Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I am a real live non-LDS Christian who was ordained to the gospel ministry 50 years ago this year.

Where is the visible, tangible evidence of your authority?

If it is a priesthood authority everyone has, why even bring it up?

Why even be "ordained" if authority is universal?  What does it even mean?

Edited January 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 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)

No ice cream trucks where I live. We have ice cream carts and ice cream burros! But alas, no chocolate chip mint to be found anywhere!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where is the visible, tangible evidence of your authority?

If it is a priesthood authority everyone has, why even bring it up?

Why even be "ordained" if authority is universal?  What does it even mean?

How can I respond to anything about the priesthood authority when no one on this forum or in our ward will define it for me? It is the it that LDS men have that I don't have.  By the way, your last question is what I keep asking! What does it even mean?

I was ordained to perform ordinances and lead a congregation. Authority is a tiny part of that, something I don't remember ever exercising. That ministerial priesthood is in no way something "everyone has." Many don't even want it! Does everyone in a ward have the authority of the bishop or want to be a bishop?  Neither is the Eternal Priesthood of Christ universal. It is embodied in Him. The Royal Priesthood, according to Peter is universal within the people of Christ - the holy nation (declared holy; not in actuality holy). I have defined my understanding of the three priesthoods several times. I don't understand why you suggest that I or any other non-LDS Christian believe that everyone has a priesthood authority or that authority is universal? I never said that. Nor can I remember any other non-LDS Christian ever saying that. Now can you tell me what it (priesthood authority) is?

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No ice cream trucks where I live. We have ice cream carts and ice cream burros! But alas, no chocolate chip mint to be found anywhere!

There's your side hustle right there!

A whole new market!

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

How can I respond to anything about the priesthood authority when no one on this forum or in our ward will define it for me?

It is the power and authority of God given to men. What more can one say?

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Now can you tell me what it (priesthood authority) is?

Of course, it is like all authority, permission to do what priests and Elders do.

What is the authority police officers have? Their tangible evidence is doing what they do?

Look it up on a dictionary!

What we have here is a category mistake.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the power and authority of God given to men. What more can one say?

Category error: Like walking through all the buildings on a college campus, and then asking "But where is the UNIVERSITY?"

cat·e·go·ry mis·take

/ˈkadəˌɡôrē məˈstāk/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

LOGIC

1. the error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category, for example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?  

 

I really don't know how to respond to this post. No, I am not looking for scientific evidence. I don't doubt that you have seen miracles. I stipulate to that. What is it I want? I want a clear operational definition of the priesthood that LDS faithful men have that no one else on earth has. I have asked how that very very very special and unique priesthood is manifested in terms of spirituality, gifts, holiness in the LDS holder?

When I have been in the presence of people with a special closeness to God, it is fairly obvious. I saw it in my GA Emeritus friend. I observed it. It was as clear as can be to everyone who came in contact with him. I have seen it in an Anglican, a Mennonite, and a Presbyterian as well. I am very serious. Again what is it I want? I want someone who holds or understands the LDS priesthood to explain to me what it is, perhaps how it effects his daily life, and how it is different from the ministerial priesthood of other Christian groups?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is the power and authority of God given to men. What more can one say?

Just to LDS men? Which of God's powers and authorities do they receive? Which do they not receive? To do what? How is it manifested in the holder's life? I would think a book could and should be written on it. What does an LDS man have in power and authority that a Godly non-LDS Christian man doesn't or can't have? I think there is much more to be said or asked about it. Am I wrong? What of God's powers does an LDS priesthood holder hold? Which of God's authorities does an LDS priesthood holder hold?

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I want a clear operational definition of the priesthood that LDS faithful men have that no one else on earth has.

No one else on earth is recognized as being a Los Angeles police officer except duly authorized LAPD officers.

LDS priesthood = authority to perform ordinances etc duly recognized by the church.

I was able to spot people in the congregation that needed help, and help them. Bless people and gave them healed. 

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just to LDS men? Which of God's powers and authorities do they receive? Which do they not receive? To do what? How is it manifested in the holder's life? I would think a book could and should be written on it. What does an LDS man have in power and authority that a Godly non-LDS Christian man doesn't or can't have? I think there is much more to be said or asked about it. Am I wrong? What of God's powers does an LDS priesthood holder hold? Which of God's authorities does an LDS priesthood holder hold?

Here's my stab at it as a non-LDS Catholic  

At its most basic, priesthood authority is the ability for someone to licitly and validly perform a salvific ordinance. Any ordinance performed by someone without priesthood authority is null in the eyes of God because they do not have the authority to perform it. This authority is separate from sanctity and holiness and spirituality.

The example of speeding and the ice cream truck is supposed to show that the driver of the ice cream truck does not have the authority to write a valid and licit speeding ticket. Sure, the driver of the truck could give you one, but it doesn't count because they do not have authority.

Catholic example:

Only an ordained man has the authority to hear confession and absolve sins. I could confess to a non-priest and that non-priest could say the words of absolution, but that will not absolve me because that man does not have the authority to do so (there is more involved, such as jurisdiction, but we're keeping things basic here). This applies to everyone. Baptists confessing to baptist ministers cannot receive absolution because Baptist ministers do not have the authority to give it.

I think this may be hard for you to understand because it is inherently linked to the idea of one true visible institutional church, which you do not accept.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I really don't know how to respond to this post. No, I am not looking for scientific evidence. I don't doubt that you have seen miracles. I stipulate to that. What is it I want? I want a clear operational definition of the priesthood that LDS faithful men have that no one else on earth has. I have asked how that very very very special and unique priesthood is manifested in terms of spirituality, gifts, holiness in the LDS holder?

When I have been in the presence of people with a special closeness to God, it is fairly obvious. I saw it in my GA Emeritus friend. I observed it. It was as clear as can be to everyone who came in contact with him. I have seen it in an Anglican, a Mennonite, and a Presbyterian as well. I am very serious. Again what is it I want? I want someone who holds or understands the LDS priesthood to explain to me what it is, perhaps how it effects his daily life, and how it is different from the ministerial priesthood of other Christian groups?

Priesthood is as Calm describes - "the power and authority of God given to men".   In one sense, it is permission to act on God's behalf and utilize his power to bind on earth and in heaven.  This is manifest in the ordinances.  It is manifest in adoption through baptism and confirmation into the kingdom of God. It is manifest in the sealing of spouse to spouse and parents to children, it is manifest in the making of authorized covenants, it is manifest in healings, blessings, and revelations relevant to the jurisdiction of key holders.  It is manifest in the structure, organization and administration of the church.   A special "closeness to God" is not necessarily equivalent with the priesthood.  Many people who are very close to God do not hold the priesthood.   While other people who are striving to become closer to God, but are not where they would like to be do hold the priesthood.  It is not reserved for those who are the closest to God, but it is reserved for the willing who are sufficiently righteous to abide by the oath and covenant of the priesthood and perform the work.  It is a calling and authorization to work in and for the kingdom of God on earth. 

It is different from other ministerial priesthoods of other Christian groups in that it is the only authorized priesthood of God on earth.  This is our claim.  Whether or not one believes it is a matter of faith, and assurances of faith explained in Alma 32. 

[mfbukowski]

How would anyone handle this? :

I had a woman come to me confessing that she had committed adultery several months before.  I knew the family pretty well.

Her husband didn't know. 

The adulterous relationship was finished.

In the church adultery is serious sin that can lead to excommunication.

Policy was that both needed counseling from either me as bishop, or a professional.  The husband must be notified, for the sake of full  repentance 

They had 3 children. I knew the family pretty well, and of course the husband; both were active members and had held leadership positions.

She told me that if the husband knew, divorce was a certainty.  I knew the husband and knew that was probably true, their ethnic culture pretty much demanded it

She told me that she wanted forgiveness so she could return to the temple in good conscience, and "erase" the sin through repentance.

I prayed a LOT.  Spoke to the Stake president, and he told me to go ahead with a "disciplinary council", and reminded me that I was her bishop, not him, and that I had to make the decision.

I will not say what the outcome was.

Let me say, I learned a lot about prayer and "authority" from that experience and KNOW I made the right decision.

Authority can change lives for the better or worse, and is very real, but decisions under the color of authority are a whole different thing 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

LDS priesthood = authority to perform ordinances etc duly recognized by the church.

Then it is the same as my ministerial priesthood. LDS priesthood authority = Ministerial priesthood in any other church - the authority to perform ordinances, etc. recognized by it only. Now I understand!

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Only an ordained man has the authority to hear confession and absolve sins. I could confess to a non-priest and that non-priest could say the words of absolution, but that will not absolve me because that man does not have the authority to do so (there is more involved, such as jurisdiction, but we're keeping things basic here).

Exactly right,  And this was the situation I was in as well.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Then it is the same as my ministerial priesthood. LDS priesthood authority = Ministerial priesthood in any other church - the authority to perform ordinances, etc. recognized by it only. Now I understand!

Yes but do you have the alleged authority in your church to forgive sin in Jesus' name?  If so, then it would be the same.

I know the guys on tv cast out devils, heal people etc

Edited January 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No one else on earth is recognized as being a Los Angeles police officer except duly authorized LAPD officers.

LDS priesthood = authority to perform ordinances etc duly recognized by the church.

I was able to spot people in the congregation that needed help, and help them. Bless people and gave them healed. 

Using your illustration, only an LAPD officer is recognized as a duly authorized LAPD officer. Got it! At the same time there are SDPD police officers, SDUSD police officers, SDC sheriffs; SDPort Authority Officers - each one recognized as fully authorized police officers by the other. I know because I was the civilian in charge of more than 100 SDUSD police officers. Again validation from you that each church has its priesthood holders who can perform special tasks within that church only. However, churches recognize other church's ministerial priesthood holders as valid ministers, just not in their own church. That is why they have Ministerial Associations where they all get together and talk about the challenges of the ministry, regardless of setting. That is why I attended San Diego Police Task Force Meetings for the same purpose. I think you are helping me understand!

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Using your illustration, only an LAPD officer is recognized as a duly authorized LAPD officer. Got it! At the same time there are SDPD police officers, SDUSD police officers, SDC sheriffs; SDPort Authority Officers - each one recognized as fully authorized police officers by the other. I know because I was the civilian in charge of more than 100 SDUSD police officers. Again validation from you that each church has its priesthood holders who can perform special tasks within that church only. However, churches recognize other church's ministerial priesthood holders as valid ministers, just not in their own church. That is why they have Ministerial Associations where they all get together and talk about the challenges of the ministry, regardless of setting. That is why I attended San Diego Police Task Force Meetings for the same purpose. I think you are helping me understand!

Yes, but I think your ministers do not recognize our authority, and we return the favor.

Cops  from other jurisdictions recognize the others as cops

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here's my stab at it as a non-LDS Catholic  

At its most basic, priesthood authority is the ability for someone to licitly and validly perform a salvific ordinance. Any ordinance performed by someone without priesthood authority is null in the eyes of God because they do not have the authority to perform it. This authority is separate from sanctity and holiness and spirituality.

The example of speeding and the ice cream truck is supposed to show that the driver of the ice cream truck does not have the authority to write a valid and licit speeding ticket. Sure, the driver of the truck could give you one, but it doesn't count because they do not have authority.

Catholic example:

Only an ordained man has the authority to hear confession and absolve sins. I could confess to a non-priest and that non-priest could say the words of absolution, but that will not absolve me because that man does not have the authority to do so (there is more involved, such as jurisdiction, but we're keeping things basic here). This applies to everyone. Baptists confessing to baptist ministers cannot receive absolution because Baptist ministers do not have the authority to give it.

I think this may be hard for you to understand because it is inherently linked to the idea of one true visible institutional church, which you do not accept.

I agree with your last statement, but not your distinction between ministerial authority and a life that reflects the Christ he serves. Priests are not held to a standard of spirituality? Their personal faith, godliness, and goodness are not manifestations of the special relationship they have to God? Its all about authority? Don't people get especially upset when a priest violates his oath, or a child? Is there no greater degree of closeness to God that is evident in his life expected in his role? For lack of a better term, aren't Catholic priests held to a higher standard by lay people in the Catholic church? They sure are here in our village! Anyway, thanks for your answer. I guess you are suggesting that perhaps the authority we are talking about is administrative and need not manifest itself in an observable Christlikeness. That also is hard for me to understand.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes but do you have the alleged authority in your church to forgive sin in Jesus' name?  If so, then it would be the same.

No no. It is the specific authority to conduct specific ordinances recognized and approved in that specific church that is the same. So I would never, as an ordained Baptist minister seek or agree to forgive sin in Jesus' name. It is not something we do or believe in. That doesn't mean that we don't both (Catholic and Baptist) have the same ministerial role as a result of ordination, it means we probably do different things to fulfill that role. I have never seen a Catholic priest preside over a baby dedication. Different role and ordinance. We are the same in that a higher standard of observable lived spirituality is expected of us. That is true across every church I know. You seem to reject that as a former bishop in the LDS church. OK. That is new to me too. By the way, does the LDS priesthood you hold give you the authority to forgive sin in Jesus' name? That is new to me too.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Navidad

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

Except, even with Joseph Smith ... there is no clear indication from Joseph’s life that he picked a single successor. 

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.

I just can’t get behind this kind of logic.

I'm not sure our perception of "logic" is in play here.  And my comment was rather conclusory.  I clarify my understanding on this issue in further detail below.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One, there is a difference between picking a successor and having a clear succession plan in place.

I quite agree.  But a few thoughts here:

First, I spoke only to the former ("there is no clear indication from Joseph’s life that he picked a single successor"), not the latter ("having a clear succession plan in place"). 

Second, I do not think it is the prerogative of the Presiding High Priest to pick a successor.  It is my understanding that this function has been reserved by the Lord to Himself.

Third, not "having a clear succession plan in place" was, interestingly enough, perhaps not totally without precedent.  Look what happened in the "Primitive Church."  We don't really have a comprehensive history of the "succession" of leadership from the Savior to Peter, but we do know some important parts, and those important parts were and are relevant to Brigham Young's succession as President of the Church.  See, e.g., here (emphases added) :

Quote

Peter was a disciple of John the Baptist before he became a disciple of the Savior. And probably so had most of those disciples who later became the members of the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the meridian dispensation. This is implied in a statement attributed to Peter himself. During one of the first meetings of the Church held after the Savior’s ascension, Peter explained to the congregation—about 120 in number—that another needed to be appointed to fill the vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve left by Judas’ death.

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

“Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21–22).
...

Jesus chose the first members of the Quorum of the Twelve from among all the disciples by the same method by which we may be guided: personal revelation.

“And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

“Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Phillip and Bartholomew,

“Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,

“And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor” (Luke 6:12–16).

Noteworthy in this passage, and also typical of others, is the mention of Peter’s name first. Whenever the Quorum of the Twelve is discussed in the New Testament, Peter is always mentioned and is always the first one mentioned or named. In fact, Peter is often singled out even when the rest of the group is noted only in a general way. A few examples will suffice:

• “Simon and they that were with him followed after him” (Mark 1:36);

• “Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?” (Luke 8:45);

“Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep” (Luke 9:32);

• Even the angelic messenger in the sepulchre says to the women, “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee” (Mark 16:7).

As these passages demonstrate, often Peter’s name is given specifically, while “the others that were with him” remain anonymous. But that is not all. In the New Testament, Peter is usually found acting or speaking for the whole group of Apostles and disciples and is inferred to be the authorized spokesman for the group. For example:

• At Caesarea Philippi, after a few comments had been proffered by various members of the Quorum as to what people were saying about Jesus’ identity, Peter spoke out boldly, declaring his apostolic witness ultimately for the whole group, and affirmed Jesus’ messiahship and divine sonship (see Matthew 16:13–16).

• In Capernaum, after many had ceased from following the Savior owing to their offense at the Bread of Life discourse, Peter spoke for the entire group of Apostles in affirming to Jesus their commitment to remain with Him because they were sure that He was Christ, the Son of the living God (see John 6:66–69).

• In Perea, after their encounter with the rich young ruler who went away sorrowing over his inability to give up his possessions, Peter spoke on behalf of the whole group to remind the Savior that they had forsaken all and followed Him (see Matthew 19:27).

Many other examples of Peter’s recognized leadership of the disciples generally, and his preeminent position in the Quorum of the Twelve specifically, could be marshaled. But more important than amassing examples of his preeminence is to understand why Peter was singled out and that such prominence was not based on favoritism but on Peter’s role among the Apostles as the senior member of the Quorum. The principle of seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve is critically important in the Lord’s Church—not to the men themselves but to the Lord because of the implications such seniority has for determining who the next President of the Church will be.

Peter was the senior Apostle on earth and as such held the keys of the kingdom. President Harold B. Lee taught that “Peter, holding the keys of the kingdom, was as much the president of the High Priesthood in his day as Joseph Smith and his successors, to whom also these ‘keys’ were given in our day, are the presidents of the High Priesthood and the earthly heads of the Church and kingdom of God on the earth.” [8] From Doctrine and Covenants 132:7 we learn that “there is never but one [man] on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” In other words, the keys of presidency over the whole Church “can be exercised in their fulness on the earth by only one man at a time; and that man in the period just after Jesus ascended into heaven was Peter.” [9]

The man who holds the keys in their fulness at any one time on the earth is always the Lord’s senior Apostle on earth. That is why seniority is so critical. Elder Russell M. Nelson provided an important insight into an episode from Peter’s life which demonstrates the principle of seniority. He said, “Seniority is honored among ordained Apostles—even when entering or leaving a room. President Benson related to us this account:

“‘Some [years] ago Elder Haight extended a special courtesy to President Romney while they were in the upper room in the temple. President Romney was lingering behind for some reason, and [Elder Haight] did not want to precede him out the door. When President Romney signaled [for him] to go first, Elder Haight replied, ‘No President, you go first.’

“President Romney replied with his humor, ‘What’s the matter, David? Are you afraid I’m going to steal something?’

“Such deference from a junior to a senior Apostle is recorded in the New Testament. When Simon Peter and John the Beloved ran to investigate the report that the body of their crucified Lord had been taken from the sepulcher, John, being younger and swifter, arrived first, yet he did not enter. He deferred to the senior Apostle, who entered the sepulcher first. (See John 20:2–6.) Seniority in the Apostleship has long been a means by which the Lord selects His presiding high priest.” [10]

In this light, it seems significant that after His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to Peter singly and apart from all others (see Luke 24:34). And though Peter always maintained a reverent silence about the nature of the visitation, surely it had something to do with the fact that Peter was the President of the Church and held the keys in their fulness, and as such was the one being on earth commissioned to receive the mind and will of Deity in all matters. [11] In a sense, he was taking the place of Jesus as the head of the Church in mortality.
...
[8] Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, October 1953, 25.
[9] The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System, 1979), 200.
[10] Russell M. Nelson, in Conference Report, April 1993, 52.
[11] Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:143.

In other words, it seems that there was a "succession plan in place," which was perhaps not fully understood at the time by the members of the Church (including, it seems, many of its leaders.

Fourth, the Church reposes quite a bit of significance to the presence of Peter, James and John at the Mount of Transfiguration, and in the concept of the conferral of priesthood keys.  See here (emphases added):

Quote

Peter gave Joseph and Oliver what Joseph (quite early in the historical record) described as “a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God,” “power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit,” and the “Kees of the Kingdom of God.”[15] It’s not clear whether Joseph used the word confirmation here consistently with its later usage to mean the ordinance by which Saints are invited to receive the Holy Ghost and to join the church, but, if so, then Peter, James, and John not only ordained Joseph and Oliver after their baptisms, but also confirmed them, or at least bestowed the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph’s testimony that the ministering angels conferred power to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances helps us understand the nature of priesthood. Whatever understanding of priesthood we have, including the ability to rattle off the fifth Article of Faith, such knowledge is a fruit of what Peter revealed. Before that, it was by no means obvious, or uniform throughout Christendom that, as Joseph taught, “no man can administer salvation through the gospel, to the souls of men, in the name of Jesus Christ, except he is authorized from God, by revelation, or by being ordained by some one whom God hath sent by revelation.”[16]

Priesthood keys were not a matter of much interest in Joseph Smith’s culture. It is true that even as Joseph Smith led the church, the Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen sculpted Peter holding keys, basing his work on the Savior’s promise in Matthew 16:19 to give Peter keys of the kingdom of heaven. Catholic and Orthodox traditions value the keys Christ gave to Peter. Iconography from these traditions represents these keys frequently, and theologians have long debated their meaning.[17] But Latter-day Saints have made much of those keys compared to how little they were discussed and valued in the Protestant-dominated period and places of Joseph’s ministry.

A revelation given to Joseph in spring 1829 clarified that Jesus gave keys of the apostolic ministry to Peter, James, and John—keys for them to steward until his Second Coming (see D&C 7).[18] Later, after the ancient Apostles had appeared to Joseph, the Lord reminded him about “Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them” (D&C 27:12). Still later, Joseph reflected on the time he heard “the voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness . . . declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom” (D&C 128:20). In short, as Joseph’s contemporary, Latter-day Saint Benjamin Winchester, put it, “Joseph said . . . that the keys of the kingdom had been given to him through the angels, Peter, James, and John,” and that he used them to build the Church.[19]

Shortly before his death, Joseph gathered most of the Apostles, the same ones he had endowed, and emphasized to them that if he failed to confer on them the keys and powers he held, “they will be lost from the Earth.” He then laid his hands on their heads and confirmed the keys on each of them, saying “thus can this power and these keys be perpetuated in the Earth.” The Apostles subsequently testified solemnly “that Joseph Smith did declare that he had conferred upon the Twelve every key and every power that he ever held himself before God.”[20]
...
Joseph’s revelations and teachings not only declare that Peter restored keys, but they tell us how Peter got them and provide some information about their nature. The synoptic Gospels (see Matthew 17, Mark 9, Luke 9) tell the story of Christ’s Transfiguration in the presence of Peter, James, and John. According to the account in Matthew, this occurred about a week after the Savior promised to give Peter keys of the kingdom. The Bible does not document the actual event of transmitting keys, but it records the Savior’s promise to do so in Matthew 16 and acknowledges in Matthew 18 that the Apostles have the keys. In between is the story of the Savior’s Transfiguration, a muddled story as we have it in the New Testament.

In a summer 1831 revelation to Joseph, the Savior explained at least part of the reason for the muddling. He described elements of the Transfiguration experience that are not recorded in the Bible and told Joseph that he had still not received a full account of what happened on the Mount (see D&C 63:20–23). The same revelation promised that those who were faithful would receive more of the mysteries, however, and Joseph apparently did. In an 1841 discourse, Joseph taught that the priesthood is everlasting, then traced how its keys came to him: “The Saviour, Moses, & Elias—gave the Keys to Peter, James & John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him. . . . How have we come at the priesthood in the last days? It came down, down in regular succession. Peter James & John had it given to them & they gave it up [to me].”[23]

Fifth, the revelations given to Joseph Smith seem to include a succession plan.  See here:

Quote

At the President’s death there is no First Presidency over the Twelve. 

Following the principles taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the President of the Church dies, the quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the counselors, if they previously had been in the Quorum of the Twelve, return to their respective places of seniority in that quorum. The senior Apostle, as President of the Twelve, automatically, by virtue of that seniority, becomes the ‘Presiding High Priest’ of the Church and, as such, actively holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom and ‘preside[s] over the whole church’ (see D&C 107:65–66, 91). ‘Equal in authority’ to the First Presidency, this presiding quorum of Twelve Apostles is as much a Presidency of the Church as the First Presidency is when it is fully organized and operative (see D&C 107:23–24). Likewise, the President of the Twelve at that time is as much the President of the Church in function and authority as when he becomes sustained as such in a newly organized First Presidency.

So let me lay out my understanding here:

1. The Priesthood originated with Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus Christ, Moses and Elias conferred "the Keys" to Peter, James & John on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Peter was, notably, the senior apostle.

3. After the Ascension, Peter succeeded Jesus Christ as the Presiding High Priest on the earth.

4. We have a pretty poor history (in the Bible, anyway) of what happened after Peter became president of the Primitive Church.  Peter apparently died somewhere around 64-68 A.D., and I suspect that at point the Quorum of the Twelve never reconvened and never set apart the senior surviving member of that Quorum as the Presiding High Priest.  Instead, they were scattered, martyred or died (except, it seems, for John, who was translated), and the priesthood keys were lost.

5. Peter James & John, the equivalent "First Presidency" of the Primitive Church, conferred "the Keys" to Joseph Smith in 1829.

6. Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.  At that time Brigham Young was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  In terms of apostleship, he was preceded in seniority only by Thomas B. Marsh, who has been excommunicated in 1839 and did not rejoin the Church until 1857, and David W. Patten, who had been killed in 1838.

7. When Joseph was killed, the First Presidency was automatically dissolved and the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the governing body of the Church.  Then, during the October General Conference of the Church in 1844, "the Quorum of the Twelve presided as the church's highest authority for the first time; Young was sustained as 'the president of the quorum of the Twelve, as one of the Twelve and first presidency of the church.'"

8. The succession of the next Presiding High Priest has been addressed in this same way ever since.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the US president dies, it is very clear who is in charge.

That was not really the case for quite a bit of our history.  

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 provides that the vice president is the first in the line of succession and allows the Congress to provide by law for cases in which neither the president nor vice president can serve.  In other words, if the President and VP had both been killed in the early days of the Republic, we may have been up a creek.

The 12th, 20th and 25th Amendments (respectively ratified in 1804, 1933 and 1965) tweaked this a bit.  Then we had the Presidential Succession Acts of 1792, 1886 and 1947.  So it took the United States quite a while to sort this out, whereas the Church settled on a succession procedure 14 years after it was organized.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

I didn't say the succession crisis was "a good thing," or anything like that.  Where are you getting this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, but I think your ministers do not recognize our authority, and we return the favor.

Cops  from other jurisdictions recognize the others as cops

 

What?????????????????????????????? You don't think a Baptist pastor recognizes an LDS bishop as the valid ministerial authority in a LDS church? Let me assure you after fifty years in a ministerial role in a variety of non-LDS settings, I have never ever ever heard a minister in my faith tradition suggest that a duly authorized minister in another church is not a duly authorized minister in that church. I was present not three months ago when the local Catholic bishop and the LDS Stake President were together on the platform at a rally for life in a nearby city. So was the Baptist pastor and Pentecostal pastors present. They locked arms to pray. Several of them prayed publicly. I can assure you that non-LDS ministers recognize LDS bishops as the ministerial priesthood holder in the LDS church.

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree with your last statement, but not your distinction between ministerial authority and a life that reflects the Christ he serves. Priests are not held to a standard of spirituality? Their personal faith, godliness, and goodness are not manifestations of the special relationship they have to God? Its all about authority? Don't people get especially upset when a priest violates his oath, or a child? Is there no greater degree of closeness to God that is evident in his life expected in his role? For lack of a better term, aren't Catholic priests held to a higher standard by lay people in the Catholic church? They sure are here in our village! Anyway, thanks for your answer. I guess you are suggesting that perhaps the authority we are talking about is administrative and need not manifest itself in an observable Christlikeness. That also is hard for me to understand.

Yes, priests are held to a higher standard, as they should be! My point in saying that is that the authority of the priest is not dependent upon his behavior. For example, imagine if I confess to a priest who is secretly sleeping with a nun (we might as well go with cliches here). The fact that he is breaking his vow of celibacy does not negate his authority to grant me absolution. The confession and absolution are still valid, despite his sin.

I brought this up because it appeared you were linking priesthood with godliness. While that is the expectation and the norm, it is not the requirement for the authority to still be valid.

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What?????????????????????????????? You don't think a Baptist pastor recognizes an LDS bishop as the valid ministerial authority in a LDS church? Let me assure you after fifty years in a ministerial role in a variety of non-LDS settings, I have never ever ever heard a minister in my faith tradition suggest that a duly authorized minister in another church is not a duly authorized minister in that church. I was present not three months ago when the local Catholic bishop and the LDS Stake President were together on the platform at a rally for life in a nearby city. So was the Baptist pastor and Pentecostal pastors present. They locked arms to pray. Several of them prayed publicly. I can assure you that non-LDS ministers recognize LDS bishops as the ministerial priesthood holder in the LDS church.

Priesthood authority is NOT a ministerial authority specific to the various churches. There is only one priesthood authority from Christ and either you have it or you don't. There is not a Baptist priesthood, Catholic priesthood, LDS priesthood, etc. There is only Christ's priesthood. LDS believe that their church is the only church that has Christ's priesthood -- the authority to perform valid ordinances. The Catholic Church believes that our church is the only church that has Christ's priesthood. We both agree that no other visible institutional church* has Christ's priesthood. Baptists' ordinances/sacraments are not valid because the person performing does not have the authority to perform them, period.

This is why LDS do not accept your baptism and require a re-baptism. Your baptism was not performed by someone who had the proper priesthood, so it is not valid. (It is different with baptism in Catholicism, because priesthood is not required for the minister of baptism).

Being a duly authorized minister in a church does not mean that person has the authority from Christ to perform ordinances/sacraments.

This is at the heart of LDS and Catholic priesthood claims. It is why both churches are exclusive.

The example you give of the rally for life does not apply to priesthood. Anyone can pray -- that is not an ordinance/sacrament.

*Catholics believe that the Orthodox have valid orders, which means their priesthood is valid.

[Pyreaux]

A Priest's power is authority from a covenant, made by the Lord, responsible for keeping the peace of creation and the welfare of the people. All priests have a unique role to repair the covenant. Damage to the covenant sets spirits bound into nature wild, causing floods, plagues, possession, and rebellion. Unique tasks of Melchizedek priests include miracle work that tames nature, cures the sick, casts out devils and sometimes wage war. They bind spirits, they bind spirits of infirmity, and they seal the Holy Spirit with unique authority. The uniqueness might be summarized as being an exorcist (to "bind with an oath").

Aaronic Priests, like John the Baptist son of the Priest Zacharias, could "do no miracle", and the seven sons of Sceva, the Jewish chief of the priests, while invoking the name of Christ didn't have any authority that the demon's recognized that would force them to obey. Faith and prayer for similar ends. But the authority Christ have his priests seems more appropriate for officiating, and it fruits seem more potent and enduring.