Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[Navidad]

teac

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Thanks. I like it when we discuss Scripture. What is it that He gave to Peter? What is it that is being discussed in Hebrews 2 and 7? Is it the same thing? I think not. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am sharing my interpretation, which like yours requires faith and a degree of provisional certainty. I would draw the conclusion (perhaps incorrectly) that you believe all mentions of priesthood, authority, power, etc. in the NT refer to one and the same priesthood. I do not.

I believe there are three distinct priesthoods discussed in the NT; a number more if you include the OT. For our purposes, I will limit my comments to the NT.

I believe Christ is the one and only true eternal Priest (High Priest if you will). He is the repository of all authority, right up until the day of judgment. His priesthood is the first type. It is a part of Him . . . He doesn't "give" it like I might give you something and then I don't have it. He is the eternal Priest - therefore the Eternal Priesthood is not an "it." It is a person - the person of Christ. He is uniquely both the sacrifice and the Priest who offered that sacrifice. That is clear in Hebrews 2. He is the priestly intermediator between the Father and us. That is why no man can come or go to the Father (from earliest salvation to final judgment), but by Him (the priest-son).

The second is the Royal Priesthood of Peter, who you mentioned . . . I am discussing now what he (Peter) said to the church. He told us in one of his canonical letters that we (ye) are the Royal Priesthood. This is the second priesthood in the New Testament with deep roots in the OT. He makes it clear he is not speaking to individuals - in the same breath he deems us a holy nation and a chosen people. He is clearly speaking to thee Church. Not a church, but thee Church - the Christian ekklesia. What is this Royal Priesthood that we "are." Well, that is certainly open to interpretation. I believe it is a metaphor given to all Christians. It is our responsibility to be a type of intermediaries (missionaries) between a lost world, nation, people and the gospel. What is our role as members of the Royal Priesthood? I believe it is in the next two verses. We are to declare the praises of the eternal high priest, Christ. We are to proclaim that we are the people who have known and received mercy. That also implies that we are to be merciful to those who have not yet received the mercy. Its all there in those verses.

Third, there is the priesthood you talk about in your reply. It is the priesthood of service in the church (teachers, deacons, elders, bishops) - to some degree called by different names in different churches - but all mean the same priesthood - the ministerial priesthood, held by individuals within the church -usually by sub-group. The spiritual and administrative calling to lead, minister, and serve. It is the role to teach, serve, and minister. It is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit granted to individuals. It still emanates from Christ, to and through the Holy Spirit, and is recognized (as opposed to granted) by church leaders after much examination, prayer, and the counsel of the Holy Spirit. When I was ordained and licensed, I was not granted anything. The gift that the Holy Spirit gave me as an individual (as a gift of the Holy Spirit) was recognized and announced to our church. It placed on me the burden, responsibility,and joy of ministry in a unique way - the ministerial priesthood. It is in a very minor sense an authority or power (depending on the Greek word used), but it is most of all an obligation, privilege, and right to serve. It might be a role granted for life or for a particular ministry, but it is for individuals for a specific purpose.

Ok, lest I go on . . . I have now explained and in a quick sense, defined to you my concept of the three-fold priesthood of the New Testament. I would greatly appreciate the same explanation and definition of your concept that doesn't involve silly things like ice cream trucks. I am really serious. I really want to know, and more importantly understand the specifics of the LDS priesthood, especially the huge emphasis that seems to be placed on priesthood as authority. I really would like to understand that. It is a concept mentioned perhaps more than any other in a LDS church setting, yet it is assumed, never really defined. Thanks.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, manol said:

so brightly that the local newspaper reported it had caught fire and burned! 

I assume you are referring to the Painesville Telegraph. I have archives of that paper going back to its founding (twice it was founded). Might you have a citation for this article in the paper, a place where I might find it (the citation)? I am not "calling" for a reference -  a CFR always seems kind of hostile and skeptical to me. I am just wondering if you, as a friend might know where I might be able to find that report? That would be very interesting to me - a very rare secular witness to a theophany. Thanks!

[Navidad]

11 hours 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? 

Didn't he write a letter in that regard naming David Whitmer? That makes perfect sense to me. Certainly he would have chosen someone with a strong background in an earlier restorationaist church - Anabaptism - a Mennonite! 😀

[manol]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I assume you are referring to the Painesville Telegraph. I have archives of that paper going back to its founding (twice it was founded). Might you have a citation for this article in the paper, a place where I might find it (the citation)? I am not "calling" for a reference -  a CFR always seems kind of hostile and skeptical to me. I am just wondering if you, as a friend might know where I might be able to find that report? That would be very interesting to me - a very rare secular witness to a theophany. Thanks!

My recollection is from the class for high-school-aged students I attended about 50 years ago, so I don't have a reference.  I've edited my post to make it more clear that's where I got this information from.

I don't know which newspaper it would have been, but the date would have been somewhere around March 27th, 1836. 

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by manol

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:27 PM, Rivers said:

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

Yes, Catholic Clergy do so, and have done so since the beginning. One early source for this is Tertullian, writing in the latter part of the second century:

 

Quote

 

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs6] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers:8 as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

Tertullian, “The Prescription against Heretics,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 258.

 

 

[Calm]

18 hours ago, manol said:

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?

https://www.ldsliving.com/when-the-kirtland-and-nauvoo-temples-were-engulfed-in-spiritual-fire/s/86126

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would greatly appreciate the same explanation and definition of your concept that doesn't involve silly things like ice cream trucks.

It's only silly to people who share the Protestant rejection of priesthood as divine authority.

[smac97]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:21 PM, Rivers said:

Haven’t we changed some ordinances too?  

Not without authority to do so, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 hours 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? 

I look at this issue (Joseph not picking a successor) was perhaps intended.  The Presiding High Priest picking his successor is, I think, not part of the plan.

Thanks,

-Smac

[3DOP]

On 1/7/2023 at 6:16 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

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.

No hard feelings Loudmouth! Disagreement? Sure. Still, an upvote from this Catholic. We agree on very important issues...if I may use a word which many are wary of...fundamental issues.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:35 AM, 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?

 

Either you believe God can tell you or not.  THAT is the only possible question and answer 

[mfbukowski]

On 1/7/2023 at 11:11 AM, Navidad said:

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.

Yes of course. What else ?

[mfbukowski]

Oops

Edited January 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's only silly to people who share the Protestant rejection of priesthood as divine authority.

I am not sure what that means. Perhaps I can count on you to define your terms - both "priesthood" and "divine authority" as found in humans with the priesthood. That would help tremendously. Yesterday someone said to me here that "you really can't define it." Ice cream trucks compared to "divine authority." Sorry, that is silly. Certainly you all can do better than that. I have asked for a book or an article by an LDS authority on the LDS concept of the Priesthood. . . .something I can dig into, but I get ice cream trucks. That leaves me cold! 🤒 Please help me out with something with some depth. Thanks.

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.ldsliving.com/when-the-kirtland-and-nauvoo-temples-were-engulfed-in-spiritual-fire/s/86126

Someone here quoted a newspaper from Kirtland (Painesville Telegraph?). Anyone have any copies of the articles? From the LDS Living article, 
"I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation." Why did Joseph Smith need to declare that such a glorious instance of the supernatural was happening? Were the eyes of everyone else blinded by God for some reason? Does anyone here know of any academic work done on these events from a faithful Saint or otherwise? They seem to be wonderful manifestations of Pentecost in the modern era. Like nothing I have ever read from any other Christian group.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure what that means ... Ice cream trucks compared to "divine authority."

A person with divine authority can bind/loose on earth, and it will be recognised/honoured in heaven.

A police officer can issue a citation that will be recognised/honoured in the courts. An ice cream truck cannot. This isn't hard ... unless you just don't like the implications.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

They seem to be wonderful manifestations of Pentecost in the modern era. Like nothing I have ever read from any other Christian group.

I had my own Pentecost experience at a temple dedication. I was in the chapel of a stake centre for the event with about 250 other people, and the experience was shared by all, including the stake president who, after much time had past, apologetically asked us to leave the building. My eldest sister was with me. We still talk about it.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not without authority to do so, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey my friend. There is that nebulous concept of authority again. Won't you please define the terms priesthood and authority for me in terms deeper than a Sunday School manual? I once was at a meeting with other LDS historians in St Louis a bunch of years ago. I had a nice conversation with someone who worked for the Church. She told me that they were encouraged to write the material at a fifth grade level so it would be easily understood. I understand that! I once was commissioned to write a commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Our editors gave me the exact same advice - this was to be a commentary for popular consumption - fifth grade it was.

However, I would like something at a bit more depth to help me understand some very very important concepts in the LDS theology and doctrine. You are a resource magnet! Maybe you will help me? Devotionals that are intended to inspire or promote faith are not what I am looking for. One more thing, I am not asking because I don't believe. I am asking because I don't understand. I have explained (at a fifth grade level , probably) several time my understanding of the tripartite priesthood as I understand it. No one has reacted to that even once. What are the similarities and differences between my view and that of the LDS.

In five years on this forum I have never had to ask so many times for some explanation of something and not received an answer. I find that very confusing. Everyone seems to have no doubt about "it," but no one explains what "it" is. I think it is a uniquely LDS construct, so where else do I go for a better understand of it, but to the LDS?

Edited January 9, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Either you believe God can tell you or not.  THAT is the only possible question and answer 

So it is indeed a matter of pure faith? There is no tangible, physical, visible evidence of such an important power in the life of an individual Saint? How is the priesthood and its concomitant authority manifested in a Saint in a observable way? Thanks.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes of course. What else ?

Nothing else for now. I am focused on understanding the priesthood, if you cant tell! You know me, when I get focused on something, I don't let go until I understand it. I don't have to believe it; I just want to understand what you all mean by something that is such a uniquely held and powerful spiritual force and apparently a core doctrine of the LDS Church.

[Navidad]

I would like to explain why I think the metaphor of the ice cream truck is silly. I chose the word "silly" very carefully. What I wanted to say was how that metaphor hurts. You see I am not a caricature or a cartoon character. I am a real live non-LDS Christian who was ordained to the gospel ministry 50 years ago this year.

For those long 50 years through pain, heartache and joy I have served. . . . as faithfully as my humanness will allow. Now you all relegate that life of ministry which some would think I should celebrate, to the image of an ice cream truck with its little bell or song playing. I wanted to tell you how deeply offensive that it is and use it as an example for the next time someone asks me why I don't join the LDS church. Instead of doing either of those, I chose the word "silly."

Now that some of you are doubling down on the metaphor, I thought I would simply share how offensive it is. To my Catholic friends here, who admonish me at times "not to be offended,  just say they are wrong and move on" (to paraphrase), I want to say that is good advice that I just can't in my humanness, follow this time. I just want you all to know that denigrating my sincerely held fifty years of ministry to that of an ice cream truck is not an uplifting thing. Compare me perhaps, to a water truck, bringing something that is essential for life to folks. But an ice cream truck? That is a metaphor designed to denigrate . . . and it worked!

Edited January 9, 2023 by Navidad

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I look at this issue (Joseph not picking a successor) was perhaps intended.  The Presiding High Priest picking his successor is, I think, not part of the plan.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just can’t get behind this kind of logic. One, there is a difference between picking a successor and having a clear succession plan in place. If the US president dies, it is very clear who is in charge. And two, if the succession crisis following Smith’s death was such a good thing, why don’t we repeat it today? After each prophet leaves office, bring the membership together and let them vote with their feet?

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would like to explain why I think the metaphor of the ice cream truck is silly. I chose the word "silly" very carefully. What I wanted to say was how that metaphor hurts. You see I am not a caricature or a cartoon character. I am a real live non-LDS Christian who was ordained to the gospel ministry 50 years ago this year.

For those long 50 years through pain, heartache and joy I have served. . . . as faithfully as my humanness will allow. Now you all relegate that life of ministry which some would think I should celebrate, to the image of an ice cream truck with its little bell or song playing. I wanted to tell you how deeply offensive that it is and use it as an example for the next time someone asks me why I don't join the LDS church. Instead of doing either of those, I chose the word "silly."

Now that some of you are doubling down on the metaphor, I thought I would simply share how offensive it is. To my Catholic friends here, who admonish me at times "not to be offended,  just say they are wrong and move on" (to paraphrase), I want to say that is good advice that I just can't in my humanness, follow this time. I just want you all to know that denigrating my sincerely held fifty years of ministry to that of an ice cream truck is not an uplifting thing. Compare me perhaps, to a water truck, bringing something that is essential for life to folks. But an ice cream truck? That is a metaphor designed to denigrate . . . and it worked!

Based on my understanding of LDS culture, ice cream is in fact something that is as essential as water  

(maybe it's different in Mexico)

[Calm]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Based on my understanding of LDS culture, ice cream is in fact something that is as essential as water  

(maybe it's different in Mexico)

Ice cream is something almost universally loved and desired and the truck the ultimate symbol of summer fun and indulgence even if adults who have lost the impulse to find delight in ‘trivial’ moments find the sound annoying, 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

So it is indeed a matter of pure faith? There is no tangible, physical, visible evidence of such an important power in the life of an individual Saint? How is the priesthood and its concomitant authority manifested in a Saint in a observable way? Thanks.

By revelation. You see it in your life.

I have seen miracles.  I can go around and around all day telling you true stories but how do YOU know they are true? 

ONLY by faith until YOU have them.

You are actually looking scientific evidence of priesthood power/authority??

First give me scientific evidence proving you are "saved" 

You are serious, right?  What is it you want?