Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, Balaam said:

It is God who gives another man the power to bind in heaven whatever that man binds on this earth.  God gave that power to Jesus and Jesus has given that power to other men.  One example is Peter, as you may recall from the New Testament scriptures.  Jesus also gave that power to Elijah, and Elijah gave it to Joseph Smith as Elijah was authorized to give that power to him.  So it is not only God who acts, but also other men act as they are authorized and empowered by God.  

I don't believe any man or woman has that power. Only God has that power. He uses humans as instruments to manifest His power. He never "gives" it to them. No human can therefore give that power to another human. Only God can do that. The line of the manifestation of authority from God is a circle not a straight line. It doesn't not go from Person A to B to C in a straight line. God is in the center of the circle and we are on the curved line that forms the circle. God steps out of the middle and grants human A to be His instrument. Then He steps back into the middle. Then at some other time He steps out and does the same for human B. Then He steps back into the middle. Later He steps out and grants it to person C and steps back into the middle and so on. That using a person as an instrument is for a specific people, church, purpose and time. It is not invested in that person forever for everywhere. We borrow it. We don't wear it. That is my belief. Of course as always I can only faith it with provisional certainty.

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

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.   

Sure sometimes I have a mind block - we all do. And sometimes folks have a mind block in answering my questions. We all also have blind spots. I think as Christians we often talk about believing something by faith. Then when we talk about it, it is like we are absolutely certain. I think faith and certainty are in many ways oppositional to each other. I borrowed one of my life's maxims from a theologian who I greatly respect. He says (on the cover of one of his books) "God desires our trust more than our correct beliefs." That really resonates with me. We sometimes seem so sure that someone has to be right and someone then has to be wrong. I am pretty sure (notice the condition) that is a human truism. I think God wants us to be genuine, faithful, humble, dependent, etc. It is when we become certain that we are right, we lose our reliance on Him and His mercy. Sorry - end of sermon.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 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. 

Is this according to the God of your image?

Just sayin', it goes both ways. 

One of the fundamental issues we have in communicating is in agreeing upon the nature of the ordinances themselves.  To us, the purpose and nature of baptism is very different from what you believe.  For us, it is not only used in conjunction with faith and repentance as a gate to the the atoning blood of Christ, but it is also a literal adoption into the family of Abraham as we become partakers of the Abrahamic covenant and all of its associated promises.  We learn from Abraham 2:9 that it is the children of Abraham who "bear the ministry and the priesthood unto all nations".     Without this adoption, there the proper priesthood lineage cannot be achieved unless you are a direct descendent, in which case obedience to the ordinances of the gospel are also required to be called to the ministry. 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, gav said:

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

First, thanks for asking. I very much appreciate that. Others would simply tell me I can't understand, so why bother? Why would I ever try to learn a new language then? I would like to learn Hausa. I certainly wouldn't understand it when I start out. I guess the LDS priesthood seems more like a very elaborated way to describe the ministerial priesthood. That is all I can figure out from what has been said. In my world, probably 2% of the men and women active in a church hold it. In your world perhaps 98% of the men hold it, kind of automatically unless they do something really bad. It seems that the authority is the same as a ministerial priest holds in my world. It is for a particular place, role, and time. I remember a visiting teacher (obviously a priesthood holder) sitting on my sofa and telling me that I outranked him in my home. I preside in my home (glad my wife wasn't sitting there 😀). So as a non-member my "presiding or I guess priesthood in my own home was not subject to his priesthood. 

I talked recently with my SP about our needing to make a decision whether to continue going to the ward if we would now not be allowed to minister. He told me he couldn't tell me what to do, but he hoped we would continue to attend. He didn't tell me what I should do as one who has authority over me. I appreciated that. I pastored and exercised my ministerial role for some years in different ways. I can't say that I ever thought of it as authority and power. I still can't get my head around that. I thought of it as hard work, privilege, and an honor. Authority and power? Nope-that is reserved for God. It seems that my LDS friends talk about the authority and power of the priesthood a whole lot more than the privilege of it. So that confuses me. Of course I taught young pastors-to-be in a Bible College. So I remember what I taught them and the ideas of power and authority weren't in my syllabus.

I appreciate everyone who has answered me without demeaning me for asking and asking and asking. Thanks for thinking to ask me whether I had an answer yet.

[Navidad]

3 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.

If I wanted to walk 500 yards down the road and join our local Catholic church, I would not have to be re-baptized.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. So, why stop them at death?

Because I will ultimately be in the presence of the savior and there will be no earthly denominations, churches, groups, or subgroups represented there - just Zion - the New Jerusalem - heaven (with however many levels). I will be reminded of his suffering every time I look at Him. I won't need renewal since there is no sin in eternity (in my view). I won't need to renew a covenant; I will be with forever with the great covenant-maker. I might, as an exercise of humility continue to wash feet. I guess I hadn't thought about that one. Marriage? no. Baptism? No, Sacrament? No. Confirmation? No. Walk and talk with the Savior? Yep! Ask Him some of my hundreds of questions? Yep!

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I wanted to walk 500 yards down the road and join our local Catholic church, I would not have to be re-baptized.

But their baptism doesn’t need to be done by someone with authority, only someone with correct intent.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Is this according to the God of your image?

Just sayin', it goes both ways. 

One of the fundamental issues we have in communicating is in agreeing upon the nature of the ordinances themselves.  To us, the purpose and nature of baptism is very different from what you believe.  For us, it is not only used in conjunction with faith and repentance as a gate to the the atoning blood of Christ, but it is also a literal adoption into the family of Abraham as we become partakers of the Abrahamic covenant and all of its associated promises.  We learn from Abraham 2:9 that it is the children of Abraham who "bear the ministry and the priesthood unto all nations".     Without this adoption, there the proper priesthood lineage cannot be achieved unless you are a direct descendent, in which case obedience to the ordinances of the gospel are also required to be called to the ministry. 

Is this according to the God of my image? I said what I did based on my observations of those who believe in God. It is according to what I have observed. I don't claim it as revelation from God.

Oh, and I agree with and understand everything else you said. I understand being adopted into the Abrahamic covenant. I like your gate metaphor. The only thing I would say different is that for me the gate has been already opened and closed when I would baptize someone. They are already "inside" sharing in the power and meaning of the atoning blood of Christ. For me, it is not an entrance to . . . but witness of already having entered. It is still important and sacred and a very important ordinance. I believe Romans 4 makes our tie into the Abrahamic Covenant quite clear. I get fuzzy when you talk about "obedience to the ordinances of the gospel" as also being required to be called to the ministry. I think obedience to the moral will of God as revealed to us in Scripture is required to be called to the ministry. The moral will of God governs how we live. It transcends the ordinances (in my understanding).

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

 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. 

 

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is this according to the God of my image? I said what I did based on my observations of those who believe in God. It is according to what I have observed. I don't claim it as revelation from God.

Yes, but it assumes that your less restrictive views are Gods views, and the rest of us who profess that "God only approves their _______" is making up God in their image.   It suggests that anyone who believes this way CANT be in accord with God's will.  There is therefore an unspoken assumption that your views are in accord with God's actual will, and the rest are only in accord with the God of their own image.   At least, that is how it comes across.

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe Romans 4 makes our tie into the Abrahamic Covenant quite clear.

Can you expound on this, I am not sure what you are referring to. 

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I get fuzzy when you talk about "obedience to the ordinances of the gospel" as also being required to be called to the ministry. I think obedience to the moral will of God as revealed to us in Scripture is required to be called to the ministry. The moral will of God governs how we live. It transcends the ordinances (in my understanding).

What do you mean by "moral will of God as revealed to us in Scripture" being required to "be called to the ministry"?   What do you mean the "moral will of God governs how we live"? 

Thanks

Edited January 10, 2023 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I agree! Check out Pope Francis's coat of arms:

The Papal Coat of Arms always include the keys  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If I wanted to walk 500 yards down the road and join our local Catholic church, I would not have to be re-baptized.

True, but if you wanted to become a Catholic and receive communion and the grace conferred by the Sacraments, you would have to be confirmed and affirm belief in Catholic dogmas.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But their baptism doesn’t need to be done by someone with authority, only someone with correct intent.

Well, in the churches where I have ministered baptism had to be done as well with someone with both correct intent and authority (in that church). I have witnessed a number of baptisms in a our ward. I believe everyone of those children were baptized by someone with correct intent and authority(in that church). I see no conflict between those two statements. My best friend has been a Baptist minister for more than fifty years. I have no idea how many hundreds of people he has baptized. I believe everyone of those people were baptized by someone with correct intent and authority (in that church). I am equally sure that in all three situations there will be those properly baptized by one with authority and correct intent who will not follow through on the covenants they made with God (not the baptizer) at the time of baptism. That isn't because their baptism wasn't something - valid, legitimate, pleasing to God, because it was.

I think we have to face it, we are living in the church age. A dispensation that began when Christ ascended. As long as we are in this dispensation, baptism will be governed by the specific person and his or her church affiliation while performing the baptism. I don't know how all that will work once Christ has returned and then in the dispensations that follow. It is faith at best and conjecture at worst to be dogmatic about all of that.

The very apostles who we all acknowledge scattered all over the known world - perhaps from Spain to India and from Ethiopia to Ukraine. As they went they founded churches. Those churches grew and did their very best to adopt and adapt to their own local realities. That happened immediately after the ascension and is documented in the New Testament. That process continues today.

We live in the church age. We don't live in the Celestial Kingdom age. Churches, including the LDS church adopt statements of faith, adopt by laws, have policy manuals, handbooks, etc. etc. that differentiate each of them from the others. They aren't scripture but they govern the activities of and in the churches. They have adopted beliefs, practices, and procedures about baptism. Pragmatically speaking the Mennonite church, the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as thousands more are each part of that system.

There are thousands of priesthood holders across thousands of churches. With which ones is He pleased? I don't know. With which ones is He active? Most! Does God even think in the same way we do about mode, method, manner, etc. of how ordinances are performed or even which ordinances are performed? I doubt it.

Perhaps most important, who will Christ pass through that narrow gate on judgment day, allowing some to come unto the Father? What will be the ultimate criteria on that day? Will the relics of the church age (all of our institutions) even still exist? I doubt it. Lots of questions, huh? Take care.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I see no conflict between those two statements.

You see no conflict with one baptism requiring authority of some sort and the other not?

PS:  just in case I blow it with my phrasing today due to brain fog, I find great beauty in the Catholic form of baptism where Word  and Will (intent) in essence if I understand correctly create a new being (person) in the one who is baptized, marking them as belonging to God in a new way that goes beyond just being one of his creatures.

Speaking of Catholic baptism, I read recently that pure natural water must be used.  If so, what is that and can something else be used in an emergency.

Also, in the case of an emergency baptism for an infant or minor where there are no adults present who would be involved in the upbringing of the child, who forms the adult decision to accept baptism for the infant?  The one doing the baptizing?  What if that person is not an adult or unlikely to be able to ensure a Catholic upbringing?

Edited January 10, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, but it assumes that your less restrictive views are Gods views, and the rest of us who profess that "God only approves their _______" is making up God in their image.   It suggests that anyone who believes this way CANT be in accord with God's will.  There is therefore an unspoken assumption that your views are in accord with God's actual will, and the rest are only in accord with the God of their own image.   At least, that is how it comes across.

I can only respond to this one right now. I am deeply sorry and repent of it if I am coming across as you suggest. I don't speak for God. I speak for me . . . currently no one else. I speak a lot pragmatically - no point in denying what is. If I didn't acknowledge that I believe we all - all of us make God over in our own image. I wasn't meaning to point a finger. I am guilty as I have charged! I do think that there is benefit in life to acknowledging what is. I in no way believe that anyone who believes different from me is not in accord with God's will. In fact I think God has three wills and we as humans can only know one of them - His moral will. It is spelled out in Scripture - no need to pray about it or seek it. He has spelled it all out for us. There is not an unspoken assumption that my views are in accord with God's will. Having said that, I do not repent of saying that Christians in many way manipulate God to validate their own way of thinking. I can think of a bunch of examples of what folks do, but that isn't for this thread or now. I make no claim to know who is in God's will and who is not. Nor of which church is in God's will or is not. Would you say the same?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

True, but if you wanted to become a Catholic and receive communion and the grace conferred by the Sacraments, you would have to be confirmed and affirm belief in Catholic dogmas.

Of Course!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You see no conflict with one baptism requiring authority of some sort and the other not?

Sorry, I am not following you. What are you asking? I believe all baptisms that I know of are done with some kind of authority involved. For the church who states someone does not have to be ordained or "hold the priesthood" to baptize, that very statement grants authority for baptism by non-ordained folks. As a superintendent of schools I had the authority to waive some state requirements at times. When I did so, it didn't mean there was no authority involved. Ditto for the state superintendent. Ditto for the State Board of Education. The Federal Dept of Education had almost no authority in a local school district. My old boss in San Diego is now an Assistant Secretary of Education for the feds. She has much less authority now than she did as a Supt of a district of 133,000 kids with its own financial oversight ability. Not requiring authority is not the absence of authority. Does that make sense?

[Vanguard]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps most important, who will Christ pass through that narrow gate on judgment day, allowing some to come unto the Father? What will be the ultimate criteria on that day? Will the relics of the church age (all of our institutions) even still exist?

And that comes full circle back to something we discussed several months ago. If the Savior tells me once I have passed beyond the veil that any baptism done with the right intent or some such qualifies in His eyes, I don't think I'll have the slightest issue. By the same token, if the Savior comes to my Catholic friends and says I need you to be baptized by someone who had been given the authority to do so while in this mortality (live baptisms or for the dead), I don't believe these friends will care in the slightest. As important as these ordinances/sacraments are, they pale in comparison to the intent in the heart of each man and woman. I can receive all the necessary ordinances the LDS faith has to offer but if my efforts did not stretch sufficiently toward my capacity in this life (a decision made exclusively by Him alone), the ordinances will not amount to anything.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Vanguard

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And that comes full circle back to something we discussed several months ago. If the Savior tells me once I have passed beyond the veil that any baptism done with the right intent or some such qualifies in His eyes, I don't think I'll have the slightest issue. By the same token, if the Savior comes to my Catholic friends and says I need you to be baptized by someone who had been given the authority to do so while in this mortality (live baptisms or for the dead), I don't believe these friends will care in the slightest. As important as these ordinances/sacraments are, they pale in comparison to the intent in the heart of each man and woman. I can receive all the necessary ordinances the LDS faith has to offer but if my efforts did not stretch sufficiently toward my capacity in this life (a decision made exclusively by Him alone), the ordinances will not amount to anything.

It seems to me the Catholic understanding is different though…and hopefully a Catholic poster will add the clarity I lack…Catholic baptism actually alters a person in a way that intent does not, so that even if a person (at least a non adult) is baptized when they do not have the intent to grow in Christ, the sacrament still achieves something significant, it is not negated by lack of followthrough.  Though I don’t know what the implications are.  For example, if someone baptized ends up in hell due to grievous sin without repentance/absolution, is there a difference in their state than someone who committed the same sin (say murder), but who was never baptized?

Edited January 10, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I can only respond to this one right now. I am deeply sorry and repent of it if I am coming across as you suggest. I don't speak for God. I speak for me . . . currently no one else. I speak a lot pragmatically - no point in denying what is. If I didn't acknowledge that I believe we all - all of us make God over in our own image. I wasn't meaning to point a finger. I am guilty as I have charged! I do think that there is benefit in life to acknowledging what is. I in no way believe that anyone who believes different from me is not in accord with God's will. In fact I think God has three wills and we as humans can only know one of them - His moral will. It is spelled out in Scripture - no need to pray about it or seek it. He has spelled it all out for us. There is not an unspoken assumption that my views are in accord with God's will. Having said that, I do not repent of saying that Christians in many way manipulate God to validate their own way of thinking. I can think of a bunch of examples of what folks do, but that isn't for this thread or now.

Ok, fair enough.

You say that we can only know God's "moral will", but that we don't need to pray about it or seek it out because it is spelled out in scripture.  

Unless you adopt a fundamentalist literalist approach to scripture, I suggest that seeking after God's moral will through study, meditation and praying to understand the scriptures is in order. 

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I make no claim to know who is in God's will and who is not. Nor of which church is in God's will or is not. Would you say the same?

If we can so clearly "know" God's moral will without even seeking it or praying about it, why can't you claim to know just as clearly who is in God's will and who is not? 

I don't claim to know anything.  But I have assurances of faith (provisional certitude) that this is God's church. 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Ok, fair enough.

You say that we can only know God's "moral will", but that we don't need to pray about it or seek it out because it is spelled out in scripture.  

Unless you adopt a fundamentalist literalist approach to scripture, I suggest that seeking after God's moral will through study, meditation and praying to understand the scriptures is in order. 

If we can so clearly "know" God's moral will without even seeking it or praying about it, why can't you claim to know just as clearly who is in God's will and who is not? 

I don't claim to know anything.  But I have assurances of faith (provisional certitude) that this is God's church. 

Hi Pogi: Evangelicals historically divide God's will for our lives into three categories.

The first is His sovereign will. That is what He knows is going to happen to us that we don't know. He doesn't reveal that to us and won't even if we beseech Him to do that. If we found out we were going to have an accident tomorrow, we might stay in bed and in some way cause the accident! No point in studying or praying about it. God doesn't reveal to us His sovereign will. It is deterministic and for His knowledge alone.

Second, God has a moral will. That is what is right and wrong; moral and immoral for us in our lives. It is contained in its entirety in the Scripture. We don't need to seek it or pray about it, because He reveals it in Scripture. If it isn't forbidden in Scripture, then it is ok to do it. If it is a no-no in Scripture then it is outside His moral will for us. The ten commandments -clear as a bell. The beatitudes - clear as a bell. Col 3: 17 clear. All of the admonitions in the writings of Paul and Peter and others. Of course the scripture doesn't cover everything, especially those things un-thought-of in Biblical times. This is an overly simplistic perspective, but the idea is that if God forbids something, then it is outside His moral will. It is a general guideline for those things He approves or rejects. Of course then we as humans invent our own things that are ok or not and then define them as God's will. For me it is playing cards, dancing, going to movies, etc. For you it is the ingestion or not of certain food and drink. These things tend to change over time because to a large degree they are cultural and not doctrinal.

Third is God's individual will. This is where Evangelicals have the most differences of opinion. Does God have an individual will for each person? Who should I marry? What college should I go to? Should I take this job? Some folks say definitely God has an individual will and we need to seek it and then act accordingly. Others, say no - as long as we are in the moral will of God, we can go to whatever college offers us the best opportunities in our fields of interest. Should I marry Susy? Is she a Christian? Does she share your life's goals? Is she a member of your specific faith? On and on the questions could follow? Others say if marrying Susy is within God's moral will as revealed in Scripture then if you love her (part of His moral will), then marry her. Some take it down to should I buy this car or that one?

So those tend to be the three categories of God's will that we Evangelicals talk about. Are study, prayer and pondering necessary. I think so . I can only speak for me. Thanks.

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I mean no disrespect, but I think you are incorrect in your summ[a]ry ... 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).

I am aware of the differences between mainstream (Magesterial) Protestantism and the Radical Protestant Reformation. Your opinions about things like priesthood authority and the validity of sacraments/ordinances remain thoroughly Protestant in expression.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, but it assumes that your less restrictive views are God[']s views, and the rest of us who profess that "God only approves their _______" is making up God in their image.

This. We keep being scolded for not being 'inclusive' in the ways we would be if we believed in a Protestant God.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This. We keep being scolded for not being 'inclusive' in the ways we would be if we believed in a Protestant God.

So, please help us out who do not know who the Protestant God is or what His attributes are? How many Gods are there in your pantheon anyway?

Oh and I'll bet you a nickel that over the next xxx years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will become more and more inclusive. It is already happening, is it not? Do you think Joseph Fielding Smith, as an example would recognize and commend today's LDS Church? Its only been fifty or so years!

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

So, please help us out who do not know who the Protestant God is or what His attributes are?

Well, for one, He doesn't think sacraments like baptism have any validity in heaven. So He doesn't worry much whether His followers are baptised or, if they are, who does it.

Quote

Oh and I'll bet you a nickel that over the next xxx years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will become more and more inclusive.

If we stop believing that baptism and priesthood authority matter to God, we will no longer be the Church of Jesus Christ. We will be just one more Protestant 'denomination'.

Quote

Do you think Joseph Fielding Smith, as an example[,] would recognize and commend today's LDS Church?

Yes, 100 per cent. I have no doubt of that. And in fact, I am confident that he is mingling with his fellow prophets from all ages and dispensations and continuing to watch over this Latter-day work.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

will become more and more inclusive. It is already happening, is it not?

In terms of who we allow to be baptized or participate in the temple?  Outside the lifting of the priesthood ban for blacks in 1978, I can’t think of any changes save to make it easier for women to get their endowments…we don’t have to wait to be married in the temple or go on a mission; same policies for women as men.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Calm