An honest question


Diversity
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have an honest question I have not been able to find an answer to with a cursory google search. I am a latter-day saint. I believe in and love this gospel.

But my question is this:

If John was to exist in the flesh until the second coming of Christ, than why was it even necessary to have a restoration of the priesthood by james and peter? Is one insufficient? I thought the the Prophet, Seer and Revelator held all the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood. So wouldn't Peter or John OR james been sufficient depending on which of them was the prophet, seer, and revelator in the days after Christ was crucified? (leaving open the possibility that the catholic tradition of peter being the first "pope" is wrong.) Perhaps I don't remember something accurately. But could someone answer this?

Thank you for your time.

Edited by Diversity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diversity, the primary accounts of the restoration of the Melchizedek are notoriously vague. But when you put it together with - say - D&C 128:20, and elements of our temple liturgy; I think there was a lot more going on that day than merely the perfunctory restoration of keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the points made are valid.

I have always believed that John... like the 3 Nephiest actually were taken from the earth. Moroni says this.

Mormon 8

10 And there are none that do know the true God save it be the disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.

11 But behold, my father and I have seen them, and they have ministered unto us.

I take this that the earth had gotten so wicked that really there was no point in letting them (John and the three Nephites) stay. Now I also believe they came back probably before or around the time of the Restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gift of tarrying until the Lord returns has been given to various individuals since Adam. From the scriptures we know that John the beloved was one such individual and so were three of the twelve apostles ordained by Christ during his visit to the Nephites after his resurrection.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Enoch as well as the people in his city were so righteous as to be translated and taken up unto God. They did not see death but neither were they resurrected. We know this because Jesus Christ was the very first individual who was resurrected and before him none had been (Acts 26:23; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). Likewise have others throughout the dispensations received the gift of John the Beloved and the 3 Nephites in that they have been translated so as not to taste of death.

While we do not know whether or not the residents of the City of Enoch have visited since their translation, we do know that they will as a city one day return to help build the New Jerusalem.

Your question still remains as to what of those specifically promised to tarry upon the earth until his return so as to bring souls unto Christ and why the need for a restoration with such priesthood holding individuals upon the earth.

To answer your question I will turn to what we know of the 3 Nephites.

4 Nephi 1:14 And it came to pass that the seventy and first year passed away, and also the seventy and second year, yea, and in fine, till the seventy and ninth year had passed away; yea, even an hundred years had passed away, and the disciples of Jesus, whom he had chosen, had all gone to the paradise of God, save it were the three who should tarry; and there were other disciples ordained in their stead; and also many of that generation had passed away.

Understanding the Lord's pattern for determining who becomes the next President and Prophet of His Church in each dispensation, we know eventually that role would have been filled by one of the 3 Nephites. Thus we know that among the 3 was at least one who held the High Priesthood and the Keys thereof and had authority to exercise those keys like unto Thomas S. Monson today.

Thus your question as to why the need for a restoration? When the world was ready, why not simply have these men come forth from obscurity and ordain new apostles to replace those lost?

To my understanding the answer to such questions is found in Mormon 1:13.

Mormon 1:13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.

It is because of iniquity that the world does not have such individuals amongst them. Such was the case of Enoch and the City of Enoch and such was also the case with John the Beloved, the 3 Nephites and any others who have ever been translated. Though still able to walk the earth and serve God they are as Angels of God which by default can not be seen by man.

3 Nephi 28:30 And they are as the angels of God, and if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.

Moroni 7:30 For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness.

Because of wickedness, all mortal men holding the higher priesthood and it's keys were lost from the earth. Because of wickedness those who remained who had such priesthood and keys were not allowed to live in the world and act as the head of the Lord's Church. Thus the need for a restoration of authority and fullness of gospel doctrines unto mortal men to lead and guide and preside over mortal men.

Thus we can conclude that it is the lack of any mortal men holding the higher priesthood and it's keys that determines the need for a restoration. For the same reason that God has not had resurrected beings come forth to lead and guide us, he also does not send translated beings either. Whenever the time has been right for a restoration, He instead sends such individuals to call, ordain and set apart their mortal brethren instead.

Sincerely,

Brother M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was to stand as a witness to the world that he lord continues to be involved in the affairs of men maybe it would be harder for people to Beleave in 4 beings that still walk the earth than to Beleave that tree angels came to the earth to restore the priesthood I don't know I gess it doesn't really mater what people Beleave only that in reality it did happen another test of thier faith I Beleave that the three were predestined to restore the peristhood for what ever reason our Heavenly Father knows I have a question was one of Noah children black my wife is African America to my knowledge one would have to be else how could black people be would like more info thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that when John the Baptist gave authority to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry, it was simply authority to perform baptisms. And the act of baptism was done by them and not John. So they could have the authority to baptize without having been baptized themselves.

But when they received the keys to the priesthood, they had Peter, James and John (the beloved) bestow those keys. I also find it interesting that all who were previously baptized for the remission of sins, were rebaptized and conferred members of the church. I know the church teaches that John the Baptist restored the Aaronic priesthood, but maybe what if God needed Joseph to be renewed and purified before he could continue the work of restoring all things and gave authority to perform an act of the priesthood without being given full authority of that priesthood. Then once they were baptized they could receive the keys of the priesthood fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was one of the them appoint to the office of "Prophet". Perhaps the keys of the head of the church were diffused among the three of them and there was no ONE person that held all the keys. I don't know if that is doctrinal but it is just a thought I had.

So far I believe your answer to be the closest but still incomplete. The keys on earth are held through one person but are utilized and exercised by 3 in the first presidency. The president of the presidency quorum holds the keys and servers with his counselors and all things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d must be by unanimous consent of the presidency. But because the president holds the keys the quorum can be reestablished with the lost of one of the counselors but if the president is lost the first presidency is dissolved and the keys fall to the president of the quorum of the Apostles to form the new presidency.

Since John was a counselor in the first presidency he did not have the keys of Peter but also Peter could not act on his own concerning the keys without his counselors. This truth is also based on the divine law of witnesses that requires more than one to establish the works and truths of G-d (See Genesis 41:32).

Therefore it required Peter, James and John to restore the keys before the Church of G-d could be established and a first Presidency organized before the keys could actually be utilized and the Church organized and maintained.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No; James died relatively early--I think his death is recorded in the Bible--and Peter's execution is, I think, reasonably well attested by the secular historical record.

But can a spirit give flesh priesthood authority?

Hm, perhaps they were one of the few resurrected early to perform other duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can a spirit give flesh priesthood authority?

Hm, perhaps they were one of the few resurrected early to perform other duties.

No; and I think that's the point--Peter and James were resurrected beings at the time of the restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." Link

John held all the keys, just as any apostle does today. However, any apostle today can only exercise keys as authorized by the prophet. Assuming the same rule applied for the ancient apostles, John would have been unable to bestow keys without the authorization of Peter.

D & C 42:11 "11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church."

Maybe this verse doesn't directly apply, but I believe that it does. If so, it does say the ordination needs to be done by the "heads of the church". I'm sure this has something to do with the law of witnesses.

Lastly, I am searching for the conference talk that I believe was given concerning the ordaining of the church president. I seem to remember that the talk I am thinking of explains that while each of the apostles hold all of the priesthood keys, only by meeting together and ordaining the new prophet are those keys activated in him, so a one on one passing of those keys does not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president of the presidency quorum holds the keys and servers with his counselors and all things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d must be by unanimous consent of the presidency.

The Traveler

Now... LOL, as a Network Administrator I can really appreciate this.

I always wondered if the Liahona was a 'smart' compass so 'keys and servers' would, indeed, be needed for divine authentication. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can a spirit give flesh priesthood authority?

Hm, perhaps they were one of the few resurrected early to perform other duties.

The first resurrection began with the resurrection of Christ.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the act of baptism was done by them and not John.

This alludes to something that Joseph Smith said, something along the lines that angels cannot perform baptisms or other ordinances. They may possess keys and once they are given to man, they no longer interfere with men as far as performing ordinances.

The idea that angels come and minister but do not perform actual ordinances or participate in the work(as in tracting or other fellowshipping) going on here, I think, is pretty evident.

As to John the Revelator and the 3 Nephites, it seems to me that having an immortal body would alter the way they live upon the Earth. Since they are different, it seems they operate the way angels operate to some degree, yet they remain on the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From restoration of lost scripture given in the last days through the prophet Joseph Smith in D&C section 7.

The Traveler

LDS.org says re. Section 7 "The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John"

Does anyone have access to the record written by John? It just seems strange because I thought John cleared up the issue:

"rumor spread among the brethren that [John] would not die. But Jesus did not say that [John] would not die; he only said, “If I want [John] to remain alive until I return, what is that to [Peter]?" - John 21:23

Edited by justinc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LDS.org says re. Section 7 "The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John"

Does anyone have access to the record written by John? It just seems strange because I thought John cleared up the issue:

"rumor spread among the brethren that [John] would not die. But Jesus did not say that [John] would not die; he only said, “If I want [John] to remain alive until I return, what is that to [Peter]?" - John 21:23

Was it John? I'm not convinced. According to "Who Really Wrote the Gospels? A Study of Traditional Authorship" The book of John has a few comments made by editors and for some reason, made it to the original text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LDS.org says re. Section 7 "The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John"

Does anyone have access to the record written by John? It just seems strange because I thought John cleared up the issue:

"rumor spread among the brethren that [John] would not die. But Jesus did not say that [John] would not die; he only said, “If I want [John] to remain alive until I return, what is that to [Peter]?" - John 21:23

Are you really prepared for a discussion on textual criticism of ancient scriptural text and the exact validly of isolated and specific imodern interruptions?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it John? I'm not convinced. According to "Who Really Wrote the Gospels? A Study of Traditional Authorship" The book of John has a few comments made by editors and for some reason, made it to the original text.

The apostle John, "the disciple that Jesus loved" (13:23; 19:26; 20:2) is the same "disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." (John 21:20, 24)

What probably happened is the apostle John used scribes (hence the third person references) but the record states (as above) that John was the actual source for his gospel.

But it doesn't really matter who wrote the Gospel of John, we know very little about who wrote much of ancient literature. The point is that here is a historical source which is telling us what Jesus said. If there are no issues with translation on this one, then I guess you all believe that it's the Word of God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really prepared for a discussion on textual criticism of ancient scriptural text and the exact validly of isolated and specific imodern interruptions?

The Traveler

I would definitely be interested in your methodology. Latter-day Saints will often point to biblical passages to establish they are the restored church. Yet when the accounts differ from Latter-day Saint tradition suddenly the validity of the sources needs to be reconsidered. It seems a little unfair to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share