Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[PacMan]

Paul,

I was very respectful to insinuate your good-faith error, but now you are being obstinante and irresponsibly beligerant.

Yes, the First Quorum of Seventy of the Church, today, does hold the priesthood authority and keys, but they are subordinate to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency… meaning the Quorum of Seventy can exercise their priesthood authority and keys only to the extent the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and First Presidency and our Lord have authorized them to use their priesthood authority and keys.

You are WRONG! And since you have lacked citation, I will prove my point with scripture:

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:7)

There are many keys within the priesthood, and they are not all shared by the Apostles. The Prophet gives them keys (a great many of them), and some to the 70’s in others, etc., all the way down to the Deacon’s Quorum President. That being said, there are keys that the Apostles and the First Presidency holds that the 70’s don’t. Period.

That being said, don’t posture your understanding as doctrine—particularly to those like Betts whom have some influence and will hold strongly to your explanation. It’s dangerous, and fundamentally incorrect.

Again…no opinions here.

Cheers,

PacMan

[PacMan]

Betts (and to a very small degree, Zeta),

How would the keys be instituted through a reorganization? I understood that the keys are passed on by the laying on of hands. If the quorum of 70 don't possess the keys, how can that quorum pass them on by the laying on of hands?

Hold on…you’re confused a bit on “passed.” First, there are some differences and they often get confused (and conflated) in colloquial expression, so let me back up a bit: Remember, the authority and power are different, but both in the Priesthood. When you ‘go up,’ in Priesthood office (authority), you’re “ordained.” When you ‘go up (or just move)’ in hierarchy (or given a calling), you’re set-apart. Sometimes, a setting-apart necessitates a new office, which may necessitate keys (a Bishop, for example). When a 19 year old pre-missionary receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he is ordained an Elder, but receives no keys. When he becomes a missionary, he is set-apart. Later, when he becomes a High Priest, he already has the Melchizedek Priesthood. There is no difference between the Melchizedek Priesthood held by a pre-missionary, and that held by God himself. The higher Priesthood is that which raises the dead, heals disease, and creates world. That being said, he doesn’t have the authority, nor the keys to exercise all those facets. The office of High Priest allows him to hold further positions of leadership, for which he’d also need be set-apart for. If this Elder were ‘called’ to serve as a counselor in the Bishopric, he’d (typically) need to be ordained a High Priest prior to being ‘set-apart’ as a counselor in the Bishopric. But he wouldn’t receive any keys (because the Bishop holds them for that congregation).

Another example: Any Elder has the power to ordain an Apostle. He hasn’t the authority to do so, however. He’d have to be authorized to do so, having been given via the laying on of hands by one having those keys.

Within the context of the 70, the Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear:

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 107:25 - 26)

Now, you ask how they can have the keys if they’re not given. This is simple: They have been. Every hierarchy of the church has been given the keys to reorganize the hierarchy directly above it if it needs be done.

Let us assume a complete cataclysmic event that kills everyone except a few single High Councilman (there’s 12 per each Stake, which itself is composed of typically 5-6 Wards, each with a Bishop). They haven’t the authority to reorganize neither the First Presidency nor the Quorum of the 12, but they do have the authority and the keys to reorganize the Stake. That new Presidency (although the same people) has the authority and the keys to reorganize the 70, and they the Quorum of the 12, and they the First Presidency. Those ‘emergency keys' of reorganization are inherent at every level (as detailed in the D&C), and can be done because the power of the Priesthood is the same. When a High Councilman is ‘set-apart,’ such authority are given, just as the keys to someday reorganize the First Presidency are given to each new Apostle. (Here's a good example...while they have the keys to reorganize the First Presidency when the prophet dies, they don't have the keys to reorganize the First Presidency via booting the Prophet and his counselors out; they have those keys to reorganize the First Presidency when the prophet dies, and the First Presidency is automatically dissolved. At this point, there is no authority above them.)

Doctrine and Covenants 107 goes through the hierarchy at length. You may find it enjoyable (and confusing) to peruse.

Does that make sense? Let us also realize that the chance of all such leadership dying (today) in one fell-swoop aint real good.

Cheers,

PacMan

P.S. Again, Paul’s off as he often is with these things. Take it with a grain of salt.

P.S.S. Edited to make more sense per Lachoneus' note.

[Lachoneus]

When a High Councilman is â??set-apart,â?? such keys are given, just as the keys to someday reorganize the First Presidency are given to each new Apostle.

Not according to the CHI, p.47: "In stakes and wards, only stake presidents, bishops, and quorum presidents receive keys of presidency when they are set apart. The words keys should not be used when setting apart counselors, high counselors, high priests group leaders, presidents of auxiliary organizations, the bishop's priests quorum assistants, or teachers in an organization."

[PacMan]

Betts,

One final example that may hit your real question home:

The Power of the Priesthood is what "makes" things happen.

The Authority of the Priesthood is what allows an aspect of that power to be exercised (while having the power to resurrect, I am certainly not authorized to do so and to try would be inefficacious).

The Keys of the Priesthood give that authorization.

Simply because authorization is given (to baptize, for example), keys are not also confirmed. In other words, because the Bishop says I can baptize an 8 year old, does not qualify me to give that privilege to others.

With the 70, they have the power to reorganize the 12 (as does anyone with the Melchizedek Priesthood).

They also have the authority to reorganize the 12 (whom have the keys).

BUT, while there is an Apostle alive, he has the keys of reorganization. Thus, the 70 can't reorganize, nor act where another holds those keys. One cannot act above another:

1 BEHOLD, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given.

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.

4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.

5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;

6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

---

13 For all things must be done in order...

---

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 28:1-7; 13)

That's why the 70 couldn't reorganize the Quorum of the 12 in the times of Peter, James, and John. John was still alive. He alone had the keys, not necessitating, nor allowing a reorganization by other lesser offices. That's why he had to give the keys to Joseph Smith, because without them, Joseph (albeit having the power), wasn't authorized to do so.

Ciao,

PacMan

[PacMan]

Not according to the CHI, p.47: "In stakes and wards, only stake presidents, bishops, and quorum presidents receive keys of presidency when they are set apart. The words keys should not be used when setting apart counselors, high counselors, high priests group leaders, presidents of auxiliary organizations, the bishop's priests quorum assistants, or teachers in an organization."

That's why I previously put the "keys" in quotes (I think I actually called them "emergency keys" for this rather far-fetched hypothetical). To be honest, I should have called it "emergency authority." Do note, however, I never said they received keys at ordination. Also note, that the particular language refers to "keys of presidency." One needn't be in presidency to hold keys (as Zeta noted, the keys to the administering of Angles isn't only given in presidency).

Only once all those above him are gone can a High Councilman reorganize the immediate level above him...having the authority ("emergency keys") to do so (by virtue of being the only one with the power). That reorganized level would have the associated keys, etc., etc.

For example, does the first counselor in the Elder's quorum have keys? No. What if the President is incapacitated or killed? Then, until the quorum presidency is reorganized, he is surely able to exercise the authority of the presidency because the responsibility falls to him. That does NOT, however, mean he has the keys, because those Stake Leaders are the ones with the keys to reorganize the Quorum and such reorganization is thus, not his privilege.

PacMan

[Bernard Gui]

Well, Pacman. Dude. I've got to correct you.

I ain't never heard of "emergency keys."

High councilmen have no keys. I have been

one several times. No keys are conferred.

You are only set apart. Therefore, they could

not convene to set apart a stake presidency.

They have no keys to confer. Stake presidents

can only be called by the First Presidency and ordained by

them or their designated representatives, and

then only under assignment.

Keys are given from the top down, not the bottom

up. The only one holding all keys is the President of

the Church. The Quorum of 12 hold them in abeyance

while he is alive. When he passes on, the keys of

presidency become active in the Quorum of 12.

The senior apostle then is ordained President and

the presiding keys of the 12 again become dormant.

If every priesthood holder in the church somehow

kicked off simultaneously except all the deacon quorum

presidents, they could not all get together and ordain

teachers presidents, who could not ordain bishops,

etc. They only possess the keys pertaining to their

stewardship.

This is how order is maintained in the succession

of the presidency and in the church, and how political machinations are

avoided in the selection of the President. The patchwork

quilt known as Protestantism is the result of having no

concept of the priesthood or of keys. It's a free-for-all

without any leadership, revelation, or structure. God's

house is a house of order, and order is insured and mainained

by priesthood keys.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

For example, what do our Protestant friends think about this:

"...it is for the rest of you to hold the deacons in as great respect as Jesus Christ; just as you should also look on the bishop as a type of the Father, and the clergy as the Apostolic circle forming His council; for without these three orders no church has any right to the name."

"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too, as you would the Apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command from God. Make sure that no step affecting the church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop's sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, we have the catholic Church. Nor is it permissible to conduct baptisms or love feasts without the bishop. On the other hand, whatever does have his sanction can be sure of God's approval too. This is the way to make certain of the soundness and validity of anything you do."

(Ignatius)

Comments, Bob, Paul D or H, rhino, anyone?

Bernard

[Zeta-Flux]

PacMan,

My understanding is that when Joseph was set apart as "First Elder" he did not immediately hold all the keys. Some had to be restored. Much of this was done in the Kirtland temple, by angelic ministration.

The 12 apostles had already been called and served missions. But much later, Joseph Smith bestowed the keys upon them. This event is described by Wilford Woodruff when he did his first recording. (I highly recommend listening to his testimony.) Similarly, when an apostle is called to the quorum of the 12, they are specifically given all the keys of the kingdom, inactivated until said apostle becomes the chief apostle.

I do not believe such procedure happens with the other General Authorities.

So, I just do not believe that there are these *emergency* keys. They are never mentioned in the scriptures. And it would contradict the steps needed to be taken by Joseph Smith and the first apostles of this dispensation, to ensure that the keys would not be lost. Keys, such as "turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" would be lost if all the apostles died.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[consiglieri]

Can I weigh in with what I hope will be a responsible suggestion?

I have suggested that only 4 remaining apostles would be insufficient to reconstitute the Church. Even as I made that argument, I was aware that, while technically true, it smacked of (drum roll, please) "apologetics."

In other words, it is an answer that fits while at the same time sounding contrived, at least to me.

Others on this thread have posted alternative responses to the original post.

But I am starting to think that maybe all of this misses the point. Maybe the original question is based on a false premise. The original question deals with the existence of priesthood and keys and transfer of that priesthood and keys, and people staying alive with the priesthood and keys, and how could that be an apostasy?

I think that what really happened in the apostasy was a wholesale rejection of God by God's church.

I think that God was still following the principle set forth in Alma 29 that he would give all the light and knowledge to people that they were prepared to received, but God can't and won't make people accept it when they are busy rejecting it.

As someone else has already noted, the three Nephites (never referred to as apostles, but as subordinate to apostles) were taken from the face of the land precisely because of this rejection of God, manifested through wickedness.

When looked at in this light, I think it makes no difference whether John the Beloved was somewhere with priesthood or keys. Although it might be noted John may have been translated in part to fulfill a promise to Adam:

Moses 5:58 And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.

59 And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was. Amen.

In a similar way, after all the Nephites were destroyed, and only Moroni was left to tell the tale, do we have to wait until Moroni died to say that an apostasy had occurred in the New World? Or is it just as accurate to say that after the great and last battle, there was an apostasy? Or is it even more accurate to say that it was the apostasy among the Nephites that led to the great and last battle, notwithstanding the presence of both Mormon and Moroni?

I am more and more agreeing with those who early on saw this whole question as straining at gnats.

Perhaps it is time to focus on the camels Bob is swallowing while distracting us with this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[PacMan]

Bernard Gui,

Appreciate the input, but youâ??re a bit late. The whole â??emergency keysâ? were put in quotations for a purposeâ?¦to illustrate a point. I had already changed it to â??emergency authorityâ? by the time you wrote for better accuracy (I donâ??t want to confuse those that miss the â?? â??, as you did), although they are still illustrative. You call them keys in abeyance. So be it. Siento mucho that you missed that.

Now, the issue is still that the 70 can reorganize the 12, if needs be.

If every priesthood holder in the church somehow

kicked off simultaneously except all the deacon quorum

presidents, they could not all get together and ordain

teachers presidents, who could not ordain bishops,

etc. They only possess the keys pertaining to their

stewardship.

Yes, but your absurdum is off kilterâ?¦youâ??re mixing the Aaronic with the Melchisedek which are completely distinct. Moreover, D&C 107 doesnâ??t say that the Deacons as a Quorum have the authority of that Presidency. Within the Aaronic Priesthood, all keys are found with the Bishop. The 70 and the High Councils of the Church are different. If youâ??d like to try and make another illustrative example, shoot.

Other than that, I think you are still responding to a bit of a strawman.

As far as your quotes, Protestants are not really thrilled with an official organization. That being said, theyâ??d reject them (at least in part). I donâ??t see what it has to do, however, with the conversation.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Zeta,

Good to have you in this discussion.

My understanding is that when Joseph was set apart as "First Elder" he did not immediately hold all the keys. Some had to be restored. Much of this was done in the Kirtland temple, by angelic ministration.

I think you’re being a bit humble here…undoubtedly, your ‘understanding’ is absolutely correct.

The 12 apostles had already been called and served missions. But much later, Joseph Smith bestowed the keys upon them. This event is described by Wilford Woodruff when he did his first recording. (I highly recommend listening to his testimony.) Similarly, when an apostle is called to the quorum of the 12, they are specifically given all the keys of the kingdom, inactivated until said apostle becomes the chief apostle.

Right, and this makes sense. Joseph was ordained an Apostle, and continued receiving keys as time went on. You do, however, make a very important and interesting distinction (I don’t know if you meant to). You say, ‘when an apostle is called to the quorum of the 12….’ That right, for an apostle needn’t be in the quorum of the 12. I have on good authority (good hearsay is often heresy, but continuing on…) that when the First Presidency is dissolved, only the 12 most Senior Apostles participate in the reorganization. Better said, the 2 most junior apostles have a more observing role. The quorum of the 12 is 12.

I do not believe such procedure happens with the other General Authorities.

So, I just do not believe that there are these *emergency* keys. They are never mentioned in the scriptures. And it would contradict the steps needed to be taken by Joseph Smith and the first apostles of this dispensation, to ensure that the keys would not be lost. Keys, such as "turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" would be lost if all the apostles died.

And as I have said, “emergency keys” was illustrative, but really imprecise. Let’s call it an “emergency authority.” The power to reorganize the 12 is held within the quorum of the 70. It has to be. That’s what D&C 107 says….their authorities are equal. Now, that doesn’t mean that the 70’s can act for and in behalf of, or superior to the 12 because the 12 clearly have the keys.

Don’t get caught up in the semantics of this “emergency whatever.” Clearly, it’s not spelled out definitionally, but it is authoritatively. I was simply trying to illustrate this inherent authority in the quorum.

Keys, such as "turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" would be lost if all the apostles died.

No. The Quorums of the Seventy (at least the first 2 from what I understand) have the sealing power. As a quorum which has hypothetically reorganized the Quorum of the 12, it appears that this quorum of 12 apostles would then have the authority AND keys to direct the use of this power, and those that hold it.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Consig,

Can I weigh in with what I hope will be a responsible suggestion?

NO!

Well, OK.

But I am starting to think that maybe all of this misses the point. Maybe the original question is based on a false premise. The original question deals with the existence of priesthood and keys and transfer of that priesthood and keys, and people staying alive with the priesthood and keys, and how could that be an apostasy?

I think that what really happened in the apostasy was a wholesale rejection of God by God's church.

Sure. You’re right…that’s WHY the apostasy happened. What I’m at least accounting for is the juxtaposition of D&C 107 and the 70s in the New Testament. In other words, if the DO have the authority of the 12, why couldn’t the 70s back then reform it? The important answer is, because they HADN’T the authority because one with keys was still alive. IF John died, I’m almost 100% sure that those 70s (assuming they function similarly as they do today) could have authoritatively reorganized the Quorum of the 12. But while John was alive, they could not, because he had those keys. It was not yet their prerogative. This becomes important because there were 2 sets of leaders…those apostates, and those that were good, righteous, faithful men doing the best they could to perpetuate the church. Those that were righteous would still combine to make an efficacious quorum, and that quorum would be able to restructure the 12…but only if the keys were gone—but they weren’t.

Or is it even more accurate to say that it was the apostasy among the Nephites that led to the great and last battle, notwithstanding the presence of both Mormon and Moroni?

I agree. Apostasy was what led to the Great Apostasy where darkness covered the earth.

I am more and more agreeing with those who early on saw this whole question as straining at gnats.

Hehe. Sure. While the clatyclymic scenario is rather stupid, it does have ramifications in explaining what the 70s of the New Testament could and couldn’t have done. I think John is a VERY important figure in this process, as well as the 3 Nephites. On each continent, the Apostleship could NOT be continued because those with the keys never died, choosing all the meanwhile to never adding to the quorum's membership.

PacMan

[Bob Betts]

I'll take a stab at this...

So, why didn't the Apostles in the first century, get replaced by members of the 70, as the 12 were killed off?

They were; look at the calling of Matthias to the Apostleship at the end of Acts 1; this was required to fill the vacancy left by Judah. Also, look at the calling of Paul to the Apostleship as well. It is very possible that he was called to the Apostleship after James or one of the other original Apostles were martyred (I am speculating, of course).

Good answer. While it's true that Apostles died and others were called as Apostles, there is not enough information given in Acts, or clues in other parts of the NT, to say that when an Apostle died, another was called to take his place. Dates of death and dates of replacement callings are not given. Therefore, since it IS possible that a new Apostle was appointed after the death of an Apostle, so that there could have always been no more than twelve Apostles at a time, I won't argue that there were. It's also possible there WERE, but I won't argue it.

If no other Apostles had been killed by the time Paul became a Special Witness that would have made 13 Apostles in the early church.

I hanve been told many posts prior to now, in this thread, that there are only supposted to be 12 Apostles. No more, no less. So, if that's true, then please don't create more confusion for me, by telling me THIS. Is there a consensus among LDS, written authoritatively, that 12 is the set-in-stone number of Apostles?

Why didn't the early church self-perpetuate as yours does today, since your church today is supposed to be like the first century church?

Again, the early church did self-perpetuate.

Only to a point, since I've been told that the church was taken from the earth, as well as the presiding priesthood authority and priesthood keys, after the death of the Apostles. Your argument for self-perpetuation of the Lord's Church is very temporary lasting only about 70 years.

The Apostles all met together when they chose Matthias. Perhaps the Apostles were all spread across Asia, Europe and Africa that they never got an opportunity to meet up again to perpetuate themselves.

Well, THAT'S a problem, since there is no NT record, especially in the book of The ACTS of the Apostles, that they EVER met to replace an Apostle (except Matthias, at the beginning, before Pentacost). That means that Apostle's Paul, Barnabas, Timothy and others who went on missionary trips, or were imprisoned, or otherwise were detained, were rarely around to convene a quorum, as you suggest. Perpetuation, then, sounds more theoretical, than possible. Now, THIS makes me wonder, why would Christ set up His Church to self-perteptuate, then call so many Apostles out on distant missions to where they could NOT convene as a quorum to replace martyred Apostles from the quorum of the 70? So the 70 were there to replace the killed-off members of the quorum of 12, but could never BE appointed because the quorum of 12 could rarely, if ever, convene to appoint them.

Unless I'm missing something, which someone could enlighten me on, this smacks of mismanagement on the part of Jesus Christ, being both the Head and the Chief Cornerstone of His Church, to organize it in such a manner that by the end of the first century, the Church organization and subsequent priesthood power, authority and keys were taken from the earth. Thus, MOT self-perpetuating. Since I would never actually accuse my Lord and my God of mismanagement of His Church, I'm left to suspect LDS teaching. So, could someone please make sense out of THIS dilemma for me.

Remember that from an LDS point of view, the Apostasy was destined to happen.

Hmmm, predestination. Doesn't this conflict with the LDS doctrine of agency?

The Apostles would have liked to perpetuate themselves, but by the wickedness of secular and ecclesiastical leaders, they were never able to fulfill their mandate to perpetuate themselves.

So, wicked secular and ecclesiastical leaders were responsible for Christ's Church being taken from the earth? Ya know, before Christ ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father, He told the disciples, "And, Lo, I will be with you always." And, "the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church." Your explanation inclines me to believe that Christ was NOT with them, and the gates of Hades DID prevail against the Church.

Paul saw what would happen ("Grievous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock..."), so did John ("The woman flees into the wilderness...").

These statements are no different than when Christ informed His disciples that the tares would grow along side the wheat. I don't take that to mean that it was to be the end of the Church as Christ organized it to be, in just about 70 short years. This to me is not a viable explanation.

They tried to perpetuate themselves, but the world prevailed for a time;

A time? Don't you mean about 1,700 years?

how else would you explain the martyrdom of Peter, Paul and James?

Fodder for another post. Gotta go for now.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, MorgBot. You made a couple of good points.

[Bob Betts]

Thank you so very much, PacMan (in particular, and others who also contributed), for taking so much time and trouble to explain in so much detail, the LDS church organization. This is so helpful. With the references, especially, I'm sure Ill be able to make significant progress in understanding. I've read everyone's posts, and will later go back and reread them more slowly, and ponder them. I'll let you know when I have any additional questions.

This means a lot to me, since I know you didn't cut and paste, but put a lot of time and thought into this. I really appreciate that. Thanks again to all. I'll be back sometime this weekend.

[Bernard Gui]

Appreciate the input, but youâ??re a bit late. The whole â??emergency keysâ? were put in quotations for a purposeâ?¦to illustrate a point. I had already changed it to â??emergency authorityâ? by the time you wrote for better accuracy (I donâ??t want to confuse those that miss the â?? â??, as you did), although they are still illustrative. You call them keys in abeyance. So be it. Siento mucho that you missed that.

So sorry...I should always review a post before I reply to it.

Now, the issue is still that the 70 can reorganize the 12, if needs be.

Yes, but your absurdum is off kilterâ?¦youâ??re mixing the Aaronic with the Melchisedek which are completely distinct. Moreover, D&C 107 doesnâ??t say that the Deacons as a Quorum have the authority of that Presidency. Within the Aaronic Priesthood, all keys are found with the Bishop. The 70 and the High Councils of the Church are different. If youâ??d like to try and make another illustrative example, shoot.

Deacon quorum presidents are given keys of presidency by the bishop when they are set apart. High councilmen are not given any keys whatsoever. How can they confer what they don't have?

As far as your quotes, Protestants are not really thrilled with an official organization. That being said, theyâ??d reject them (at least in part). I donâ??t see what it has to do, however, with the conversation.

The quotes were simply a reminder that priesthood organization and authority were critical in

the primitive church.

Bernard

[Zeta-Flux]

PacMan,

Interesting tidbit about the two junior apostles. I had never heard that before.

On the other topic, let me make sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that the 70 have the authority to reconstitute the quorum of the 12 apostles, but not the authority to recommit the keys given only to those witnesses? In other words, if the 70 rebuilt the quorum of the 12, would this new quorum of the 12 have all the keys which were restored at the Kirtland temple, or would those keys also have to be restored (through another bestowal via angels)?

By the way, I don't read D&C 107 as saying that the 70 and the 12 and the 1st Presidency are always equal in spiritual authority. Rather, I think it is in reference to certain aspects of bearing off the kingdom, and in administration roles. But, again, I'm working off my own understanding here.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[PacMan]

Bernard,

No worries. I have a feeling that you jumped on right before I changed it.

Deacon quorum presidents are given keys of presidency by the bishop when they are set apart. High councilmen are not given any keys whatsoever. How can they confer what they don't have?

They donâ??t. A quorum can have authority collectively. Look at the Quorum of the 12: how can they collectively reorganize a governing body higher than themselves? The first answer is, because theyâ??re supposed to. D&C 107 most apparently gives the 70 that authority. Because they are then the leading authorities, those Apostles (already having received the Priesthood) would thus have the keys.

The problem here is weâ??re mixing paradigms. The situation Iâ??ve proposed would never be able to happen unless there is a complete wipe-out of all other Priesthood holders â??aboveâ? the ones in question. Typically, keys need be passed down, thus saying, â??OK everyone, you donâ??t have to come to me for this authorizationâ?¦you can now come to him.â? But if the 70 as a Quorum have the authority of the 12, as the 12 can call new Apostles, so can the 70â??if no one else is around with the keys! Instituting a new Apostle implicitly institutes those keys to himâ?¦simply because thereâ??s no question who holds them!

The other way to think about it is, how else can you juxtapose D&C 107 (70=12) if they couldnâ??t reorganize the 12 in such an cataclysmic situation?

PacMan

[PacMan]

Zeta-Flux,

On the other topic, let me make sure I am understanding you. Are you saying that the 70 have the authority to reconstitute the quorum of the 12 apostles, but not the authority to recommit the keys given only to those witnesses?

It depends what keys youâ??re talking about. Those keys of presidency, I believe, would be inherent in the reorganizationâ?¦because, who else would preside?

In other words, if the 70 rebuilt the quorum of the 12, would this new quorum of the 12 have all the keys which were restored at the Kirtland temple, or would those keys also have to be restored (through another bestowal via angels)?

Iâ??m not sure what exactly all the keys are, held by President Hinckley. But, letâ??s go with what we know:

Can the 70 like President Hinckley preside? Yesâ?¦just like anyone with the Melchizedek Priesthood, although within the authorization of the prophet and the 12.

Can the 70 like President Hinckley seal? Yesâ?¦although within the authorization of the prophet and the 12.

Can the 70 like President Hinckley perform all the temporal ordinances of the church? Sureâ?¦.just like any Bishop, although within the authorization of the prophet and the 12.

Can the 70 like President Hinckley perform, then, perform all the other spiritual ordinances? Yesâ?¦although within the authorization of the prophet and the 12.

That being said, I donâ??t know what authority they lack. If the 70 are the next authority in the hierarchy, whom do they need to get the keys of presidency from? I say-- no one. Now, letâ??s say President Hinckley alone has the keys of the resurrection on the earth and none other has it. If President Hinckley died, itâ??d need to be restored (meaning he either doesnâ??t have them and their still with Christ, the 12 are also given them, or their part of other keys such as sealing, etc.). Those would be distinctly different than the keys of presidency.

One more illustration:

You have the power to seal. You (likely) do not have the authority to do so (we're getting into semantics with 'sealing power,' but there's no power greater than the Melchizedek Preisthood; everything is an appendage of it). Once you did, youâ??d need the authorization to use it. Think of baptism: You have the power AND authority, but still need authorization from a Bishop.

The 70 have the power and authority to reorganize the 12. Unless all apostles have passed, they do not have the authorization to do so. No other key is necessary because thereâ??s no one else that has the authority. The authorization (keys of presidency) falls to them and are different from those authorities like the sealing power which you either have been given, or don't have.

Again, the reason its important is how to juxtapose the 70 in the times of the NT. They didn't have the authorization from John, so couldn't perpetuate their office. Be they or the Bishops, the perpetuation was done improperly, and the outcome is the Catholic Church.

PacMan

[consiglieri]

I agree. Apostasy was what led to the Great Apostasy where darkness covered the earth.

Hehe. Sure. While the clatyclymic scenario is rather stupid, it does have ramifications in explaining what the 70s of the New Testament could and couldnâ??t have done. I think John is a VERY important figure in this process, as well as the 3 Nephites. On each continent, the Apostleship could NOT be continued because those with the keys never died, choosing all the meanwhile to never adding to the quorum's membership.

PacMan

I appreciate your comments, and the comments of all those who have posted on this thread.

I just tend to see a lot of "reading" of modern LDS priesthood policy and doctrine into the church 2,000 years ago.

I am not sure doing so is warranted, or even necessarily correct.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[PacMan]

Consig,

Oh, you're absolutely right (and one of my beefs with Bett's where he'd, innocently enough, mix paradigms). My analysis is following the assumption that the modern church was structured exactly as the primitive church was. Surely it's not precisely true, for organization has changed as needs, technology, etc., has changed. What does become issue, however, is why the Great Apostasy happened if there were others with authority to continue the church as D&C 107 permits...I see no reason why it's particular now, and not before. The key (no pun intended) still lies with John. No one else could have done it, plain and simple.

So the age old question of when the Great Apostasy was, is answered with the last death of the righteous Bishop, 70, etc.

PacMan

[Bob Betts]

Paul,

I was very respectful to insinuate your good-faith error, but now you are being obstinante and irresponsibly beligerant.

You are WRONG! And since you have lacked citation, I will prove my point with scripture:

There are many keys within the priesthood, and they are not all shared by the Apostles. The Prophet gives them keys (a great many of them), and some to the 70â??s in others, etc., all the way down to the Deaconâ??s Quorum President. That being said, there are keys that the Apostles and the First Presidency holds that the 70â??s donâ??t. Period.

That being said, donâ??t posture your understanding as doctrineâ??particularly to those like Betts whom have some influence and will hold strongly to your explanation. Itâ??s dangerous, and fundamentally incorrect.

Againâ?¦no opinions here.

Cheers,

PacMan

May I ask how many and what keys there are?

[Bob Betts]

Betts (and to a very small degree, Zeta),

How would the keys be instituted through a reorganization? I understood that the keys are passed on by the laying on of hands. If the quorum of 70 don't possess the keys, how can that quorum pass them on by the laying on of hands?

Hold onâ?¦youâ??re confused a bit on â??passed.â? First, there are some differences and they often get confused (and conflated) in colloquial expression, so let me back up a bit: Remember, the authority and power are different, but both in the Priesthood. When you â??go up,â?? in Priesthood office (authority), youâ??re â??ordained.â? When you â??go up (or just move)â?? in hierarchy (or given a calling), youâ??re set-apart. Sometimes, a setting-apart necessitates a new office, which may necessitate keys (a Bishop, for example). When a 19 year old pre-missionary receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he is ordained an Elder, but receives no keys.

Why not? Does an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood not need any keys? If I knew what the keys were, this might make more sense (unless it's not for public knowledge. I'm not prying).

When he becomes a missionary, he is set-apart.

THEN he gets keys, right?

Later, when he becomes a High Priest, he already has the Melchizedek Priesthood. There is no difference between the Melchizedek Priesthood held by a pre-missionary, and that held by God himself. The higher Priesthood is that which raises the dead, heals disease, and creates world. That being said, he doesnâ??t have the authority, nor the keys to exercise all those facets. The office of High Priest allows him to hold further positions of leadership, for which heâ??d also need be set-apart for. If this Elder were â??calledâ?? to serve as a counselor in the Bishopric, heâ??d (typically) need to be ordained a High Priest prior to being â??set-apartâ?? as a counselor in the Bishopric. But he wouldnâ??t receive any keys (because the Bishop holds them for that congregation).

Another example: Any Elder has the power to ordain an Apostle. He hasnâ??t the authority to do so, however. Heâ??d have to be authorized to do so, having been given via the laying on of hands by one having those keys.

Within the context of the 70, the Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear:

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the worldâ??thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 107:25 - 26)

Now, you ask how they can have the keys if theyâ??re not given. This is simple: They have been. Every hierarchy of the church has been given the keys to reorganize the hierarchy directly above it if it needs be done.

Let us assume a complete cataclysmic event that kills everyone except a few single High Councilman (thereâ??s 12 per each Stake, which itself is composed of typically 5-6 Wards, each with a Bishop). They havenâ??t the authority to reorganize neither the First Presidency nor the Quorum of the 12, but they do have the authority and the keys to reorganize the Stake. That new Presidency (although the same people) has the authority and the keys to reorganize the 70, and they the Quorum of the 12, and they the First Presidency. Those â??emergency keys' of reorganization are inherent at every level (as detailed in the D&C), and can be done because the power of the Priesthood is the same. When a High Councilman is â??set-apart,â?? such authority are given, just as the keys to someday reorganize the First Presidency are given to each new Apostle. (Here's a good example...while they have the keys to reorganize the First Presidency when the prophet dies, they don't have the keys to reorganize the First Presidency via booting the Prophet and his counselors out; they have those keys to reorganize the First Presidency when the prophet dies, and the First Presidency is automatically dissolved. At this point, there is no authority above them.)

So, in an emergencey the authority is present to reorganize at every level. I think I get it. It self-perpetuates. That being said, and the Church being restored today to what it was in the first century, then the early Church should have been self-perpetuating, using the 'emergency keys' to reorganize following the death of the Apostles, preventing an complete apostasy of authority, power and keys, and the Church from being taken from the earth. Yet, the early Church did NOT self-perpetuate, using the 'emergency keys.' Why not. The 'emergency keys' should have been used. Thus, no apostasy. Back to the PMG manual:

"After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost."

"killed many of them," but not all. What prevented those left alive, from pulling out the 'emergency keys' to reorganize the Church, since that's what they were for, to prevent a complete apostasy, and perpetuate the Church, which is the way Christ organized His Church to begin with, according to YOUR church? Since Christ's organization of His Church was designed to perpetuate, there's no apparent logical reason why it didn't.

Doctrine and Covenants 107 goes through the hierarchy at length. You may find it enjoyable (and confusing) to peruse.

Does that make sense? Let us also realize that the chance of all such leadership dying (today) in one fell-swoop aint real good.

What you've taught above DOES make sense. And, for the very explanation you gave, if all such leadership died today in one fell-swoop, the 'emergency keys' WOULD get used, and the church WOULD perpetuate, preventing a complete apostasy, which is the way it should have been in the early Church, as Joseph Smith restored it to be in these latter days. Therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for the failure of the early Church organization, as Christ originally set it up to perpetuate, making the "complete apostasy" completely illogical IMO.

How would you or anyone else explain this?

[Bob Betts]

Betts,

One final example that may hit your real question home:

The Power of the Priesthood is what "makes" things happen.

The Authority of the Priesthood is what allows an aspect of that power to be exercised (while having the power to resurrect, I am certainly not authorized to do so and to try would be inefficacious).

The Keys of the Priesthood give that authorization.

Simply because authorization is given (to baptize, for example), keys are not also confirmed. In other words, because the Bishop says I can baptize an 8 year old, does not qualify me to give that privilege to others.

With the 70, they have the power to reorganize the 12 (as does anyone with the Melchizedek Priesthood).

They also have the authority to reorganize the 12 (whom have the keys).

BUT, while there is an Apostle alive, he has the keys of reorganization. Thus, the 70 can't reorganize, nor act where another holds those keys. One cannot act above another:

That's why the 70 couldn't reorganize the Quorum of the 12 in the times of Peter, James, and John. John was still alive. He alone had the keys, not necessitating, nor allowing a reorganization by other lesser offices. That's why he had to give the keys to Joseph Smith, because without them, Joseph (albeit having the power), wasn't authorized to do so.

Okay, in light of THIS, since John had the keys, then logically, according to how Christ organized His Church, John should have used those keys to replenish the Church organization at every level. Thus, perpetuating the Church, and preventing the "Great Apostasy." Having power over death and not tasting it, he certainly had plenty of time. How would you explain John's seeming failure to obediently use the keys he received from Christ to perpetuate Christ's Church?

[PacMan]

Bob,

As far as how many keys there are, I’ve never sat down and counted them (and it’d be practically impossible to do so). Part of the reason is, every Priesthood organization (from the 12 Apostles to every Deacon’s Quorum) throughout the world has keys of presidency. There are thousands, if not millions of them. The whole conversation tends to get mixed up because in colloquial language, there erroneously mentioned in reference to other things. For example:

Priesthood: the power of God

Keys: the right to govern a right of the priesthood, it’s authority, and authorization to exercise it (including keys of presidency)

Authority: the right to use the priesthood for/in a given situation

Authorization: the green light to exercise ones power and authority

Set-apart: being officially placed in a lay position within the church.

Ordination: being placed in an office of the priesthood (deacon, teacher, priest, elder, etc.)

There isn’t a fast and dry scripturally, but they can be deduced. For example, any Elder in the church has the power to create worlds, resurrect the dead, and do all things that God does. They do NOT, however, have the authority. I do not have authority to resurrect (different from raising) the dead, nor create worlds. I have not received them from one with the keys. But even where I have, I still need (at times) to be authorized to use them. Baptism is something I have the power, and authority to do. But, each local Bishop holds the keys for baptism in his individual ward, and I’d still need authorization to do so. I think the keys often act to keep things organized administratively, and keep people from inadvertently stepping on toes.

When he becomes a missionary, he is set-apart.

THEN he gets keys, right?

No. When someone is asked to participate in a calling (anything from Bishop to Stake President, to Activities Committee or Relief Society Chorister), they are set-apart. Keys are only given to those being set-apart as Presidents or leaders of Priesthood organizations. A missionary receives no keys, no additional power, and no additional authority, but specially authorized to go about the world as a representative of Jesus Christ and official representative of the Church to preach, call to repentance, and baptize. That is something I no longer am—an official representative of the Church.

So, in an emergencey the authority is present to reorganize at every level. I think I get it. It self-perpetuates. That being said, and the Church being restored today to what it was in the first century, then the early Church should have been self-perpetuating, using the 'emergency keys' to reorganize following the death of the Apostles, preventing an complete apostasy of authority, power and keys, and the Church from being taken from the earth. Yet, the early Church did NOT self-perpetuate, using the 'emergency keys.' Why not. The 'emergency keys' should have been used. Thus, no apostasy.

Close enough for all intents and purposes. Whether it’s thus at every level, that’s not right (I may have illuded to it previously). But for the discussion, D&C 107 lays it out that the 70 and High Councils of the church can, so we can speak to that (what you said relative, is correct enough)

The key here is John: he did not die. That being said, while there was one with the keys, this “emergency authority” (authorized by the death of all the Apostles) could never kick in. Try as they might, all the Bishop and 70s still around may have though they could have perpetuated the church (and thus the Catholic Chuch), but IF John was alive, they acted out of line. They didn’t have the keys to presumptively do things for which John alone had authority, and those subsequent ordinations were inefficacious. The perpetuation of the priesthood was inefficacious, and all that they did was inefficacious—because they didn’t have authorization to do so, nor the keys to give that authorization! Those were with John, on Patmos. As good a man as Clement was, his letter to the Corinthians was wrong (and a perfect example of what we’re talking about).

The Corinthians were having issues, and wrote to Clement to give them a hand. There were those appointed by the Apostles, whom were appointing other leaders of the church. The Corinthians were turning against this second generation of leaders, and Clement basically told them that, “it is OUR opinion,” that they should follow those second generation leaders. Well, of course he would, because he himself perpetuated the same notion in Rome. It was clear he wasn’t SURE, but it made sense, and he thought he was doing good, so he did. The fact is, the Corinithians were on to something—those second generations leaders DIDN’T have the keys to do what they were trying to do.

"killed many of them," but not all. What prevented those left alive, from pulling out the 'emergency keys' to reorganize the Church, since that's what they were for, to prevent a complete apostasy, and perpetuate the Church, which is the way Christ organized His Church to begin with, according to YOUR church? Since Christ's organization of His Church was designed to perpetuate, there's no apparent logical reason why it didn't.

First, let us separate they so we don’t conflate the “Apostles and Church members.” Second, “they” weren’t there to stop the apostasy. They were to bring others unto Christ. Your mixing paradigms again…you can’t understand what happened if you keep thinking that this was all a big surprise to God. It wasn’t. It was part of the plan. In fact, it was anticipate and planned for—brilliantly! Moreover, your idea that His church was designed to perpetuate has 2 problems: 1) It did (we’re here today). 2) It’s completely anti-biblical. What Christ DID say is the gates of hell would not prevail. Let us understand very clearly, that one can loose a battle, and prevail in the war. For an eternal being, putting the church on stasis for 1500+ years is very, inconsequential. He wasn’t a bit worried when the church “stalled” every night while Jesus and all his apostles got a bit of shut-eye on any given night in Jerusalem, and equally wasn’t concerned when the church “stalled” during the apostate period. Eventually, it’d wake up and get going again.

What you've taught above DOES make sense. And, for the very explanation you gave, if all such leadership died today in one fell-swoop, the 'emergency keys' WOULD get used, and the church WOULD perpetuate, preventing a complete apostasy, which is the way it should have been in the early Church, as Joseph Smith restored it to be in these latter days. Therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for the failure of the early Church organization, as Christ originally set it up to perpetuate, making the "complete apostasy" completely illogical IMO.

I said “emergency keys,” but that was wrong. It’s was more like “emergency authority.’ (I’m trying to be precise…that authority was inherently given by the apostles-the one’s with the keys).

Again…they couldn’t use them because John wasn’t dead. One cannot exercise authority above another of “higher” authority. A deacon could not preempt a priest, whom could not preempt a Bishop, whom could not preempt a 70, whom could not preempt an Apostle, whom could not preempt the Lord. This emergency authority could never have kicked in, because the conditions for its authorization were never fulfilled. In terms of organization and structure, it is highly logical.

Hope that helps. And sorry for waxing wordy….I’m trying to illustrate it clearly, at the cost of concision.

PacMan

P.S. Just saw your last post.

Okay, in light of THIS, since John had the keys, then logically, according to how Christ organized His Church, John should have used those keys to replenish the Church organization at every level. Thus, perpetuating the Church, and preventing the "Great Apostasy." Having power over death and not tasting it, he certainly had plenty of time. How would you explain John's seeming failure to obediently use the keys he received from Christ to perpetuate Christ's Church?

The problem is your strawman. YOUR logic non sequitur. While it may make sense to YOU, there’s no scriptural basis that this was the case, nor was necessary to any degree.

I believe God is tremendously involved, in a very hands-off way. He let’s people mess up and err, but is smart enough to think of a way around it. Why let Satan in the garden? That seems like one of God’s greatest blunders, right? Except, he already had a way planned to circumvent death and sin. He’s very smart that way.

That being said, wicked men had John exiled. They had the other apostles martyred, and the apostasy among the early church is evident throughout Paul’s epistles—they were falling away all the time and introducing pagan traditions, etc., and the apostles were trying desperately to make sure they would stay on track. The Apostles had a heck of a time keeping the doctrine pure. So from a pragmatic sense, by the time John got off of Patmos…the church was already lost. Without dramatic, divine intervention, it couldn’t be saved. People were so far in left field, it was unsalvageable. When this happened with Noah, what did the Lord do? He started anew. The Lord often doesn’t do the dramatic, but let’s things take it’s course…but he does make a plan B.

Today, things are much different. The stark conveniences of technology make the spread of the gospel and the appropriate administration of the church possible. Communication is such that if there’s a problem, it can be squashed before things get out of hand. We don’t live in a world where the greatest powers are fighting each other for tyrant-supremacy, but in a time where there’s a freedom of religion and the Apostles aren’t running for their lives. The restoration in this time was purposeful, while the atonement of Christ was purposeful in that time. God didn't CAUSE the apostasy to happen, but certainly knew it would, and prepared for it; just like the fall of Adam in the garden, the flood and Noah, the Hebrews being bound by the Egyptians and then rejecting a higher law and needing a lower law, the chosen people carried away into Babylon, Christ being killed, Jerusalem being overrun, the apostles martyred, and the church lost to apostasy. God COULD have acted dramatically to stop them--but why? The fact is he doesn't. God doesn’t do things that way because they’re damning. Anytime He makes a show, people are more accountable for the undeniable witness they’ve seen. If they’re not spiritually ready to follow then, they won’t, and will be damned for it. Often, more often that not it's more merciful of Him to not interfere.

Back to John... he didn’t disobey—he OBEYED! He was one of the sons of thunder, and to sit back (relatively speaking) must have been terribly painful. But it was inevitable—John alone could not hold the church together. And had he tried? He would have been killed again, and again, never dying. Why do you think he was exiled? Because the vat of oil didn’t kill him, nor did the poison or the serpents, etc. The only way to get rid of him, was to exile him! After his exile, had he not disappeared, the kingdoms of the earth would have made sure he was locked up forever…and then he’d have been relatively useless for anything. Sure, he could have ordained another Apostle, but that'd simply prolonged the inevitable. The new apostles would have been killed, and John in exile again...and we're back to square one.

The Great Apostasy not only makes sense, but was the most merciful and loving thing the Lord could have done given the situation. Although, if you don't believe in vicarious work for the dead, then I can see how it doesn't look particularly merciful (all the same, you'd still need to explain why God's a respecter of person--damning some for not being allowed to hear the gospel while saving others who do and are baptized...but that's another conversation altogether)!

[PacMan]

---BUMP---