Who Claims Authority?

[Aqualung]

But Evandr said that the only "direct line" Joseph Smith had was prayer.

And...?

And, as I understand it, his prayer was, "Which church is the correct one for me to join?" No mention of Aqua, or Jonny...or am I mistaken? For all Joseph Smith knew, the Christian Church was the correct one for Barton Stone...and me. And how did Joseph Smith know that God has not also granted authority to John Paul II and Benedict XVI to do God's authoritative work among their branch of the Faith?

You're assuming incorrectly that that was the only time JS ever prayed to God. He prayed again, then again, and a bunch of times, then he was given the authority to preach the new gospel. And then he prayed some more.

Because God only has one church. Never in the Bible does it say that all faiths are acceptable, even though they are different. The road is straight and narrow. You have to follow ALL of his commandments, and the differences in the churches showed that no one church had ALL the commandments at that time.

 

[Aqualung]

BINGO!!!:takeabow:

Who are you quoting? Because that is exactly LDS position.

 

[sojourner]

The authority that I refer to is the authority to act in an official capacity in the administration of the gospel. Administering with authority is not the same as preaching. You have to have been called and given authority to speak in the name of Jesus Christ when performing ordinances such as baptism, conferring the priesthood to someone, doing temple work, blessing in the name of Jesus Christ and so forth.

That authority can only be maintained under the auspices of a living prophet who will be at the head of the church of Jesus Christ.

Having that authority means belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ and adhering to no other religious philosophy.

OK...so, you're saying that Catholic bishops, who have discerned a call, and who have had that call confirmed by the Church, are not really called?

The Church that confirmed their call is headed by Pope Benedict XVI, the "Vicar of Christ."

As far as I'm aware, the Pope does not adhere to anything but the gospel of Christ.

 

[Aqualung]

OK...so, you're saying that Catholic bishops, who have discerned a call, and who have had that call confirmed by the Church, are not really called?

Yep.

As far as I'm aware, the Pope does not adhere to anything but the gospel of Christ.

As far as you're aware. Then again, I see that he adheres to a lot of things that aren't the gospel of Christ, and doensn't adhere to a lot of things that are. But that is for a different thread.

 

[sojourner]

And...?


You're assuming incorrectly that that was the only time JS ever prayed to God. He prayed again, then again, and a bunch of times, then he was given the authority to preach the new gospel. And then he prayed some more.

Because God only has one church. Never in the Bible does it say that all faiths are acceptable, even though they are different. The road is straight and narrow. You have to follow ALL of his commandments, and the differences in the churches showed that no one church had ALL the commandments at that time.

That's my claim: The Church of Christ is "essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one." But...unity does not imply uniformity. Faith in Christ is faith in Christ. "Anyone who does a good work in my Name..." Somebody said that one of your prophets -- Hinckley, was it? -- supported this statement.

ALL of Christ's commands are only 2: Love God; love neighbor. Don't all Christians do that?

 

[sojourner]

Yep.


As far as you're aware. Then again, I see that he adheres to a lot of things that aren't the gospel of Christ, and doensn't adhere to a lot of things that are. But that is for a different thread.

How do you assume that?

As you see it...

 

[cardero]

Evandr 2 writes: The authority that I refer to is the authority to act in an official capacity in the administration of the gospel.

Which I contend is unfounded. Before you can claim authority to act in an official capacity in the administration of the gospel you have to prove not only if this gospel is intended for everyone but if it is actually inspired by God.

There are several ways to do this:

1) To have been present when these gospels were said, received or prophesized.
2) To have been present when these gospels were written.
3) To have been present during the translation of these gospels (if they have been transcribed in a language other than your own). An academic expertise in the transcribed language couldn't hurt either.
4) To have known the author of these gospels and to know exactly what their original agenda or intention was for writing these gospels.

Then (and only then), if you feel that authority is still required, can you make claim to such authority. I know of no one living today, that belongs to any religion, who has met these credentials.

Evandr 2 writes: That authority can only be maintained under the auspices of a living prophet who will be at the head of the church of Jesus Christ.

Having that authority means belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ and adhering to no other religious philosophy.

This is not the messages that I received. Are my messages invalid because they do not match your gospels (keep in mind that I have met all of the credentials listed above)? The concern here is that you seem to be professing too much faith to these gospels. I am all about people encouraging belief but it seems that you have already accepted these beliefs as infallible truth.

 

[cardero]

We can talk to him all we want. We don't need special authority for that. He can talk to us all he wants. We don't need special authority for that. He can say to me, "Aqua, you really need to be reading your scriptures more." That doesn't give me the authority, however, to tell jonny, "Jonny, I have it from God that we need to be reading our scriputres more." God made no mention of jonny, and did not give me the authority to tell jonny. For all I know, Jonny reads his scriptures 9 hours a day. That's the difference between talking with God, acting for God, and acting for God with authority.
[/color]

I understand that but if God proposes to you and says (incoming example) “Aqua, the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ” and the same GOD tells me that “Pat, salvation through Jesus Christ is unnecessary and not required” who am I going to suggest that this message is intended for? Just me and possibly atheists? Is this a personal message or can everyone glean something from it? Why would GOD tell me one thing and you another? How would we conclude who has the authority over this statement? Is it the prophet who is still alive? I guess the real question I am asking is; where and how far does this authority extend?

 

[Aqualung]

That's my claim: The Church of Christ is "essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one." But...unity does not imply uniformity. Faith in Christ is faith in Christ. "Anyone who does a good work in my Name..." Somebody said that one of your prophets -- Hinckley, was it? -- supported this statement.

ALL of Christ's commands are only 2: Love God; love neighbor. Don't all Christians do that?

How do you reconcile the "anyone who does good works in my name" with "somebody who has the authority to do my work and my glory." Or with, "But we did all that in your name! I never knew you."

 

[Aqualung]

I understand that but if God proposes to you and says (incoming example) “Aqua, the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ” and the same GOD tells me that “Pat, salvation through Jesus Christ is unnecessary and not required” who am I going to suggest that this message is intended for?

God's message does not change. He will not give contradictory messages. He might not give meat before the milk, but he's not going to give one person meat and another person a salad.

Why would GOD tell me one thing and you another?

Either one of us is not ready for the greater message (but the two messages won't contradict) or one of the messages is not from god (if the do contradict).

How would we conclude who has the authority over this statement? Is it the prophet who is still alive? I guess the real question I am asking is; where and how far does this authority extend?

The authority (as I am speaking of it, but you seem to mean a different thing) does not extend outside the Church of Christ.

 

[sojourner]

How do you reconcile the "anyone who does good works in my name" with "somebody who has the authority to do my work and my glory." Or with, "But we did all that in your name! I never knew you."

How did your prophet reconcile it?

 

[Aqualung]

How did your prophet reconcile it?

That wasn't the question. I'm not going to answer a question that you refuse to answer in the first place.

 

[Aqualung]

My prophet reconciles by those who have the authority. There is a difference simply between doing good works (ie, when you fed the least of these, you were feeding me) and actually trying to act in God's name (cast our devils in his name, baptise in his name), which you need authority for.

 

[sojourner]

The authority (as I am speaking of it, but you seem to mean a different thing) does not extend outside the Church of Christ.

Let me be sure I'm clear on this. If the authority does not extend outside the Church of Christ, and you don't believe that the Catholic bishops have authority, are you saying that a) the realm of Catholic authority falls outside the Church of Christ, not within it, b) the fact that the bishops don't have authority means that the Catholics are not within the Church?

 

[Evandr2]

So, because the apostolic churches cannot produce traceable records of their unbroken line of apostolic succession, that doesn't mean that that authority does not exist. Is that what you're saying?

No, what I meant was that trying to hide behind the claim that one cannot prove that an unbroken line of authority never existed does not validate authority. The thought that "Authorized until proven unauthorized" is foolish yet many will claim that their authority is valid simply because the source of that authority might have been lost in historical account.

How do we know what's recorded in the "records of heaven?" By discernment? Again, a personal matter.

Revelation from the Holy Ghost leaves no room for doubt or questioning. It is not about personal discernment but personal knowledge that has been impressed so effectively and undeniably on our heart and soul that denial and doubt are unable to have place.

I have such knowledge about the calling of Joseph Smith by heavenly beings sent to bestow prophetic authority as well as the keys to the administering of the Gospel on the earth and that sure knowledge, for me, gives validity to every level of authority from his hands down to the present, including my calling as a Melchizedek priesthood holder.


I can make that claim because there IS hard copy record of every calling in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the hands of Joseph Smith to those that were laid on my head confirming the priesthood upon me as well as every other person who has a calling in the Church.

All a person needs is a testimony of the sacred calling of Joseph Smith, a testimony given by personal revelation of the Holy Ghost, to understand that the LDS Church is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days.



Vandr

 

[lunamoth]

How do you reconcile ... Or with, "But we did all that in your name! I never knew you."

The thing about the above is that those whom 'He never knew' were the ones claiming all the bells and whistles, including prophesy:

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Jesus' rebuke against them was because they were claiming all the bells and whistles but not following His commands to love. The above passage follows right after the Sermon on the Mount wherein we are invited by Christ to follow each of the commandments in love, rather than by the letter.

It has nothing to do with authority by anyone other than Jesus. It has everything to do with the two love commandments.

 

[cardero]

Aqualung writes: God's message does not change. He will not give contradictory messages.

But this same God entrusts men to compose the Bible and decide which books make it into the binding and which don’t, based not on the fact that the excluded authors were proven inspired or uninspired but because these gospels did not meet their agenda or contradicted the church men wanted to promote. Is it just me or did GOD miss His calling by not involving Himself in the publishing business.

Aqualung writes: He might not give meat before the milk, but he's not going to give one person meat and another person a salad.

Why not, I might be a vegetarian.

Aqualung writes: Either one of us is not ready for the greater message (but the two messages won't contradict) or one of the messages is not from god (if the do contradict).

This is a step in the right direction, now if all religions can make an organized effort to admit that they may be mistaken we can pursue the more important matters, like discerning which messages are more practical and elevating our beliefs to truth.

Aqualung writes: The authority (as I am speaking of it, but you seem to mean a different thing) does not extend outside the Church of Christ.

Does this authority extend consideration and respect to other people’s beliefs, revelations or relationship with a Supreme Being (until proven otherwise)? This is the authority that I speaking of.

 

[sojourner]

No, what I meant was that trying to hide behind the claim that one cannot prove that an unbroken line of authority never existed does not validate authority. The thought that "Authorized until proven unauthorized" is foolish yet many will claim that their authority is valid simply because the source of that authority might have been lost in historical account.



Revelation from the Holy Ghost leaves no room for doubt or questioning. It is not about personal discernment but personal knowledge that has been impressed so effectively and undeniably on our heart and soul that denial and doubt are unable to have place.

I have such knowledge about the calling of Joseph Smith by heavenly beings sent to bestow prophetic authority as well as the keys to the administering of the Gospel on the earth and that sure knowledge, for me, gives validity to every level of authority from his hands down to the present, including my calling as a Melchizedek priesthood holder.


I can make that claim because there IS hard copy record of every calling in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the hands of Joseph Smith to those that were laid on my head confirming the priesthood upon me as well as every other person who has a calling in the Church.

All a person needs is a testimony of the sacred calling of Joseph Smith, a testimony given by personal revelation of the Holy Ghost, to understand that the LDS Church is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days.



Vandr

I don't think that is the validation for the apostolic churches. And I know that it's not the validation for the non-apostolic churches. The apostolic claim is, in fact, the same as the Mormon claim: Authority was given to the twelve apostles, and they handed it on to the next generation, and the next, etc. Neither is lack of written record proof of non-validity.

As you say, revelation leaves no room for doubt or questioning. How, then, can you refute the validity of someone's sincerely-held belief that the Holy Spirit revealed to them that the line of succession has been unbroken to the present day? I know in my heart, because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to me, that the twelve apostles handed down their authority through the bishops of the apostolic Church, and that line of authority has remained unbroken to this day.

Now we have a situation of "he said/she said." Mormons think they're right and that they're the only ones who are right. RC's think that they are right. Why can't both be right? Why is there not enough room in the Body of Christ for everybody to play? Why can't the RC's hold part of the authority, as they understand it, and the Mormons hold their part of the the authority as they understand it, and the Protestants hold their part? If, as Aqua said, the Church is one, then authority must extend to every part of the Body of Christ, not just to the Mormon arm or the Orthodox arm.

 

[cardero]

Evandr2 writes: Revelation from the Holy Ghost leaves no room for doubt or questioning. It is not about personal discernment but personal knowledge that has been impressed so effectively and undeniably on our heart and soul that denial and doubt are unable to have place.

So essentially what you are describing is every religion or claim to revelation.

EDIT:What the Holy Ghost really needs to remove from the room is faith and belief and replace it with truth and ultimate understanding. This you will find is the key to authority. No one religion posesses this.

 

[FFH]

The authority to act for, and in behalf of, God to baptize, comes by our right to the Aaronic priestood, which was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, by John the Baptist.

See link: Aaronic Priesthood: Restoration

The authority to act for, and in behalf of, God to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, and many other eternal saving ordinances, performed in holy LDS temples, comes to us by our right to the Melchizedek priesthood, which was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, by Peter, James, and John.

See link: Restoration of Melchizedek Priesthood