LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[chevyontheriver]

You don't start with bishops, then apostles, then Jesus. You start with Jesus, then apostles, ordained by Jesus, then bishops, ordained by apostles.

My point exactly. Jesus ordained apostles who ordained bishops who have continued to ordain bishops so we have a continuing priesthood.

JS was ordained by apostles who were ordained by Jesus. It is a very strong position. I realize you must believe that Peter, James, and John came to the prophet JS and ordained him and Oliver Cowdrey, but if it did happen, it is a very strong position. One that is stronger than any other church has with regards to keys and MP, even stronger than the Catholic church who only has a second place position. And only second place, because they at one time did hold the keys and the MP, but have long ago laid them aside for the glories of this world.

Your position is only strong IF Joseph Smith was a prophet and not an opportunist treasure hunter who had a good thing going with multiple wives. IF he was just an opportunist the Mormon position is nothing. I get it that you are invested in Joseph Smith being a prophet and apostle and all, but the continued existence of the Catholic Church through all the battles of history means Joseph Smith can't be a prophet.

Martin Luther recognized this conundrum because he was a Catholic priest. He decided, with tremendous anxiety to give up his MP and break from the Catholic, so he could start his own church. He reconciled this conundrum by saying, men do not need the MP to access God, and so for hundreds of years, the reformers have taught their peope that the MP is not necessary to be saved. They were wrong then, they are wrong today. But God has an alternative course for Martins blunder, and for all the protestant people to be saved.

Martin Luther is an interesting irrelevance.

When Jesus went to be baptized, he went to the only person that was authorized to baptize in the name of the Lord. That was John the Baptist. By the time Jesus left this world, there were only 12 people that had the authority to baptize, that was the 11 apostles, soon to be 12.

John baptized with water and not the Holy Spirit. Acts 11:16. The baptism of John was not the baptism of Jesus. At least not according to the Bible. John himself said so in Luke 3:16. Christians are baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:27. Then there's this:

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through
the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He
said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a
Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And
they said, "Into John's baptism." Paul said, "John baptized with the
baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was
coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began
speaking with tongues and prophesying. (Act 19:1-6)

You went on to say:

That is the whole reason for the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The person or persons who held these keys, could baptize, and that baptism was recognized by heaven. Someone that came around baptizing without those keys had no right to baptize and his baptisms were not recognized by heaven, either in the time of the apostles or now.
Let me say this again. Without the keys, anyone out there preaching and baptizing is doing it on their own power, but heaven does not recongize their work. So a person baptized by this man is not really baptized.

What you end up saying here is that for 1700 years or so NOBODY was validly baptized, and then only the Mormons could baptize. The simpler solution is that the Catholic teaching on baptism is true, and there have been valid baptisms all along.

You sound just like Martin Harris when you say no requirement for a priest of the order of Melchizedek for baptism. He was wrong.

Your Martin Harris was an interesting fellow who thought that Joseph Smith's bank was a scam. And he was a religiously unstable fellow. Harris called Smith apostate and Smith called Harris apostate. I think they may have both been right.

When I was baptized, I confessed the at I believe that Jesus was the son of God, and I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Any problems with this, biblically? The person that baptized me held the keys (of which you do not think is necessary any way), I confessed Jesus is the Son of God and I was baptized just like Jesus by immersion with the proper prayer given me during that baptism. Tell me what you think of my baptism.

I think your baptism depends on the deity whose name you were baptized in. I think you denied the Trinity, so it would probably be some other deity than is involved in Christian baptism. Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptism, so if you become a Catholic you would need to be baptized. And I'm pretty sure I know what you think of my baptism, that the person who baptized me had 'no right' and I am 'not really baptized'.

It all comes down to whether your great apostasy happened or not. There isn't a historical record of it. The Church has continued to exist through thick and thin.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Who do you think taught Adam about God? It was Jesus. IOW, the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than people and their beliefs about Jesus. Adam was certainly a Christian, believing that Jesus was the Son of God.

Is that a monumental concept to you?

If Adam was a Christian, so was Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, etc., etc., etc.

Why were they all Christians. Simply because they believed in Jesus and that he was the Son of God. Jesus taught all of them, appearted unto all of them and they believed. Yes, his church was a little different over the years, as per circumstances.

Who do you think gave Moses the Law of Moses, Jesus. They were literally Christians, but why was the Law of Moses different than the Law of Christ given to the people at the time of Christ?

If this were actually the way you describe it then the self revelation of Jesus to his apostles would not have been such a struggle. Peter gradually got it. Thomas finally got it. But it was a slow process that took all of the apostles three years to get to the point of believing Jesus was the Christ, the eternal Son of the Father. And for that realization they ultimately needed to see the resurrected Jesus. Neither Adam nor Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, or Jeremiah were what we could call Christians. We do call these guys saints but to call them Christians is a very creative anachronism. They were not Christians since they did not believe as Christians do. They were righteous believers in God, patriarchs and prophets, but not Christians. They awaited Jesus, not knowing exactly who He was, but waiting nonetheless. They, and all of the other righteous of Israel who had died awaited Jesus the Christ. And while His body was in the tomb, Jesus went to preach to them in Sheol.

 

[dzheremi]

My friends Ignatius and Chevy, I love you both but you are wasting your time. So am I whenever I try to engage Mormons on anything historical (they have no grasp of anything and actively seek not to gain any, lest it destroy the inherently unstable house of cards that their so-called 'church' is built upon), or for that matter theological (what accord has Christ with Belial?); it's just sad to see good people over and over again explain these very basic concepts and events only to have everything answered with "doesn't matter; it was/is all corrupt" or "Nuh uh; JS said it went down like this, and he's God's chosen prophet of the restoration" (or whatever their religion trains them to say).

It is as Abba Anthony eventually told the youths who came to him looking for guidance only to refuse everything he said multiple times (paraphrasing here): "I have given you some simple things to do, yet you say you cannot do them; if you cannot do this, and you cannot do that, then what can I do for you? What you need is prayers." I do not believe that anyone is a 'lost cause' (as God may accept our repentance as He wills, not as we may will), but there does come a point when their active refusal of God must rest upon their own shoulders, as they are like rocky soil in which seeds will not grow. I don't know about the Roman Catholics, but don't the Eastern Orthodox teach something about the torture of hell being the love of God felt as pain by those who actively refused Him during their lives? Well...I'm not gonna go where this line of thinking would logically go (Lord have mercy), since I'm not one to even pretend to usurp the judgment of Christ our God, the Just Judge before Whom I tremble as well, weighed down heavily by my own sins, but it is clear that the Mormons think that they have something better than any variety of historically-rooted Christianity. They're 100% absolutely wrong about that, but after you've made that point a thousand and one times and ways, is it not clear that what they really need is prayers? (Again, as we all need, but hopefully not over matters as basic as these...)

 

[He is the way]

I didn't deny Abraham's righteousness. Only said that he was a simpleton and based on some of Abraham's bad decisions its not an unreasonable thing to say. But if we're to believe that God doesn't choose sinners to be his annointed he would not have chosen David who killed a man after cucking him.

My point is that God can use literally anyone to accomplish his will and be his instrument.

David was anointed king but he was not a prophet, however, Nathan was. God calls prophets to deliver His word. I am truly grateful for all that God and Jesus Christ has done for us.

 

[chevyontheriver]

David was anointed king but he was not a prophet, however, Nathan was. God calls prophets to deliver His word.

And in one sentence (1 Kings 1:45) you will find the three terms (priest, prophet, king), but applied to three different people: “Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed David as king.”
Priest, prophet, king - CNA Columns: Answering the Tough Questions

 

[chevyontheriver]

My friends Ignatius and Chevy, I love you both but you are wasting your time. So am I whenever I try to engage Mormons on anything historical (they have no grasp of anything and actively seek not to gain any, lest it destroy the inherently unstable house of cards that their so-called 'church' is built upon), or for that matter theological (what accord has Christ with Belial?); it's just sad to see good people over and over again explain these very basic concepts and events only to have everything answered with "doesn't matter; it was/is all corrupt" or "Nuh uh; JS said it went down like this, and he's God's chosen prophet of the restoration" (or whatever their religion trains them to say).

It is as Abba Anthony eventually told the youths who came to him looking for guidance only to refuse everything he said multiple times (paraphrasing here): "I have given you some simple things to do, yet you say you cannot do them; if you cannot do this, and you cannot do that, then what can I do for you? What you need is prayers." I do not believe that anyone is a 'lost cause' (as God may accept our repentance as He wills, not as we may will), but there does come a point when their active refusal of God must rest upon their own shoulders, as they are like rocky soil in which seeds will not grow. I don't know about the Roman Catholics, but don't the Eastern Orthodox teach something about the torture of hell being the love of God felt as pain by those who actively refused Him during their lives? Well...I'm not gonna go where this line of thinking would logically go (Lord have mercy), since I'm not one to even pretend to usurp the judgment of Christ our God, the Just Judge before Whom I tremble as well, weighed down heavily by my own sins, but it is clear that the Mormons think that they have something better than any variety of historically-rooted Christianity. They're 100% absolutely wrong about that, but after you've made that point a thousand and one times and ways, is it not clear that what they really need is prayers? (Again, as we all need, but hopefully not over matters as basic as these...)

Prayers are included. But the futility is becoming apparent. Theirs is a hermetically sealed opinion for which history does not matter. It's actually a whole different concept of truth.

 

[dzheremi]

Prayers are included. But the futility is becoming apparent. Theirs is a hermetically sealed opinion for which history does not matter. It's actually a whole different concept of truth.

Certainly, yes. I didn't mean to somehow imply that either of you were not praying for them, only that prayer far exceeds a mobius strip of basic objections to Mormon falsehoods. Apologies. I pray that all who reject the Holy Trinity be illumined by the Holy Spirit to come to recognition and worship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- the One God, Homoousious.

 

[Peter1000]

In your previous post you said that God saw the writing on the wall and left the Church to it's own devices. That men were going to apostasize and abandon truth. My question for you is why hasn't God done this with the Mormon Church?

Because this is the last dispensation in which God is going to prepare the world for the second coming of His Son Jesus. There needs to be a prophet on the earth and a church that God can give power and authority, to accomplish the things that are necessary to finish the work. Therefore, the Lord told JS that he would not abandon this church, and would not allow the prophets to take the church sideways and off the path, so that the work can be accomplished.

 

[Peter1000]

I didn't deny Abraham's righteousness. Only said that he was a simpleton and based on some of Abraham's bad decisions its not an unreasonable thing to say. But if we're to believe that God doesn't choose sinners to be his annointed he would not have chosen David who killed a man after cucking him.

My point is that God can use literally anyone to accomplish his will and be his instrument.

With the same disgust as you view the sins of Abraham and David, you must give JS the same consideration, right?

 

[Peter1000]

My point exactly. Jesus ordained apostles who ordained bishops who have continued to ordain bishops so we have a continuing priesthood.

Do you not see the break in the true tradition? Here it is: Jesus ordains apostles, apostles ordain bishops. The end. The bible gives no example of a bishop ordaining another bishop.
If you can show me a scripture where X bishop goes over to his neighbor city and ordains Y bishop to his bishopric, I will change my mind on the subject.
If you cannot, then you should be willing to be open-minded about my position.

What you end up saying here is that for 1700 years or so NOBODY was validly baptized, and then only the Mormons could baptize. The simpler solution is that the Catholic teaching on baptism is true, and there have been valid baptisms all along.

What I also said is that God has an alternative method to save all those good and righteous people during that 1700 years. He has not abandoned them.

Your Martin Harris was an interesting fellow who thought that Joseph Smith's bank was a scam. And he was a religiously unstable fellow. Harris called Smith apostate and Smith called Harris apostate. I think they may have both been right.

I'm sorry, I meant Martin Luther and wrote Martin Harris. My mistake.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Because this is the last dispensation in which God is going to prepare the world for the second coming of His Son Jesus. There needs to be a prophet on the earth and a church that God can give power and authority, to accomplish the things that are necessary to finish the work. Therefore, the Lord told JS that he would not abandon this church, and would not allow the prophets to take the church sideways and off the path, so that the work can be accomplished.

I have a much larger response planned but I need to ask some questions before that.

Let's clarify. God won't let the LDS Church fall away because this is the supposed last dispensation. Would then the LDS Church fall away if God allowed it? That is, if God removed his divine influence on the LDS Church like he did with the Christian Church, it would necessarily fall away? Right?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Because this is the last dispensation in which God is going to prepare the world for the second coming of His Son Jesus. There needs to be a prophet on the earth and a church that God can give power and authority, to accomplish the things that are necessary to finish the work. Therefore, the Lord told JS that he would not abandon this church, and would not allow the prophets to take the church sideways and off the path, so that the work can be accomplished.

Funny that everybody thinks they are the last dispensation. Do the breakaway Mormon groups that have left the LDS behind consider themselves the last dispensation too? Maybe they are right for saying so and the LDS is yesterday's news? How do you ACTUALLY know?

The Lord told his original apostles, as recorded in the Bible, that he would not abandon his Church. He said directly to Peter "Upon this rock I will build MY Church, and the gates of Hell WILL NOT prevail against it, But according to Joseph Smith the gates of hell prevailed within a hundred years. Joseph Smith CAN'T be a prophet if he speaks against Jesus. Jesus said one thing. Joseph Smith said something contrary. Both cannot be right. Jesus told his original apostles right in the Bible plain as day that He would not abandon His Church, and that the Church He founded would endure the assaults of Hell. THAT was and is the promise. Every reformulation or reorganization or reinvention of the Church is thus a deviation. The Church has always needed corrections and has always been correcting, but she does not need reinvention as she has been promised the endurance you think Joseph Smith says he heard about 200 years ago.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

We have the promise of continued faithfulness unto the end of the age, needing no new and contrary gospel. Joseph Smith arrived 1700 years too late, and with a contrary gospel. It demands too much of you in sidelining the facts of history to continue to believe this contrary gospel.

 

[chevyontheriver]

With the same disgust as you view the sins of Abraham and David, you must give JS the same consideration, right?

David had his moment of repentance, a profound repentance. Where in the life of Joseph Smith did he turn from his sins? It's not 'overlooking' the sins of David. It's following the model of David the penitent sinner.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Do you not see the break in the true tradition? Here it is: Jesus ordains apostles, apostles ordain bishops. The end. The bible gives no example of a bishop ordaining another bishop.
If you can show me a scripture where X bishop goes over to his neighbor city and ordains Y bishop to his bishopric, I will change my mind on the subject.
If you cannot, then you should be willing to be open-minded about my position.

I'll answer by asking you what position Timothy had, and Titus? And what positions the people chosen by Timothy and Titus had? If you are open minded that is.

What I also said is that God has an alternative method to save all those good and righteous people during that 1700 years. He has not abandoned them.

I presume you refer to your practice of 'baptism for the dead'. But I've been baptized and do not need any baptism again.

I'm sorry, I meant Martin Luther and wrote Martin Harris. My mistake.

Martin Harris was interesting. He was on the outs with Joseph Smith over the running of a bank, and alleged improprieties. But that bit of Mormon history is about as irrelevant as that of Martin Luther would be. We don't need a Luther reinventing Christianity just as we don't need a Smith reinventing Christianity. Jesus promised that His Church would endure, and that Hell itself could not take it down. That's Biblical. Hell has tried, and is still trying mightily, but has yet to have ultimate success. That's obvious enough from history for almost all but Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Landmarkist Baptists.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Because this is the last dispensation in which God is going to prepare the world for the second coming of His Son Jesus. There needs to be a prophet on the earth and a church that God can give power and authority, to accomplish the things that are necessary to finish the work. Therefore, the Lord told JS that he would not abandon this church, and would not allow the prophets to take the church sideways and off the path, so that the work can be accomplished.

Greetings our friend Peter!

2 Thessalonians 3:3-5 NIV
3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one. 4 We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. 5 May the Lord direct your hearts into God's love and Christ's perseverance.

Nahum 1:7 NIV
7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him,

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It really boils down to taking the word of Jesus or that of Joseph Smith. Since, Jesus is God, you know who's word I am going with.

 

[Peter1000]

chevyontheriver says:

Your position is only strong IF Joseph Smith was a prophet and not an opportunist treasure hunter who had a good thing going with multiple wives. IF he was just an opportunist the Mormon position is nothing. I get it that you are invested in Joseph Smith being a prophet and apostle and all, but the continued existence of the Catholic Church through all the battles of history means Joseph Smith can't be a prophet.

You are right, we have to have faith that JS is a true prophet of God. There are far more reasons to believe he is, than there are reasons to think he is not.

So because the Catholic church in whatever form has been around since the first century, JS cannot be a prophet. Well, I have not heard that one, so I guess that is a new reason I will have to consider.

Martin Luther is an interesting irrelevance.

Except he is an insider eye witness to the complete corruption of the Catholic church and confirms the apostasy first hand.

John baptized with water and not the Holy Spirit. Acts 11:16. The baptism of John was not the baptism of Jesus. At least not according to the Bible. John himself said so in Luke 3:16. Christians are baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:27. Then there's this:

That is right, there is a baptism of the water and the baptism of the spirit. You must have both in order to be saved.

But my point is that Jesus went to the only person who had the authority to baptize at that time, and was baptized by John. The power and authority means everything, even for Jesus.

I think your baptism depends on the deity whose name you were baptized in. I think you denied the Trinity, so it would probably be some other deity than is involved in Christian baptism. Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptism, so if you become a Catholic you would need to be baptized. And I'm pretty sure I know what you think of my baptism, that the person who baptized me had 'no right' and I am 'not really baptized'.

I was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit just like the bible instructs us.
Matthew 28:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho

We can argue what the actual nature of this Deity is, but I do believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, and I was baptized in the name of this Deity.

It does not matter if Catholics recognize our baptism or not, we do not recongize their baptism either and when a Catholic is converted to the Church of Jesus Christ, they have to be rebaptized, and have hands laid on their heads to receive the Holy Spirit. Thus they are baptized by water, and baptized of the Spirit, just like it says in the bible.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. (Matthew 5:17-18 NET)

 

[Peter1000]

Greetings our friend Peter!

2 Thessalonians 3:3-5 NIV
3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one. 4 We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. 5 May the Lord direct your hearts into God's love and Christ's perseverance.

Nahum 1:7 NIV
7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him,

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It really boils down to taking the word of Jesus or that of Joseph Smith. Since, Jesus is God, you know who's word I am going with.

You know all the scriptures that talks about the apostasy. But since you brought up 2 Thessalonians, read all of chapter 2, which does not tell a rosy story, especially verse 7, the mystery of iniquity doth already work.

Now verses 13,14,15 are talking about those of this generation that are listening to the voice of Paul. Yes, they will enjoy the fruits of the gospel. But when the apostles die, those people will have to be saved by the alternative method that God has prepared for them.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Do you not see the break in the true tradition? Here it is: Jesus ordains apostles, apostles ordain bishops. The end. The bible gives no example of a bishop ordaining another bishop.
If you can show me a scripture where X bishop goes over to his neighbor city and ordains Y bishop to his bishopric, I will change my mind on the subject.
If you cannot, then you should be willing to be open-minded about my position.



What I also said is that God has an alternative method to save all those good and righteous people during that 1700 years. He has not abandoned them.

Titus 1:5-9
The Message

A Good Grip on the Message
5-9 I left you in charge in Crete so you could complete what I left half-done. Appoint leaders in every town according to my instructions. As you select them, ask, “Is this man well-thought-of? Is he committed to his wife? Are his children believers? Do they respect him and stay out of trouble?” It’s important that a church leader, responsible for the affairs in God’s house, be looked up to—not pushy, not short-tempered, not a drunk, not a bully, not money-hungry. He must welcome people, be helpful, wise, fair, reverent, have a good grip on himself, and have a good grip on the Message, knowing how to use the truth to either spur people on in knowledge or stop them in their tracks if they oppose it.

"Witnesses consider the office of elder to be the same as that referred to in the Bible as "older man" ("presbyter"), overseer ("bishop"), and shepherd ("pastor") but do not use any of the terms as titles." What's the difference between Elders, Bishops and Pastors?


I'm sorry, I meant Martin Luther and wrote Martin Harris. My mistake.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have a much larger response planned but I need to ask some questions before that.

Let's clarify. God won't let the LDS Church fall away because this is the supposed last dispensation. Would then the LDS Church fall away if God allowed it? That is, if God removed his divine influence on the LDS Church like he did with the Christian Church, it would necessarily fall away? Right?

Adding to your argument friend, If God was unable or unwilling to protect the Church founded on Jesus, prophets and Apostles, there is no reason to believe he will protect any future church like the LDS one.