Shaliach

Nope. Not wrong. I just read the quote two nights ago from Brigham Young. I'll go back and get it for you and post it along with the reference. And you still haven't substantiated the claim that we must have a prophet at all times. I've seen no such official church teaching to that effect, though I may be wrong. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I would appreciate it. I'd hate to keep saying it if it were untrue. lol By the way, I am LDS. For me these discussions are an exercise in theological discernment. I appreciate very much your continued discussions with me. You've been polite and you're informed, so its very interesting exchanging opinions with you. Thank you!

Palerider, In case you didn't notice both of your questions were answered. Perhaps it was the use of more than one syllable that made it difficult for you to notice that. Or perhaps you were just too busy being snide to notice? Nahhh...couldn't be, right? It must be a problem with me. It must be since you were so nice and posed your query in such a non-aggressive manner. Right? When you can discuss things like a decent person I will respond in kind. Until then I'll just give you the same treatment you give others. For the record, I am neither anti-Mormon nor an ex member. I am a current member of the church. Just in case your vitriole was based on another stupid assumption, though I suspect you don't need reason to be as you are. Frankly I refuse to address you anymore after this post. Hope you grow up. I'll pray for you.

It is interesting to note that the early Christians prayed facing east, as well as the Essene's.

You didn't just ask a question, you made a rude comment "Did you think you were the only one who knew that?" I never said I did, nor did I intimate it. Perhaps next time you ask a question you might choose your words a bit more carefully so no one has reason to take offense. Why does it bother you that I posted the information? Does full disclosure threaten your faith or something? And I am in the midst of another conversation of more substance than this one with you wherein I've been asked many questions and even confronted on my posts. The difference is they do so with respect and receive it in return. I will gladly do the same with you if you can see your way to doing so as well. I am glad to hear the other moderators are okay though.

Palerider, I found your response a bit abrupt and even rude. I did not assume I was the only one who knew. However, my years in the church have taught me that there are quite a few members who don't know this. It was for that purpose and the purpose of full disclosure that I made the comment. This takes away any possible attack by an "anti-mormon". I certainly hope that other moderators here aren't as abrasive as you.

"You're view on this is mistaken, as they continued the pattern as long as they could. That it later failed, due to distance and martyrdom, does not negate the fact that they followed it to fill their ranks in the Twelve." Actually, my view is that the pattern never failed. Material Apostolic Succession continues to this day in various denominations, Catholics and Anglicans among them. However, the spiritual component which is fidelity to Apostolic teaching did not continue. This is due to either passing on the succession to the unworthy and/or men falling prey to false teachings and additions/subtractions from the Gospel. Material authority is only one component of succession and not even the most important. However, both must be present for the fullness of the Gospel to be available. "the Strangites show a pattern of Joseph Smith and James Strang receiving authority through angels, which dies with James Strang." To be fair, the Utah LDS have a similar issue. Brigham Young taught at first that Joseph would have no successor. Nor did Joseph appoint one. For that matter, angels didn't appoint Young either. Many times Young denied being a prophet. "Curious that their priesthood authority is still passed down for the lower priesthood offices, such as high priest, but that the calling of chief apostle and prophet had to be done via angel." Where in any scripture does it state that the presence of a prophet is a must at all times? It doesn't say that in any scripture. What is necessary is Apostolic Succession. In this case the priesthood continues to operate and the sacrament, the central act of any believers spiritual life, continues to be offered. This is what matters most.

Lets clarify here; while the vast majority of leaders are unpaid, the highest levels of church leadership do receive a stipend. And before I get attacked by naysayers, look into it and you'll find I am correct.

You said: I have shown a pattern that was used anciently and followed again in modern times. To be historically accurate and honest, the Catholics can demonstrate a fidelity to the pattern of passing on material succession that they deem Apostolic too. If the ancien pattern in and of itself is sufficient, then we have a problem for Restoration theology. You said: The Strangite "pattern" does not do anything, as it ended with its first prophet after Joseph Smith. The "Jesus" pattern didn't do anything, as it ended with the death of the last Apostle. See how silly that argument is? You said: There are too many holes, especially when Joseph stated that the keys and authorities were already restored to the earth and Church, to have to expect it would have to be sent again by an angel. Really? I'm sure the original Christians thought the same thing. After all, Jesus Himself established that succession. You said: As for unworthiness, if we believe that God can see the insides of a person, and whether that person is worthy, THEN we can believe that fidelity to the apostolic doctrine of succession can work. And when you have 14 apostles praying over the successor, and all being led to appoint the same person through the Spirit, then you have a pattern of succession. Okay, we have another problem for Restoration theology then. If indeed God knows the internal man (and I agree He does), then why would He not have made certain that the priesthood never needed restoration by making sure it was passed on throughout history to the present era? This sure would have saved alot of trouble and spared the lives of Joseph and Hyrum, not to mention the many who died going west. This notion of God is disturbing to me. I understand that you're trying to establish the primacy of the Utah LDS, but your assertions are creating more issues than they fix. I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me. Your zeal is inspiring.

Actually, what you described is a system, not necessarily a succession. Succession is dependent on fidelity to the Apostolic doctrine as well as material succession. Material succession can be broken or can be passed to the unworthy since we never really know the interior of man, and can be just a process of the system. Joseph demonstrated how the system is not necessary to the Restoration (though where it can be had it is a good thing), but fidelity is. In this the Strangites have demonstrated fidelity, though their material succession is in need of new life which can be bestowed by Heavenly Father.

Good point!

I lean toward the Aramaic Peshitta.

..a stirring in my spirit tells me that this very well could be about to happen for them, if they are open to receiving it as Joseph was open.

Ram...where was the priesthood before Joseph restored it? Nowhere. So by your own argument the Apostles could not have been legitimate since there were no successors to carry on after a time, but rather it had to be restored by Divine intervention. The same could happen within the Strangites.

Why would God turn the Church over to a person who had only joined the Church months before (in 1844), when the Lord had been preparing leaders for almost 20 years? Then again, why would God decide that a relatively uneducated lad should receive the BoM and restore the church? That knife cuts both ways. It makes much more sense for God to have chosen Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon or JSIII than James Strang. It would also have made more sense for God to have chosen someone more learned and respected than Joseph Smith. But God doesn't work that way, does He? The fact that there isn't a new prophet leading the Strangites in 150 years, suggests that this dog doesn't hunt. That is akin to saying that because there weren't any legitimate representatives of Christ on earth after the deaths of the Apostles that this must mean the original twelve Apostles "don't hunt". Its a rather weak assertion.

Is there any evidence that Strang was a false prophet?