Petrine vs Pauline Branches of Priesthood

[brownbear]

Hey everyone,

I recently listened to a discussion by Steven Pynakker, host of Mormon Book Reviews, and he brought up a fascinating idea about priesthood that I'd love to get your thoughts on.

We often talk about priesthood authority in terms of an unbroken line of ordination—what he calls the "Petrine" model, echoing the Catholic view of authority passed down from Peter. But Pynakker introduces an alternative perspective rooted in the New Testament: the "Pauline" model of priesthood.

He argues that the Apostle Paul didn't receive his authority from the other apostles but rather through a direct, transformative encounter with Jesus Christ. Pynakker suggests that this model is also reflected in the Book of Mormon, where individuals often receive divine authority through personal experiences with God, rather than through a formal, hierarchical line of ordination.

What's even more interesting is Pynakker's argument that this Pauline model can be seen as a validation for evangelicals having the priesthood. Since evangelicals emphasize personal spiritual experiences and a direct relationship with Christ, Pynakker posits that they too could be seen as having legitimate priesthood authority within this framework.

What do you all think? It is definitely very interesting. Is the priesthood different from Peter vs Paul?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

Edited August 2, 2024 by brownbear

[InCognitus]

40 minutes ago, brownbear said:

He argues that the Apostle Paul didn't receive his authority from the other apostles but rather through a direct, transformative encounter with Jesus Christ.

The Bible doesn't directly say how Paul received his authority, so those on both sides of this argument can speculate that either (A) Paul must have been ordained to the priesthood by some priesthood holder at some point, or (B) Assume that Paul received his authority by his direct encounter with Jesus Christ.  

But what we do know from the New Testament is that:

• Jesus, while he was here in his mortal ministry, ordained the apostles and gave them authority (Mark 3:14, John 15:16).
• Paul (and Barnabas) were called to the work and set apart by the laying on of hands, having authority from the church to preach, in Acts 13:1-4.
• Paul promotes the practice of ordaining elders in every church as described in Acts 14:23.
• Paul later wrote to Timothy reminding him that he had a gift given him by prophecy, through the laying on the hands of the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14)
• Paul also wrote to Titus, saying that he was also appointed to "ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1:5)

So it seems that Paul fully understood that priesthood authority was given through ordination by the laying on of hands.  It would seem out of line with scripture that Paul received his own authority in a different way.  And given that Paul (and Barnabas) were set apart by the laying on of hands in Acts 13:1-4, we know that Paul definitely submitted to the authority of the church in calling him to preach.

Furthermore, I am unaware of any place in scripture where there is an example of someone receiving authority solely by a direct encounter with God unless we simply assume that to be the case.  

And lastly, Paul affirmed that he was an apostle, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father" in Galatians 1:1, but the fact that Paul includes "God the Father" in that formula is an indication that Paul is saying that his authority as an apostle came from God (as we would say of any apostle or priesthood holder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and not that he received that authority by his direct encounter with Jesus Christ (unless he also had an encounter with God the Father).

The scriptural evidence doesn't seem to support Pynakker's view, in my opinion.

Edited August 2, 2024 by InCognitus

[smac97]

1 hour ago, brownbear said:

Pynakker introduces an alternative perspective rooted in the New Testament: the "Pauline" model of priesthood.

He argues that the Apostle Paul didn't receive his authority from the other apostles but rather through a direct, transformative encounter with Jesus Christ.

As opposed to the "laying on of hands" which the Church posits is the only means of conferring the Priesthood:

Quote

BESTOWAL OF THE GIFTS AND RIGHTS OF AN OFFICE. Moses ordained Joshua as his successor by the laying on of hands (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9). Jesus' apostles used this procedure in authorizing seven men to manage practical economic matters in the early church (Acts 6:1-6). Paul and Barnabas were ordained to a missionary journey by the laying on of hands of the "prophets and teachers at Antioch" (Acts 13:3).

The Book of Mormon reports that Jesus conferred upon his disciples the power to give the Holy Ghost by laying his hands upon them (3 Ne. 18:37; Moro. 2:3). The Aaronic Priesthood was conferred on the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by the hands of the resurrected John the Baptist (JS-H 1:68-69). All subsequent transmission of authority comes from the president of the church by the laying on of hands. 

And here:

Quote

The laying on of hands is the procedure revealed by the Lord for performing many priesthood ordinances, such as confirmation, ordination, setting members apart to serve in callings, administering to the sick, and giving other priesthood blessings. Those having the proper priesthood authority place their hands upon the head of the person receiving the ordinance. In doing so, they serve as instruments through whom God blesses His children.

The procedure of laying on of hands has always been used by priesthood holders. Adam ordained his righteous male descendants by the laying on of hands. When Jacob pronounced blessings on Ephraim and Manasseh, he laid his hands on their heads. Alma “ordained priests and elders, by laying on his hands according to the order of God.” The Apostles Peter and John bestowed the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. In this dispensation, John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by the laying on of hands.

Does Pynnakker address Acts 13?

Quote

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

 

1 hour ago, brownbear said:

Pynakker suggests that this model is also reflected in the Book of Mormon, where individuals often receive divine authority through personal experiences with God, rather than through a formal, hierarchical line of ordination.

An interesting supposition, and one contrasting with the normative view that the "laying on of hands" conferral of priesthood authority occurred.  See also here.

1 hour ago, brownbear said:

What's even more interesting is Pynakker's argument that this Pauline model can be seen as a validation for evangelicals having the priesthood. Since evangelicals emphasize personal spiritual experiences and a direct relationship with Christ, Pynakker posits that they too could be seen as having legitimate priesthood authority within this framework.

What do you all think? It is definitely very interesting. Is the priesthood different from Peter vs Paul?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

I don't think the theory works.  FAIR addresses the necessity of "laying on of hands" here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Dario_M]

I only have the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek priesthood had not my interest. 

[longview]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I only have the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek priesthood had not my interest. 

line upon line . . . precept upon precept . . . here a little . . . there a little . . . only the beginnings of the covenant path . . . if we can put our trust in Him . . . He can make our progression and transformation go beyond mind-blowing . . . what things we can NOT conceive . . . the overwhelming JOY we will have . . .

[JVW]

My experience in attending a variety of Christian sects and speaking with many people is that I disagree with the "Pauline" authority argument. I am speaking in generals here. To me, Christians don't feel like they have authority to preach. Instead, I feel like they are borrowing or using the authority of the priesthood inherent in the Biblical text as it was authored by people with authority. Anyone who speaks the words of the Bible will speak with authority, because the words originated from an authorized source. The commentary on the Bible that preachers and scholars give is not authorized, which may be the reason why there is such a wide variety of interpretations. Furthermore, only those with authority have the audacity to "add to the Bible" as it were. When Jesus preached He used the Torah, but He used it to support the New Covenant. The parables He spoke were not Biblical. People with authority introduce new ideas and revelations to the picture.

Two things to note. 1) I don't believe that priesthood is required for healing and casting out demons. Hebrews 11 and Moroni 7 make it quite clear how miracles occur. 2) Authority is not tied to receiving revelations and/or communicating personal revelations or insights one receives. I do believe that the more plugged into the authorized text (Bible) a Christian is the more likely they are to receive revelations from God, and the better they will be at communicating them to others. I have learned some incredible things from many true Christians.

As far as I know there are only two religions that even care about authority? LDS and Catholics? What I've heard from Christians is that Jesus is the great high priest and has the authority and they just rely on Him to do all the authority stuff. They really don't talk about it or think about it much, and it's interesting to me that an LDS person would care to try and take time to rationalize how authority works with Christians when they don't even care about it.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

As far as I know there are only two religions that even care about authority? LDS and Catholics? What I've heard from Christians is that Jesus is the great high priest and has the authority and they just rely on Him to do all the authority stuff. They really don't talk about it or think about it much, and it's interesting to me that an LDS person would care to try and take time to rationalize how authority works with Christians when they don't even care about it.

It's also interesting that when Jesus conferred authority he laid hands upon those to whom he was giving authority, and practically every time we read of the conferral of authority in the New Testament, it is conferred in that same way. Nobody assumed authority because of having read some scripture. And in one case, where the sons of Sceva claimed authority through the name of Jesus (and Paul) in order to cast out a demon, it didn't work. Why not? Because they didn't have authority through the proper channel of granting authority.

Acts 19:13-16 -> Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 
And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

You may wish to review @smac97's earlier post here -> https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76005-petrine-vs-pauline-branches-of-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1210192294

 

[manol]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

My experience in attending a variety of Christian sects and speaking with many people is that I disagree with the "Pauline" authority argument. I am speaking in generals here. To me, Christians don't feel like they have authority to preach.

D&C 4:3 says:  "Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work"

Do you think a Christian who desires to serve God is "called to the work"? 

[Dario_M]

On 8/2/2024 at 6:30 PM, JVW said:

 

As far as I know there are only two religions that even care about authority? LDS and Catholics? 

The protestants and reformed church as well. 

Edited August 6, 2024 by Dario_M

[JVW]

On 8/2/2024 at 3:31 PM, manol said:

D&C 4:3 says:  "Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work"

Do you think a Christian who desires to serve God is "called to the work"? 

That verse isn't from the Bible, but considering that verse here is my response.

Yes, a Christian who desires to serve God is called to the work. Being called doesn't mean accepting the call. And every one of us runs rampant with self-deception (believing they are doing God's work while in opposition to it). But Christians can accept the call without priesthood authority.

I know that the Priesthood is defined by the LDS church as the "power and authority of God". So there is priesthood power and priesthood authority. Priesthood authority, to me, has been easy to wrap my head around, and that's been discussed earlier in this thread. My definition of what priesthood power is is "the ability to be the answer to the question, 'What Would Jesus Do?'" There are obviously a spectrum of degrees in which someone could be the answer to that question. So my belief is that the more priesthood power one receives the more capable they are able to be God's proxy, or to be one with Christ.

God's power is gained through sincere prayer, studying His word, worshipping Him (alone or as a community), and making and keeping covenants with Him (which is a form of worship). Christians can pray, they can study the Bible (written by authorized servants), they can worship. One doesn't need to have priesthood authority in order to utilize God's power. Faith in Jesus Christ is the vessel by which miracles occur. God performed many astonishing miracles during the years that the LDS church refers to as "the great apostasy". I personally believe that scientific advancements like flight, internet, electricity, printing press, etc. are the result of revelations from God.

Does that answer your question? What is your answer to your question? Do you believe that Christians who desire to serve God are "called to the work" or is that a LDS concept from LDS scripture?

[manol]

@JVW, thank you for taking the time to write an in-depth reply.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Yes, a Christian who desires to serve God is called to the work.

I agree with you.

 

5 hours ago, JVW said:

My definition of what priesthood power is is "the ability to be the answer to the question, 'What Would Jesus Do?'"

Yours is a most interesting definition of priesthood power, one which I have not heard before.  If you are comfortable going into some detail, I'd like to hear the line of thinking that leads you to this definition. 

 

5 hours ago, JVW said:

So my belief is that the more priesthood power one receives the more capable they are able to be God's proxy, or to be one with Christ.

God's power is gained through sincere prayer, studying His word, worshipping Him (alone or as a community), and making and keeping covenants with Him (which is a form of worship). Christians can pray, they can study the Bible (written by authorized servants), they can worship.

Do you make a distinction between “priesthood power” and “God's power”, and if so, what is the difference?

How would you feel about someone who is not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder laying their hands on the sick and blessing them?

 

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Do you believe that Christians who desire to serve God are "called to the work"... ?

Yes, absolutely. I believe anyone who desires to be of service is called to the work, and that acting on that desire constitutes “answering the call”.  Taking it one step further, I believe the call to be of service goes out to everyone, all the time, whether they are "tuned in to it" such that they perceive it, or not.  I believe those who answer the call probably come from every religion and from no religion. 

Edited August 9, 2024 by manol

[JVW]

13 hours ago, manol said:

@JVW, thank you for taking the time to write an in-depth reply.

Thank you as well for having this conversation with me.

13 hours ago, manol said:

Yours is a most interesting definition of priesthood power, one which I have not heard before.  If you are comfortable going into some detail, I'd like to hear the line of thinking that leads you to this definition. 

What is the definition of power? I've asked a lot of people and many of them equate it to wealth: money, assets, property, slaves/people, etc. "If I have unlimited money I can buy anyone I want, make them do anything I want, anywhere I want." That is what a lot of people say. You can try asking some people you know how they would define power and I'm willing to bet that many use money or wealth as part/all of the definition.

But there is a problem with that definition, it doesn't apply to God. If I say God has all power, and I view power as wealth, I would expect God to be rich when He came to Earth. But God came to Earth and He didn't have any wealth. Truth is internally consistent and is discovered and reinforced in patterns. If I can't apply the definition of power to God then it's not a correct definition.

So I need to approach this wealth angle from a different perspective. If wealthy people are powerful, how do they use their wealth to gain power? Communication. I define power as "one's ability to communicate and impact the flow of information". Someone with power can: communicate well, open or close communication channels, create or destroy propaganda. They control the messaging. They persuade or threaten or coerce in order to get people to do what they want. If someone has ultimate power over someone else, in the extreme, they can completely destroy their ability to communicate by murder.

This is a definition that I can apply to God. I'm sure the Bible reinforces this idea, but here is my favorite verse explaining God's power. Moses 6:63 "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me."

Everything that God has ever created communicates the reality of Jesus Christ. All things point to Him. All God cares about is bringing souls to Him. And every effort He expends is an effort to help people come to Him. Every breath we take is a gift of God. In every breath we breath God's name YH (inhale) WH (exhale). At any time He can remove our ability to communicate, wicked or righteous, through death. He has ultimate control over the flow of information. His organization exists to spread (communicate) the Gospel of Jesus Christ to anyone who has ears to hear. That is the conclusion I've come to about how to define God's power.

How does the priesthood play into this? As one studies God's word, has heartfelt communion with Him through prayer and worship, or as one in the LDS church makes covenants with God through holy rituals, they receive more of God's power. But this power is given by way of God's priests, so we refer to it as priesthood power. And the amount of priesthood power we have is in direct correlation to how broken and contrite our souls our. How good our relationship is with Jesus Christ. How weak we are. Etc.

Our goal as Christians should be to become one with Christ. The closer we are to Him, the greater ability we have to communicate in the exact way that He would, and share the exact same message whether it be through words, tears, service, etc. God has given us a real opportunity to be His proxies. It is an incredible honor and wonder that He doesn't use stones to do His work and instead allows us to be emissaries on His behalf.

How does one gain priesthood power without receiving it from authority? We can't. It is impossible to have ever heard the name Jesus Christ without one in authority communicating that message from God to man. It is impossible to know the One True God to pray to, and in whose name to pray without an authorized messenger. It is impossible to know who to worship and structure a church around without first hearing God's name. Any power we gain is from God's eternal authority remaining in religious texts (like the Bible), ceremonies (whether they are currently authorized or not), and true prayer. Since the LDS church has authority, we have greater access to God's power than any other organization, but many members have less priesthood power than other Christians because they are lukewarm. I will also note here that the church is necessary in order to keep God's authorized messages pure and undefiled by the shifting cultural currents over the Millenia.

13 hours ago, manol said:

Do you make a distinction between “priesthood power” and “God's power”, and if so, what is the difference?

There is a distinction. The suffix -hood denotes a group that one belongs to. Fatherhood, neighborhood. So the priesthood is a group of priests. In the Book of Mormon the word "priesthood" is only used like 6 times in the whole book, and it's pretty much all in one chapter (Alma 13). It's basically a fraternity that facilitates (with authority) access to God's power.

13 hours ago, manol said:

How would you feel about someone who is not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder laying their hands on the sick and blessing them?

Healing is a miracle obtained through faith in Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 11 and Moroni 7). I have a Pentecostal brother-in-law who has an incredible gift of healing. I do not have that gift and I'm a Melchizedek priesthood holder. I don't know why the church "gatekeeps" healing and comfort to priesthood bearers. I know there are mothers who have healed their children without the priesthood or the LDS church. It is a confusing aspect to me. It may be that healing is actually gatekept behind the priesthood authority and my brother-in-law is healing through the power of the "god of this world". I don't know.

13 hours ago, manol said:

Yes, absolutely. I believe anyone who desires to be of service is called to the work, and that acting on that desire constitutes “answering the call”.  Taking it one step further, I believe the call to be of service goes out to everyone, all the time, whether they are "tuned in to it" such that they perceive it, or not.  I believe those who answer the call probably come from every religion and from no religion. 

I agree with you here except for one point. It is not possible to spread the Gospel (God's work) without preaching of Jesus Christ. An atheist cannot accept the call, neither can a Hindu. There's a difference between being nice and loving vs saving souls, which is what that chapter of D&C is all about.

Thanks for reading. What do you think about all of this? How do you define power?

[manol]

@JVW, thank you for another in-depth and thought-provoking reply!  I hadn't thought of equating "power" with "communication", very interesting perspective.  I'm chewing on it.

I may come back and reply to other things later, as there is an enormous amount to think about in your post.  For now:

 

On 8/9/2024 at 11:40 AM, JVW said:

Healing is a miracle obtained through faith in Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 11 and Moroni 7). I have a Pentecostal brother-in-law who has an incredible gift of healing. I do not have that gift and I'm a Melchizedek priesthood holder. I don't know why the church "gatekeeps" healing and comfort to priesthood bearers. I know there are mothers who have healed their children without the priesthood or the LDS church.

I agree with you, and imo this is an excellent example of God's power not being limited to priesthood holders, which obviously is not a foreign concept to you. I'm of the opinion that it is the privilege of any son or daughter of God to bless anyone and everyone.

 

On 8/9/2024 at 11:40 AM, JVW said:

It may be that healing is actually gatekept behind the priesthood authority and my brother-in-law is healing through the power of the "god of this world". I don't know.

I hope you will keep a non-judgmental, open mind towards those whose theology is different from yours. You may have to “think outside the box” to do so, but this is an ability you obviously have. The parable of the Good Samaritan is, among other things, a parable about "thinking outside the box" and seeing past the categories we put people in. As is the parable of the King who went among his people disguised as the least among them.

 

On 8/9/2024 at 11:40 AM, JVW said:

What do you think about all of this? How do you define power?

I don't really think in terms of “power” anymore. Not saying there's anything wrong with doing so, but my focus is elsewhere. My underlying belief goes something like this: “God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons", so I don't perceive an institutional hierarchy as establishing (or necessarily reflecting) who does and does not have power from God. 

I'm not sure that I can differentiate in my mind "power from God" as something separate from "communion with God".  I realize the concepts of "power" and "communion" are quite different, but my instinct is that (in this context) they track one another, but I could be wrong.  And I'm also realizing that "communion" is related to "communication", which you have equated with "power"... so maybe I'm coming around to your definition.  It has certainly made me think! 

As for what I "think about all of this".  Hmmm.  The short answer: I think we are each on our own unique version of the same journey, and my experience has been that “the kingdom of God is within." 

Edited August 11, 2024 by manol

[mfbukowski]

On 8/1/2024 at 7:43 PM, smac97 said:

As opposed to the "laying on of hands" which the Church posits is the only means of conferring the Priesthood:

And here:

Does Pynnakker address Acts 13?

 

An interesting supposition, and one contrasting with the normative view that the "laying on of hands" conferral of priesthood authority occurred.  See also here.

I don't think the theory works.  FAIR addresses the necessity of "laying on of hands" here.

Thanks,

-Smac

What about Joseph Smith?

I am surprised that so far, no one has brought this up.

So can we infer that in some cases "spiritual experiences" can grant a "valid" priesthood directly from God?

Catholicism is based on the concept that each person has a "vocation" - a calling- including both men and women- to dedicate one's life to serving God, for men that would be the priesthood and for women to enter a religious order- or in other words- a "nun".

But that "calling" happens through personal religious experience- what LDS folks might call a "personal revelation" or a "testimony"- followed by of course first training from the church procedures etc- "seminary"- and then the priesthood or other ceremonies for women are conferred upon them by church authorities.

So does this count as being personally chosen by God to receive authority OR "called of God as was Aaron"?

"Laying on of hands" appears to be a secondary procedure in this point of view- which is also how it works for LDS folks, I think.   First one is "authorized" by the church- ('God"?) being the correct age, an interview process, and then receiving the "laying on of hands" afterwards.

One might say that Joseph was "interviewed by God" first and then received the laying on of hands 

Because he had seen the Savior he was accounted as one of the Apostles due to his personal experience with Christ.   We don't know the details, but isn't this similar to the way Joseph received the priesthood?

Edited August 12, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 8/9/2024 at 9:40 AM, JVW said:

What is the definition of power?

It is a very ambiguous term.

"Turn on the power" can mean "Flip on the light switch".  There is a lot of room there for confusion, and we always need to realize that words are human inventions.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What about Joseph Smith?

I am surprised that so far, no one has brought this up.

So can we infer that in some cases "spiritual experiences" can grant a "valid" priesthood directly from God?

I don't follow.  Did Joseph ever claim this?  John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on him via the "laying on of hands," and Peter, James and John did the same re: the Melchizedek Priesthood.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery testified that on May 15, 1829, John the Baptist appeared to them and gave them authority to baptize. According to Joseph Smith’s 1838 history, John told them that they did not as yet have “the power of laying on of hands, for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter.”
...
The appearance of Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is attested to in numerous sources. A revelation to Joseph Smith spoke of the visitation of Peter, 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.” In a blessing Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery that was recorded in October 1835, he spoke of Oliver’s receiving “the holy priesthood under the hands of they who had been held in reserve for a long season, even those who received it under the hand of the Messiah.” In several letters late in his life, Oliver Cowdery spoke of this sacred occasion. In one he related the sense of awe with which he stood “in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater” priesthood.
...
Joseph Smith’s published history does not narrate the restoration of the greater authority in detail, but it recounts that sometime after his move to Fayette, New York, in the summer of 1829, Joseph and others “became anxious to have that promise realized to us”—that they would receive “the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

So what authority did Joseph receive by means other than the "laying on of hands"?

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Catholicism is based on the concept that each person has a "vocation" - a calling- including both men and women- to dedicate one's life to serving God, for men that would be the priesthood and for women to enter a religious order- or in other words- a "nun".

But that "calling" happens through personal religious experience- what LDS folks might call a "personal revelation" or a "testimony"- followed by of course first training from the church procedures etc- "seminary"- and then the priesthood or other ceremonies for women are conferred upon them by church authorities.

So does this count as being personally chosen by God to receive authority OR "called of God as was Aaron"?

AoF 1:5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

The "laying on of hands by those who are in authority" seems pretty central to the truth claims of the Church.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Laying on of hands" appears to be a secondary procedure in this point of view- which is also how it works for LDS folks, I think.   First one is "authorized" by the church- ('God"?) being the correct age, an interview process, and then receiving the "laying on of hands" afterwards.

One might say that Joseph was "interviewed by God" first and then received the laying on of hands

Yes.  But I don't think we can say that Joseph received authority without the "laying on of hands."

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Because he had seen the Savior he was accounted as one of the Apostles due to his personal experience with Christ.

I don't think conferral of priesthood authority operates outside of the "laying on of hands."  I am open to sources of information to the contrary, tho.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We don't know the details, but isn't this similar to the way Joseph received the priesthood?

I'm not sure what you mean by "this."

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

On 8/12/2024 at 9:54 AM, smac97 said:

I don't follow.  Did Joseph ever claim this?  John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on him via the "laying on of hands," and Peter, James and John did the same re: the Melchizedek Priesthood.  See, e.g., here:

So what authority did Joseph receive by means other than the "laying on of hands"?

AoF 1:5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

The "laying on of hands by those who are in authority" seems pretty central to the truth claims of the Church.

Yes.  But I don't think we can say that Joseph received authority without the "laying on of hands."

I don't think conferral of priesthood authority operates outside of the "laying on of hands."  I am open to sources of information to the contrary, tho.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this."

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess not.

I never said that "laying on of hands" was not necessary.

So how did Joseph receive his priesthood?

By asking God directly and then Joseph had the RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE in which RESURRECTED BEINGS laid hands upon him and was he was thus ordained.

Said beings obviously had permission directly from God to allow Joseph to be ordained.

This is not the usual way that priesthood ordinances are given. 

Therefore Joseph received his priesthood via RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

I probably should have explained it better, but I hope this makes it clearer, if someone else also needs it.   As always I am open to further discussion.   

If someone can "translate" the plates "by the power of God" in personal revelation or "religious experience" then obviously we can learn ANYTHING directly by personal revelation, assuming we have the faith to do so.

Phillipians 4:13- paraphrase- "Through Christ we can do all things."

Look up "Divine Investiture". The only way we could correctly know who is actually authorized by Father is through our own religious experience.

Without a religious experience, if some other guy shows up and says "Hi!   My name is Moroni', I would ask him what part of Utah he was from.

Unless he was glowing or something.   But that would require ME having a spiritual experience of some kind

Edited August 14, 2024 by mfbukowski