A Spencer W. Kimball Quote on Blasphemy

[Navidad]

In 1969 when Spencer W. Kimball was a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, he wrote a book entitled “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” In it he said the following, 

“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization. And no one can obtain God's authority from reading the Bible or from just a desire to serve the Lord, no matter how pure his motives.” 

This statement is also quoted in “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball” published by Deseret Book Company in its Kindle Edition with a source reference back to his 1969 book. It is not quoted in the LDS.org version of "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball."

I would greatly appreciate some clarification. I am still a bit confused about what is considered scripture (non-canonical) and what is not. If Elder Kimball gave a General Conference talk as a member of the twelve, that would be considered scripture, correct? If he made a statement in a book he wrote that was then published by a Church subsidiary, would that be scripture? Would it be his opinion only? Would it in any way be considered Church teaching since it is published by Deseret?  Is it in fact the teaching of the Church that anyone performing an ordinance outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is committing blasphemy?

Of course, I ask because the statement is pretty powerful in its identification as “blasphemous” the routine and regular actions of those in other Christian groups. This summer I am traveling around to give a series of talks to both members of the Church and non-LDS Christian audiences on various subjects. I want to understand how to quote this statement without doing it any injustice or misrepresenting it. Thanks so much for your input. 
 

Edited January 26, 2019 by Navidad

[changed]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization. And no one can obtain God's authority from reading the Bible or from just a desire to serve the Lord, no matter how pure his motives.” 
 

Wow... just wow...

and here I thought God was no respecter of persons, that all were alike unto God... 

The entire authority thing - hierarchy, patriarchy, different degrees of glory, ... "I'm better than you, you have to rely on me - you have to rely on the arms of flesh, and we decide who is special and who is not" - this is the kind of thing the JW's did too - or even the Catholics claiming they trace their priesthood power back to Peter... I guess the Catholics are the only right ones, because they have apostolic succession?? Same thing as LDS church - everyone claiming they are the only ones with "true power"...

This stuff makes me want to leave Christianity all together.  

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would greatly appreciate some clarification. I am still a bit confused about what is considered scripture (non-canonical) and what is not. If Elder Kimball gave a General Conference talk as a member of the twelve, that would be considered scripture, correct? If he made a statement in a book he wrote that was then published by a Church subsidiary, would that be scripture?

Scripture is scripture.  

A General Conference talk is a General Conference talk, not scripture.

Some random book is not remotely scripture.

When it comes to understanding levels LDS doctrinal authority, may I suggest that a binary approach isn't the best.  Rather, authority falls on a spectrum, so let's acknowledge it as a spectrum.  Scripture is at the top.  Below that are chorused proclamations / statements  - I say "chorused" meaning coming multiple times from multiple people, speaking as many witnesses.  Venue does play a role in here as well (General Conference being a big venue obviously, random statements not so much).  A book is much lower on the authority spectrum, more reflecting that individual's thoughts.  And thoughts do change over time -- for example Kimball did later express that he felt he was too harsh in "The Miracle of Forgiveness".  

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Scripture is scripture.  

A General Conference talk is a General Conference talk, not scripture.

Some random book is not remotely scripture.

When it comes to understanding levels LDS doctrinal authority, may I suggest that a binary approach isn't the best.  Rather, authority falls on a spectrum, so let's acknowledge it as a spectrum.  Scripture is at the top.  Below that are chorused proclamations / statements  - I say "chorused" meaning coming multiple times from multiple people, speaking as many witnesses.  Venue does play a role in here as well (General Conference being a big venue obviously, random statements not so much).  A book is much lower on the authority spectrum, more reflecting that individual's thoughts.  And thoughts do change over time -- for example Kimball did later express that he felt he was too harsh in "The Miracle of Forgiveness".  

Thanks for your post. A couple of months ago in Elder's Quorum we were taught that General Conference talks are indeed considered scripture, just not Canonical Scripture like the four Scriptures. Even though conference talks are not sustained by the quorum and the members, they are indeed scripture. Is that an incorrect interpretation? This is kinda, sorta why I get confused.

If you say that President Kimball did indeed later express the sense that he was too harsh, then I won't even use the quote. That wouldn't be fair to him or anyone else. I am glad I posted this, because I didn't know his later thoughts. Maybe that is why that quote was not included in his teachings on the LDS.org website. LDS.org had about 250 pages of his teachings. The book had around 700 pages including talks he gave here in Mexico. 

[The Nehor]

It is blasphemy and presumptuous. Admittedly those can be emotionally charged words and those who perform these acts in ignorance and with good intent are not likely to be judged harshly by God for it.

I can truthfully say that I heard some heresy in church on Sunday but I am pretty sure it was inadvertent.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your post. A couple of months ago in Elder's Quorum we were taught that General Conference talks are indeed considered scripture, just not Canonical Scripture like the four Scriptures. Even though conference talks are not sustained by the quorum and the members, they are indeed scripture. Is that an incorrect interpretation? This is kinda, sorta why I get confused.

You notice how there is a hierarchy even in what you're saying here: Scripture vs scripture.  The Standard Works are of greater authority.  General Conference talks hold a lesser authority.  It would be a mistake to put them in the same bucket.  That doesn't mean they aren't important-- they are.  Again, it's a spectrum of authority.  

(PS: this can get VERY confusing.  I totally acknowledge that)

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If you say that President Kimball did indeed later express the sense that he was too harsh, then I won't even use the quote. That wouldn't be fair to him or anyone else. I am glad I posted this, because I didn't know his later thoughts. Maybe that is why that quote was not included in his teachings on the LDS.org website. LDS.org had about 250 pages of his teachings. The book had around 700 pages including talks he gave here in Mexico. 

*thumbs up*

[Navidad]

Very interesting. I found that quote while reading a Kindle version of Kimball's teachings that I downloaded this morning. At that time I thought it was a powerful statement of what at least one future president believed. I wasn't sure how to quote it, so I posted it here to get your thoughts. Then just now after Jane_Doe's comment, I decided to paste the first part of the quote into Google just to see where that led me. Where it led me was to three or four of what I guess would be called "anti-Mormon" sites. They certainly weren't very positive. The vitriol sickened me. When I saw the Kimball quote "I" had discovered on those sites it took all the interest in using it away from me. I might be occasionally "presumptuous" and less often "blasphemous," but I am not a basher and certainly not anti-Mormon! So I am going to forget I ever saw this quote. At least I found some other useful quotes from his talks here in Mexico when he was the President. I have to put together a talk on "The Apostles in the Colonies" for a conference in SLC this summer. So not all is lost! 

[Storm Rider]

7 minutes ago, changed said:

Wow... just wow...

and here I thought God was no respecter of persons, that all were alike unto God... 

The entire authority thing - hierarchy, patriarchy, different degrees of glory, ... "I'm better than you, you have to rely on me - you have to rely on the arms of flesh, and we decide who is special and who is not" - this is the kind of thing the JW's did too - or even the Catholics claiming they trace their priesthood power back to Peter... I guess the Catholics are the only right ones, because they have apostolic succession?? Same thing as LDS church - everyone claiming they are the only ones with "true power"...

This stuff makes me want to leave Christianity all together.  

As I understand this statement, President Kimball was referring directly to the priesthood - the same priesthood that Jesus ordained the original apostles and they, in turn, ordained others. We see the desire of those who want this authority in Acts 8:18 where Simon was willing to pay to gain this power. If the authority can just be assumed by anyone, does anyone have any evidence of such in the Bible or anywhere else?

Apostolic succession is proposed in the Catholic Church. Apostolic succession - that we hold the same authority is found within the Church of Jesus Christ. There is a right one in the same way that Jesus taught there is one Kingdom of God and one Church to be called in his name.

Ah, the argument of the ignorant. There can be no truth unless it is subjective truth - the nauseating "your" truth and "my" truth. The unenlightening cause of the New Age. If it is your truth then you can do anything you want. How insipid a philosophy can there be?

Then there is the ever constant whine about the dreaded hierarchy. Please tell me how society progressed up till the 20th century? You got it - the patriarchy brought us here. What is the patriarchy? That never defined term that the Left thrills at whining about. What percentage really was the patriarchy? It certainly was not all males - it was a very, very small part of society that was related to the aristocracy. Yes, they were most often men, but not always. You know, those terrible females that led, but we are supposed to forget as we hurl the accusation of ignorance - the patriarchy - a code word for misandry pure and simple. But we need code words for right now unless we are flamming, radical feminists and then we can say it out loud. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your post. A couple of months ago in Elder's Quorum we were taught that General Conference talks are indeed considered scripture, just not Canonical Scripture like the four Scriptures. Even though conference talks are not sustained by the quorum and the members, they are indeed scripture. Is that an incorrect interpretation? This is kinda, sorta why I get confused.

If you say that President Kimball did indeed later express the sense that he was too harsh, then I won't even use the quote. That wouldn't be fair to him or anyone else. I am glad I posted this, because I didn't know his later thoughts. Maybe that is why that quote was not included in his teachings on the LDS.org website. LDS.org had about 250 pages of his teachings. The book had around 700 pages including talks he gave here in Mexico. 

General Conference talks can be considered scripture though the Church does not have a doctrine of scriptural infallibility for any of its scripture including its canon.

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

General Conference talks can be considered scripture though the Church does not have a doctrine of scriptural infallibility for any of its scripture including its canon.

The last half of this statement is a new perspective that I did not know! Thanks! 

[oremites]

Another thing to keep in mind when dealing with quotes like this is the law of witnesses.  God makes clear in the scriptures that he will send multiple witnesses to establish his word.

For example, this part is pretty clearly the doctrine of the church -- "And no one can obtain God's authority from reading the Bible or from just a desire to serve the Lord, no matter how pure his motives."   I can think of multiple sources to back that up.

The first sentence about blasphemers should not be treated as doctrine if you can't find any other sources that also teach it.  If you base LDS doctrine on single quotes from one Apostle  or Prophet only, you can come up with some pretty wild stuff. 

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, changed said:

Wow... just wow...

and here I thought God was no respecter of persons, that all were alike unto God... 

The entire authority thing - hierarchy, patriarchy, different degrees of glory, ... "I'm better than you, you have to rely on me - you have to rely on the arms of flesh, and we decide who is special and who is not" - this is the kind of thing the JW's did too - or even the Catholics claiming they trace their priesthood power back to Peter... I guess the Catholics are the only right ones, because they have apostolic succession?? Same thing as LDS church - everyone claiming they are the only ones with "true power"...

This stuff makes me want to leave Christianity all together.  

Hi changed.

I don't think its quite fair to characterize Christians who believe that Christ established a church hierarchy are by implication saying that God is a respecter of persons, or deciding who is special. I am sure it HAS happened that in the hierarchical churches, persons become puffed up as though their office defined them, and that they are or were superior. But apparently God holds that allowing such an evil to occur is compatible with His will. It can be a source of merit for the laity, as the ordinary faithful are often called among us Catholics...to draw the distinction between the office and the person. We are to respect the office, and trust that God, Who is no respecter of persons will judge the person. I think there are popes and bishops and priests who have died without God's life in their souls. Being in the hierarchy is no ticket to heavenly rewards. The Scripture offers warnings that those who occupy important offices will be held accountable.

Quote

Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

---Heb. 13:17

This passage seems explicit. Does not a text like this, and there are many others that imply the same, establish an order of hierarchy to which the faithful are supposed to attend?

When one looks at the historical record one finds Christians in the post apostolic age attending to an ordered hierarchy. Read the Epistles of St. Ignatius, who was martyred at Rome around 110 AD. He was Bishop of Antioch. As he was being taken to Rome for execution, he wrote letters to other churches, about seven of them I think. In each of them he admonishes the faithful to follow their bishops in the strongest terms. If this kind of Christianity had been exterminated out of existence by Pagan Rome, I might not have sought to discover those prelates to whom I was obliged in obedience. But instead, it was an hierarchical and sacramental church that eventually triumphed over the pagan gods. It took three centuries before the faith became legal in the Empire. It was thanks to the heroic blood of faithful and priests and bishops alike that the faith of Christ was not crushed in its infancy. I do not remember precisely, but something around fifteen of the first bishops of Rome died at the hands of executioners. Whatever they believed, that is what I want to believe. I don't think those brave Christians were against being led by souls who occupied positions believed to be established by Jesus Christ Himself. 

These strong words of Ignatius are intended to warn those who he well knows might find themselves scandalized by bad priests or bishops, although the persecution that church office invited in those days probably deterred souls of weaker character from accepting. But here is the quote, which seems to represent the thinking that carried Christianity from the problems of persecution to the problems of power and freedom:

Quote

For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.

---Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 3

Quote

As Christ obeyed the Father, so the bishops are to obey Christ, and by implication, the faithful to obey the bishops. He continues...Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.

----Obid., ch. 4

Why should we be confident that this teaching of St. Ignatius is contrary to the will of Christ? Does God really despise what Ignatius is saying here while he is preparing to be fed to the lions for refusing to renounce the name of Jesus? I am persuaded that this teaching is of Apostolic origin. In ch. 5, our martyr talks about one difficulty of separating from the organized church:

Quote

Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself...Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God."

---obid., ch. 5

We see in the Book of Acts how the Apostles led the early Christians to assemble together for "the breaking of bread". Leaving aside the Catholic teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, Jesus admonishes the Apostles to "do this in memory of me". Can we practice this activity without some kind of organized assembly? Is it God's will that we do this in our families, taking turns as to who plays the part of Jesus?

There are many more reasons I could give for why I have joined a hierarchical church after beginning in a less formal setting as a Christian. I had decided to started my own "church" in 1985. I asked a neighboring pastor if he thought I needed to be ordained first. I think he probably sensed as I did, the problem with ordination ceremonies for one without any linkage back to the Apostles, or a Restoration. Better to not go down that path. I decided to forego any kind of ceremony. I decided that anybody could start a church. It is a long story from there to now and this post is already too long.

Allow me to close by saying that I began to take Mormonism serious in the early nineties, because they offered an answer to what eventually became clear to me from my ministry. If there are problems with a hierarchy, the problems, in my opinion, are multiplied if we say that the Christian Scriptures and subsequent history shows that God prefers an unorganized "church" where all of His believers, are equally free to assemble, to teach, or to not assemble, and not teach. I am comfortable now in holding that this view, which I once unconsciously held, is incompatible with the revelation of Christ and His Apostles. 

I hope you don't see this as an attack changed. I appreciate the reasoning that makes one think as you appear to do. I am just trying to offer you and other interested parties some perspective that might give pause for thought.

Rory

Edited January 26, 2019 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, changed said:

Wow... just wow...

and here I thought God was no respecter of persons, that all were alike unto God... 

The entire authority thing - hierarchy, patriarchy, different degrees of glory, ... "I'm better than you, you have to rely on me - you have to rely on the arms of flesh, and we decide who is special and who is not" - this is the kind of thing the JW's did too - or even the Catholics claiming they trace their priesthood power back to Peter... I guess the Catholics are the only right ones, because they have apostolic succession?? Same thing as LDS church - everyone claiming they are the only ones with "true power"...

This stuff makes me want to leave Christianity all together.  

I don't know why you think God doesn't favor some over others.  EVERYTHING revealed about God indicates otherwise.

So the question becomes what brings about such favor.  All are alike, so if all obey  the same laws all receive the same blessings.  God just favors those who follow him.

You have every right to disagree but I'd like to know what revealed information about God you are basing your concept of God on.  Or perhaps you are designing your own God.

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

In 1969 when Spencer W. Kimball was a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, he wrote a book entitled “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” In it he said the following, 

“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization. And no one can obtain God's authority from reading the Bible or from just a desire to serve the Lord, no matter how pure his motives.” 

This statement is also quoted in “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball” published by Deseret Book Company in its Kindle Edition with a source reference back to his 1969 book. It is not quoted in the LDS.org version of "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball."

I would greatly appreciate some clarification. I am still a bit confused about what is considered scripture (non-canonical) and what is not. If Elder Kimball gave a General Conference talk as a member of the twelve, that would be considered scripture, correct? If he made a statement in a book he wrote that was then published by a Church subsidiary, would that be scripture? Would it be his opinion only? Would it in any way be considered Church teaching since it is published by Deseret?  Is it in fact the teaching of the Church that anyone performing an ordinance outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is committing blasphemy?

Of course, I ask because the statement is pretty powerful in its identification as “blasphemous” the routine and regular actions of those in other Christian groups. This summer I am traveling around to give a series of talks to both members of the Church and non-LDS Christian audiences on various subjects. I want to understand how to quote this statement without doing it any injustice or misrepresenting it. Thanks so much for your input. 
 

Hello Navidad.

I think he is saying that for LDS, as for Catholics, pure motives do not make the exercise of sacramental ceremonies without a priest efficacious or acceptable to God. Truly pure motives would exonerate the person who is ignorant through no fault of their own, but it couldn't replace the priesthood. I think blasphemy is an inaccurate use of the word, but I don't think those religions which believe in a valid priesthood can consistently affirm that believers who don't believe in priests, or follow invalidly ordained priests, obtain the same benefits that those with a valid priesthood get.

Surely you can see how crazy it would be if Catholics thought that anybody could validly celebrate the Eucharist or give absolution for the remission of sins. I think rather than trying to accuse others of blasphemy, the author is explaining to fellow LDS how crazy it would be for them, if they just believed willy nilly that pure motives allows everybody else to do what only priests can do for the Latter-day Saints.

Rory

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hello Navidad.

I think he is saying that for LDS, as for Catholics, pure motives do not make the exercise of sacramental ceremonies without a priest efficacious or acceptable to God. Truly pure motives would exonerate the person who is ignorant through no fault of their own, but it couldn't replace the priesthood. I think blasphemy is an inaccurate use of the word, but I don't think those religions which believe in a valid priesthood can consistently affirm that believers who don't believe in priests, or follow invalidly ordained priests, obtain the same benefits that those with a valid priesthood get.

Surely you can see how crazy it would be if Catholics thought that anybody could validly celebrate the Eucharist or give absolution for the remission of sins. I think rather than trying to accuse others of blasphemy, the author is explaining to fellow LDS how crazy it would be for them, if they just believed willy nilly that pure motives allows everybody else to do what only priests can do for the Latter-day Saints.

Rory

Hi: Several have responded in a similar way. I would like to clarify one thing that I think isn't clear. What might be confusing this is the use of the term priest or priesthood. In my tradition, as in all Protestant traditions, one use of the term refers to the priesthood of all believers. We believe that all believers in Christ hold the priesthood, in other words have the right to pray, petition God with no need for an intermediary. Christ in his atonement eliminated the need for the traditional priestly function, that of serving at the altar, animal sacrifice, etc. The belief is that no one needs to petition the Father by means of a priest or intermediary. The only authority that comes with that priesthood is the authority to enter into God's presence directly. No more veil. No more priest to pay to pray for us. It is strictly personal authority. 

Now, on the other hand, Protestants also have those who have been ordained, set apart after vigorous examination to perform the ordinances (each group varies in their ordinances) of their respective church such as baptism, marriage, sacrament (communion), and to keep order in the congregation. This might be professional paid clergy in some traditions and might be bi-vocational unpaid elders in other traditions, or a combination of both as with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mennonite Church, for example. Could be males or either males or females, depending on the tradition. The first deals with the right to approach God personally with our petitions, to seek His will (revelation), etc. In that sense we all believe in on-going revelation and universal priesthood. Who should I marry? Where should I go to college? What should my vocation be? Should I accept a calling? These are all petitions that all can make without an intermediary because we all hold the "priesthood" - using our definition.  

However, there are also leaders who are licensed, ordained, set-aside, etc. to provide leadership and order to the church: the pastors, deacons, elders, bishops, etc. that most all groups have in one form or another. Those who don't view the "priesthood" as do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not advocating for disorder, chaos, or anarchy in the congregation. I went through a rigorous ordination process by those elders and already ordained leaders to determine my qualifications, suitability (spiritually and otherwise) before I was ordained a minister. I was examined by both elders and scholars in our tradition to affirm that I had the knowledge, experience, expertise, etc to be called to a specific ministry based on the existence and use of my gifts. The elders then laid hands on me, prayed with me and by the Holy Spirit set me apart for my work as an ordained minister. In my situation I was both ordained and licensed. Ordination is a life-time calling; licensure is a specific call to a specific ministry in place and time. Perhaps these are best seen as administrative-spiritual callings. They have nothing to do with the role played by the Old Testament priesthood holders who were intermediaries. 

The bishop in the ward we attend is a wonderful Godly man who has authority in our ward. He has no authority in the Mennonite Church. As I can't baptize someone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ward; he cannot do so in the Mennonite Church or any other church other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His authority is in reality limited to his branch of Christianity. If he walked into a Mennonite church he could not exercise the authority of a minister, but he would be recognized, by his Godliness as holding the same priesthood as all believers do with the right to pray directly to the Father with his own personal petitions and would be considered a believer in the gospel. His eternal role is not impacted in any way by his not having administrative authority in the Mennonite Church. The authority for the same comes through the specific Church leadership as the Holy Spirit (Ghost) leads them, whether it be Mennonite, Brethren, or Mormon (sorry my fingers are getting tired). Our ordination requirements are quite rigorous for both spiritual, educational, knowledge, training, maturity preparation to serve as a pastor, priest, bishop, or whatever you want to call it. In this sense, our standards for such a role are most likely a bit more strenuous than those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who allows relatively untrained, non-spiritually tested youth to perform ordinances.

I can already predict that someone is going to challenge my perspective with a demand for Bible verses for this or that. You already all know the verses, I won't enter into the game of I know more verses than you do; or you can scripture quote or twist better than I can, so therefore I win or lose, or you do. That is a game I don't want to play anymore. I have shared my beliefs. I wouldn't have them if I didn't think they weren't Biblically-based. I share to explain and clarify, not to convince, convert or play gotcha.

I sponsor baseball teams in my home village here in Mexico, I don't want to sponsor games of gotcha anymore. I am happy to answer questions that seek to understand, not those intended to challenge, correct or convert. 

[3DOP]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi: Several have responded in a similar way. I would like to clarify one thing that I think isn't clear. What might be confusing this is the use of the term priest or priesthood. In my tradition, as in all Protestant traditions, one use of the term refers to the priesthood of all believers. We believe that all believers in Christ hold the priesthood, in other words have the right to pray, petition God with no need for an intermediary. Christ in his atonement eliminated the need for the traditional priestly function, that of serving at the altar, animal sacrifice, etc. The belief is that no one needs to petition the Father by means of a priest or intermediary. The only authority that comes with that priesthood is the authority to enter into God's presence directly. No more veil. No more priest to pay to pray for us. It is strictly personal authority. 

Now, on the other hand, Protestants also have those who have been ordained, set apart after vigorous examination to perform the ordinances (each group varies in their ordinances) of their respective church such as baptism, marriage, sacrament (communion), and to keep order in the congregation. This might be professional paid clergy in some traditions and might be bi-vocational unpaid elders in other traditions, or a combination of both as with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mennonite Church, for example. Could be males or either males or females, depending on the tradition. The first deals with the right to approach God personally with our petitions, to seek His will (revelation), etc. In that sense we all believe in on-going revelation and universal priesthood. Who should I marry? Where should I go to college? What should my vocation be? Should I accept a calling? These are all petitions that all can make without an intermediary because we all hold the "priesthood" - using our definition.  

However, there are also leaders who are licensed, ordained, set-aside, etc. to provide leadership and order to the church: the pastors, deacons, elders, bishops, etc. that most all groups have in one form or another. Those who don't view the "priesthood" as do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not advocating for disorder, chaos, or anarchy in the congregation. I went through a rigorous ordination process by those elders and already ordained leaders to determine my qualifications, suitability (spiritually and otherwise) before I was ordained a minister. I was examined by both elders and scholars in our tradition to affirm that I had the knowledge, experience, expertise, etc to be called to a specific ministry based on the existence and use of my gifts. The elders then laid hands on me, prayed with me and by the Holy Spirit set me apart for my work as an ordained minister. In my situation I was both ordained and licensed. Ordination is a life-time calling; licensure is a specific call to a specific ministry in place and time. Perhaps these are best seen as administrative-spiritual callings. They have nothing to do with the role played by the Old Testament priesthood holders who were intermediaries. 

The bishop in the ward we attend is a wonderful Godly man who has authority in our ward. He has no authority in the Mennonite Church. As I can't baptize someone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ward; he cannot do so in the Mennonite Church or any other church other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His authority is in reality limited to his branch of Christianity. If he walked into a Mennonite church he could not exercise the authority of a minister, but he would be recognized, by his Godliness as holding the same priesthood as all believers do with the right to pray directly to the Father with his own personal petitions and would be considered a believer in the gospel. His eternal role is not impacted in any way by his not having administrative authority in the Mennonite Church. The authority for the same comes through the specific Church leadership as the Holy Spirit (Ghost) leads them, whether it be Mennonite, Brethren, or Mormon (sorry my fingers are getting tired). Our ordination requirements are quite rigorous for both spiritual, educational, knowledge, training, maturity preparation to serve as a pastor, priest, bishop, or whatever you want to call it. In this sense, our standards for such a role are most likely a bit more strenuous than those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who allows relatively untrained, non-spiritually tested youth to perform ordinances.

I can already predict that someone is going to challenge my perspective with a demand for Bible verses for this or that. You already all know the verses, I won't enter into the game of I know more verses than you do; or you can scripture quote or twist better than I can, so therefore I win or lose, or you do. That is a game I don't want to play anymore. I have shared my beliefs. I wouldn't have them if I didn't think they weren't Biblically-based. I share to explain and clarify, not to convince, convert or play gotcha.

I sponsor baseball teams in my home village here in Mexico, I don't want to sponsor games of gotcha anymore. I am happy to answer questions that seek to understand, not those intended to challenge, correct or convert. 

No one is denying the priesthood of all believers to make sacrifices on behalf of family, friends, and sinners. But there are those who disagree with you that an ordained priesthood was not established by Christ. Catholics and Latter-day Saints are simply in no position to declare for the sake of brotherly love, that they can agree that the ceremonies of "separated brethren", if you will, bring the same benefits and graces that a valid priesthood may bring. It is not out of a desire to be contrarian or unloving, but rather to acknowledge the circumstances that prevent our coming together in one assembly. I wouldn't have used the word "blasphemy" in a book to be read by non-LDS. There is a need to avoid giving offense.

But surely you can see why it would be to deny a chief reason for the Restoration, the reestablishment of the priesthood, for a President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to say that non-LDS ordinations do the same thing for non-LDS as ours do for us. 

It is also impossible for a catechised Catholic to believe that non-Catholic ministers can do for their flocks, what Catholic "ministers" do for theirs. You realize that Catholics believe that they receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion? Nobody else even claims to have that!  How can we not think that non-Catholics are missing something of the most immense importance in their religious exercises? It would be folly to equate what we think Catholic priests can do with what Protestant ministers do.

It seems like this is inevitably the context of any dialogue you might have with somebody who believes in one true church. You have to expect us to be like Pres. Kimball in what we are sorry to believe about the inclusive "not true churches". There is no substitute for believing the same things, and worshipping the same God, enjoying the communion of like minded saints. We can and should be friendly with outsiders as acquaintances. But we would be deceiving you to say that we think all the churches are equal, even those that refuse to claim to be exclusively one and true.

Regards,

Rory

Edited January 26, 2019 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

The last half of this statement is a new perspective that I did not know! Thanks! 

I know it was a bit of a shock to me as a teenager but it makes sense. The Book of Mormon authors even admit it could have mistakes in it. I do believe it is the Word of God as I do the Bible and the rest of our canon. My faith lies in the idea that the scriptures (including the canon, General Conference talks, the ordinances, and other things revealed to me) as interpreted to me by the Holy Ghost are sufficient to guide me to eternal life. Will I make missteps? Sure. But I will not be led astray.

Edited January 26, 2019 by The Nehor

[esodije]

We’d be in a world of rhetorical hurt if we put more than a tiny bit of stock in very many 19th Century conference talks.There are good reasons not to canonize the Journal of Discourses, and for current-day GAs not to quote from it.

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, changed said:

Wow... just wow...

and here I thought God was no respecter of persons, that all were alike unto God... 

The entire authority thing - hierarchy, patriarchy, different degrees of glory, ... "I'm better than you, you have to rely on me - you have to rely on the arms of flesh, and we decide who is special and who is not" - this is the kind of thing the JW's did too - or even the Catholics claiming they trace their priesthood power back to Peter... I guess the Catholics are the only right ones, because they have apostolic succession?? Same thing as LDS church - everyone claiming they are the only ones with "true power"...

This stuff makes me want to leave Christianity all together.  

God's house is a house of order and not confusion.  The priesthood is not about making people better than other people.  Anyone who thinks they are superior than someone else because that person does not have the priesthood does not really understand what the priesthood is about.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, esodije said:

We’d be in a world of rhetorical hurt if we put more than a tiny bit of stock in very many 19th Century conference talks.There are good reasons not to canonize the Journal of Discourses, and for current-day GAs not to quote from it.

The same could be said about today's conference talks.

Who knows which teachings we'll disavow in another hundred years.

[carbon dioxide]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The same could be said about today's conference talks.

Who knows which teachings we'll disavow in another hundred years.

We have only 12 years left according to  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

[esodije]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The same could be said about today's conference talks.

Who knows which teachings we'll disavow in another hundred years.

Preciso.

[LoudmouthMormon]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would greatly appreciate some clarification. I am still a bit confused about what is considered scripture (non-canonical) and what is not.

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.   You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.   Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."   
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
" - President Harold B. Lee, 1st Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain, August 24-26, 1973
 

Here's a thinker - so, statements from a prophet talking about when we don't have to accept them.  But they're not general conference statements, which means we don't have to accept them.  Which means anything uttered by a prophet we must accept.  Which means they just uttered stuff about when we don't have to accept them!  Ouch my head!

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, esodije said:

Preciso.

So...no conference talks?

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

So...no conference talks?

No, we can have them.  We just don't need to believe they contain truth.  We have to wait for the next guy to confirm it...until the next next guy says it was wrong.