What do Mormons really believe? Let's discuss Mormonism!!! (marriage, Articles, Zen)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In his book, Our Search for Happiness (a book I strongly recommend for interested people of others faiths who wish to understand Mormonism), M. Russell Ballard, an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, explains where he got his authority. He says:
"I was ordained an Apostle on October 10, 1985, by Gordon B. Hinckley, who was ordained by David O. McKay, who was ordained by Joseph F. Smith, who was ordained by Brigham Young (yes, that Brigham Young), who recieved his ordination from the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon (which included Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, whose collective testimony is among those found near the front of each copy of the Book of Mormon), who were ordained by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who were ordained by Peter, James, and John, who were ordained under the hands of Jesus Christ.
"In other words, in just eight steps I can trace my priesthood authority back to the ultimate source of all priesthood authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: the Lord Jesus Christ Himself."
Elder Ballard emphasizes that he details this line of authority not to boast but to illustrate his confidence in the authority given to him. I hope you find this as interesting as I did.
With the Death of the Apostles the keys of the priesthood were lost. The Catholics will claim that the keys of the priesthood continued unbroken from Peter, and they are in a relatively strong postion to make that claim. However, there is no documentation that such took place.
I would like to say that there is no documentation that the authority of Christ was lost with the apostles either.
I guess you didn't understand what I was trying to say. It's one thing to preach about Jesus and then let the Holy Spirit convict the person who hears; everyone and anyone can do that. It's another thing though to say that just one person upon the whole face of the earth is selected to lead an entire population/congregation of people with "keys" that are supposed to guide said congregation. One can state that this person is "divinely" inspired but how can you say for sure? I'm certain that they are considered good men who would not want to mislead others but how would you know? I'm saying that I would rather put my complete trust in Jesus and let His Holy Spirit guide me rather than put my trust in the utterances of another human being. But then, that's just me.
You could counter by asking what about pastors and such leaders. They are there simply to preach the Gospel and exhort the members of the body of Christ. Sometimes they are led to guide the congregations when it comes to being involved in services to help others, or to raise money for a good cause. However, most pastors will tell you that when it comes to knowing what God wants for us, that we are to study His Word and pray fervently for answers because we believe that God will and does answer our prayers. Who would you rather have guiding you, another man or Jesus Himself?
I think the difference in the minds of most protestants is this: When an LDS prophet speaks to the church, there is the possiblity that doctrine will change. (I know that you all believe that God is directing these changes, and that is fine, I'm not here to argue about that.) When a protestant pastor or leader teaches, they should not be changing doctrine. In fact, we should be checking their message to make sure it is in line with the scriptures. If it does not line up, there is a problem. The result is that we are not placing our hope or faith in man, but God (through the Bible).
now, having stated that the servants were still human and fallable, most of them were much stronger than i am currently. many of them had walked and talked with the Lord Himself, and the rest were so firm in their testimonies AND their knowledge that it created much less of a chance that any one of them would slip and begin to lead people astray. not only that,but they were authorized by God, and promised that if they would sincerely teach the people the pure word of God, they would be inspired and would know what to say, what to do.
we believe that the same thing happens today, in the same form. God has promised that He is not going to leave us without leadership again, that the restoration was one of the last steps necessary for the building up of the new jerusalem, and the coming of the Lord.
I guess what really confuses me about this whole topic is this: If the apostles held the priesthood, wouldn't they have understood the importance of handing it down? I find it very unbelievable that not one of the apostles had the forethought to train up others to follow in their footsteps.
(btw: I didn't get a chance to check out all that happened yesterday, so I'm catching up right now. I apologize for my many questions regarding posts that took place yesterday.)
I think the difference in the minds of most protestants is this: When an LDS prophet speaks to the church, there is the possiblity that doctrine will change. (I know that you all believe that God is directing these changes, and that is fine, I'm not here to argue about that.) When a protestant pastor or leader teaches, they should not be changing doctrine. In fact, we should be checking their message to make sure it is in line with the scriptures. If it does not line up, there is a problem. The result is that we are not placing our hope or faith in man, but God (through the Bible).
I don’t look at it so much as changing doctrine, as understanding doctrine through the lens of contemporary society and issues. For example, a few years ago, LDS President Hinckley gave a talk on not defiling our bodies with tattoos and multiple piercings. That corresponds with the principle that our bodies are temples. Back in the 1950’s that would not have been an issue. So we have a prophet today to provide God’s contemporary guidance.
I guess what really confuses me about this whole topic is this: If the apostles held the priesthood, wouldn't they have understood the importance of handing it down? I find it very unbelievable that not one of the apostles had the forethought to train up others to follow in their footsteps.
(btw: I didn't get a chance to check out all that happened yesterday, so I'm catching up right now. I apologize for my many questions regarding posts that took place yesterday.)
I don’t think it was so much a lack of foresight. They would have passed down the Priesthood. But when conditions become so wicked or unfertile to Truth, God allows the natural consequence of having full Truth and authority being removed from a people. Thus through persecutions and martyrdoms, Priesthood holders died out and authority was not passed on. We believe the Dark Ages correspond with the great apostasy because there simply was not the environment that would allow the truth to remain. The Reformation began an awakening that allowed conditions to slowly moderate over the next couple hundred years, until in the early 1800s, enough freedom was in place that the Truth could be restored without persecution intense enough to remove this authority again (though the persecution was still pretty strong).
Thus through persecutions and martyrdoms, Priesthood holders died out and authority was not passed on.
I guess we must reach an impasse on this point then because the mormon church believes this but most protestants do not. I did find an interesting article related to this subject at this address: Apostolic Succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is worth a look at even if wiki is considered questionable sometimes in regards to its material and resources.
I guess we must reach an impasse on this point then because the mormon church believes this but most protestants do not. I did find an interesting article related to this subject at this address: Apostolic Succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is worth a look at even if wiki is considered questionable sometimes in regards to its material and resources.
The topic of Apostolic Succession makes for interesting discussion. There's a lot of holes in the Catholic Successorship.
1.) At no point does the Bible ever refer to Peter as "Bishop of Rome" nor does he appear to have lead from Rome at anypoint. Tradition states that he was executed at Rome but we have nothing concrete to validate this. Even if we can confirm that he did die at Rome, that does not verify that he ever led from Rome. Acts seems to imply that he led from somewhere in Judea.
2.) Linus, who Catholic successorship claims was the immediate successor of Peter technically was not a Bishop at all. (Neither was his successor.) He was considered the eclesiastical leader of the congregation at Rome. It was quite a number of years before the Romans elected one of their membership and gave them the title of Bishop because for whatever reason, the Apostles do not appear to have ordained a Bishop of Rome.
3.) It was many hundreds of years later (in the neighborhood of 500A.D.) that the "primacy of Rome" and the "fact" that the Bishop of Rome was the literal successor to the office held by Peter started being thrown about. There does not appear to be any special significance assigned to the Bishop of Rome prior to this. There are a handful of questionable quotes earlier than this that may have implied something on the matter, but once again, there's nothing concrete.
To say that the Protestant Churches are the "Spiritual Successor" to the to the body of Christ is an even greater stretch. You have to leapfrog over 1000 years in which none of the Protestant religions existed.
If you want to know where I got my info, look up "Lives of the Popes" by Father McBrien. He is also the author of the Encyclopedia of Catholicsim. I find it all very interesting. This is an EXTREMELY Catholic source with one special item to note -- McBrien is very Vatican II in his thinking. In other words, he does not push made up Catholic history as factual. Instead, he tells the facts.
By pointing this out, I'm acknowledging something that Mormons and I have in common. We both believe that the real Body of Christ got lost at some point in history. They claim to be a restoration of that body. I don't happen to accept that claim.
Last edited by godofthunder; 02-13-2008 at 01:12 PM..
I don’t look at it so much as changing doctrine, as understanding doctrine through the lens of contemporary society and issues. For example, a few years ago, LDS President Hinckley gave a talk on not defiling our bodies with tattoos and multiple piercings. That corresponds with the principle that our bodies are temples. Back in the 1950’s that would not have been an issue. So we have a prophet today to provide God’s contemporary guidance.
I was thinking more along the lines of the major changes that have occurred such as African Americans now being able to hold the priesthood, and the reversal of polygamy. I'm not questioning the reasons behind them (I believe that information has been covered already ), but they seem to be changing what was doctrine at that time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but they seem to be changing what was doctrine at that time.