Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[Rivers]

Two questions:

How do we know that the Catholics no longer have the proper priesthood authority originally bestowed on the apostles?

How do we know we still have it?

 

[Navidad]

If I might add one more?  What does the concept of "priesthood authority" mean in the LDS lexicon? That is the part I can't figure out! Perhaps a better way to ask it is "What is the operational definition of "priesthood authority?" That suggests that it be defined operationally in real life. Thanks.

[LoudmouthMormon]

We figure we still have it, because John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah, Pater, James, and John visited Joseph Smith and gave the various priesthoods and ordinances to him.

I personally have the Melchizedek Priesthood because it as given to me by my High Priest grandpa in 1989, who got it in 1951 from the apostle Joseph Francis Merrill, who got it from the apostle Heber J Grant in 1931, who got it from George Q. Cannon in 1882, who got it from Brigham Young in 1860, who got it from Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris in 1835, who got it from Joseph Smith Jr in 1829, who got it from Peter, James and John.  And they got it from Jesus Christ Himself back in the day.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/request-a-priesthood-line-of-authority?lang=eng

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Rivers]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

We figure we still have it, because John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah, Pater, James, and John visited Joseph Smith and gave the various priesthoods and ordinances to him.

I personally have the Melchizedek Priesthood because it as given to me by my High Priest grandpa in 1989, who got it in 1951 from the apostle Joseph Francis Merrill, who got it from the apostle Heber J Grant in 1931, who got it from George Q. Cannon in 1882, who got it from Brigham Young in 1860, who got it from Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris in 1835, who got it from Joseph Smith Jr in 1829, who got it from Peter, James and John.  And they got it from Jesus Christ Himself back in the day.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/request-a-priesthood-line-of-authority?lang=eng

 

Can’t Catholic clergy also trace their authority all the way back to Christ? 

[Pyreaux]

Disputedly, we believed the loss of the last Apostle left a void that couldn't be usurped by the Bishops only claiming Apostolic Succession centuries later, and assuming that were even the case, there is a messy three century long gap where the Papal crown was bought and sold, bestowed by prostitutes and taken by hedonistic murderers over which is riddling as to how a direct and valid Succession came out of that. Only divine providence, I suppose. But mainly we know-so by personal revelation of the calling of Joseph Smith who restored the priesthood by a much clearer and cleaner transition of Apostolic Succession.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

Two questions:

How do we know that the Catholics no longer have the proper priesthood authority originally bestowed on the apostles?

First, I don't think we can claim to "know."  We can only speak based on informed extrapolations and faith.

Second, I think it is important that, to the greatest extent possible, we let the Catholics present their position on this issue.  I don't like it with outsiders presume to step in and speak for the Latter-day Saints when we are already ready, willing and able to speak for ourselves.  Moreover, outsiders to a given faith tradition generally have less familiarity with the particulars of that tradition.

A few "Catholic" resources on this topic:

• From the Vatican's website: Catholic Teaching on Apostolic Succession
• From Catholic Answers: What is the biblical support for apostolic succession?
• From Catholicculture.org: Authority Both Apostolic and Petrine
• Also from Catholicculture.org: The Authority Of The Pope
• From StreetEvangeliization.com: Petrine Primacy and the Authority of the Popes
• From NewAdvent.org: Apostolic Succession

Eric Shuster is a convert to the Church from Catholicism.  In his 2009 book, Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest, he does a pretty good job of explaining / comparing / contrasting Catholic and Latter-day Saints beliefs, doctrines, etc.  He apparently also maintains a website, CatholicLDSChristianity.com, which includes an extended treatment of "Priesthood / Structure and Authority" from both the Catholic and the Latter-day Saint perspectives.

Third, as I understand it, "Petrine theory" is at the heart of the Catholic claim of priesthood authority.  See here:

Quote

Petrine theory, the basis of Roman Catholic doctrine on papal primacy, resting partly on Christ’s bestowing the “keys of the Kingdom” on Peter (the first pope, according to Roman Catholic tradition) and partly on Christ’s words: “And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek: Petros], and on this rock [Greek: petra] I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18).

See also the Wikipedia entry on "Apostolic succession."  Some excerpts:

Quote

Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.^[1] Those of the Anglican, Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Hussite, Moravian, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that "a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession".

This series was seen originally as that of the bishops of a particular see founded by one or more of the apostles. According to historian Justo L. González, apostolic succession is generally understood today as meaning a series of bishops, regardless of see, each consecrated by other bishops, themselves consecrated similarly in a succession going back to the apostles.^[5] According to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, "apostolic succession" means more than a mere transmission of powers. It is succession in a church which witnesses to the apostolic faith, in communion with the other churches, witnesses of the same apostolic faith. The "see (cathedra) plays an important role in inserting the bishop into the heart of ecclesial apostolicity", but, once ordained, the bishop becomes in his church the guarantor of apostolicity and becomes a successor of the apostles.^[6][7]

Those who hold for the importance of apostolic succession via episcopal laying on of hands appeal to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of Clement.^[8] In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to AD 431), before it was divided into the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

Some Protestants deny the need for this type of continuity,^[1][9] and the historical claims involved have been severely questioned by them; Anglican academic Eric G. Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in Chapter III of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium (1964) "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over".^[10]
...

Various meanings

Michael Ramsey, an English Anglican bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury (1961–1974), described three meanings of "apostolic succession":

1. One bishop succeeding another in the same see meant that there was a continuity of teaching: "while the Church as a whole is the vessel into which the truth is poured, the Bishops are an important organ in carrying out this task".
2. The bishops were also successors of the apostles in that "the functions they performed of preaching, governing and ordaining were the same as the Apostles had performed".
3. It is also used to signify that "grace is transmitted from the Apostles by each generation of bishops through the imposition of hands".

He adds that this last has been controversial in that it has been claimed that this aspect of the doctrine is not found before the time of Augustine of Hippo, while others allege that it is implicit in the Church of the second and third centuries.^[11]
...

Churches claiming apostolic succession

Churches that claim some form of episcopal apostolic succession, dating back to the apostles or to leaders from the apostolic era,^[58] include:

• the Roman Catholic Church
• the Eastern Orthodox Church
• the Oriental Orthodox Churches
• the Church of the East
• the Anglican Communion
• some Lutheran churches (see below)
• Old Catholics and other Independent Catholics (those incorporating the term "Catholic")
• some churches in the Convergence Movement^[59]

The Anglican Communion (see below) and those Lutheran churches which claim apostolic succession do not specifically teach this but exclusively practice episcopal ordination. While some Anglicans claim it for their communion, their views are often nuanced and there is widespread reluctance to 'unchurch' Christian bodies which lack it.^[60]

Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Polish National Catholic Church.^[61] The Orthodox generally recognize Roman Catholic clerical orders as being of apostolic lineage, but have a different concept of the apostolic succession as it exists outside the canonical borders of the Eastern Orthodox Church, extending the term only to bishops who have maintained communion, received ordination from a line of apostolic bishops, and preserved the catholic faith once delivered through the apostles and handed down as Holy Tradition. The lack of apostolic succession through bishops is the primary basis on which Protestant denominations (barring some like Anglicans and Old Catholics) are not called churches, in the proper sense, by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, the latter referring to them as "ecclesial communities" in the official documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[62]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also claims apostolic succession.^[63] According to Latter-day Saint tradition, in 1829, Joseph Smith received the priesthood from a visit from heaven of Jesus' disciples Peter, James, and John. After its establishment, each subsequent prophet and leader of the church have received the authority passed down by the laying on of hands, or through apostolic succession.^[64] Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians reject the claim that Smith possessed direct or indirect apostolic authority.

Fourth, there have been "Latter-day Saint" critiques of the Catholic claim to priesthood authority, but I think this should be considered only after reviewing and understanding the Catholic explanation of their position.

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

How do we know we still have it?

Well, that involves not much in the way of extrapolation (Catholic claims go way back into antiquity and are based on a patchwork of historical sources, whereas our claims go back 200 years and are based on (purported) first-hand accounts), but in the end is still a matter of faith.

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostatized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  As Pres. Woodruff put it:

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted, particularly v. 44 (see also D&C 65).  See, e.g., Elder Christofferson's comments here:

Quote

When Daniel interpreted the dream of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, making known to the king “what shall be in the latter days,” he declared that “the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all [other] kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” The Church is that prophesied latter-day kingdom, not created by man but set up by the God of heaven and rolling forth as a stone “cut out of the mountain without hands” to fill the earth.

And Chapter 15 from Teachings of George Albert Smith:

Quote

I know that there are many problems and there will be greater problems as the days come and go, but the same Father in heaven that led the Children of Israel, that saved Daniel and the three Hebrew children from destruction, the same Heavenly Father that preserved our forebears that came into [the Salt Lake Valley] and established them here, and blessed them and made it possible in the poverty of the people to have this great [Salt Lake] temple and other great temples, … that same Father, your Father and mine, is ready to pour out his blessings upon us today.

There is no occasion for discouragement. The gospel of Jesus Christ continues to roll forth. We have the promise from our Heavenly Father that it will continue to roll forth. No other dispensation has had the assurance that we have. In the dispensations of the past the Gospel has been taken from the earth. When it was restored in our day it was with the promise that it will never again be taken from the earth or given to another people. So I beg of you who have put your hand to the plow, do not turn back. Serve God and keep his commandments.

And these 1974 remarks from Ezra Taft Benson:

Quote

God has assured us that the Church will never again be taken from the earth because of apostasy. He has said that he is pleased with the Church, speaking collectively and not individually (D&C 1:30). This means that certain individuals within the Church may go astray and even fall away. This may happen even to a person in the Church who is in a position of some influence and authority. It has happened in the past. It will happen in the future. If our faith is in Jesus Christ and not in the arm of flesh, then we will know that we are members of the church of Jesus Christ and not the church of men.

And Chapter 17 from the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ Will Never Be Destroyed

• What is the mission of the Church?

Since its restoration in 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has grown rapidly in membership. There are members in nearly every country in the world. The Church will continue to grow. As Christ said, “This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations” (Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:31). The Church will never again be taken from the earth. Its mission is to take the truth to every person. Thousands of years ago, the Lord said He would “set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, … and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2023 by smac97

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

Two questions:

How do we know that the Catholics no longer have the proper priesthood authority originally bestowed on the apostles?

How do we know we still have it?

 

The First Vision is the best evidence for the Catholic Church (and all protestant religions as well) not having priesthood authority.  But it is not proof.

And whether or not we still have it is an issue of faith. Plenty of members have left the faith after deciding the church has apostatized and have chosen to follow others who have claimed to have the authority the church has lost. 

[Navidad]

Methinks that neither the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, nor any Protestant Church has it - I might as well join in on calling it it. Christ has it and it is His exclusive right to grant it to whom He will!

When He gave it to Peter, He (Christ)  didn't lose any part of it. If Christ via the Holy Spirit gave it to Oliver Cowdery, He (Christ) didn't lose any part of it. It isn't like a dozen eggs. If Christ via the Holy Spirit gave it to Navidad, Christ did not lose any part of it. It isn't for any person to give to another. It is the exclusive property of the Godhead. That is my non-Catholic, non-LDS, non-Protestant belief! I hold it, but only in the Mennonite and Baptist community. I have no authority over any of you, any more than any of you have authority over me. Our bishop has authority over us, because we gift it to whom by an act of our will. It is ministerial authority and nothing more.

Now, can anyone please clearly offer me a LDS operational definition of what "it" is? I know what I think it is, but I don't know what the LDS think it is. Please, someone tell me what "it" is in you thinking, belief, and faith. You know me . . . . I keep asking the same question and will until someone explains "it" to me in an operational definition. What can I expect to see in someone who has it? How are you different for having it, than a Catholic priest who you don't believe has it? Thanks.

[Rivers]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Methinks that neither the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, nor any Protestant Church has it - I might as well join in on calling it it. Christ has it and it is His exclusive right to grant it to whom He will!

When He gave it to Peter, He (Christ)  didn't lose any part of it. If Christ via the Holy Spirit gave it to Oliver Cowdery, He (Christ) didn't lose any part of it. It isn't like a dozen eggs. If Christ via the Holy Spirit gave it to Navidad, Christ did not lose any part of it. It isn't for any person to give to another. It is the exclusive property of the Godhead. That is my non-Catholic, non-LDS, non-Protestant belief! I hold it, but only in the Mennonite and Baptist community. I have no authority over any of you, any more than any of you have authority over me. Our bishop has authority over us, because we gift it to whom by an act of our will. It is ministerial authority and nothing more.

Now, can anyone please clearly offer me a LDS operational definition of what "it" is? I know what I think it is, but I don't know what the LDS think it is. Please, someone tell me what "it" is in you thinking, belief, and faith. You know me . . . . I keep asking the same question and will until someone explains "it" to me in an operational definition. What can I expect to see in someone who has it? How are you different for having it, than a Catholic priest who you don't believe has it? Thanks.

I can explain it for you.  Let’s say you are speeding down the highway and an ice cream truck pulls you over…

Edited January 7, 2023 by Rivers

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

Can’t Catholic clergy also trace their authority all the way back to Christ? 

I'm guessing the answer is yes.

Honestly, I get why Catholics have the occasional hard feeling towards the truth claims of my church.  We literally cannot both be right - at least one of us literally has to be wrong.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

Two questions:

How do we know that the Catholics no longer have the proper priesthood authority originally bestowed on the apostles?

How do we know we still have it?

 

Simple.

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

"If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

D&C 84:19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

The priesthood stays with the true laws and ordinances and the true ordinances are signs of the presence of priesthood.  When the laws and ordinances are changed priesthood authority is automatically changed too.  They're absolutely connected.

When the early Christian Church/Catholics began changing ordinances they changed and eventually lost priesthood.  That's how we know.

Edited January 8, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Rivers]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Simple.

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

"If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

D&C 84:19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

The priesthood stays with the true ordinances and the true ordinances are signs of the presence of priesthood.  When the ordinances are change priesthood authority is automatically changed too.  They're absolutely connected.

When the early Christian Church/Catholics began changing ordinances they changed and eventually lost priesthood.  That's how we know.

Haven’t we changed some ordinances too?  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Haven’t we changed some ordinances too?  

No comment. 😉

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

I can explain it for you.  Let’s say you are speeding down the highway and an ice cream truck pulls you over…

Do they have chocolate chip mint?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This is referring to Christ himself is it not? The whole chapter is either pointing to Christ or talking about Him as the great eternal high priest. His is the new priesthood. It is found in Him.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I can explain it for you.  Let’s say you are speeding down the highway and an ice cream truck pulls you over…

To be honest this is a perfect metaphor. Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Evangelicals, Zoroastrians all pulling people over in their ice cream trucks telling me to trust them - the big guy is actually in their corner. 

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This is referring to Christ himself is it not? The whole chapter is either pointing to Christ or talking about Him as the great eternal high priest. His is the new priesthood. It is found in Him.

Yes and no.  It's referring to the difference between the law of carnal commandments and its ordinances and priesthood as compared to the higher law he brought along with its ordinances and priesthood.

The same priesthood clearly described in the New Testament.  Bishops, Seventy, Apostles, and the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

It's clearly not restricted to Christ alone or he couldn't have given it to Peter.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To be honest this is a perfect metaphor. Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Evangelicals, Zoroastrians all pulling people over in their ice cream trucks telling me to trust them - the big guy is actually in their corner. 

Except one is actually licensed by the presiding authority as evidenced by him sending his servants to give his authority to them.

It may be an issue of faith but if those events actually happened there can be no question where authority rests.  If everyone lied and those events never happened then you should look elsewhere.  What does your faith tell you about those events?  Mine tells me they happened so there is no room for debate.

[mrmarklin]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

Can’t Catholic clergy also trace their authority all the way back to Christ? 

Of course they can. Inside every Catholic Church is a chart tracing the popes back to St Peter. 

[manol]

 

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It may be an issue of faith but if those events actually happened there can be no question where authority rests.

Is it possible that those events happened but the authority is no longer in the LDS Church for some reason?  I am under the impression that priesthood power and authority is conditional on more than just being able to trace a line of authority back to Peter James and John.  By way of example, earlier in this thread you make the argument that:

"When the laws and ordinances are changed priesthood authority is automatically changed too."

Not that the following is necessarily the highest level of scholarship on the subject, but...

About fifty years ago we studied Church history in Seminary.  I remember vividly the description of the Kirtland Temple dedication, which imo really does fit the description of "the power of godliness manifest unto men in the flesh".   Visions and visitations were experienced by many ordinary Saints, even a light coming down from heaven and illuminating the Temple so brightly that, according to our Seminary teachers and the lesson material, the local newspaper reported it had caught fire and burned!  The Lord visited and accepted the Kirtland Temple, see Section 110, in fulfillment of his promise in Section 97, verses 15-17:

"And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it;  Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God.  But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples."

Ten years later the Nauvoo Temple was dedicated.  In arguably stark contrast, I don't remember any such manifestations or visitation and acceptance by the Lord being described.  I do remember that the Nauvoo Temple was hit by lightning and by a tornado on separate occasions, not sure which was first.  Not quite in the same league as a light coming down from heaven.

@JLHPROF, is it possible that the restoration events you refer to did actually happen, but that something vital was lost in between the dedication of the Kirtland Temple and the dedication of the Nauvoo Temple?

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by manol

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It may be an issue of faith but if those events actually happened there can be no question where authority rests. 

Except, even with Joseph Smith, if we take the church’s modern narrative of the priesthood restoration at face value, there is no clear indication from Joseph’s life that he picked a single successor. So there is a question. RLDS? FLDS? CoJCoLDS? Some other branch? Or has the priesthood been taken from the earth again as seems to happen more often than not? 

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except, even with Joseph Smith, if we take the church’s modern narrative of the priesthood restoration at face value, there is no clear indication from Joseph’s life that he picked a single successor. So there is a question. RLDS? FLDS? CoJCoLDS? Some other branch? Or has the priesthood been taken from the earth again as seems to happen more often than not? 

Well I lean back to my original response.  Look for the law and the ordinances of the Lord.  That's where the priesthood and authority of Christ will be.

Those who keep his commandments, follow his doctrine, receive his word and practice his ordinances.  It's all right there in the gospels.  Where do we find it today?  Who baptizes by immersion and requires it?  Who lays on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost?  Who partakes of the sacrament? Who calls the Elders to administer to the sick? Washes and anoints?  Seals on earth and in heaven?  Makes Kings and Priests unto Christ and his Father?  Who has Seventies? Apostles? Prophets?  Priests?

None of the other Restorationist branches you name have maintained the laws and ordinances restored through Joseph Smith except one.

Other Christian sects have faith in Christ but little to no understanding of the gospel plan clearly described in the NT.  And that means no authority.  There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator.

Edited January 8, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Jehosephat]

Hi all. New to the board. 

@Navidad I consider the priesthood to be God’s power and authority. He bestows His authority to others through priesthood ordination, giving them authority to act in His name and to call upon His power for the benefit of others.  In other words, Priesthood ordination sanctions one to perform rites and minister in God’s name and by His authority. Because these acts are performed by His authority, His power can attend them.   

“It” or “holding/having the priesthood” means that the priesthood authorizes me to act in God’s name and call upon His power as I minister to His children. 

No official sources quoted here, just how I personally understand the priesthood.  I’m sure others can provide a more eloquent operational definition. 

thanks.  
 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

How do we know that the Catholics no longer have the proper priesthood authority originally bestowed on the apostles?

I don't know, but if those movies where a Catholic priest spends hours or even days attempting to cast an evil spirit out are even half accurate, something is seriously missing!

Quote

How do we know we still have it?

In the exercise of the same.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Now, can anyone please clearly offer me a LDS operational definition of what "it" is? I know what I think it is, but I don't know what the LDS think it is. 

I don't know the definition of 'operational definition', but priesthood authority is something that Paul received but the seven sons of Sceva did not.

It is also something that was conferred upon Peter:

Quote

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan