Mormons and authority

[twopekinguys]

Yes I am saying a translated being can be visible to us on earth. When I say a different sphere I mean the body is in a higher state free from disease and physical pain among other blessings. They are not called to lead, they are called to minister. This does not disprove my assertion that the priesthood was lost to men remaining in this Telestial state, for it was.

One itsy bitsy problem here.

Living on the Earth is a completely different thing that being on the Earth in a different form.

Your own church says “live”

Also, what proof do you have for your assertions about all this translated being stuff? Anything substantial? Say from an independent source?

I find your last sentence quite interesting. In a round about way, it all came back to you bearing your testimony. No proof, just simply because you say so.

Just because I say I’m 6’9" tall, doesn’t mean I am.

 

[twopekinguys]

I wrote, “Apostolic succession vanished from the earth with the deaths of the apostles a long time ago…” I guess you could argue that I should have said, “Apostolic succession vanished from the earth with the deaths of the apostles and the translation of John a long time ago…” But again, that is not the point. The point is that priesthood held by the apostles was removed.

By the way, I see you again dodged my question about Elijah. I love how I’m called on the carpet when I do not answer every last question even if they veer in all directions from the original post, but when I ask one question to a large audience, I get no discussion.

I haven’t dodged anything. I never got into that part of the conversation, so therefore, I couldn’t dodge it now could I?

But, just to clarify, I did address it when I stated that Jharek was handling it quite well. Or would you rather I just parrot his, or anyone else’s answer on the subject.

Good try though…just fell a little short there slugger.

 

[Stephen168]

So I ask, when he was taken up into heaven was he a prophet?

Are you suggesting David Koresh was a prophet? Jim Jones? Charles Manson?

Can you know the first three Christian prophets?

 

[Stephen168]

The point is that priesthood held by the apostles was removed.

Who was the Prophet? How many Apostles did Jesus excommunicate?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Or, perhaps I’m just more sensitive to the claim of being the prophet Elijah because I remember the Lafferty brothers.

deseretnews.com/article/595079489/1984-Lafferty-case-still-haunts.html?pg=all

 

[Janderich]

The problem I see with your question about Elijah, is one where violence against a person or group of persons is claimed as justifiable because “Elijah did it”. It is a zealots stance, that is irrational, and can’t be defended. YOU would need to provide evidence that Smith is in the same class as Elijah. Saying both killed people does not make Smith a prophet. Lots of people have killed others for a lot of reasons, including in the name of God.

Of course killing someone does not make them a prophet. However, being called of God does. I need not prove Joseph was a prophet. There are many witnesses, more then you ever found with Elijah.

 

[Janderich]

I believe that if one is called to live life according to the Old Testament
there would be truth to what you say.
However those called to the New Testament of the Lord
Jesus Christ one would have to reject the preference
for OT behavior with Joseph Smith and LDS
in general. God called all to a NEW covenant with Him
in Christ not a rehash of the Old. Therefore most
of Smiths actions snd the current teachings of the
Mormon Church are the very antithesis of what OUR
Lord asks of Christians.

Yes. Joseph never claimed to be perfect. Indeed some during his time, saw Joseph’s brother Hyrum as more of the prophet type demeanor. But the Lord chose Joseph not Hyrum.

 

[Janderich]

One itsy bitsy problem here.

Living on the Earth is a completely different thing that being on the Earth in a different form.

Your own church says “live”

Also, what proof do you have for your assertions about all this translated being stuff? Anything substantial? Say from an independent source?

I find your last sentence quite interesting. In a round about way, it all came back to you bearing your testimony. No proof, just simply because you say so.

Just because I say I’m 6’9" tall, doesn’t mean I am.

Haaa, haaa, haaa, proof of translation. As well you might prove the resurrection. All you have is testimony of this most pivotal event. Will you reject it also?

 

[marywarfield]

Yes. Joseph never claimed to be perfect. Indeed some during his time, saw Joseph’s brother Hyrum as more of the prophet type demeanor. But the Lord chose Joseph not Hyrum.

Without regard to which God “chose” and there is
nothing of evidence that shows God had anything
to do with Hyrum and Joseph, the fact that the resulting
doctrines have nothing to do with Christ either
would let either brother out of the running as a
prophet. So what is your point? You don’t
seem to be making any other than throwing our
random sentences.
It seems considering what LDS teaches that you
might get further in a Jewish forum not any Christian
one. In order for your “prophets” to be considered
“prophetic” at all in any Christian forum they would
have had to say something slightly Christian at least
wouldn’t you think?

 

[twopekinguys]

Haaa, haaa, haaa, proof of translation. As well you might prove the resurrection. All you have is testimony of this most pivotal event. Will you reject it also?

You’re the one that mentioned this so called “translation”.

However, we have the Biblical account of the Resurrection, and Christ making himself known and visible to his followers following the resurrection.

Has anyone seen the Apostle John? hmmmmmmmmmmmm don’t think so.

You made a claim for this so called “translation”, it is up to you to prove it.

Haaa, haaa, haaa (did I get that right? )

 

[twopekinguys]

All you have is testimony of this most pivotal event. Will you reject it also?

Do you mean like your earlier post about witness for smith? " There are many witnesses, more then you ever found with Elijah."

I’m thinking I will trust the Biblical witnesses and accounts more than the witnesses for smith.

Good try though Keep swinging away.

 

[marywarfield]

Indeed it is, because we believe an apostle is not a bishop or a pope. Apostolic succession vanished from the earth with the deaths of the apostles a long time ago, and was only restored when a resurrected Peter and James along with John, who was translated, placed their hands on Joseph Smiths head and restored the priesthood. If this truly happened as I have said, then there really is not point in arguing further.

Returning to the original OP which was incorrect
to begin with- the Catholic Church does not view
Mormonism as a “Protestant” religion and either do
the majority of Protestant religions- so the premise of
the OP was incorrect to start.
In actual fact Mormonism has less in common with
Catholicism or Protestant Christian religions than
Islam.
It is a very secular Amerucan institution at best
and referring to it as Christian doesn’t fly simply
because Mormonism in a nutshell is this: Jesus Christ is primarily
interested in the USA because he was pretty much
a complete failure in Palestine and how
could one expect anything else of such a second
rate prophet way surpassed in holiness by Joseph
Smith and the Angel Moroni?
Once people actually begin studying this-what the major
Christian religions describe as Mormonism- we come
to the next question brought in on the thread re: apostolic
succession. I’m absolutely sure Mormons have apostolic
successions but those apostles have NOTHING
to do with us or Protestants as it is not by anyone’s
definition a Christian apostolic succession.
So why argue it? It makes as much sense as arguing
whether Wiccan priestesses are validly ordained. Of
course they are- in Wicca and no where else. Lol.
So maybe before people argue this any further a quick
look at the difference between Mormons and any Christian
religion can be found here on Catholic Answers.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON.HTM

 

[Horton]

Returning to the original OP which was incorrect
to begin with- the Catholic Church does not view
Mormonism as a “Protestant” religion and either do
the majority of Protestant religions- so the premise of
the OP was incorrect to start.
In actual fact Mormonism has less in common with
Catholicism or Protestant Christian religions than
Islam.
It is a very secular Amerucan institution at best
and referring to it as Christian doesn’t fly simply
because Mormonism in a nutshell is this: Jesus Christ is primarily
interested in the USA because he was pretty much
a complete failure in Palestine and how
could one expect anything else of such a second
rate prophet way surpassed in holiness by Joseph
Smith and the Angel Moroni?
Once people actually begin studying this-what the major
Christian religions describe as Mormonism- we come
to the next question brought in on the thread re: apostolic
succession. I’m absolutely sure Mormons have apostolic
successions but those apostles have NOTHING
to do with us or Protestants as it is not by anyone’s
definition a Christian apostolic succession.
So why argue it? It makes as much sense as arguing
whether Wiccan priestesses are validly ordained. Of
course they are- in Wicca and no where else. Lol.
So maybe before people argue this any further a quick
look at the difference between Mormons and any Christian
religion can be found here on Catholic Answers.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON.HTM

Amen! Mormons are not now or ever been Christians. Arguing the “truth” of the bom or Smith is pointless. Having lived in a predominate mormon community for close to 20 years I know how exhausting it can be. I had a co- worker once confide he thought the JS story was false but he “believed” the LDS church was the one true church I thought you’d have to buy into the first to buy into the second.

I’m happy to know my faith as a Catholic is based on sound evidence rather than a fairytale.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course killing someone does not make them a prophet. However, being called of God does. I need not prove Joseph was a prophet. There are many witnesses, more then you ever found with Elijah.

There is quantity and then there is quality.

 

[Tarquin]

The doctrine of translation is a power which belongs to the Melchizedek priesthood. These translated individuals are reserved to be ministers of the gospel. They do not lead the church for the have entered a different sphere and are called to a different work. We read of the three Nephites, “And he [Jesus] said unto them: what will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father? And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak the thing which they desired. And he said unto them; Behold I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews desired of me. …for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand” (3 Ne 28:4-5,9). This is exactly as I stated in my early posts. Apostolic succession vanished from the earth. This does not mean that John died, it simply means that priesthood authority was lost to men in the this Telestial state. Again, no contradiction.

(1) What is your evidence, even from the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, that those “translated individuals” have been “called to a different work.” Were they given emeritus status as apostles? Were they simply demoted?

(2) It is possible that “priesthood authority” vanished from the earth. Since there are people who claim it did not vanish from the earth, but continued in legitimate lines of succession, and there are others who claim it did vanish but has somehow been returned (to none other than themselves), then it behooves both parties to justify their claims.

On the Catholic and Orthodox side, priesthood lineages are readily available. Early Christians reported who was in charge where and when and whether he executed his office well or poorly. If the reports are suspect, reasons need to be given for why they should be suspect. On the Mormon side, there are no outside testimonies to the restoration of any priestly office or authority. There is only the testimony of the two principles in the case of the Aaronic Priesthood, and not even that in the case of the Melchizedek priesthood. If all things, according to Mormon tradition (I dare not risk calling any Mormon belief a “doctrine,” as I see where that goes, and it isn’t pleasant) are to be ascertained by the mouth of two or three witnesses (a misapplication of Matthew 18:15-16 and 2 Corinthians 13:1), then the lack of witnesses to the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood is sufficient to reject the claim. On the other hand, if one were to argue, as Mormons have argued, that “God the Father and Jesus Christ are the witnesses,” then there was never a need for the Three, the Eight, or the Two (Smith and Cowdery) Witnesses ever to be called, as far as that “law” is concerned.

(3) If priesthood authority really was “lost,” and if this was such a pivotal point in Gospel history, it behoves those making the claim, to attempt a description of the process. Did God just figure, “Well, I prophesied it would be lost. So I guess I’ll take it away from them now.” Or did He look and see, “Oh my gosh, all those remaining apostles and bishops, they are such rascals. They’re messing everything up. I better take my authority away from them, and let the gates of hell prevail over the work begun by my Son, for 1800 years, and then give the authority to Joseph Smith when he’s old enough.” Or “Well, Jesus ‘ordained’ twelve apostles. Now they’re all dead, darn it. I never said to ordain Matthias, so he doesn’t even count really. I guess I’ll just have to let all those thousands of believers who were baptized, trusting in Christ, and submitting to the authority of the apostles, stumble around in darkness now and invent new doctrines. I know one thing. I’m sure not going to lift a finger to help them.”

Did the apostles really all die, and that was the breaking point? If so, when did each die, and why weren’t the ones remaining sufficient to carry one. I think it’s important to explain why and how Matthias, Apollo, Priscilla, Phoebe, Epaenetus Andronicus and Junias (both apostles!), Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Rufus themselves, individually apostatized. If there is no evidence of their apostasy, one ought not accuse them falsely? Why did God remove the priesthood authority from Andronicus and Junias? If there is no reason to do so, but he did so anyway, such a God seems undivinely arbitary and unpredictable. I think Mormons have only their “beliefs” to go on, what they are told, and thus their testimonies must be based on “feelings” because they most certainly cannot be based on evidence.

It would be helpful if the General Authorities would publish official answers to such questions. That they do not do so, suggests to me they are not competent to do so, neither biblically nor in light of Mormon scriptures.

 

[Janderich]

It is a very secular Amerucan institution at best
and referring to it as Christian doesn’t fly simply because Mormonism in a nutshell is this: Jesus Christ is primarily interested in the USA because he was pretty much
a complete failure in Palestine and how could one expect anything else of such a second
rate prophet way surpassed in holiness by Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni?

Absolutely not! This statement is false to the core. Our witness is that Christ remembers one nation like unto another. As he said,

I the Lord have not forgotten my people. Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea, and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God , that I remember on nation like unto another? (2 Ne 29:5,7-8)

Moreover, the core doctrine of our church is the atonement and resurrection of Christ, as stated by Joseph Smith himself,

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

 

[Stephen168]

Of course not, priesthood is conditioned on following the will of the Lord. Apostolic keys were not restored until Joseph again received them. There is no contradiction here.

Mormons claim their Apostles hold the key of Priesthood Authority which the Catholic Church lost; demonstrated by the fact there are no more Apostles in Orthodox Christianity. The problem with this claim is Mormon history itself.

In 1830, Joseph Smith started the Latter-Day-Saint Movement by making himself First Elder and Oliver Cowdery ‘Second Elder.’ They both claimed to be given the ‘Keys.’ Smith established the First Presidency, Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon, to run the Church in 1832. This High Council was the chief judicial and legislative body of the church supervised by the First Presidency. The Presiding High Council was established in 1834 by the First Presidency. In 1835, Smith told Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, to select the Twelve Apostles to head the missionary work of the Church. The first apostles were: Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Lyman E. Johnson, David W. Patten, Orson Hyde, William E. M’Lellin, Luke S. Johnson, William Smith, John F. Boynton, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Thomas B. Marsh.

In 1835, The Book of Commandments was rewritten to be Doctrine and Covenants as Smith invented the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed he received the ‘keys of the kingdom’ from Peter, James and John.

By the end of 1835, the Church was run by the Elders in the First Presidency who was over the Elders in the Presiding High Council who was over the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. ‘The Keys’ were held by the First Presidency who were not ‘Apostles.’

In 1837, the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank founded by church leaders, led to widespread dissent.

In 1838, Thomas Marsh, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, William M’Lellin, and John Boynton were excommunicated. And John Patten was killed. They were replaced by John Page, and John Taylor leaving the church with eight apostles.

In 1839 Wilford Woodruff, and George Smith were added to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to make the total number ten.

In 1840, Willard Richards made the number of apostles eleven.

In 1841, Lyman Wight was added to restored the number of apostles to twelve.

In 1842 Orson Pratt was excommunicated and replaced by Amasa Lyman.

At the time of Joseph Smith’s death the First Presidency included: Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. The head of the Presiding High Council was William Marks. The head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Brigham Young. After the Smith’s were killed, only Sidney Rigdon remained in the First Presidency.

As the member of the First Presidency (holder of the keys) Rigdon claimed to be guardian of the church and Apostle John Page and Elder William Marks supported him in that claim.

Brigham Young as the head Apostle claimed Joseph Smith was an Apostle and held the keys. Because Young was the head Apostle he claimed to replace Smith as the holder of the keys. This was the first time any Mormon thought of an Apostle as being a key holder.
The Church membership voted for Young, as leader of the third level church council, to lead the church; and raise the Quorum of Twelve Apostles over the Presiding High Council while taking over the First Presidency.

In 1848, Oliver Cowdery said a ‘Holy Angel’ came down and gave the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood.

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys of the kingdom’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons claim their Apostles hold the key of Priesthood Authority which the Catholic Church lost; demonstrated by the fact there are no more Apostles in Orthodox Christianity. The problem with this claim is Mormon history itself.

In 1830, Joseph Smith started the Latter-Day-Saint Movement by making himself First Elder and Oliver Cowdery ‘Second Elder.’ They both claimed to be given the ‘Keys.’ Smith established the First Presidency, Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon, to run the Church in 1832. This High Council was the chief judicial and legislative body of the church supervised by the First Presidency. The Presiding High Council was established in 1834 by the First Presidency. In 1835, Smith told Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, to select the Twelve Apostles to head the missionary work of the Church. The first apostles were: Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Lyman E. Johnson, David W. Patten, Orson Hyde, William E. M’Lellin, Luke S. Johnson, William Smith, John F. Boynton, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Thomas B. Marsh.

In 1835, The Book of Commandments was rewritten to be Doctrine and Covenants as Smith invented the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed he received the ‘keys of the kingdom’ from Peter, James and John.

By the end of 1835, the Church was run by the Elders in the First Presidency who was over the Elders in the Presiding High Council who was over the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. ‘The Keys’ were held by the First Presidency who were not ‘Apostles.’

In 1837, the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank founded by church leaders, led to widespread dissent.

In 1838, Thomas Marsh, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, William M’Lellin, and John Boynton were excommunicated. And John Patten was killed. They were replaced by John Page, and John Taylor leaving the church with eight apostles.

In 1839 Wilford Woodruff, and George Smith were added to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to make the total number ten.

In 1840, Willard Richards made the number of apostles eleven.

In 1841, Lyman Wight was added to restored the number of apostles to twelve.

In 1842 Orson Pratt was excommunicated and replaced by Amasa Lyman.

At the time of Joseph Smith’s death the First Presidency included: Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. The head of the Presiding High Council was William Marks. The head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Brigham Young. After the Smith’s were killed, only Sidney Rigdon remained in the First Presidency.

As the member of the First Presidency (holder of the keys) Rigdon claimed to be guardian of the church and Apostle John Page and Elder William Marks supported him in that claim.

Brigham Young as the head Apostle claimed Joseph Smith was an Apostle and held the keys. Because Young was the head Apostle he claimed to replace Smith as the holder of the keys. This was the first time any Mormon thought of an Apostle as being a key holder.
The Church membership voted for Young, as leader of the third level church council, to lead the church; and raise the Quorum of Twelve Apostles over the Presiding High Council while taking over the First Presidency.

In 1848, Oliver Cowdery said a ‘Holy Angel’ came down and gave the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood.

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys of the kingdom’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

 

[Tarquin]

Another question has come to mind relative to “priesthood authority” and fallibility, especially in their presumed connection to “universal apostasy” (not a Biblical teaching):

If Joseph Smith qualified as a true prophet of God despite his self-confessed “weakness of youth and foibles of human nature,” and despite at times giving his own opinions (as doctrines), some of which were later discovered to be erroneous, yet none of these were sufficient to disqualify him as regards priesthood authority, then there is no justice on God’s part to disqualify any Pope or post-apostolic (arguing for the moment as though there really were a post-apostolic church) Bishop from continuing to hold the priesthood authority on account of their errors and foibles.

So why should God be so harsh with the early Christians, struggling to survive in a hostile society and doing a pretty blessed good job of it - willing to subject themselves for the sake of their faith to the such atrocities as: (Hebrews 11:37-38) * “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (of whom the world was not worthy) - they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth;”* but contrariwise when it comes to others like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Gordon Hinckley making equally serious mistakes while under so much less persecution (in Hinckley’s situation, virtually none), He should be so lenient and allow them to keep their authority despite their doctrinal and procedural errors? The answer that comes to my mind is, He wasn’t. He wasn’t that harsh. He did not condemn the early Christians for doctrinal errors, or he does condemn modern Christians (i.e., Mormons) for them. In the first case, the authority remained and a restoration is not needed; in the second case, an apostasy occurred and a restoration is still needed.

Is there a contrary Mormon view that is balanced and reasonable rather than based on the assumption that the Catholic Church is wrong because it is the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church is right because we feel good about it?

 

[marywarfield]

Absolutely not! This statement is false to the core. Our witness is that Christ remembers one nation like unto another. As he said, Moreover, the core doctrine of our church is the atonement and resurrection of Christ, as stated by Joseph Smith himself,

If what you say is true why does NO OTHER Christian
Church in the world Protestant or Catholic consider
your Church a Christ like Church? There is something
Zyour Church says and does that eliminates it
entirely from consideration as Christian. You follow
a different drummer than Christ.
For the very fact that you needed a new book a new
prophet a new life other than Christ indicates
you do NOT acknowledge Jesus Christ as the
one the only and final Lord of all.
And no person or Church who does not find Christ
the fullness of all can properly be called “Christian.”
Which is probably why your prophets act and
speak in constant opposition to Our Lord.