do his life’s work) with the foundation for his house being “knowledge that Christ is the Son of God and the Promised Messiah” so that Christ can help that man “build his house” in the way that Christ will guide him to built it, and in a way that is unshakeable because of the unshakeable and unshiftable foundation upon Christ and the knowledge of His guiding, teaching, and redeeming influence.

As many people do this, they will be (and are) a “congregation of believers”, each of whom is “founded upon a Rock”–the same rock that Peter was being told was going to be the rock for Christ’s congregation of believers.

 

[lax16]

And boy do the LDS get waspish if you “misrepresent” their beliefs, seems they have no qualms about misrepresenting others though do they? Looks a tad bit “anti-Catholic” there.

Yes, exactly.

But the worst part of it is, they are wrong. Incense is pagan? Don’t tell the magi!

God had a body? Don’t tell the Jews!

How can a so-called legitimate church puts this misinformation on their official website - it is embarrassing for them because it is so inaccurate!

 

[Denise1957]

ParkerD wrote:

“As many people do this, they will be (and are) a “congregation of believers,” each of whom is “founded on a rock,” the same rock that Peter was being told was going to be the rock for Christ’s congregation of believers.”

ParkerD, you may have not been told before that “Peter,” in the language of that day, actually meant “Rock.” Our Lord changed Simon’s name from Simon Barjona (meaning Simon, son of John) to Simon Peter, or rather, Simon the Rock, since Peter meant “Rock.” It’s important to remember that in the OT, whenever a name is changed, it signifies something very important that is happening. It can be a little difficult to understand this with our modern American views of things.

This is better explained on a thread at the ‘Traditional’ Catholic subforum, on a thread called, “The Leader, Peter?” The thread is on the first page of this subforum. In post #2 of that thread, the forum member Belloc fan does a good job of describing the significance of what Simon Peter means. In post #37, the forum member Heliotropium does a good job of explaining the difference in the language of that day and how it relates to the interpretation of scripture. I think that you would find it helpful in further understanding the situation. God bless.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

1.The presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of some of the members, would not necessarily mean the leaders also had the Holy Spirit as they were making decisions about how the church should be “run” and about preserving doctrinal purity. 2. This is a very distinct difference, and the “loss of authority” has to do with the latter, not the former. 3. The loss of authority was totally dependent upon God who gave the authority, whereas the presence of the Holy Spirit was totally dependent upon the individual member seeking the Spirit and living righteously.

Hi Parker -

1. Please cite the scripture that states the early Church leaders did not have the Holy Spirit when making decisions.
2. Please cite the scripture/historical documents that prove the loss of authority.
3. So God had to GIVE the authority and he didn’t? Please cite your sources.
   No member of the early Church asked for the Holy Spirit to make righteous choices?
   Please cite your sources.
4. How can YOU possibly know who did/did not have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives 2,000 years ago? Please cite your sources.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Thank you sincerely. I should add that fortunately we consider ourselves very blessed in that she has had only one issue of nerve damage with all of the operations she has had, and that has not impacted her ability to smile which we so appreciate. We consider ourselves blessed in every way through her being in our family.

In a concentration camp at Auschwitz, there was a barracks that held a group of women, one of which was a Catholic nun. The facility was crawling with lice, but the nun asked that they all give thanks to God, even for the lice. When the allies finally liberated the concentration camp, it was discovered that women housed in the other barracks had been repeatedly raped by the German soldiers. None of the women in the barracks with the nun had been raped, precisley because of the infestation of lice.

I admire you and honor you for keeping your faith and trust in God even in the face of these trials, Parker. I also have a daughter and I can empathize with your struggle.

God bless.

Steve

 

[Peter_John]

Steve,

I’ve tried several times to explain differences in views about the meanings of words and verses.

Here are the verses about being founded upon a rock, and then Matthew 16 about another use of the word “rock” and of the word “church”:

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Word meaning differences have to do with the word “church” from verse 18 above, since it means “congregation of believers” based on the origin of the word; and the word “rock”, since it meant “knowledge that Christ is the Son of God and the Promised Messiah” in both instances.

These two instances of Christ’s teachings convey the same message: that a “wise man” will “build his house” (i.e. live his life and do his life’s work) with the foundation for his house being “knowledge that Christ is the Son of God and the Promised Messiah” so that Christ can help that man “build his house” in the way that Christ will guide him to built it, and in a way that is unshakeable because of the unshakeable and unshiftable foundation upon Christ and the knowledge of His guiding, teaching, and redeeming influence.

As many people do this, they will be (and are) a “congregation of believers”, each of whom is “founded upon a Rock”–the same rock that Peter was being told was going to be the rock for Christ’s congregation of believers.

The LDS doctrine when I was growing up was the “Rock” was the Rock of revelation, because flesh and blood had not revealed the divinity of Christ to Peter, but the Lord’s Father in Heaven. I suppose the outcome is the same in these definitions. Yours is just more specific.

So hoe does the Bible say that the Lord separated those who had the true testimony from those who did not? Those who did not went away when he declared that literally they would have to eat His Flesh and drink His blood. Those with a true testimony accepted, saying they had no place else to go. This was no figurative expression of communion, but when asked to explain, the Lord told them it meant just what He had said.

Testimony of “The Rock” includes witnessing by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood – literally, not as a symbol.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

I’ve tried several times to explain differences in views about the meanings of words and verses.

Here are the verses about being founded upon a rock, and then Matthew 16 about another use of the word “rock” and of the word “church”:…

Word meaning differences have to do with the word “church” from verse 18 above, since it means “congregation of believers” based on the origin of the word; and the word “rock”, since it meant “knowledge that Christ is the Son of God and the Promised Messiah” in both instances.

These two instances of Christ’s teachings convey the same message: that a “wise man” will “build his house” (i.e. live his life and do his life’s work) with the foundation for his house being “knowledge that Christ is the Son of God and the Promised Messiah” so that Christ can help that man “build his house” in the way that Christ will guide him to built it, and in a way that is unshakeable because of the unshakeable and unshiftable foundation upon Christ and the knowledge of His guiding, teaching, and redeeming influence.

As many people do this, they will be (and are) a “congregation of believers”, each of whom is “founded upon a Rock”–the same rock that Peter was being told was going to be the rock for Christ’s congregation of believers.

Parker, I appreciate you trying to explain, but you are using definitions and interpretations of your own making. Christ founded a Church. I have no problem defining that, in part, as a congregation of believers, but this is a secular definition. The Church is Christ’s presence on earth, a family of believers, the mystical Body of Christ, the people of God. It was given the mission to spread God’s kingdom to the ends of the earth and its head, Jesus Christ promised to never leave it. This is my point. It is much more than a human institution and therefore more than just a community of believers. It is a divine institution which, by its very nature, cannot fail. If it should fail, then there is no way around saying that Christ failed.

If it was merely a community of believers, founded by men (which all other churches are) there is no doubt that a total apostasy could have occurred. But you cannot ignore the promises made by our God himself concerning the Church that He founded. It cannot, and has not failed. The Apostles didn’t claim that Jesus, et al, appeared to them. He founded His Church and made those promises concerning His Church in the flesh. That is from whence we trace our beginnings. We are not reliant on simply the claims of a man, but on Jesus Christ Himself.

God bless.

 

[pablope]

Rebecca,

I decided not to move to SLC where I would be worshipping there with you, for fear of elements in Mormonism that would work to take my children away from my church and away from my heart and soul. My older daughter looks so much like Anne Hathaway…and even having a sense of humor like her…my younger very cute…my dad said if we moved there to have the girls wear crucifixes…

Raising children in faith that is adversarial to another is not good.

I met a Lutheran woman whose family moved to Utah. They had to leave because of the squiring by Mormon boys towards their daughters.

After learning more about the LDS in this and other threads, I would conclude that sadly, this is one of the fallacies of the LDS teachings on marriage. The squiring of young women to get them to marry is not to raise a family (or it is a secondary aim), but as a means or a ticket to get to the celestial kingdom, to be a god of their own and a place or planet to rule. It seems that this is what is drilled, hence young mormon boys get a false sense of what a true marriage blessed by the Church is.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Pablope…

We were interested in a beautiful town just outside SLC…I guess I brought up the Jewish condition as well because of what some European Catholics had done in baptizing the Jewish children against the parents’ wishes…

I also am reading about the Murranos…and their obsessivity in hiding their Jewishness by being Catholics on the outside but practicing Judaism within, while receiving the Eucharist…

And then there was a Mormon who came on here a year ago not revealing his identity, even going so far as being a lector, of which I have read now is against liturgical norms…would have the draw on the source here again…

But there is this ongoing issue of identity and family…and I see the family structure as sacred…but people convert or change or lose their faith…and to keep us going, it is important…in Christ, to maintain a certain degree of unity within our own families if our own ideas about various matters change.

What I don’t like is the predatory aspect of some religionists…and true religion should bring us into harmony with one another…and to maintain good family relations inspite of differences or severances of common belief…

 

[KathleenGee]

And Parker,

Sorry for my missive…I am keeping you and your family in my prayers…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I worked with a woman once who was a Mormon convert from Germany. She married the missionary who converted her and immigrated to the States. They had three children at the time.

One day she confided in me that she believed nothing of Mormonism, at all. That she went along with it because that is what her husband and in-laws were, and she felt it important to maintain a good relationship with them. Specifically she said all the cousins were Mormon and for her children to not be Mormon in this family would isolate them.

It happens a lot here, in Utah. For this woman, she felt she had no other choice but to live like she were a believing Mormon. Her entire family was left behind in Germany and for her to not be LDS, would have made her life hell.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rebecca…that is very bad…When I was reading about the Murranos…they referred to how the Mormons are into shunning, and are very afraid to reveal their true identities to Jews or Catholics…I just don’t think it is systematic, but more reflective on clannishness among Catholic groups.

People always tend to act differently as individuals vs in groups.

I also know that it is common for Filipinas from their native islands to follow the religion of their husbands.

True religion…if you look at a passage by St. Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:18, transforms us by letting us be who we really are…and in this transformation becoming Christ like the other effect we enjoy is freedom…

They are saying John Paul II was the same in private as he was in public…true transparency.

People hate pretenders…we have to be who we are and take the consequences…but if you look at the lives of the saints who embraced the cross…it is also a matter of our affections and attachments…

I dislike it very much when a poster comes on, and then you end up picking up that it is not just one person, but several who are posing as one person.

Do we attach to men and images or do we attach to Jesus Christ and the Eucharist? I find true freedom and true self in Christ…I lose myself in Christ to be myself…and the whole foundation of being ourselves is based on the reality that Jesus Loves Us.

Jesus loves us for who we are, that is the foundation of our self-esteem. I am happy and trusting, looking at the history of our church, in spite of human excesses, the message is the same. If we are not free, we are pastored to let that go and find the way in Christ that brings us true freedom and simplicity.

 

[ParkerD]

And Parker,

Sorry for my missive…I am keeping you and your family in my prayers…

Kathleen,

Thanks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do we attach to men and images or do we attach to Jesus Christ and the Eucharist? I find true freedom and true self in Christ…I lose myself in Christ to be myself…and the whole foundation of being ourselves is based on the reality that Jesus Loves Us.

Jesus loves us for who we are, that is the foundation of our self-esteem. I am happy and trusting, looking at the history of our church, in spite of human excesses, the message is the same. If we are not free, we are pastored to let that go and find the way in Christ that brings us true freedom and simplicity.

Yes, I agree.

In my conversion from atheism to Catholicism my husband expressed his fear the religion would tear us apart. I told him that there wasn’t any reason that it should.

He is still atheist, my daughter is attracted to Buddhism. Today she was wearing a rosary around that I made. That is how she is. She finds the rosary beautiful.

We do alright. No one is forcing anything on anyone else and no one is threatening to leave because we differ in belief.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker -

1. Please cite the scripture that states the early Church leaders did not have the Holy Spirit when making decisions.
2. Please cite the scripture/historical documents that prove the loss of authority.
3. So God had to GIVE the authority and He didn’t? Please cite your sources.
   No member of the early Church asked for the Holy Spirit to make righteous choices?
   Please cite your sources.
4. How can YOU possibly know who did/did not have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives 2,000 years ago? Please cite your sources.

Hi, Lax16,

I suppose that you’re asking for a recap of our conversation:

Originally Posted by lax16
Please answer my question.

What happened to the Holy Spirit after the First Apostles died?

My response was:
I would think it is a safe assumption (not being there to see the effects) that some had the Holy Spirit with them, and others didn’t. The more the dissension, the greater the loss of the Holy Spirit among the members. The more a leader tried to dissipate the free will choice of the members, the greater the loss of the Holy Spirit by such a leader and any followers of this kind of practice.

(I had earlier said that I certainly believe the Twelve Apostles (with Matthias included) had the Holy Spirit to guide their decisions, which included that they discussed issues and sought spiritual confirmation of decisions. So now we are talking about what happened after the First Apostles died.)

After the First Apostles died, there are no scriptural sources to say how decisions were made specifically. We know how they “should” have been made, based on the example of how the decisions were made by the twelve apostles. We also know that dissension and disunity had begun to occur frequently among the members and even among some leaders whom some members followed–this from reading the epistles of Paul, Peter, Jude, and John.

1. I’ve stated several times that there are no “historical documents” with the kind of proof you seek, but that there is certainly scriptural support, which you aren’t going to agree with and that is your privilege and also in keeping with free will choice given deliberately to all of us by a loving Supreme Being who planned this world for our good. I’ve cited the scriptures already in this thread. As others have said, they aren’t “proof.”
2. Those are two separate issues. Heavenly Father can do whatever He wants with His authority, since it really is His. The authority ties to the scriptures related to item 2.

As for the Holy Spirit, some would presumably have had the Holy Spirit to guide them to the extent they were seeking specific guidance regarding specific truths they prayed about or sought the “burning in their heart” about the answer to. (I think those who opposed the idea of the “Eucharist” when the doctrinal shift over that occurred, had the Holy Spirit with them and that is why they would not participate when it was clear what was being represented.)

1. I don’t, as I’ve already explained. The loss of authority would lead to the loss of the “gift of the Holy Ghost”, but not to the complete loss of the Holy Ghost to help discerning people to find and cling to truths to guide their lives. So there is a substantial difference, and the loss of the one doesn’t mean the total loss of the other among the members. (The “gift of the Holy Ghost” relates to being “born of the Spirit”, so it was an important loss, but only what would be called a “partial loss” in terms of anyone ever having spiritual guidance.)

Again, a wish of peace to you and all.