Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I just don't see ordinances as having validity in heaven. I am not disputing the concept. I just have never thought about it. Ordinances in my mind are predominantly church - proscribed from their various interpretations of Scripture. I don't know much about sealings since they are done in the temple. 

In the LDS paradigm, ordinances (whether temple ordinances or not) are the way that God makes covenants with individual men and women.  Be it baptism, confirmation, temple sealings, or even the sacrament.  (At one point in my life, I had built some scriptural proofs that even regular priesthood blessings of comfort or healing also carried covenantal implications, but I've forgotten what all I based that on).  

Further, in the LDS paradigm, a covenant is akin to a contract.  One party of that contract is physically present during the ordinance, but the other (God) is not.  Therefore, there must be an authorized agent acting in God's stead as the second party of the contract.  And just like I can't sell the film rights of my favorite author unless I were his authorized agent, a person, no matter how good, how holy, how sincere, cannot act as God's agent in the making of covenants unless specifically chosen and set apart to do so.  What a priesthood holder binds on earth, is bound in heaven.  

Those covenants, then, serve as the basis of our eternal progress, which is why they need to be valid for more than just this life. In my baptismal covenant, for example, I covenanted to make an honest effort at following the commandments and teachings of Christ.  On His part, Christ covenanted to forgive me my many screw-ups as long as I kept trying and kept giving it an honest effort.  Since I'm still going to be a long way from perfect on the morning of the First Resurrection, I really want this covenant to bind me to Christ not only while I'm on earth, but also when I get to heaven.  I NEED that covenant to be valid in both heaven and earth in order to make any sort of progress towards the eternal destiny He has in mind for me.
 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quote

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?

I suspect he is referring to the general non-recognition of Latter-day Saint baptisms by other Christian denominations.  In that sense, Catholic and most/all Protestant sects "do not recognize our authority."  I think that is an acceptable state of affairs, though, as we do not recognize their baptisms, either.

So I think the "authority" here has more to do in officiating in or authorizing ordinances than in having supervisory/administrative responsibilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Clarification please. Are you talking about LDS priests, Catholic priests, or all priests regardless of groups. I love the poetic language you use.

All Christian priests, by virtue of their lack of Levitical decent are supposed to be under the category of the Melchizedek king-priests, by right of royal adoption as a son of God (baptism) and the swearing of a vow/the oath of the covenant, bestowing authority, including power to exorcise demons, which encompasses much. The distinction between LDS priests, Catholic priests, and the priesthood of all believers is whose is recognized. If a Catholic bestowed the gift of the Holy Ghost on someone and they converted to the LDS church, Catholic priesthood won't be recognized in the church, so neither are his ordinances, the LDS would bestow it again.

Evoking the spirit, using spiritual gifts, using the power of one's faith to heal or cast out demon is not unheard of, and it should be cultivated regardless of who recognizes them. To do as the priests do does not give one the office of priest nor are they recognized as one. All priest must be ordained by succession, and no one, not even Jesus, with his authority, would dare ordain himself. Priestly Authority is a matter of legality.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

How does the LDS priesthood holder manifest or use "the power by which God creates, governs, and redeems His children and the universe?" That is an awesome calling. How is it accomplished in real life? I've only been around LDS priesthood holders for five years, but I have never seen them manifest of use "the power by which God creates, governs, and redeems His children and the universe?"

You no doubt have seen LDS priesthood holders make use of that power - for example, when performing a baptism. However, if one doesn't believe baptism is a requirement for salvation then obviously one would fail to see how such an act would be of redemptive value.

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am especially unsure of the universe part.

Really? Do you believe that God will only redeem mankind and not all of His creation?

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I very much appreciate everyone's help. I am still struggling with the operationalizing of that kind of authority and power. That might not be the right word . . . I guess I am wondering how that awesome power and authority plays out in the real world?

Less like lightning bolts and high drama most of the time, and more like the slow and methodical process of empowering His children with everything He has and is.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sorry if I offended

A PS…

It takes a lot to offend me; basically the only thing that has set me off on this board that I can remember is intentionally lying about me and mine or those I consider my friends or even strangers, if I am to be accurate.
 

And your questions, imo, have all been sincere, even if at times it feels to me like you have a mind block about understanding our interpretation of a particular issue (my feeling, not necessarily the reality).  I have my own mental blocks and would have to count my own repeated questions as insincere if I were to do that to you.  I figure everyone has areas that it takes time for stuff to sink in and sometimes it never will.

So best to assume I just don’t understand something or think you don’t understand if I repeat myself or say something that seems overly emphatic rather than I am offended.  
 

If I actually get offended and don’t just walk away and let the mod handle it, I highly suspect everyone will be clear I am pissed off.   

Edited January 10, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

This has long been a point of curiosity for me (in a Latter-day Saint context, that is).  We apparently do require the person holding the priesthood to exercise it "upon the principles of righteousness."  From D&C 121:

Quote

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

There have no doubt been instances where ordinances have been performed by a priesthood holder who has some substantial (and unrepented of) sins/trangressions on his blotter, yet I think the ordinance itself is generally deemed ratified.  If that were not the case, the person receiving the ordinance would suffer adverse consequences because of another's transgression.  Also, consider the priesthood "line of authority" that the Latter-day Saints espouse.  Imagine some fellow in 1923 having his priesthood ended ("Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man") just prior to ordaining a young man to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  If that ordination is a nullity, then all "downstream" ordinations (that is, conferrals of the priesthood by that young man in his later years) would seemingly be nullified as well.

Hard to say how all this works out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

43 minutes ago, Balaam said:

A priest may baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.  He may also bless and pass the sacrament, and receive answers through prayer for himself and others in his realm of stewardship.  He does not have God's authority to ordain anyone to any office in the priesthood; 

A deacon can ordain other deacons, a teacher can ordain deacons and teachers, and a priest can ordain deacons, teachers, and priests.

When I was a priest (back in the 1990s), I did this multiple times.

 

Edited to add: May be that my memory is faulty. Further internetting confirms that priests can indeed confer and ordain, but I may be wrong about deacons and teachers. I'm pretty sure I stood in ordaining circles as a teacher, but I'm old and my memory could be failing.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duplicate.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I just don't see ordinances as having validity in heaven.

That's because your theology is thoroughly Protestant, even if you don't identify as one. Once the Catholic Church started excommunicating reformers, the reformers had to develop a new theology where things like baptism don't have any 'validity in heaven'.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'm old and my memory could be failing.

Old and you were only a priest in the 90s?  My son was a priest in the 90s…late 90s thankfully.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's because your theology is thoroughly Protestant, even if you don't identify as one. Once the Catholic Church started excommunicating reformers, the reformers had to develop a new theology where things like baptism don't have any 'validity in heaven'.

I mean no disrespect, but I think you are incorrect in your summry. I couldn't possibly explain the complicated roots of the conversion from infant baptism to adult baptism in one post. Please remember I follow in the tradition of the Anabaptists, the earliest restorationalists and those who rejected the magisterial reformation of the reformed (Calvinists, Lutherans, etc).

Anabaptists were first and foremost driven by a belief in I Peter 3: 21, 22 which they believed taught the symbolic (see the text) nature of an inner washing - not an outer washing or purification. It is efficacious because of the resurrection of Christ which was only possible because He first shed His blood. Both reformed reformers and Catholics taught that washing of the infant in baptism was necessary because of original sin. That was not the main message for the Anabaptists.

Theirs was a message of identification with Christ - following Him, even in the shedding of blood to demonstrate fealty and identity with Him. Many were not excommunicated, they quit or never joined Catholicism. Most never joined the reformed Protestants for a number of reasons as well. Both Catholics and Protestants martyred Anabaptists, which to the Anabaptist thinking was the ultimate washing (baptism) by shedding blood even as Christ did on the cross. The adult baptism by immersion (sound familiar?) of the early restorationists was an act of ultimate loyalty to Christ. It wasn't avoided, it was embraced.

The act of water baptism had no salvific influence, because it was most importantly the testimony of a previous inward cleansing and purification by the shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, hence immersion. It was Christ's shed blood that had the validity. Baptism would never take the place of the sacrifice of Calvary as salvific because it would not take the place of Christ's shed blood. It was the ultimate act of loyalty to Christ, identification with Him and was embraced by the ultimate sacrifice of their own blood.

Now, often that ended up being a metaphor because many were drowned instead of killed by the shedding of blood. To this day for the Anabaptist churches - all the Brethren, Mennonite and Amish folks, and those groups that came from their direct line, perhaps even a majority of modern Protestants (non-Lutheran and non-Reformed), baptism is a witness, a precious testimony of identification with Christ that includes the image of His death, burial and resurrection by their own death, burial and ultimate resurrection in order to be with Him again. The Anabaptists paved the way for many modern Protestants in that sense.

That is the baptism I believe in. It isn't salvific, but that doesn't make it not wonderfully important in our lives, testimony, and identification with the Savior who did the salvific work for us. I Peter 3 is not new. Baptism isn't a thing. It is the most important ordinance in the church, right up there with the Lord's table or the sacrament.

I didn't even come close to fifty words. But I hope I provided a better understanding of early restorational baptism and its importance. Some very smart people including Stephen Jay Gould estimate that this Anabaptist belief about baptism cost 100,000 of their lives at the hands of Protestants (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) and Catholics. I think that figure is way too high, but it certainly was in the thousands. Think of that and maybe you will have a new appreciation for the 15th and 16th century rebirth of adult baptism by immersion that was not deemed to be salvific. Best wishes, Navidad.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Navidad

[Saint Bonaventure]

3 hours ago, Balaam said:

Hello to you too, and thank you for your kindness.  I'm also willing to  have a discussion with you about this issue, but I believe we already understand where we stand.  I understand how the Bible may be interpreted differently by different people, and I believe Joseph Smith was well aware of that too.  What we both need is wisdom and revelation from God to let us know what we should believe among the many beliefs we could choose to believe.

You said Catholics believe apostles were also the first bishops.  Do you think apostles and bishops are 2 words with the very same meaning?  Do you believe there have ever been bishops who were not also apostles?

Before I became a saint or had even heard about the Church (I think you know which Church I mean) I had read enough of the Bible to understand apostles were different than, not the same thing as, bishops. For some reason we do not agree. I see a remedy.

Thank you for the thoughtful conversation and questions. 

This is one of those areas where folks on multiple sides are sometimes sensitive because central truth claims are being discussed, and potentially, scrutinized. Where Catholics believe in continuity, in Apostolic Succession, Latter-day Saints believe in a Restoration. I appreciate that those who believe in a Restoration do so sincerely and I'm delighted that discussions like this can happen as I think that members of both churches can benefit.

Regarding your questions, I think this excerpt from Bishop Duane Hunt is succinct and accurate. Bishop Hunt was the Bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City and was a friend of the LDS President David McKay. Here's what Bishop Hunt wrote:

Quote

 

CONTINUITY OF ORGANIZATION

The officials of the Church organization are, and at all times have been, priests and bishops, among the latter there being one chief or primate, the Bishop of Rome. I am not unaware that in the narratives of the early Church other titles are mentioned, such as prophet, evangelist, teacher and pastor, but it is evident that these do not refer to officials who were distinct from priests and bishops. Let me explain further that, if in these pages I give exclusive attention to bishops, it is not to imply a lesser importance of priests. It is rather that bishops have as their function to ordain priests and consecrate successors. In performing this function they play the essential role in perpetuating the organization of the Church, thus assuring the all-important continuity.

Incidentally, because of an impression that the titles "Apostles" and "Bishops" are not identical in office, I call attention to a few pertinent facts. The first officials of the Church were known as Apostles, from the Greek word which means "one who is sent". The successors of the Apostles were and are known as bishops, from the word which means "an overseer". Both titles refer to the same office, the ruling office which our Lord created as an essential part of His Church. Once it is recognized that He established a visible organization and put it under the charge of especially authorized officials, it makes little difference what the officials are called, whether managers or governors or directors or overseers or something else. The important thing is the office, only that.

This importance is clearly indicated in the instructions given by our Lord to the Apostles. To them, and to no others, He said: "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21). "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (The Acts 1:8)...."All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore, and teach to all nations... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (Matt. 28:18-20). This last statement is of special importance because it indicates that our Lord had given commands for His Church and people, commands which the Apostles were to explain and enforce.

As already noted, the first officials were the Apostles, consisting of the original twelve and St. Paul. No less than the others, St. Paul was a witness of the resurrected savior and was appointed by Him. St. Barnabas, also, was called an Apostle, but in a restricted sense. Thereafter the successors were known as bishops, the title "Apostle" being reserved as a token of reverence for the first fourteen. If the reader is not convinced of these facts, let him consider that if the original Apostles were not the same as bishops there were no bishops during our Lord's ministry and that if bishops were not the successors of the Apostles there have been no successors. Each of these hypotheses is wholly untenable.

The responsibility of the Apostles to perpetuate their office is illustrated by what they did at the first meeting after our Lord left them. Presided over by St. Peter, they were instructed to choose a successor to Judas. Quoting from the Psalms, with an interesting application to Judas, St. Peter said: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take" (Acts 1:20). The chapter closes with the statement that St. Matthias was chosen and was "numbered with the eleven apostles". This was the first step in Apostolic succession.

That bishops were to enjoy the same authority as that entrusted to the Apostles is attested by our Lord's several statements about the future of His Gospel and Church, statements which will be quoted later. Moreover, it is confirmed in the understanding and functioning of the early Church. One reference will suffice. In his address to the clergy of Ephesus, St Paul gave this advice: "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God..." (Acts 20:28). It is worthy of note that the Greek word which is translated as "overseers" is "bishops."

In brief, our divine Lord created a visible society, His kingdom on earth. Over it, He appointed certain officials, giving them full authority to "teach, govern and sanctify." This authority, handed down generation by generation without a break, comes to us today with the same force and meaning that it had in the beginning.

 

The Continuity of the Catholic Church (1959), The Most Reverend Duane G. Hunt, D.D.
Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/church/the-continuity-of-the-catholic-church-by-the-most-reverend-duane-g-hunt-d-d/

 

I certainly welcome you and others to clarify how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands Apostles and Bishops. I believe that Latter-day Saints think of them as separate offices, and both beneath the office of prophet.

SB

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

The act of water baptism had no salvific influence [...] Baptism would never take the place of the sacrifice of Calvary as salvific because it would not take the place of Christ's shed blood.

It's my understanding that neither Catholics nor Saints believe baptism "take(s) the place of the sacrifice of Calvary," but that God has bound salvation to baptism - thus making it a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for salvation.

And in my mind, that makes complete sense. The physical and the spiritual are always bound together; there's simply no escaping that - even for Christ, who had to appear in the flesh in order to effectuate the Atonement.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

58 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It's my understanding that neither Catholics nor Saints believe baptism "take(s) the place of the sacrifice of Calvary," but that God has bound salvation to baptism - thus making it a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for salvation.

And in my mind, that makes complete sense. The physical and the spiritual are always bound together; there's simply no escaping that - even for Christ, who had to appear in the flesh in order to effectuate the Atonement.

 

For Catholics baptism is necessary (Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Council of Trent, etc.), and I understand that LDS believe it is necessary too (why else baptisms for the dead?). John 3 and Matthew 28 are probably important passages for both churches regarding the necessity of baptism.

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Pyreaux]

Psalm 89

Psalm 89:19-37 The Lord anointed David with the holy oil, not only as an emblem of the graces and gifts he received, but as a King Priest. The portrayal of the idealized Davidic king is in Ps 88:26 as one whose “hand is set to the sea”, he was given power over the sea, which in psalms represent ancient evil.

Flood waters, waves of the proud, Rahab the Rebel Angel of the Sea, Leviathan the Dragon of the Sea, are wicked spirits that fell to earth before there was land and were bound up in an ancient covenant by the Lord into the sea to serve a purpose. The world then came forth out of command over the sea. As we see, David's power over the sea is originally the Lord's power.

Psalm 89:8-10 "Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? aor to thy faithfulness round about thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm."

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:11 PM, 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.

It’s not that hard. One cannot figure it out if one does not accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God nor if one does not understand the concept of priesthood keys.
 

Quote

 I just don't see ordinances as having validity in heaven. I am not disputing the concept. I just have never thought about it. Ordinances in my mind are predominantly church - proscribed from their various interpretations of Scripture.

Then they have no real efficacy. Why bother?

Edited January 10, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[gav]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:14 PM, 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 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?

Have you received a satisfactory in depth non-5th grade definition yet?

[gav]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think (he says with little certainty) that I observe a bit of a different Catholic church here in Mexico than you represent? That is also a question. I am often introduced by our local priest (now retired) as a Mennonite minister to his peers and his bishop(s). Is he just being polite? Or does he see me as a minister of the Mennonite church, even though he wouldn't accept my authority in his own? He seems to me to be a pretty progressive guy! (That is not a question!). It seems to me that the acceptance of the Eastern church and that Jews have a valid covenantal relationship with God so that they are not in need of converting are both a post Vatican II thing. I forget the Latin name of the declaration. Is that correct? If correct, is that an indication of a movement in a more ecumenical direction? It certainly brings the Catholic church closer to a Protestant mindset in that regard. I am always grateful for your contributions.

I guess a question of who accepts whose authority is answered simply by if ordinances like baptism etc. need to be performed again if one converts from one branch of christianity to the other.

We all seem to accept each others marriage, but not necessarily baptism, confirmation etc.

[Bernard Gui]

I am astounded, astounded I say, that after six pages of discussion no one has pointed out the foundation of priesthood authority…the keys.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[gav]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am astounded that after six pages of discussion no one has pointed out the foundation of priesthood authority…the keys.

Keys are generally not well understood by most who have not exercised them.

[Bernard Gui]

The Keys of the Priesthood:

Quote

Keys of the Priesthood

 

 

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Parrish, Alan K.

The keys of the priesthood refer to the right to exercise power in the name of Jesus Christ or to preside over a priesthood function, quorum, or organizational division of the Church. Keys are necessary to maintain order and to see that the functions of the Church are performed in the proper time, place, and manner. They are given by the laying on of hands in an ordination or setting apart by a person who presides and who holds the appropriate keys at a higher level. Many keys were restored to men on earth by heavenly messengers to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

The keys of the kingdom of God on earth are held by the apostles. The president of the church, who is the senior apostle, holds all the keys presently on earth and presides over all the organizational and ordinance work of the Church (D&C 107:8-9, 91-92). He delegates authority by giving the keys of specific offices to others (D&C 124:123). Only presiding priesthood officers (including General Authorities, stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, bishops, branch presidents, and quorum presidents) hold keys pertaining to their respective offices. Latter-day Saints distinguish between holding the priesthood and holding keys to direct the work of the priesthood: one does not receive additional priesthood when one is given keys (Joseph F. Smith, IE 4 [Jan. 1901]:230).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom" (TPJS, p. 21). "The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent"; they are revealed to man under the authority of Adam, for he was the first to be given them when he was given dominion over all things. They have come down through the dispensations of the gospel to prophets, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah; to Peter, James, and John; and to Joseph Smith and the designated prophets of the latter days (HC 3:385-87). Keys to perform or preside over various priesthood functions were bestowed upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist (see Aaronic Priesthood: Restoration), by Peter, James, and John (see Melchizedek Priesthood: Restoration of Melchizedek Priesthood), and by Moses, Elias, and Elijah in the Kirtland Temple (see Doctrine and Covenants: Sections 109-110).

Many types of keys are mentioned in the scriptures of the Church (see MD, pp. 409-13). Jesus Christ holds all the keys. Joseph Smith received the keys pertaining to the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 6:25-28;28:7;35:18), and through him the First Presidency holds the "keys of the kingdom," including the sealing ordinances (D&C 81:1-2;90:1-6;110:16;128:20;132:19). Specific mention of certain keys and those who hold them include the following: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles exercises the keys "to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ" in all the world (D&C 107:35;112:16;124:128). Adam holds "the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One," and "the keys of the universe" (D&C 78:16; TPJS, p. 157); Moses, "the keys of the gathering of Israel" (D&C 110:11); Elias, the keys to bring to pass "the restoration of all things" (D&C 27:6); and Elijah, "the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers" (D&C 27:9). Holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood are said to have "the keys of the Church," "the key of knowledge," and "the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church" (D&C 42:69;84:19;107:18), while belonging to the Aaronic Priesthood are "the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins" (D&C 13:1;84:26). All these stewardships will eventually be delivered back into the hands of Jesus Christ (TPJS, p. 157).

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then they have no real efficacy. Why bother?

Because they have tremendous meaning! They are good for the soul. They are part of worship. They provide renewal. They testify. They remind us of our covenants. They are pleasing to God. They are a time for self-examination. I could go on and on and on and on!

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Because they have tremendous meaning! They are good for the soul. They are part of worship. They provide renewal. They testify. They remind us of our covenants. They are pleasing to God. They are a time for self-examination. I could go on and on and on and on!

Indeed. So, why stop them at death?

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect he is referring to the general non-recognition of Latter-day Saint baptisms by other Christian denominations.  In that sense, Catholic and most/all Protestant sects "do not recognize our authority."  I think that is an acceptable state of affairs, though, as we do not recognize their baptisms, either.

So I think the "authority" here has more to do in officiating in or authorizing ordinances than in having supervisory/administrative responsibilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with you, but that non-acceptance is generally common throughout Christianity. Most Lutherans don't accept my baptism for membership. That is common. But no Lutheran would say they have the only valid baptism in the Christian world. I think there is a huge difference between wanting someone to be rebaptized for membership - very common and wanting someone to be rebaptized because their original baptism was not valid in God's eyes. Of course churches have a habit of creating doctrines that indicate that God only approves their ____________  fill in the blank. That is an example of how Christians make over God in their image. Thanks for your always thoughtful posts.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, gav said:

I guess a question of who accepts whose authority is answered simply by if ordinances like baptism etc. need to be performed again if one converts from one branch of christianity to the other.

We all seem to accept each others marriage, but not necessarily baptism, confirmation etc.

Or do we simply accept the legally recognized marriage, not necessarily the religious ceremonial/sacrament aspect? Is marriage even a sacrament in the Restored Gospel though?  It is the sealing that is seen as the religious aspect, is it not?  Do we require marriages to have a certain ceremonial form or do we accept whatever legal requirement is allowed?

Edited January 10, 2023 by Calm