Questions

[The_Branch]

First off, any mods, if this is not in the appropriate section, could you please move it? I wasn't sure where to go with this.

Secondly, let me explain why I'm here. I'll be as honest as I can. I am not a troll, promise (I'm aware you've had your share of those lately), and I'm not here spoiling for a fight. I am a protestant believer in Jesus Christ, born and rasied in Baptist churches. I am not considering switching to LDS. Let me be upfront about that. If that's an issue, I understand, and will happily go about my own way.

However, I am somewhat curious about your faith. One of the youth workers in my church growing up had been raised in a Mormon home, and a very good friend of mine in high school, and for a few years after, was a Mormon. This is what initially piqued my interest, and in college, I obtained a Book of Mormon and began reading parts of it. However, I quickly got bogged down. I think part of my interest stems from the fact that there is so much misinformation about the LDS faith in particular, sorting truth from half-truth becomes difficult for one such as me, not raised in the culture of the Mormon church.

All of that said, I found my way to this particular site tonight because I participate in another forum with a visitor you've had recently, Jono. I know he caused some trouble, and I don't blame any flared tempers for that. He was looking to rock the boat. I'm not. I told you I'd be honest, and if my association with him causes you to not want to reply to me, again, I understand. He posted a link here, and I thought this might be a good place to go for some honest discussion. (I've recently discovered online forums... great way to talk to actual people!)

Now, my real purpose. I'm wondering if there are people on here who can talk civily (not a veiled jab, really) and to whom I can bring some of the lingering questions I've had. I'm really not trying to cause problems, because, while I do not believe a lot of the things many of you do, the important thing is Christ. I take the attitude of Paul in the New Testament saying "let each one be convinced in his own mind and live at peace with the brothers." So. If anyone would like to talk, or if I can shoot some questions out there, PM me or reply to this thread I suppose.

[LittleWyvern]

Usually, the best place to look for answers to contentious subjects would be FAIR (and for non-contentious subjects, Mormon.org - Home). I'd search there before making a post, as most probably somebody has already asked a question on the subject you'd like to ask a question on.

If not, then put it in it's own topic (this sub-forum would be fine, I guess) but just try to be nice about it. As long as you ask a question without any preconceived answers about it, you should be fine. :)

Above all, don't be afraid to ask, just try to be nice. :)

Edited February 1, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[The_Branch]

Usually, the best place to look for answers to contentious subjects would be FAIR. I'd search there before making a post, as most probably somebody has already asked a question on the subject you'd like to ask a question on.

If not, then put it in it's own topic (this sub-forum would be fine, I guess) but just try to be nice about it. As long as you ask a question without any preconceived answers about it, you should be fine. :)

I'll be honest. I wasn't looking for a place to do research. I've done some of my own, and could always do more. I was hoping for actual people to talk to, and engage in discussion with, not just read blocks of text, and sift my own thoughts from that. In my experience, the research answer and the answer that actual people will give because it's what they live by aren't necessarily the same thing, and I'm looking for the second one. If this isn't the place for that, that's ok, and like I said, I'll move on. I just want to be clear about my intentions.

[LittleWyvern]

I'll be honest. I wasn't looking for a place to do research. I've done some of my own, and could always do more. I was hoping for actual people to talk to, and engage in discussion with, not just read blocks of text, and sift my own thoughts from that. In my experience, the research answer and the answer that actual people will give because it's what they live by aren't necessarily the same thing, and I'm looking for the second one.

Oh, sure, that's not a problem, ask away (that's part of the reason why we're here, anyway). Whatever you feel comfortable with would be fine. :)

EDIT: I must note, though, that because of location most of the forum members are asleep at the moment... so it might be a while before somebody answers your questions, so don't feel like it's anything you're doing.

Edited February 1, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[The_Branch]

Oh, sure, that's not a problem, ask away (that's part of the reason why we're here, anyway). Whatever you feel comfortable with would be fine. :)

EDIT: I must note, though, that because of location most of the forum members are asleep at the moment... so it might be a while before somebody answers your questions, so don't feel like it's anything you're doing.

Oh, I understand about the sleeping thing. I should be doing that myself, and will probably be heading there as soon as I post this, and will check in tomorrow afternoon. And thanks to all, in advance, for the willingness to talk.

I guess I'll start at the start. Like I said, I've got quite a few puzzlers (to me, anyway), but I think the most basic is the belief that the church became apostate. I don't understand where the belief that God removed His spirit after the deaths of the original 12 apostles comes from. If you claim that God renewed His spirit with Joseph Smith, and authority is passed to all the prohpets in turn now, why should it have been any different in the first century? Why did divine authority simply not continue to be passed by Peter through that line of sucessors? (I'm aware that I'm making quite a few assumptions here, eg, diminishing the doctine of the priesthood of the believer (which is a pretty standard protestant tenet), but that's a question for another time.) This I've read about, and had explained to me before, but I still don't get it. Someone care to take a crack at it?

Edited February 1, 2009 by The_Branch
darn typos!

[LittleWyvern]

I guess I'll start at the start. Like I said, I've got quite a few puzzlers (to me, anyway), but I think the most basic is the belief that the church became apostate. I don't understand where the belief that God removed His spirit after the deaths of the original 12 apostles comes from.

We don't believe that God's Spirit was completely removed from the earth (indeed, many people throughout the apostasy were probably divinely inspired), but that the authority of the priesthood was lost. In the LDS faith we believe that doing ordinances (like baptism) with the proper authority is very important. This priesthood and authority is what we believe was restored to Joseph Smith via John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, and by extension our entire church had its authority restored.

Why did divine authority simply not continue to be passed by Peter through that line of sucessors?

We don't know with any degree of certainty the exact history of this time period, but we know because of the First Vision that somehow the priesthood authority was lost. This is just me guessing, but probably the fact that a lot of Jesus' disciples were later martyred had something to do with it.

Anyway... I better get to bed too. I'll be back tomorrow though. :)

[gabelpa]

First,a bit of clarity. It is not God's Spirit that was taken from the earth. People were still directed, received truth, etc. We believe that it was the authority to act in the Name of God, the Priesthood, that was lost. The power to administer the saving ordinances of Baptism, administer the Sacrament, receive revelation for the World, and the power to seal in heaven that which has been sealed on earth.

As we view it, Apostolic authority has to be passed from one who has it, to one who does not by the laying on of hands, in a Priesthood ordinance. It does not happen automatically. This did not happen anciently, as the opportunity didn't arise.

If there is anything that you are unsure of, please state it. Also, I am taking what you said in your first post with my daily recommended allowance of salt. It's too easy to obtain a free email account,and sign up as the same person under a different username, with all intentions intact, just using a different tact. The fact that you mention the troll by name does not help ease my suspicions. I am not a mod, but I don't suffer trolls lightly.

[Dr T]

Hello and welcome to this site The Branch :)

[applepansy]

".. . by their works ye shall know them . . ." Moroni 7:5 Everyone is welcomed and honest questions respected and answered.

When the original 12 apostles were martyred the Priesthood was taken from the earth. By losing the Priesthood we lost God's power on earth, but not His Spirit. There had to be a restoration. No one on earth had the Priesthood Authority to administer the saving ordinances.

applepansy

[Dr T]

Can u please talk about what u mean by "saving ordances" please. Thank you.

[john doe]

The Branch: we encourage honest, respectful questions that people may have as they study the beliefs of our church. What we don't tolerate too well are obvious cut-and-pastes from sources which are obviously enemies of the church. Most of us have been around enough that we can tell if a question is your own or if it has been manufactured for you by another source. We've seen most of the arguments against us before, either here or on other websites. We have members who have a natural tendency to fight fire with fire. If you come in here with guns ablaze, then expect someone else to shoot back. I encourage you to click on the link at the top of most every page here that says 'site rules'. If you follow those, then your time, and ours, will be more productive. Welcome to the site.

[NeuroTypical]

Howdy The_Branch,

I don't understand where the belief that God removed His spirit after the deaths of the original 12 apostles comes from.

Me either. We believe the Holy Ghost has been here doing his thing the whole time. We DO believe that Christ's church - the one He set up with authority - the one obviously meant to continue on earth since the Bible records replacing apostles - that church ceased to exist. And the earth was left with a bunch of people doing the best they could, with what spirit they could obtain, but without authority.

Why did divine authority simply not continue to be passed by Peter through that line of sucessors?

Because his sucessors were all martyred in various awful ways, and for a period of time there was only the local leadership. You know - the same local leadership that kept screwing up and introducing falsehood, prompting letters from the Apostles. Folks turned many of those letters into canonized scripture. Then, after a time, some Roman Emperor just up and decides he'll grab the reigns of the church. And over the centuries, all those councils needing to be called, people voting on God's will (and the nature of God for that matter). All those splits and factions and sects. Does this look like God's hand at work preserving the line of succession and authority?

If this doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will...

Anyway, welcome!

LM

Edited February 1, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[pam]

Can u please talk about what u mean by "saving ordances" please. Thank you.

One would be baptism by someone who has the authority to do so.

[The_Branch]

Wow! Thanks everyone for all the responses. There are a few things I'd like to reply to specifically, then a few more general thoughts.

If there is anything that you are unsure of, please state it. Also, I am taking what you said in your first post with my daily recommended allowance of salt. It's too easy to obtain a free email account,and sign up as the same person under a different username, with all intentions intact, just using a different tact. The fact that you mention the troll by name does not help ease my suspicions. I am not a mod, but I don't suffer trolls lightly.

I understand your skepticism, but please believe me when I say I am not Jono, but am simply here because I know him. I told you I'd be as honest as possible, and to leave out that I found my way here through a troll who caused trouble would be a lie of omission. You can go to forum.travian.us if you like, and see that there is a member named Jono there, and also The Branch. That's the other forum I mentioned. I trust that you'll see in time that I do not have the trouble-making intention os some others.

Because his sucessors were all martyred in various awful ways, and for a period of time there was only the local leadership. You know - the same local leadership that kept screwing up and introducing falsehood, prompting letters from the Apostles. Folks turned many of those letters into canonized scripture. Then, after a time, some Roman Emperor just up and decides he'll grab the reigns of the church. And over the centuries, all those councils needing to be called, people voting on God's will (and the nature of God for that matter). All those splits and factions and sects. Does this look like God's hand at work preserving the line of succession and authority?

I would be ridiculous to deny that the church has had contentions and splits in its 2000 year history. I myself am a Protestant, so I'm acutely aware of the divisiveness that can seep into the church. However, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I firmly believe, as Martin Luther did, that salvation can exist outside of a particular "church," but never outside Christ. Whichever of those branches in that chart subscribe to the belief that Christ was the perfect son of God, became flesh incarnate, lived a perfect life, and died as payment for mankind's sins, that is what is important. All the rest is details. Yes, people will argue over details, because often details are important, but the ultimate importance is Christ. If you believe that, and allow it to change you, allow Christ to change you, then anything else we believe right or wrong will either be clarified here on earth if we truly and honestly seek the truth, or will be clarified in heaven one day, when we meet Him face to face. Until then, I say again, "let each man be convinced in his own mind, and live at peace with the brothers."

Now, as to all the answers I got. First off, thanks to all who responded. I must admit, I was surprised to see more than just one or two posts added! I guess this is the sticking point for me. I've had it explained that the spirit of God was removed. That seems to have been corrected, so I'll ammend my beliefs. This raises another, related question then. If it wasn't indeed the spirit of God that was removed, but rather the Priesthood Authority... Why? What's the difference? If the authority does not come from the Spirit of God, but rather from any act we here perform, is that not moving dangeroulsy close to a salvation by works rather than faith? Does that not give us, the created, power on par with God, the creator? I guess I'm still fuzzy as to the difference between the Spirit of God and the Priesthood Authority. And, along those same lines, what do you do with things like the promise of Jesus to send His Spirit, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit at Antioch?

Edited February 1, 2009 by The_Branch
typos, always typos...

[Islander]

Careful examination of the NT will show that even when the Apostles were still alive some congregations began to break away from the Church:

1 John 2:18-19

3 John 8-9

By the 2nd century AD congregations begin to "elect" their bishops and very prominent Roman and Greek lawyers took control of said congregations. The era of the political appointments in the church began with the withdrawal of the apostolic keys of the priesthood and revelation. Without them no true church or authority to act or speak in the name of God could exist.

In time pagan traditions and man made dogma crept into the Christian rites, doctrine and worship. It would take 1000 years for Luther to raise his voice against it.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I like turtles.

[The_Branch]

I like turtles.

Hey now. I'm no troll, and not trying to cause problems. I'm just looking for some honest discussion. If you disagree with my intentions or my methods, PM me and I'd be delighted to discuss either with you.

Careful examination of the NT will show that even when the Apostles were still alive some congregations began to break away from the Church:

1 John 2:18-19

3 John 8-9

By the 2nd century AD congregations begin to "elect" their bishops and very prominent Roman and Greek lawyers took control of said congregations. The era of the political appointments in the church began with the withdrawal of the apostolic keys of the priesthood and revelation. Without them no true church or authority to act or speak in the name of God could exist.

In time pagan traditions and man made dogma crept into the Christian rites, doctrine and worship. It would take 1000 years for Luther to raise his voice against it.

Again, I'm not arguing that division and corruption didn't find their way into the church. As any institution peopled with us fallen beings, that is inevitable I feel. I guess the gist of my question is why the Priesthood Aurthority depends upon actions by men rather than upon the presence of the Holy Spirit. Am I to take it based upon answers received thus far the Mormons do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer?

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Hey now. I'm no troll, and not trying to cause problems. I'm just looking for some honest discussion. If you disagree with my intentions or my methods, PM me and I'd be delighted to discuss either with you.

Again, I'm not arguing that division and corruption didn't find their way into the church. As any institution peopled with us fallen beings, that is inevitable I feel. I guess the gist of my question is why the Priesthood Aurthority depends upon actions by men rather than upon the presence of the Holy Spirit. Am I to take it based upon answers received thus far the Mormons do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer?

You are just better at it then your more impatient brethren.

As for Priesthood, the LDS church is the only Book of Mormon faction that automatically ordains to the Priesthood and it's offices (after a worthiness interview). All other churches receive calls to the Priesthood through the Spirit to a church leader and must have a second witness.

This is what the Articles of Faith actually say about Priesthood calls...

"We believe that a man must be called of God by “prophecy, and by laying on of hands” by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

[Maxel]

I understand your skepticism, but please believe me when I say I am not Jono, but am simply here because I know him. I told you I'd be as honest as possible, and to leave out that I found my way here through a troll who caused trouble would be a lie of omission. You can go to forum.travian.us if you like, and see that there is a member named Jono there, and also The Branch. That's the other forum I mentioned. I trust that you'll see in time that I do not have the trouble-making intention os some others.

I believe you, and I'm usually a hardcore troll-spotter. Welcome to the forums!

If it wasn't indeed the spirit of God that was removed, but rather the Priesthood Authority... Why? What's the difference?

Before I get too far, let me explain something. The term 'spirit of God', in LDS theology, can refer to a few different things. One is the 'Light of Christ' which is the power of Christ which emanates from His divine presence out into the universe. It is the power through which the natural laws of nature and logic continue to operate, and is the source of what we call a man's conscience. The Light of Christ encourages men to do good and live correct lives.

The second thing the term 'spirit of God' can refer to is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the LDS Godhead (or the Protestant Trinity) and has a few main purposes. The 'gift of the Holy Ghost' is conferred to all members of the Church who have been baptized, and results in the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost all of one's life. The result of the 'gift of the Holy Ghost' is the baptism by fire described by Jesus in the NT. The 'power of the Holy Ghost' is the ability of the Holy Ghost to impress revelation upon the minds of man- any man (or woman), baptized or not.

I hope that's not too confusing, lol. For a treatment of the Priesthood, see below.

If the authority does not come from the Spirit of God, but rather from any act we here perform, is that not moving dangeroulsy close to a salvation by works rather than faith?

We believe the priesthood authority must be used strictly within the same laws that apply to continuously enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canonical scripture; hereafter D&C), section 121 verse 41, reads:

D&C 121:41

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

(LDS.org; italics mine)

In other words, to be properly (or righteously) used, the Priesthood power must be exercised under the influence of the spirit of God, for it is through the righteousness of Christ we are saved, not our individual merit.

Does that not give us, the created, power on par with God, the creator?

While the power of the Priesthood is the same power (in kind) that we believe God possesses, our own power is not on par with His. Think of it this way: a baby's muscles are similar to his father's, yet in no way possesses power 'on par' with his father. Or, the CEO of a business may delegate responsibility to an underling, but that underling is in no way as powerful, within the confines of that business, as the CEO. A robot may move using the same laws of nature as its human creator, but the robot's power to act is far inferior than its creator's. These examples are basic, albeit imperfect, analogies.

I guess I'm still fuzzy as to the difference between the Spirit of God and the Priesthood Authority. And, along those same lines, what do you do with things like the promise of Jesus to send His Spirit, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit at Antioch?

The difference is that the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost are both the influence and power of God, and the Priesthood Authority is the authority to act in Christ's name on the earth, as His proxy. Through the Priesthood, ordinary members are able to preform healings, blessings, receive revelation, and organize and maintain Christ's kingdom on earth until He comes again to rule it in the Millennium. It is important to note, however, that the power of the Priesthood is fueled and directed through revelation from God- that is, Christ is still the source of power and through revelation guides His church. If any man holding the Priesthood attempted to use it in a manner or for a purpose against God's will, then that man is under serious condemnation and his acts are not binding on earth nor on heaven.

As for the revelation of the Holy Spirit at Antioch, I do not know the event which you are referencing, so I cannot comment. However, I can say that Priesthood authority does not need to be present for a revelation from the Holy Ghost (see earlier about the 'power of the Holy Ghost'). Saul, while on the road to Damascus, received a revelation directly from Christ before having received the Priesthood through proper authority. Such a revelation must be wrought by means of the Holy Ghost.

One thing about the Holy Ghost: to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, one must do so from another holding proper Priesthood authority. If the Priesthood is taken from the earth, than the gift of the Holy Ghost is also taken from the earth because there are none with the authority or power to confer it to others (i.e., their children so that it is passed down through generations).

[The_Branch]

You are just better at it then your more impatient brethren.

As for Priesthood, the LDS church is the only Book of Mormon faction that automatically ordains to the Priesthood and it's offices (after a worthiness interview). All other churches receive calls to the Priesthood through the Spirit to a church leader and must have a second witness.

This is what the Articles of Faith actually say about Priesthood calls...

"We believe that a man must be called of God by “prophecy, and by laying on of hands” by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

Again, I'm not a troll. I trust you'll see this in time. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you keeping your opinion of that to yourself. I've offered, and will offer again. If you have issues with me, PM me and we can discuss them privately.

As to the Authority issue, I'm not addressing issues of heretics or apostates, which certainly crept into the early church in droves and Paul mentions often. I'm talking about issues of legitimate succession, as when Barnabus traveled with Paul, and then later sent him out on his own. If Authority is simply transferred by phophecy (which I take to be the speaking of the word of God, not necessarily the predictive connotation) and the laying on of hands, many apostles were around long enough to certainly ordain new ministers and succesors. Do you believe these are not legitimate simply because they are not explicitly mentioned of delineated?

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Again, I'm not a troll. I trust you'll see this in time. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you keeping your opinion of that to yourself. I've offered, and will offer again. If you have issues with me, PM me and we can discuss them privately.

As to the Authority issue, I'm not addressing issues of heretics or apostates, which certainly crept into the early church in droves and Paul mentions often. I'm talking about issues of legitimate succession, as when Barnabus traveled with Paul, and then later sent him out on his own. If Authority is simply transferred by phophecy (which I take to be the speaking of the word of God, not necessarily the predictive connotation) and the laying on of hands, many apostles were around long enough to certainly ordain new ministers and succesors. Do you believe these are not legitimate simply because they are not explicitly mentioned of delineated?

I believe the heresy eventually became so great and complete that there was no one with sufficient authority to pass along the Priesthood.

[The_Branch]

I believe you, and I'm usually a hardcore troll-spotter. Welcome to the forums!

Before I get too far, let me explain something. The term 'spirit of God', in LDS theology, can refer to a few different things. One is the 'Light of Christ' which is the power of Christ which emanates from His divine presence out into the universe. It is the power through which the natural laws of nature and logic continue to operate, and is the source of what we call a man's conscience. The Light of Christ encourages men to do good and live correct lives.

The second thing the term 'spirit of God' can refer to is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the LDS Godhead (or the Protestant Trinity) and has a few main purposes. The 'gift of the Holy Ghost' is conferred to all members of the Church who have been baptized, and results in the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost all of one's life. The result of the 'gift of the Holy Ghost' is the baptism by fire described by Jesus in the NT. The 'power of the Holy Ghost' is the ability of the Holy Ghost to impress revelation upon the minds of man- any man (or woman), baptized or not.

I hope that's not too confusing, lol. For a treatment of the Priesthood, see below.

We believe the priesthood authority must be used strictly within the same laws that apply to continuously enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canonical scripture; hereafter D&C), section 121 verse 41, reads:

(LDS.org; italics mine)

In other words, to be properly (or righteously) used, the Priesthood power must be exercised under the influence of the spirit of God, for it is through the righteousness of Christ we are saved, not our individual merit.

While the power of the Priesthood is the same power (in kind) that we believe God possesses, our own power is not on par with His. Think of it this way: a baby's muscles are similar to his father's, yet in no way possesses power 'on par' with his father. Or, the CEO of a business may delegate responsibility to an underling, but that underling is in no way as powerful, within the confines of that business, as the CEO. A robot may move using the same laws of nature as its human creator, but the robot's power to act is far inferior than its creator's. These examples are basic, albeit imperfect, analogies.

The difference is that the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost are both the influence and power of God, and the Priesthood Authority is the authority to act in Christ's name on the earth, as His proxy. Through the Priesthood, ordinary members are able to preform healings, blessings, receive revelation, and organize and maintain Christ's kingdom on earth until He comes again to rule it in the Millennium. It is important to note, however, that the power of the Priesthood is fueled and directed through revelation from God- that is, Christ is still the source of power and through revelation guides His church. If any man holding the Priesthood attempted to use it in a manner or for a purpose against God's will, then that man is under serious condemnation and his acts are not binding on earth nor on heaven.

As for the revelation of the Holy Spirit at Antioch, I do not know the event which you are referencing, so I cannot comment. However, I can say that Priesthood authority does not need to be present for a revelation from the Holy Ghost (see earlier about the 'power of the Holy Ghost'). Saul, while on the road to Damascus, received a revelation directly from Christ before having received the Priesthood through proper authority. Such a revelation must be wrought by means of the Holy Ghost.

One thing about the Holy Ghost: to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, one must do so from another holding proper Priesthood authority. If the Priesthood is taken from the earth, than the gift of the Holy Ghost is also taken from the earth because there are none with the authority or power to confer it to others (i.e., their children so that it is passed down through generations).

Wow! Thank you, Maxel! This really does help to clarify things for me. I appreciate your thought-out and thorough response. I've never had things delineated this way. Very articulate. I hope you'll reply to some of my other questions.

I believe the heresy eventually became so great and complete that there was no one with sufficient authority to pass along the Priesthood.

So it's kind of the spiritual version of Noah and the flood? The wickedness had become so great, God simply started over, spiritual-authority-wise?

If anyone has other thoughts on this, feel free to comment, but I'd like to move on to another of my questions. As explained to me, and I understand it, LDS theology holds that Jesus was born a man, but through his righteous life attained God-hood. This comes from Philippians 2:5-11, if I understand it correctly. If this right? And if not (or even if so), could someone elaborate or explain this?

[Maxel]

As to the Authority issue, I'm not addressing issues of heretics or apostates, which certainly crept into the early church in droves and Paul mentions often. I'm talking about issues of legitimate succession, as when Barnabus traveled with Paul, and then later sent him out on his own. If Authority is simply transferred by phophecy (which I take to be the speaking of the word of God, not necessarily the predictive connotation) and the laying on of hands, many apostles were around long enough to certainly ordain new ministers and succesors. Do you believe these are not legitimate simply because they are not explicitly mentioned of delineated?

True, the apostles were around long enough, but if the state of the Church was one where no righteous successor could be found (i.e., none righteous enough to take up the prophetic mantle), what could they do? It was not a matter of a dearth of people, but a dearth of righteous people.

Now, I'm not sure exactly when the succession was stopped. I haven't heard anything from LDS canonical sources or authoritative leaders saying that the Priesthood authority most definitely died with the original 12 apostles. However, it might as well have it we look at it as an issue of authoritative succession in relation to our present time. Somewhere, very early, in the line the authority was lost and the faithful of Christ were left to worshiping Him under an earthly minister with no actual authority from Christ.

[Maxel]

The_Branch;324907]So it's kind of the spiritual version of Noah and the flood? The wickedness had become so great, God simply started over, spiritual-authority-wise? Good analogy. It is similar, in a fashion.

If anyone has other thoughts on this, feel free to comment, but I'd like to move on to another of my questions. As explained to me, and I understand it, LDS theology holds that Jesus was born a man, but through his righteous life attained God-hood. This comes from Philippians 2:5-11, if I understand it correctly. If this right? And if not (or even if so), could someone elaborate or explain this?

LDS theology holds that Jesus was born the son of Mary and the son of God the Father. His spiritual and bodily inheritance was both mortal and divine.

We believe that Jesus was truly born a baby, and that while a baby he was subject to all the discomforts that a baby is subject to- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect baby. After a baby he became a small child, being subject to all the temptations of a small child- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect small child. After a small child, he became a young boy, subject to all the pressures and follies a young boy might be subject to- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect small boy. This pattern continues throughout his life until he achieves manhood without ever having sinned. He was truly a perfect man, yet he did not start out that way.

This doctrine is reflected in D&C 93:

D&C 93:11-14

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

LDS.org; emphasis added

In other words, he did not start out, as a child, full of the knowledge and wisdom that he possessed as an adult, but rather gained that knowledge and wisdom as he grew. He was always the literal Son of God, but was also called so because he was in all ways a son: starting out as a babe, growing in 'wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man'. (Luke 2:52)

[The_Branch]

Good analogy. It is similar, in a fashion.

LDS theology holds that Jesus was born the son of Mary and the son of God the Father. His spiritual and bodily inheritance was both mortal and divine.

We believe that Jesus was truly born a baby, and that while a baby he was subject to all the discomforts that a baby is subject to- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect baby. After a baby he became a small child, being subject to all the temptations of a small child- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect small child. After a small child, he became a young boy, subject to all the pressures and follies a young boy might be subject to- yet, in all his actions, he was a perfect small boy. This pattern continues throughout his life until he achieves manhood without ever having sinned. He was truly a perfect man, yet he did not start out that way.

This doctrine is reflected in D&C 93:

LDS.org; emphasis added

In other words, he did not start out, as a child, full of the knowledge and wisdom that he possessed as an adult, but rather gained that knowledge and wisdom as he grew. He was always the literal Son of God, but was also called so because he was in all ways a son: starting out as a babe, growing in 'wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man'. (Luke 2:52)

Again, Maxel, thank you. This is not the way it was explained to me. I had been lead to believe that Mormons held that Jesus was born fully man, and achieved his divinity through his life. If I understand you, you're saying he was born fully man AND fully God, and simply grew into the fullness of his divinity, which is not the same things as the previous. This is why I'm here. As a side note, I keep using the Bible in references. I understand the LDS canon includes the KJV (only KJV?) Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenant, and the Pearl of Great Price? Is this correct?

Edited February 2, 2009 by The_Branch
quote correction