Priesthood Authority And Righteousness

[MiserereNobis]

This topic came up in a somewhat unrelated thread so I though I'd start a new one.

 

At one point in unrighteousness does an LDS priesthood holder lose priesthood authority?  I ask because I've heard some people explain the apostasy in terms of righteousness -- priesthood authority was removed because of the unrighteousness of those holding it.  Since they lost the authority, they then could no longer pass this authority on.

 

Another question would be how does this affect LDS ordinances?  What if a priesthood leader was secretly having a long term affair.  Are those he baptized not really baptized?  What about those he ordains to the priesthood?  If they're not really ordained, then all of the ordinances they perform wouldn't really be ordinances either.  And if the secret persists long enough, this could really explode exponentially.

 

The Catholic Church very early on declared it a heresy to believe that a Sacrament (ordinance) was invalid because of the unrighteousness of the priest or bishop.

 

What's the LDS take on this?

 

Thanks!

 

[halconero]

The Great Apostasy might be better described as a rejection or maybe removal of priesthood keys. Keys are the authorization from greater authority to perform sacraments.

For me to perform a baptism in my ward, I have to be authorized by the Bishop.

Here's the problem, Bishops are approved and authorized by the First Presidency and the Twelve. No approval, no Bishop to authorize local ordinances. Unrighteousness caused the loss of the apostolic keys to call and set apart the local leadership which authorizes sacraments.

As for personal worthiness, if an unrighteous priesthood holder or leader is authorized to perform sacraments, either out of ignorance of the sin or even rebellion, these sacraments are recognized. The priesthood holder is bringing damnation upon themselves, but any blessings or ordinances performed are still valid.

[Kenngo1969]

And (although this is simply my opinion, so take it for what it's worth) any unrighteousness on the part of the Priesthood holder is compensated for by the righteousness and faith of the person receiving the ordinance (provided it was otherwise authorized). My $0.02.

 

P.S.: I think that's consistent with the Second Article of our Faith, which is that "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression [and, by extension, no one will be punished for another's transgression]."  One who is worthy to have an ordinance performed does not suffer from any unworthiness on the part of the officiator who performs it.  (Hope that makes sense! )

Edited April 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Duncan]

This is what i was getting at in a previous from a bit ago. What if an unworthy PH gives you a blessing and promises all kinds of stuff that the recipient believes comes from God, is God now on the hook to deliver with the goods? On a related note and take this with a 1000000000 bag of salt but I recall hearing a man, when I was in the mission field, tell about his grandpa who was a Patriarch. This patriarch was told that prior to him delivering blessings he was allowed to review other PB's. So he checked out ones from years before in his local area. he saw that one man (I think it was Melvin J. Ballard of the Twelve) was told in his PB that he would become an apostle but the patriarch also read other PB's given by the same man and he was promising that these other brethren were also told they would become Apostles. So the patriacrh reading all these blessings followed up to see what happened to these other men and saw they were all inactive. Now, going to today you could say well, if you were told in your PB that you were going to become an apostle and you never did become one then what can you believe, if one piece of the pie is tainted how can you trust the rest isn't spoiled as well? and not suprisingly you bail on the Church, or did they become inactive thus preventing them becoming apostles and so then why would God promise all this future stuff if he knew they would go inactive? If he knows their future then wouldn't he know they'd bail on the Church? 

[JAHS]

Perfection is not a requirement for priesthood bearers to be permitted to function in various ordinances and callings. Even though priesthood bearers are imperfect in many ways, the Lord allows them to carry out his work. 

While local leaders will want to do everything they can to see that only worthy brethren perform the ordinances, the ordinance does not become invalid if someone involved is unworthy at the time he participates. The sanctity of the ordinance may be violated, but not the validity. The priesthood holder will be held accountable for performing the ordinance unworthily.

[Pahoran]

It is my understanding that priesthood authority comes with the office, and is regulated by the oversight of those who hold the keys of that office.

For example, any priest or elder can bless the sacrament, but the ordinance is only valid if authorised by the bishop.

But priesthood power is tied to the personal righteousness of the priesthood holder. See Doctrine and Covenants 121:33-46.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

This topic came up in a somewhat unrelated thread so I though I'd start a new one.

 

At one point in unrighteousness does an LDS priesthood holder lose priesthood authority?  I ask because I've heard some people explain the apostasy in terms of righteousness -- priesthood authority was removed because of the unrighteousness of those holding it.  Since they lost the authority, they then could no longer pass this authority on.

 

Another question would be how does this affect LDS ordinances?  What if a priesthood leader was secretly having a long term affair.  Are those he baptized not really baptized?  What about those he ordains to the priesthood?  If they're not really ordained, then all of the ordinances they perform wouldn't really be ordinances either.  And if the secret persists long enough, this could really explode exponentially.

 

The Catholic Church very early on declared it a heresy to believe that a Sacrament (ordinance) was invalid because of the unrighteousness of the priest or bishop.

 

What's the LDS take on this?

 

Thanks!

I know you’ve heard from me already but… I can’t help it.

A man’s priesthood authority to act in behalf of others is lost when his rank and file leader says so. His personal priesthood authority as recognized by the Lord is lost when he does not honor the oath and covenant of the priesthood, and this can go unnoticed by his rank and file leader.

The Apostasy reflected many dynamics, including the unwillingness of the saints to follow righteous leaders, the unwillingness of leaders to lead righteously, and the lack of logistics (including living apostles) to ordain new apostles and to implement and maintain corrections or prevent alterations (not necessarily in that order, chronologically or otherwise).

Before and during the Apostasy, and after the Restoration, individual unworthiness of the bona fide priesthood holder did not impact the validity of the ordinances for the person receiving them. Only the absence of priesthood conferral and properly guided administration could render them invalid, as could the person's insincerity (but usually only the Lord would know that).

[Gray]

In the church, if someone gets baptized by someone later learned to be unrighteous, the baptism is still considered valid. 

 

On the flip side, if your toe leaves the water, it has to be done over again. A bit of a curiosity but I suspect based on practical considerations. We can afford to be picky about toes  leaving the water, but it would be a nightmare trying to rebaptize months or years after the fact when some priesthood holder confesses to something.

[Ahab]

I think it's easier to think in terms of what is authorized when someone is given authority. Who has authority is important too, but even then the one with authority is authorized to do only what he has been given authority to do.

With that perspective the answer to your question should now be fairly obvious. A person doesn't even have authority to do something he hasn't been authorized to do, and the authority extends only to what has been authorized.

Catholics messed up by supposing they had our Lord's authority to change his ordinances and they still don't have his authority to do what he has not authorized.

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks for the replies.  I know this conversation is kinda going on on two threads (the prophets, seers, and revelators one) so I appreciate reading the various perspectives.

 

It seems to all boil down to whether or not the keys were removed or not.  If the keys were not removed, then any supposed or alleged changes in teachings would have been authorized.  So, one could point out that in the very early Church things were done this way, but in the medieval Church things were done differently, but that doesn't show apostasy unless the changes were made without authority.  Perhaps an analogy is comparing the way things were done in the early LDS church to the way they are done now.  Changes, yes, but if the LDS church has the authority to make those changes then the changes are ok.  If they didn't, then you should all be FLDS, right?

 

So, if the Pope holds the keys, the individual unrighteousness of a priest doesn't affect the sacrament/ordinance.  Sounds like the idea is the same in your church.

 

Lately I've just been noticing many similarities in the heirarchical structure of the LDS church with Catholicism.  It makes me wonder how many of you might have been drawn to Catholicism if you weren't LDS.  Oh, that dang doctrine of the apostasy

Edited April 15, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Duncan]

Thanks for the replies.  I know this conversation is kinda going on on two threads (the prophets, seers, and revelators one) so I appreciate reading the various perspectives.

 

It seems to all boil down to whether or not the keys were removed or not.  If the keys were not removed, then any supposed or alleged changes in teachings would have been authorized.  So, one could point out that in the very early Church things were done this way, but in the medieval Church things were done differently, but that doesn't show apostasy unless the changes were made without authority.  Perhaps an analogy is comparing the way things were done in the early LDS church to the way they are done now.  Changes, yes, but if the LDS church has the authority to make those changes then the changes are ok.  If they didn't, then you should all be FLDS, right?

 

So, if the Pope holds the keys, the individual unrighteousness of a priest doesn't affect the sacrament/ordinance.  Sounds like the idea is the same in your church.

 

Lately I've just been noticing many similarities in the heirarchical structure of the LDS church with Catholicism.  It makes me wonder how many of you might have been drawn to Catholicism if you weren't LDS.  Oh, that dang doctrine of the apostasy

 

if it wasn't for the Catholic idea of the Godhead and purple isn't my colour i'd be Catholic in a split second!

[JLHPROF]

Perhaps an analogy is comparing the way things were done in the early LDS church to the way they are done now.  Changes, yes, but if the LDS church has the authority to make those changes then the changes are ok.  If they didn't, then you should all be FLDS, right?

 

Or, if you believe the Fundamentalist Doctrine, then the current LDS Church is in a state of apostasy for not doing things the way they were done in the early days of the Church, just as the Catholic Church apostatized from the original Church Christ set up.  As you say, it's all about "are the changes authorized by God?"

 

But being FLDS doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun...prairie dresses...*shudder*

[Ahab]

It seems to all boil down to whether or not the keys were removed or not. If the keys were not removed, then any supposed or alleged changes in teachings would have been authorized. So, one could point out that in the very early Church things were done this way, but in the medieval Church things were done differently, but that doesn't show apostasy unless the changes were made without authority. Perhaps an analogy is comparing the way things were done in the early LDS church to the way they are done now. Changes, yes, but if the LDS church has the authority to make those changes then the changes are ok. If they didn't, then you should all be FLDS, right?

I agree with your reasoning, so now all we need to know is who has the keys, and then once we know that we will know which church is the true church of Christ, or if all churches are now corrupt and apostate.

So, if the Pope holds the keys, the individual unrighteousness of a priest doesn't affect the sacrament/ordinance. Sounds like the idea is the same in your church.

Yep, pretty much the same reasoning we use in our church, as long as the sacrament/ordinance is properly administered following God's guidelines.

Lately I've just been noticing many similarities in the heirarchical structure of the LDS church with Catholicism. It makes me wonder how many of you might have been drawn to Catholicism if you weren't LDS. Oh, that dang doctrine of the apostasy

Pretty much anyone who didn't know what the true church should be like could be deceived into joining a corrupt and apostate church. It all comes down to how much each person knows about the truth, I think. Edited April 15, 2014 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Lately I've just been noticing many similarities in the heirarchical structure of the LDS church with Catholicism.  It makes me wonder how many of you might have been drawn to Catholicism if you weren't LDS.  Oh, that dang doctrine of the apostasy

Well of course there is a reason that 30-40% of my ward are former Catholics. There are many reasons why they left, but we need not raise those issues.

I don't know of any Mormons who have become Catholic-none- except perhaps one who posts here who was a Catholic and then became lds and I suspect is now Catholic again. But I don't know for sure.

But yes we are very very close on many issues and this is one of them.

[mfbukowski]

if it wasn't for the Catholic idea of the Godhead and purple isn't my colour i'd be Catholic in a split second!

I think two of the biggies are the Trinity and Transubstantiation - the view that the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself.

Both these doctrines are based on Substance theology, but I better not go there.

I think I mentioned all that once before

[mfbukowski]

Or, if you believe the Fundamentalist Doctrine, then the current LDS Church is in a state of apostasy for not doing things the way they were done in the early days of the Church, just as the Catholic Church apostatized from the original Church Christ set up.  As you say, it's all about "are the changes authorized by God?"

 

But being FLDS doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun...prairie dresses...*shudder*

Yes, I hate wearing those myself!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Or, if you believe the Fundamentalist Doctrine, then the current LDS Church is in a state of apostasy for not doing things the way they were done in the early days of the Church, just as the Catholic Church apostatized from the original Church Christ set up.  As you say, it's all about "are the changes authorized by God?"

 

But being FLDS doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun...prairie dresses...*shudder*

 

Point of Clarification:

"Fundamentalist Doctrine" does not equal "FLDS"

The FLDS is one specific church within the larger polyganist community.

You wouldn't be able to tell an AUBer (or most other Fundamentalists) from any one else.

[JLHPROF]

 

Point of Clarification:

"Fundamentalist Doctrine" does not equal "FLDS"

The FLDS is one specific church within the larger polyganist community.

You wouldn't be able to tell an AUBer (or most other Fundamentalists) from any one else.

 

True.  I have had occasion to know many AUB members.  There's loads around where I live.  And you'd never be able to tell them from anyone else.  They could be your doctor, your teacher, your realtor, your dentist, your contractor....and they are much more supportive of the Church.

 

Fundamentalists are not all the same, that's for sure.

Edited April 16, 2014 by JLHPROF

[3DOP]

I think two of the biggies are the Trinity and Transubstantiation - the view that the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself.

Both these doctrines are based on Substance theology, but I better not go there.

I think I mentioned all that once before

 

Yeah, I seem to recall that time when you mentioned it. Heh.

 

The teachings we hold to be true are independent of what you call "Substance theology". The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Scholastic formula, but they would always affirm that "the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself". St. Ignatius of Antioch (very early 2nd Century) is one of the earliest witnesses to "the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself".

 

From Apostolic times, the churches that had Apostolic succession held that Christ was fully God, and it was impossible to allow the priest Arius to teach that there was a time when He did not exist. If the Scholastic formulae are an obstacle because of philosophical constructions that are literally unthinkable to some today, they were helpful when dealing with heretics who nevertheless accepted the principles of "Substance theology".

 

You would need to oppose the two teachings anyway. With or without "Substance theology", you would disagree with what was believed before the formulae came into existence.

 

With every desire to avoid "Substance theology", and my regards,

 

Rory 

[3DOP]

Well of course there is a reason that 30-40% of my ward are former Catholics. There are many reasons why they left, but we need not raise those issues.

I don't know of any Mormons who have become Catholic-none- except perhaps one who posts here who was a Catholic and then became lds and I suspect is now Catholic again. But I don't know for sure.

But yes we are very very close on many issues and this is one of them.

 

That statistic is not surprising to me. Although I think you are forgetting saemo. She was LDS right? I can't think of any other LDS who have converted either.

[mfbukowski]

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Scholastic formula, but they would always affirm that "the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself". St. Ignatius of Antioch (very early 2nd Century) is one of the earliest witnesses to "the host becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself".

If you get around to it, a link or two on that would be very helpful.  I am under the impression that the Orthodox view is quite similar to the Roman church, but I don't know.

 

And it would be interesting to see if these views are based on philosophical arguments or mystical experience.  I personally believe in the "real presence" experientially, at times I have experienced the sensation that Christ is "really present" but it is a mystical experience.  For me that makes it just as "real" as anything can be though.  I only know that you exist based on my experience as well.

[mfbukowski]

That statistic is not surprising to me. Although I think you are forgetting saemo. She was LDS right? I can't think of any other LDS who have converted either.

I think that is a special case.

 

I think being LDS requires quite a different mindset than other faiths, at least for converts, and so I think our church appeals to a certain personality type. 

 

To convert to the LDS faith, one must be willing to disregard tradition and "what most people think" and the way they think about it, and be able to go on "testimony" alone.  They have to be willing to pit their own spiritual experiences against convention and value those experiences above the opinions of others.

 

That may sound odd to some considering how conservative LDS tend to be, but I think our conservative nature is more in line with the traditional American ethos of going out and taming the west, and carving out your own place in the universe, manifest destiny, rugged individualism, capitalism, and all the other American myths.  We tend to be entrepreneurial and want to do things our own way.  Heck we can't even agree on what "doctrine" is.

 

I think converts to Catholicism probably tend to be more old-world, more conventional, and place more importance on tradition and history. 

 

So if you are of the Mormon personality type you might leave Catholicism, but traditional Mormons will stick with tradition and stay Mormon.  So there might be more of a flow from Catholicism toward Mormonism but not so much in the other direction.

 

That's a totally subjective opinion

Edited April 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

That may sound odd to some considering how conservative LDS tend to be, but I think our conservative nature is more in line with the traditional American ethos of going out and taming the west, and carving out your own place in the universe, manifest destiny, rugged individualism, capitalism, and all the other American myths.  We tend to be entrepreneurial and want to do things our own way.  Heck we can't even agree on what "doctrine" is.

 

 

 

From my experience on the "outside" (and in America), this seems to be true.  Culturally, the LDS are very much in-line with the American ethos.  I think it is quite fair to say that Mormonism is THE American religion.  Now, I don't mean that to in any way impugn on the truth claims, but just to point out that the American ideals of progress, democracy, etc, seem to be embedded in Mormonism.

 

I think converts to Catholicism probably tend to be more old-world, more conventional, and place more importance on tradition and history. 

 

Personally, my conversion to Catholicism started with ritual, ritual, more ritual, and heady heady symbolism.  The traditional Latin Mass was absolutely instrumental in my conversion.  Talk about ritual!  Every motion, every color, every piece of clothing, every word, every thing was both literal and symbolic.  It all pointed to that which cannot be fully expressed in language, but only in symbol.  If one is looking for Christian symbolism in the West, one needs to only poke one's head into a traditional Latin Mass...

[mfbukowski]

From my experience on the "outside" (and in America), this seems to be true.  Culturally, the LDS are very much in-line with the American ethos.  I think it is quite fair to say that Mormonism is THE American religion.  Now, I don't mean that to in any way impugn on the truth claims, but just to point out that the American ideals of progress, democracy, etc, seem to be embedded in Mormonism.

 

 

 

Personally, my conversion to Catholicism started with ritual, ritual, more ritual, and heady heady symbolism.  The traditional Latin Mass was absolutely instrumental in my conversion.  Talk about ritual!  Every motion, every color, every piece of clothing, every word, every thing was both literal and symbolic.  It all pointed to that which cannot be fully expressed in language, but only in symbol.  If one is looking for Christian symbolism in the West, one needs to only poke one's head into a traditional Latin Mass...

Well I can't argue with you about the Mass.

 

But when we have our cloud discussion on the other side I will tell you all about the incredible puzzle of the Endowment.  It's like symbolic multi-dimensional chess with interacting layers.  Truly amazing.  It makes the "Bible Code" (if it were real) look like child's play.

 

Ain't no way old Joseph thought that one up himself!

 

Better yet, I'll be your escort when someone takes your name through the temple! 

Edited April 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

This topic came up in a somewhat unrelated thread so I though I'd start a new one.

 

At one point in unrighteousness does an LDS priesthood holder lose priesthood authority?  I ask because I've heard some people explain the apostasy in terms of righteousness -- priesthood authority was removed because of the unrighteousness of those holding it.  Since they lost the authority, they then could no longer pass this authority on.

 

Another question would be how does this affect LDS ordinances?  What if a priesthood leader was secretly having a long term affair.  Are those he baptized not really baptized?  What about those he ordains to the priesthood?  If they're not really ordained, then all of the ordinances they perform wouldn't really be ordinances either.  And if the secret persists long enough, this could really explode exponentially.

 

The Catholic Church very early on declared it a heresy to believe that a Sacrament (ordinance) was invalid because of the unrighteousness of the priest or bishop.

 

What's the LDS take on this?

 

Thanks!

 

I always enjoy your questions and comments. Righteousness impacts our ability to hear the Spirit. The more we approach holiness the more easily we reflect the grace of the Savior; the more we are attuned to his will.  Unrighteousness does not invalidate a priesthood ordinance.

 

It is best that an unworthy priesthood holder does not exercise the priesthood in most cases; however, these individuals hold priesthood authority. Any shortcomings of the individual are perfected through God's grace and the ordinance they perform are likewise perfected. 

 

On another note, I know of several LDS individuals who have converted to Catholicism.