Apostasy And Loss Of Saving Ordinances

[JarMan]

The Church can function only as a whole with all of the parts working together. There needs to be a head as well as a neck and some shoulders along with all of the other parts of the body. If a hand gets cut off it can be replaced, in the Church, but until it is replaced the Church can't function correctly. All parts of the body are needed, and none should be saying we can get by without some of the parts.

But we know that the LDS church, at its very beginning, functioned without apostles. And for a few years after Joseph Smith's death it functioned without a First Presidency. The church that Alma (and other Book of Mormon prophets) headed doesn't look like the LDS church. I don't even think the LDS Church of today looks like the LDS Church of say, the 1840's (multiple Quorums of 70, Area Representatives, the apostles performing different functions). It seems to me that priesthood authority is the important thing, not the exact structure of the church.

No, because they still had the authority to ordain other apostles, with involves ordinances. The problem was that they didn't do that and instead went on as if they didn't need any more apostles or that the office of bishop was the highest offiice they needed to perpetuate.

Unless I am misunderstanding, this seems to contradict what others in this thread have said, which is essentially that if those holding the keys die without passing them on then the remaining priesthood holders have no authority to exercise their priesthood.

No, not really. They just failed to function and administer properly.

This idea is, honestly, quite baffling to me. For thousands of years the priesthood was able to be passed on in two different hemispheres without being lost. And we know that during those times there were significant periods of apostasy. Yet the priesthood survived. Then Christ finally comes, introduces a higher law, personally sets up his church on the earth, and in less than 100 years the priesthood is somehow lost? The New Testament says that others were ordained by the apostles (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5). Isn't it reasonable to assume that the priesthood was then passed on throughout the generations?

If you'll notice the state of the world now you'll see that every other church has their own explanation for how the true Church should function and they all believe they are functioning correctly, according to their own explanations for how things should be. To see that they're not you need to see how the Church should function and then compare that to how they function. Each of them has part of the truth and part of the true organization, but only a part and not whole. The thought that's most interesting to me is that If those who had the higher priesthood in the true Church had appointed others to fill the vacancies left by those who died, the Church would not have fallen into apostasy. All they had to do was appoint more people to be apostles and then the Church would have continued to have apostles, and then as long as everyone did things as they were directed to do them, everything would still be okay. That's not what happened, though. They changed things and did things contrary to the way they had been taught to do them, so that the Church was no longer as the Church should have been and instead was a different organization with many parts lacking while they thought everything was okay.

As mentioned earlier, it's hard for me to fathom that Christ would set up such a fragile organization. (It's not like he was a novice at this whole setting up a church business.)

I think the key is in making sure your understanding of how the priesthood should operate is actually how the priesthood should operate. If you go off track and think you're still on track, how would you get back on track? You have to have some way to know how the Church should operate, and be right about that, otherwise you would be wrong without even knowing it.

Hence one of the reasons I started this thread.

[Ahab]

But we know that the LDS church, at its very beginning, functioned without apostles.

d

You don't seem to be including what Peter, James and John gave to Joseph Smith, and to someone else too. Without what they gave to Joseph he nor anyone else would have had the authority to restore the Church. And what did they give him? The higher priesthood. And what office in the higher priesthood? You tell me, now. What did those keys give Joseph the right to do? He by himself could appoint apostles, and by the authority he alone had the whole of the Church could be set up as well. It doesn't matter that it took Joseph a little while to delegate his authority and set up people in different offices in the Church. How long it took him isn't what matters. What matters is that Joseph then had the authority that the rest of the world had been lacking, and even now some don't accept it when they're told about it. They think they're well enough off with what little they have, not even acknowledging there is a lot more available now.

for a few years after Joseph Smith's death it functioned without a First Presidency.

Someone had those keys, though, didn't he. And it is what he could do with those keys that made it possible for the rest of the Church to continue. Without those keys, the Church would have been left without the authority that the Church needed to continue.

The church that Alma (and other Book of Mormon prophets) headed doesn't look like the LDS church. I don't even think the LDS Church of today looks like the LDS Church of say, the 1840's (multiple Quorums of 70, Area Representatives, the apostles performing different functions). It seems to me that priesthood authority is the important thing, not the exact structure of the church.

Someone with the proper authority has a specific title, though, and by the authority of that one title the rest of the Church can be established and set up with various offices and callings. That person with that title and office must use it properly, though, as our Lord has mandated, otherwise it doesn't do any good for someone to have that office and title and is as if he doesn't have it.

Unless I am misunderstanding, this seems to contradict what others in this thread have said, which is essentially that if those holding the keys die without passing them on then the remaining priesthood holders have no authority to exercise their priesthood.

I'll let you figure out who is mistaken.

This idea is, honestly, quite baffling to me. For thousands of years the priesthood was able to be passed on in two different hemispheres without being lost. And we know that during those times there were significant periods of apostasy. Yet the priesthood survived. Then Christ finally comes, introduces a higher law, personally sets up his church on the earth, and in less than 100 years the priesthood is somehow lost? The New Testament says that others were ordained by the apostles (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5). Isn't it reasonable to assume that the priesthood was then passed on throughout the generations?

If it had been, and had they done as they had been instructed, yes. But just because it's reasonable to think they did so doesn't mean they did so, as they should have done so. Each group of apostates does something wrong, otherwise they would be doing things the right way.

As mentioned earlier, it's hard for me to fathom that Christ would set up such a fragile organization. (It's not like he was a novice at this whole setting up a church business.)

People have to do as he instucts, though, otherwise his instructions don't do any good. When people start taking it upon themselves to start making changes which he hasn't authorized, then they are the ones who are messing things up.

Hence one of the reasons I started this thread.

Have you figured it out, yet? I don't know how I could make it more clear.

[JarMan]

People have to do as he instucts, though, otherwise his instructions don't do any good. When people start taking it upon themselves to start making changes which he hasn't authorized, then they are the ones who are messing things up.

Was it the original 12 that messed things up? Every last one of them? Or did the 12 do things right by passing on the priesthood to others who then messed things up? There could have been hundreds or thousands of others that were ordained to the priesthood. Did every last one of them mess things up? There wasn't a single "Alma" in the whole bunch?

[JarMan]

I understand both John's parents were of the lineage of Aaron--Zechariah was a priest of the course of Abia.

Aww. I should have looked into it.

Still, the scripture could mean that the power and authority known as the “Aaronic Priesthood” was taken out of that line and transferred to John, who was the last to hold it until he restored it to Joseph Smith, keeping the name “Aaronic Priesthood.”

There were several priesthood offices that were set up by the apostles. Among them were bishop, elder, deacon, pastor, evangelist, teacher (I may have missed a few). These would all have to be offices of the higher priesthood by your reasoning. I suppose this is possible, but it is certainly different from how we do things today. And aren't we supposed to have the same church that existed at the time of Christ?

Today, the keys are ultimately controlled by the President of the Church, no matter whoever else might possess them by delegation or design.

I know we sustain the prophet as the only person on earth who holds all the keys. But how do we reconcile that with D&C 107:15? Perhaps the bishopric and the prophet both hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood. Do you have a scriptural reference that identifies the prophet as holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood?

In John's day, the AP stood alone until Christ and the Apostles (so when they were gone the keys for the AP went with them). In Alma's day, which preceded John, the authority to baptize was governed by the priesthood order of that time and place, which was replaced when Jesus visited, and then was lost through the Lehite apostasy (beginning around the fourth generation after Christ's visit, and then for certain by 421 A.D.).

In the Book of Mormon the priesthood lived on until Moroni died. Even surviving through many years of apostasy. It took the virtual destruction of the Nephites to totally wipe out the priesthood. But in post-Biblical times we are supposed to believe that there wasn't a single eligible person to carry forth the priesthood. And God's people didn't suffer a total destruction in the Eastern Hemisphere. So it's hard to see how the priesthood disappeared.

I have no doubt that the church in Eurasia would have suffered many of the signs of apostasy after the death of the original apostles. This has happened to the Lord's church in all dispensations, even with strong leadership. But I just don't see how apostasy necessarily equates to total loss of the priesthood.

[cdowis]

Directly from God calling them "to the ministry". Otherwise in the case of Alma the only way he could have got "authority from God" was either from an apostate priest or a heavenly messenger, a la later Joseph Smith, but without any details supplied in the BoM narrative....

If you carefully read the history, you will discover that the previous king and priests were righteous. It was only after Noah ascended the throne that the apostacy happened. But Alma certainly could have received the priesthood by an authorized priest.

I would see as reasonable that Alma was one of the previous authorized priests who then became part of King Noah's priesthood. He then repented when he heard Abinadi's teachings. No big mystery here.

Edited May 22, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

That is the evidence for the point of view that there was no concerted intention of being replaced by other apostles....

You have certainly forgotten alot since your mission. That was one of the basic scriptures to be memorized.

Sigh.

Edited May 22, 2013 by cdowis

[CV75]

There were several priesthood offices that were set up by the apostles. Among them were bishop, elder, deacon, pastor, evangelist, teacher (I may have missed a few). These would all have to be offices of the higher priesthood by your reasoning.

Not necessarily; just governed under the greater head, the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I suppose this is possible, but it is certainly different from how we do things today. And aren't we supposed to have the same church that existed at the time of Christ?

There is another thread about what “the same Church” man, and yes, the LDS Church is the same Church as the one at the time of Christ. It has to do with Christ being at the head and with organizing it on the Earth by giving priesthood and keys to His servants, and by organizing the pertinent offices according to the present need.

I know we sustain the prophet as the only person on earth who holds all the keys. But how do we reconcile that with D&C 107:15? Perhaps the bishopric and the prophet both hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood. Do you have a scriptural reference that identifies the prophet as holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood?

D&C 68:14-21 shows that the Prophet has the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood.

In the Book of Mormon the priesthood lived on until Moroni died. Even surviving through many years of apostasy. It took the virtual destruction of the Nephites to totally wipe out the priesthood. But in post-Biblical times we are supposed to believe that there wasn't a single eligible person to carry forth the priesthood. And God's people didn't suffer a total destruction in the Eastern Hemisphere. So it's hard to see how the priesthood disappeared.

The power and authority of the Aaronic Priesthood disappeared in the Eastern Hemisphere as soon as the Apostles did. In the Western Hemisphere, the Aaronic Priesthood was had by the righteous Lamanites also, who did not suffer a total destruction. My post was not to point out that the Nephite destruction caused the loss of the Aaronic Priesthood, but to point out the timing of the Apostasy in the Western Hemisphere, which I also noted began long before that.

I have no doubt that the church in Eurasia would have suffered many of the signs of apostasy after the death of the original apostles. This has happened to the Lord's church in all dispensations, even with strong leadership. But I just don't see how apostasy necessarily equates to total loss of the priesthood.

Equating apostasy with loss of priesthood should be the easiest connection to make in light of the words of Isaiah (any reference to transgressing the laws, changing the ordinances, breaking the everlasting covenant, etc.; I think Isaiah 52 speaks specifically to this). The same thing happened in the Great Apostasy, which began while the Apostles were yet alive but which was hastened by their demise.

[Questing Beast]

If He gave some apostles until we all come in a unity of faith, and more Apostles were ordained, as clearly mentioned in the Bible. How could there have been no intention to call more Apostles absent an Apostasy?

Apostles led the church in the very beginning, and guided its spread throughout the Roman world, and took head leadership over their particular areas, and died separately and for the main part naturally. As Christianity grew apace from that first generation through the centuries until it became the Roman state religion, I see no reason to doubt the pov that apostles played their initial role and were not replaced simply because they were not perceived as necessary. It is obvious that "the great apostasy" is merely one of many historical paradigms upheld by believers, and that other less drastic theories are valid as well, or, imho, more valid, given the total evidence. It is a revisionist, minor pov to assert that there even was such a thing as "the great apostasy". And it only becomes necessary when you have a "restored" gospel to push....

[cdowis]

It is a revisionist, minor pov to assert that there even was such a thing as "the great apostasy". And it only becomes necessary when you have a "restored" gospel to push....

I agree that it is a minority position, and held by those who believe in a Restoration. The majority position is that there is no God, or, at best, He plays no role in human affairs. This view disdains organized religion.

The concept of an apostacy is.... well, inconceivable.

Edited May 22, 2013 by cdowis

[Ahab]

Was it the original 12 that messed things up? Every last one of them? Or did the 12 do things right by passing on the priesthood to others who then messed things up? There could have been hundreds or thousands of others that were ordained to the priesthood. Did every last one of them mess things up? There wasn't a single "Alma" in the whole bunch?

There are 2 possibilities and personally I prefer the one where it was someone other than the Lord who messed things up.

Either the Lord told someone or gave someone the impression that he didn't want anyone else to be appointed to the high priesthood in the Church, or someone else had his own idea the Lord didn't wany anyone else to be appointed to the high priesthood in the Church. But we can see that at some point nobody else was being appointed to the high priesthood in the Church... otherwise there would have been more people appointed to the offices of elder, high priest, seventy, apostle, etc... so the keys were either taken away from mortal men or the mortal men who had them simply failed to use them as they should have to continue the high priesthood in the Church.

Just look at the state of so-called Christendom now with people who still either don't think they need any more people in those offices or they don't have the keys to appoint them.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Ahab

[Questing Beast]

You have certainly forgotten alot since your mission. That was one of the basic scriptures to be memorized.

Sigh.

That scripture was already quoted at me above, and I had it going through my mind as I asserted that "they" had no intention of replacing all of the apostles. I seem to recall a debate over whether "he gave some", in the original Greek, meant he gave some of the people prophets, and some of the people apostles, and some other people pastors and (or) teachers; or instead it meant (as Mormonism asserts) that he gave ALL of the church "some prophets, pastors, teachers, etc." I've thought a lot over the years about that dual possible interpretation. And I go with the former, since it fits the evidence of how the primitive church spread: some regions got apostles as their head leader, other areas made do with deacons until (or if) somebody with more authority came along later. In many/most cases, I see a quickly spreading religious movement taking what it could get, and many or most early Christians never saw an apostle much less an actual "prophet" (unless we allow a different meaning of the word, which includes "prophetess", i.e. anyone with the gift of prophecy, at least as such accepted by the people). It makes no sense to say that God only gave some of the prophets and apostles, pastors evangelists and teachers, et al. but not ALL of them. It makes sense to say "God gave some prophets here, and others apostles there, and elsewhere he gave the converts pastors, or teachers or evangelists, as required or available, to improve and edify the Saints". I notice that the word "as" is inserted into some modern translations, e.g. "he gave some as apostles and some as prophets". Or "to be", e.g. "he gifted some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists", etc. Inasmuch as the church endured without apostles or prophets, so called, yet claimed throughout its history that God communicated with the "vicar of Christ" when necessary, it is apparent that the titles changed according to the times, yet the roles of the leaders in the church endured and were modified according to need or preference or simple usage. To dogmatically assert that the actual titles are somehow necessary is one of the plethora of dogmatic assertions that are used to point out the need to separate from the "apostates", i.e. such distinctions divide people into the various, myriad religious "camps" and cannot be held to be a good thing....

[Questing Beast]

I agree that it is a minority position, and held by those who believe in a Restoration. The majority position is that there is no God, or, at best, He plays no role in human affairs. This view disdains organized religion.

The concept of an apostacy is.... well, inconceivable.

i disagree that the majority position is "there is no God". Perhaps a larger percentage of borderline believers assert that God is "on a journey or peradventure he is sleeping" (mockery aside, those words were popular then as now). I believe that the majority opinion is that "God" is real and aware of this planet and always has been....

[cdowis]

You have demonstrated a point that I have frequently made: the Christian church replaced the prophets with theologians and scholars.

But you have expanded this by showing that a knowledge of rhetoric and the Greek language, parsing sentences, has replaced revelation.

Edited May 22, 2013 by cdowis

[Ahab]

To dogmatically assert that the actual titles are somehow necessary is one of the plethora of dogmatic assertions that are used to point out the need to separate from the "apostates", i.e. such distinctions divide people into the various, myriad religious "camps" and cannot be held to be a good thing....

It's not so much the titles but what the titles represent and allow someone to do by virtue of the keys and authority in the related priesthood offices.

You can make all the dogmatic assertions you want to suggest the keys and authority in the priesthood offices don't matter, but the fact is they do and there are people who know they do even if you don't and deny that they do.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Ahab

[Questing Beast]

You don't convince anyone that the LDS faith has the "real deal" by redefining terms, or "moving the goal posts". The LDS Church has never had "evangelists" by title, or "pastors" by title. Paul's list of church "offices" is not meant to convey anything beyond "whatever it takes to get the job done, God gave it". And that job is "coming to a unity of the faith". And what is that faith? That Jesus Christ stands to redeem the world of creation from eternal destruction and save those who have that faith. Seems to me that if "pastors" get that job done it is sufficient, also evangelists, and prophets, etc. The dogmatic aspects enter in via organized religion, which stipulates that a checklist must be gone over completely, with all "T"s crossed and all "i"s dotted. Whereas the original intent is to covenant with God because of faith in Christ. And the covenant is simple and transcends all sectarianism: you covenant to obey God by loving your neighbor as yourself. That is the whole law, in other words what religion is for. The rest of it is all about loyalty to particular organizations....

[Ahab]

You don't convince anyone that the LDS faith has the "real deal" by redefining terms, or "moving the goal posts".

Seems to me that you need to apply your own words of wisdom. A rose by any other name is still a rose and you either have what is called a rose or you don't. As I said, it's not so much the titles that are important but what the titles represent and allow someone to do by virtue of the keys and authority in the related priesthood offices. If you don't have that, whatever you call it, then you don't have what it takes for the Church to continue.

The LDS Church has never had "evangelists" by title, or "pastors" by title.

Ditto to what I already said, regardless of the fact that those words Paul used can be translated with the use of other words.

Paul's list of church "offices" is not meant to convey anything beyond "whatever it takes to get the job done, God gave it". And that job is "coming to a unity of the faith". And what is that faith? That Jesus Christ stands to redeem the world of creation from eternal destruction and save those who have that faith. Seems to me that if "pastors" get that job done it is sufficient, also evangelists, and prophets, etc. The dogmatic aspects enter in via organized religion, which stipulates that a checklist must be gone over completely, with all "T"s crossed and all "i"s dotted. Whereas the original intent is to covenant with God because of faith in Christ. And the covenant is simple and transcends all sectarianism: you covenant to obey God by loving your neighbor as yourself. That is the whole law, in other words what religion is for. The rest of it is all about loyalty to particular organizations....

The Church needs to have people with what we call priesthood keys and authority to get things done correctly, though, and without those things all of the jobs that need to be done do not get done. If you lack certain priesthood keys or priesthood authority you just can't do what you could otherwise do.

And there is nothing wrong with being loyal to a particular organization, as long as you are loyal to the correct one, whatever someone may choose to call it. Jesus Christ has a Church and there are people with keys and authority to help him do his work whiel doing it in his name. Without all of that you're either an imposter or just ignorant about the things you don't know.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am struggling to understand how the priesthood (and along with it, the saving ordinances) was virtually lost from the earth after the death of the twelve apostles. Christ and the apostles ordained others to the priesthood, as I understand it. So why does the loss of the apostles equal the loss of the priesthood? Did the surviving priesthood holders lose their authority to administer the ordinances when the apostles died? Or did all priesthood holders die? Or is there some other explanation?

I am an active and faithful church member and I am not looking to be critical of the church, necessarily. But this is a doctrine that is difficult for me to reconcile with how I understand the priesthood to operate.

As I am sure others will note, it was the "keys" that were lost and the authority to direct them...so after men tried to become the authority. Bishops of differing factions seeking control. It will always happen and did shortly following Joseph's death, and would happen even today were we to loose (or is it lose) "our 12". In fact it happens daily when we forget the words of of D&C 121, or any of the numerous lessons of scriptural history. The greatest lessons of all scripture is this one above all..."to lean not to our own understanding"

[Tacenda]

I'm struggling to understand how if the church has been restored, how come there are so many other things added and taken away, that weren't part of the original church. Also, why do we have 12 yr. old deacons? In the bible a deacon needed to be married and a few other things were required. This doesn't seem correct or done with exactness. I always worry that I need to be aware of someone bringing another gospel. Anybody care to convince otherwise without saying it's only known through the spirit. I need a little evidence and please start with the question about the deacon. Oh, I believe I already know the answer, continuing revelations, works everytime.

[Ahab]

I'm struggling to understand how if the church has been restored, how come there are so many other things added and taken away, that weren't part of the original church. Also, why do we have 12 yr. old deacons? In the bible a deacon needed to be married and a few other things were required. This doesn't seem correct or done with exactness. I always worry that I need to be aware of someone bringing another gospel. Anybody care to convince otherwise without saying it's only known through the spirit. I need a little evidence and please start with the question about the deacon. Oh, I believe I already know the answer, continuing revelations, works everytime.

Yep, that's the answer. And it also helps to know that what needed to be restored was the full or higher order priesthood of God, because that's what was needed to restore the true Church of Christ to this Earth. With the priesthood of God and God's guidance we can change some of the rules that were followed before, like Paul's idea that deacons needed to be married men and Peter's idea that an apostle needed to be someone who had been with Jesus during his mortal ministry. Those men made those rules then, with the guidance and priesthood of God, and men today can amend or alter those rules or even get rid of them entirely.

That is the power of the priesthood of God when using it with God's guidance.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm struggling to understand how if the church has been restored, how come there are so many other things added and taken away, that weren't part of the original church. Also, why do we have 12 yr. old deacons? In the bible a deacon needed to be married and a few other things were required. This doesn't seem correct or done with exactness. I always worry that I need to be aware of someone bringing another gospel. Anybody care to convince otherwise without saying it's only known through the spirit. I need a little evidence and please start with the question about the deacon. Oh, I believe I already know the answer, continuing revelations, works everytime.

The role of a Deacon has changed in age, so marriage would be a problem. A BIG ONE!

[JarMan]

D&C 68:14-21 shows that the Prophet has the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood.

I read verses 15-18 as saying that the keys of the AP rest exclusively with the descendants of Aaron. But I acknowledge that verses 19-21 imply that the First Presidency holds these keys also, else how could they confer them onto bishops? But I offer this alternate explanation: Perhaps the First Presidency merely activates the keys held by those who have the "legal right" to hold these keys by virtue of their lineage as firstborn direct descendants of Aaron.

Equating apostasy with loss of priesthood should be the easiest connection to make in light of the words of Isaiah (any reference to transgressing the laws, changing the ordinances, breaking the everlasting covenant, etc.; I think Isaiah 52 speaks specifically to this). The same thing happened in the Great Apostasy, which began while the Apostles were yet alive but which was hastened by their demise.

We see apostasy occur to varying degrees throughout the scriptures. It happened with the Jaredites, but even at the end there was still Ether. It happened with the Nephites but even at the end there was still Moroni. It happened in Noah's time, but Noah was saved. It happened with the Israelites but there was still Aaron (albeit with a lesser priesthood). And it continued to occur amongst the Jews until Jesus' time but we still see John the Baptist. It happened to some extent in the early LDS church but today we have Thomas S. Monson. So I don't see any examples in the scriptures where apostasy led to the total loss of the priesthood. And the Lord has shown himself to be very patient with his people in their wickedness, often warning them for many generations before fully exercising his wrath on them. The apostasy that allegedly occurred after the apostles died seems like such an aberration compared to the patterns demonstrated in the scriptures for millenia. And then you also have to assume that the original 12 apostles failed spectacularly. These men were hand-picked by Christ to carry his church after his death. He appeared to them as a resurrected being. And yet each and every one of them totally neglected to take the necessary steps to ensure that Christ's church could continue after their deaths?

The story just doesn't add up.

[JarMan]

The greatest lessons of all scripture is this one above all..."to lean not to our own understanding"

This is not intended to be a rude or a snide remark, but whose understanding should we lean toward? Brigham Young's? Hugh Nibley's? Pa Pa's? ; ) Or should each of us search the scriptures and ponder and pray about them (and maybe even discuss them with complete strangers on the internet) to learn the truth of things?

[cdowis]

You don't convince anyone that the LDS faith has the "real deal" by redefining terms, or "moving the goal posts". The LDS Church has never had "evangelists" by title, or "pastors" by title.

We also do not pay our tithing in mites, and the names are not revelant to the duties of the office.

Paul's list of church "offices" is not meant to convey anything beyond "whatever it takes to get the job done, God gave it".

I guess your local theologian told you that. The specific titles may change -- remember that this is an English translation of the Greek text, but the office and the specific duties, as revealed by prophets, remain the same.

Edited May 23, 2013 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

Seems to me that you need to apply your own words of wisdom. A rose by any other name is still a rose and you either have what is called a rose or you don't. As I said, it's not so much the titles that are important but what the titles represent and allow someone to do by virtue of the keys and authority in the related priesthood offices. If you don't have that, whatever you call it, then you don't have what it takes for the Church to continue.

And what exactly do you show to prove your point to say a Roman Catholic? "Your religion lost the priesthood authority and possesses no 'keys'", etc. How is that convincing? "Pope" or "vicar of Christ" are titles adopted, as you agree, but the "authority" is not shown to have vanished with the change of titles.

...

The Church needs to have people with what we call priesthood keys and authority to get things done correctly, though, and without those things all of the jobs that need to be done do not get done. If you lack certain priesthood keys or priesthood authority you just can't do what you could otherwise do.

Correct me in any false assumptions I make here, but as far as I know the "religious wars" between the Protestants and RCC were originally all about abused, not lost, authority. Nobody said that the RCC had no authority, only that that authority was not exclusive to the RCC. The various Protestant denominations and sects argue over usages, not authority. They are all in the same boat authority-wise. Either they have authority to perform their rites or they do not. The Mormon assertion that "done correctly" is impossible to everyone else is special pleading.

And there is nothing wrong with being loyal to a particular organization, as long as you are loyal to the correct one, whatever someone may choose to call it. Jesus Christ has a Church and there are people with keys and authority to help him do his work whiel doing it in his name. Without all of that you're either an imposter or just ignorant about the things you don't know.

Fascinating assertions. Anyone can make them, and they all do. Look at how the "Christian church" denies that Mormons are Christians. There is no end to this stupid game, and Mormons have fallen for it from the getgo. "Authority" is individual. Each relationship is one-on-one with God, so authority is also based on that relationship. You are either verified in your path with God or you are called to account. That is called "conscience" and we all have one. (I allow that an insignificant percentage of broken people have no functioning conscience, in a fallen world there are imperfections.) Religious people ought to not be arguing for their loyalties, and allow everyone their own loyalties to manmade organizations, which is all any dogmatically organized religions are. What is the arguing for? To convert people to "our way of thinking". It is validation that the org is the "right one before God". Why there must be a right ONE is the perversity of the never-ending argument....

Edited May 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[CV75]

I read verses 15-18 as saying that the keys of the AP rest exclusively with the descendants of Aaron. But I acknowledge that verses 19-21 imply that the First Presidency holds these keys also, else how could they confer them onto bishops? But I offer this alternate explanation: Perhaps the First Presidency merely activates the keys held by those who have the "legal right" to hold these keys by virtue of their lineage as firstborn direct descendants of Aaron.

That is fine with me--either way, in the Church that Christ established (ancient and modern), the Aaronic Priesthood cannot function independently and without the Melchizedek Priesthood, which was lost in the Great Apostasy.

We see apostasy occur to varying degrees throughout the scriptures. It happened with the Jaredites, but even at the end there was still Ether. It happened with the Nephites but even at the end there was still Moroni. It happened in Noah's time, but Noah was saved. It happened with the Israelites but there was still Aaron (albeit with a lesser priesthood). And it continued to occur amongst the Jews until Jesus' time but we still see John the Baptist. It happened to some extent in the early LDS church but today we have Thomas S. Monson. So I don't see any examples in the scriptures where apostasy led to the total loss of the priesthood.And the Lord has shown himself to be very patient with his people in their wickedness, often warning them for many generations before fully exercising his wrath on them. The apostasy that allegedly occurred after the apostles died seems like such an aberration compared to the patterns demonstrated in the scriptures for millenia. And then you also have to assume that the original 12 apostles failed spectacularly. These men were hand-picked by Christ to carry his church after his death. He appeared to them as a resurrected being. And yet each and every one of them totally neglected to take the necessary steps to ensure that Christ's church could continue after their deaths?

Yes, apostasy occurs in varying degrees, and in the case of the apostasy of the ancient Church that Christ established, the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods were lost. There are many unique things about the dispensation of the meridian of time that were not seen in previous dispensations, just as there are things in the current dispensation of the fullness of times that are unique. Each dispensation has been unique, building upon the previous dispensation(s). Some may call these aberrations, but it’s just they things were planned and played out.

The death of Christ and the apostasy are what John 12:24 refers to—without the death of what Christ established in the temporal earth, He cannot fulfill the end of His Atonement and effectuate His victory over all things eternally, which is the purpose of the dispensation of the fullness of times. So the original Twelve did not fail any more than Christ did; they were no more negligent than Christ was. It is a false charge that the Apostasy resulted from them being derelct in their duties. The loss of the priesthood on the earth is one domino that fell as a by-product of the death of Christ and the Apostles, along with the changing of the doctrine, covenants, ordinances, etc.

The story just doesn't add up.

I can only encourage you to keep trying to understand what is going on; referring to it as an "allegation" and a "story" won't help you!