Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cruiserdude
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5362
Location: SEKS

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Cruiserdude »

Serragon wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:43 pm
Church_of_the_Lamb wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:41 pm
Serragon wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:29 pm
Church_of_the_Lamb wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:00 pm

You are Discussing two totally separate items here

1. Authority of the priesthood
2. Power of of the priesthood

The first, Authority, is give by the laying on of hands and has little to do with worthiness and righteousness. Just weather the person laying on the hands has such authority to pass on.
It is what we use to do the saving ordnances of baptism/sacrament and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Second, once someone had gained authority, is obtained by righteousness. Power coupled with faith can move mountains, heal the sick, perform miracles.
So you believe that all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still have priesthood authority? That would mean that some of them must have power as well, as there are many good and faithful catholics. The fact is that by this definition, we have absolutely no idea who might have priesthood authority if simply laying on of hands is the method.

I understand what you are saying, and used to believe that myself. Most in the church would believe exactly what you are stating. But I have found that this understanding can't be justified by real experience or by the historical scripture record, so I have changed my views to better fit reality.

If you really look at your statement, the only real distinction you are making from what I am saying is that you believe the fruit must be measured by the authority, which is the laying on of hands. I am saying that the fruit is evidence of authority, and the fact that someoene did or did not put their hands on their head is no indication of the validity of that fruit.

For the church, that is a rather large and important distinction. But for me, it matters very little.
I believe in the great apostasy, that at some time the chain was broken and authority was not passed down, and exactly what you claim happened. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox assumed authority or got it by "revelation" thus they have no real authority to baptize.
I appreciate your faith and the discussion.
You're a stud Serragon. I notice, and really appreciate, the way you handle differences in points of view with others, etc. You're an asset here on the forum👍

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Cruiserdude wrote: April 28th, 2022, 2:13 pm
Serragon wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:43 pm
Church_of_the_Lamb wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:41 pm
Serragon wrote: April 28th, 2022, 1:29 pm

So you believe that all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still have priesthood authority? That would mean that some of them must have power as well, as there are many good and faithful catholics. The fact is that by this definition, we have absolutely no idea who might have priesthood authority if simply laying on of hands is the method.

I understand what you are saying, and used to believe that myself. Most in the church would believe exactly what you are stating. But I have found that this understanding can't be justified by real experience or by the historical scripture record, so I have changed my views to better fit reality.

If you really look at your statement, the only real distinction you are making from what I am saying is that you believe the fruit must be measured by the authority, which is the laying on of hands. I am saying that the fruit is evidence of authority, and the fact that someoene did or did not put their hands on their head is no indication of the validity of that fruit.

For the church, that is a rather large and important distinction. But for me, it matters very little.
I believe in the great apostasy, that at some time the chain was broken and authority was not passed down, and exactly what you claim happened. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox assumed authority or got it by "revelation" thus they have no real authority to baptize.
I appreciate your faith and the discussion.
You're a stud Serragon. I notice, and really appreciate, the way you handle differences in points of view with others, etc. You're an asset here on the forum👍
Asset, but not A hole. :mrgreen: dbnp

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1415

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

Church_of_the_Lamb wrote: April 28th, 2022, 12:08 pm
Dusty Wanderer wrote: April 28th, 2022, 11:45 am
Church_of_the_Lamb wrote: April 28th, 2022, 9:28 am
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 9:23 am

You are in blatant contradiction to JS and JT.
Says some guy on the internet who thinks that he can just assume authority from God.
Luke's position has been made clear with four pages of explanation and citations and in none of it does he say that he thinks anyone can assume authority from God.

It appears you are misrepresenting his position in order to justify your refusal (or inability) to support your own position. I was actually curious to hear why you thought the quotes (or Luke's interpretation of them) was false doctrine. Instead, we're left with more ad-hominem.
How are you to know the difference between someone who assumes authority or some who gets it by "revelation"?
In short, the fruits and gifts of the Spirit. Is there any other way?

In the context of the OP, it seems like "revelation" means nothing more than coming from beyond the veil of our natural senses. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. Which is too bad since the things of this world are much easier to observe, systematize, control, and constrain.

When Joseph and Oliver saw the Lord in the Kirtland temple, others present just had to take their word for it. Or perhaps there was some spiritual fruit also present to confirm the account.

How could anyone passing by Nephi, as he lopped off Laban's head, know that God had authorized him to do so? The casual observer would assume he was a murdering thief. Wouldn't it be nice if he could just flash a badge that proved it.

I think we see this a lot today, as long as one has the badge, who needs to rely on any of those unreliable, "charismatic" spiritual credentials.
Last edited by Dusty Wanderer on May 2nd, 2022, 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by LDS Watchman »

Luke wrote: April 25th, 2022, 9:15 pm Here, the Prophet Joseph Smith and President John Taylor establish the following fact: that one may receive Priesthood, 1. by direct revelation to themselves, 2. by ordination.

“We believe that no man can administer salvation through the gospel, to the souls of men, in the name of Jesus Christ, except he is authorized from God, by revelation, or by being ordained by some one whom God hath sent by revelation, as it is written by Paul, Romans 10:14, ‘and how shall they believe in him, of whom, they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent?’ and I will ask, how can they be sent without a revelation, or some other visible display of the manifestation of God. And again, Hebrews, 5:4, ‘And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.’—And I would ask, how was Aaron called, but by revelation?” (Joseph Smith, 22 March 1839, Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, No. 4, pg. 54, February 1840)

“If a man is called of God, he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways. If he does not receive his calling in this way, how is he going to get it? There is one other way—that is, if God has had a regular Priesthood upon the earth, unbroken, uncorrupted and uncontaminated, then it might come down from one to another through the different ages.” (John Taylor, JD 25:263, 17 August 1884)
The priesthood isn't given by revelation OR ordination.

It is given by revelation AND ordination.

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

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm The priesthood isn't given by revelation OR ordination.
". . . except he is authorized from God, by revelation, or by being ordained by some one whom God hath sent by revelation . . ."

". . . he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways . . ."

The word "or" clearly signifies that either is acceptable.

It doesn't say "and", it says "or".

AoF 5 is representing the position of the Church. Within the Church, the order must be preserved, and the Church has every right to devise such rules. Outside of the Church, the same rules do not apply. I can quote Joseph Smith to you explaining that other Christians had the right to Priesthood - he did not believe that it was only him and his group that had the right to Priesthood.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by LDS Watchman »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:39 pm
Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm The priesthood isn't given by revelation OR ordination.
". . . except he is authorized from God, by revelation, or by being ordained by some one whom God hath sent by revelation . . ."

". . . he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways . . ."

The word "or" clearly signifies that either is acceptable.

It doesn't say "and", it says "or".

AoF 5 is representing the position of the Church. Within the Church, the order must be preserved, and the Church has every right to devise such rules. Outside of the Church, the same rules do not apply. I can quote Joseph Smith to you explaining that other Christians had the right to Priesthood - he did not believe that it was only him and his group that had the right to Priesthood.
Nonsense.

The OR is clarifying what is meant by giving different examples of the same thing. It isn't saying either is acceptable.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:44 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:39 pm
Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm The priesthood isn't given by revelation OR ordination.
". . . except he is authorized from God, by revelation, or by being ordained by some one whom God hath sent by revelation . . ."

". . . he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways . . ."

The word "or" clearly signifies that either is acceptable.

It doesn't say "and", it says "or".

AoF 5 is representing the position of the Church. Within the Church, the order must be preserved, and the Church has every right to devise such rules. Outside of the Church, the same rules do not apply. I can quote Joseph Smith to you explaining that other Christians had the right to Priesthood - he did not believe that it was only him and his group that had the right to Priesthood.
Nonsense.

The OR is clarifying what is meant by giving different examples of the same thing. It isn't saying either is acceptable.
Nonsense? It's basic English.

Some more basic English for you. John Taylor says that:

". . . he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways."

Then he says:

"There is one other way—that is, if God has had a regular Priesthood upon the earth . . ."

You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by LDS Watchman »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm
Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:44 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:39 pm
Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm The priesthood isn't given by revelation OR ordination.
". . . except he is authorized from God, by revelation, or by being ordained by some one whom God hath sent by revelation . . ."

". . . he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways . . ."

The word "or" clearly signifies that either is acceptable.

It doesn't say "and", it says "or".

AoF 5 is representing the position of the Church. Within the Church, the order must be preserved, and the Church has every right to devise such rules. Outside of the Church, the same rules do not apply. I can quote Joseph Smith to you explaining that other Christians had the right to Priesthood - he did not believe that it was only him and his group that had the right to Priesthood.
Nonsense.

The OR is clarifying what is meant by giving different examples of the same thing. It isn't saying either is acceptable.
Nonsense? It's basic English.

Some more basic English for you. John Taylor says that:

". . . he must be called either by the voice or Spirit of God, or by somebody who is authorized of God, and knows something about His ways."

Then he says:

"There is one other way—that is, if God has had a regular Priesthood upon the earth . . ."

You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
No, I'm not wrong. Neither Joseph Smith nor John Taylor were saying what you claim. You're twisting their words to try and make them fit your desired narrative.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by JLHPROF »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.
Last edited by JLHPROF on April 28th, 2022, 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
No he didn't! Which is why Joseph said that if Christians would receive Priesthood by revelation, they too would be accepted by God. I quoted that in a thread I just made.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by JLHPROF »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:51 pm
JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
No he didn't! Which is why Joseph said that if Christians would receive Priesthood by revelation, they too would be accepted by God. I quoted that in a thread I just made.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:53 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:51 pm
JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
No he didn't! Which is why Joseph said that if Christians would receive Priesthood by revelation, they too would be accepted by God. I quoted that in a thread I just made.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.
I know many personally but I doubt you would believe their experiences. Your request is on the premise that it be "valid", but I have no doubt that you would completely ignore them.

The fact that Joseph stated it as something that could happen is enough to prove this point. I'll quote him again:
  • . . . as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all deference to their mandates and teachings . . . (Joseph Smith, 22 March 1839, Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, No. 4, pg. 55, February 1840)
There is one example from the Scriptures that I can quote to you. Sidney Rigdon clearly had authority to baptise before he joined up with Joseph Smith:
  • D&C 35
    3 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works. I have heard thy prayers, and prepared thee for a greater work.
    4 Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.
    5 Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received not the Holy Ghost;
    6 But now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou shalt baptize by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old.
God recognised the authority that Sidney had outside of the line of authority established by Joseph Smith.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6709

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:57 pm
JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:53 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:51 pm
JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm

There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
No he didn't! Which is why Joseph said that if Christians would receive Priesthood by revelation, they too would be accepted by God. I quoted that in a thread I just made.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.
I know many personally but I doubt you would believe their experiences. Your request is on the premise that it be "valid", but I have no doubt that you would completely ignore them.

The fact that Joseph stated it as something that could happen is enough to prove this point. I'll quote him again:
  • . . . as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all deference to their mandates and teachings . . . (Joseph Smith, 22 March 1839, Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, No. 4, pg. 55, February 1840)
There is one example from the Scriptures that I can quote to you. Sidney Rigdon clearly had authority to baptise before he joined up with Joseph Smith:
  • D&C 35
    3 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works. I have heard thy prayers, and prepared thee for a greater work.
    4 Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.
    5 Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received not the Holy Ghost;
    6 But now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou shalt baptize by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old.
God recognised the authority that Sidney had outside of the line of authority established by Joseph Smith.
You mentioned that you believed there is a progression and there are levels of light out there the Lord sanctions, but the Lord condemns those who do not receive the greater light and revelation, and takes away light from those who reject the further light. It would have been wrong for John the Baptist to continue to baptize in opposition to the teachings of the apostles, just as it would have been wrong for Sydney to be independent of Joseph's authority. Once Joseph restored the higher priesthood, keys and ordinances, all those who go independent of his priesthood are rogue are condemned for rejecting the truth. So it comes down again to who you believe is telling the truth, Woodruff or Woolley. Anyone claiming to receive priesthood authority and keys directly from God should show the fruits that God is using them not only to bring the world to Christ but to bind the entire human family into God's great family, and that is being done currently by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Sarah wrote: April 28th, 2022, 8:29 pm You mentioned that you believed there is a progression and there are levels of light out there the Lord sanctions, but the Lord condemns those who do not receive the greater light and revelation, and takes away light from those who reject the further light. It would have been wrong for John the Baptist to continue to baptize in opposition to the teachings of the apostles, just as it would have been wrong for Sydney to be independent of Joseph's authority. Once Joseph restored the higher priesthood, keys and ordinances, all those who go independent of his priesthood are rogue are condemned for rejecting the truth. So it comes down again to who you believe is telling the truth, Woodruff or Woolley. Anyone claiming to receive priesthood authority and keys directly from God should show the fruits that God is using them not only to bring the world to Christ but to bind the entire human family into God's great family, and that is being done currently by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Joseph explicitly stated otherwise.

As for the Woodruff vs Woolley thing, Woolley was never in opposition to Joseph's line of authority, because he received his authority from John Taylor. In fact, Joseph was there in the room directing the proceedings when John Taylor ordained the five men in 1886.

Woodruff lied in public, as history plainly shows, and further, he acknowledged that certain men had been ordained to keep CPM alive:
  • “A B Irvine told me that Apostle Woodruff told him that a certain number of worthy people had been commissioned to Keep alive the principle of plural marriage, this was in reference to the new marriages about which gossip was rife.”

    (Carlos Ashby Badger Journal, 8 October 1904, in LDS Church History Library, “Carlos Ashby Badger, 1878-1939” MS 2056 bx 2 fd 4)
Edit: I think that those with light in them would have aligned with Joseph, but I doubt God would have condemned them for not doing so. I also don't believe that principle is applicable today, seeing that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Sarah wrote: April 28th, 2022, 8:29 pm
... Woodruff or Woolley ...
Both have 2 pair os high, but Woolley eeks out a win unless we’re playing lowball for some reason. 🐳 gbng

Church_of_the_Lamb
captain of 100
Posts: 152

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Church_of_the_Lamb »

Why the need for the restoration at all if the priesthood can be assumed or gained by "revelation" basically means the great apostasy never happened.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Church_of_the_Lamb wrote: April 28th, 2022, 9:21 pm Why the need for the restoration at all if the priesthood can be assumed or gained by "revelation" basically means the great apostasy never happened.
I don't even believe the great apostasy took place in the way that people think it did. Can you find any teachings by Joseph Smith on this subject? It was only later on that this teaching emerged - and it has remained in the collective consciousness of Mormons ever since. I don't doubt that there was truth lost, but its plain to see that there were plenty of men inspired by God during that time, just as there are plenty of people inspired now by God. But eventually, a man will arise like Joseph Smith and do a work like he did.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Artaxerxes »

JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.
Yup. God doesn't create organizations just to circumvent them.

"No wonder the angel told good old Cornelius that he must send for Peter to learn how to be saved: Peter could baptise, and angels could not, so long as there were legal officers in the flesh holding the keys of the kingdom, or the authority of the priesthood. "
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 2/11#facts

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6709

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 8:42 pm
Sarah wrote: April 28th, 2022, 8:29 pm You mentioned that you believed there is a progression and there are levels of light out there the Lord sanctions, but the Lord condemns those who do not receive the greater light and revelation, and takes away light from those who reject the further light. It would have been wrong for John the Baptist to continue to baptize in opposition to the teachings of the apostles, just as it would have been wrong for Sydney to be independent of Joseph's authority. Once Joseph restored the higher priesthood, keys and ordinances, all those who go independent of his priesthood are rogue are condemned for rejecting the truth. So it comes down again to who you believe is telling the truth, Woodruff or Woolley. Anyone claiming to receive priesthood authority and keys directly from God should show the fruits that God is using them not only to bring the world to Christ but to bind the entire human family into God's great family, and that is being done currently by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Joseph explicitly stated otherwise.

As for the Woodruff vs Woolley thing, Woolley was never in opposition to Joseph's line of authority, because he received his authority from John Taylor. In fact, Joseph was there in the room directing the proceedings when John Taylor ordained the five men in 1886.

Woodruff lied in public, as history plainly shows, and further, he acknowledged that certain men had been ordained to keep CPM alive:
  • “A B Irvine told me that Apostle Woodruff told him that a certain number of worthy people had been commissioned to Keep alive the principle of plural marriage, this was in reference to the new marriages about which gossip was rife.”

    (Carlos Ashby Badger Journal, 8 October 1904, in LDS Church History Library, “Carlos Ashby Badger, 1878-1939” MS 2056 bx 2 fd 4)
Edit: I think that those with light in them would have aligned with Joseph, but I doubt God would have condemned them for not doing so. I also don't believe that principle is applicable today, seeing that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.
Right Joseph supposedly appeared at this meeting, which conveniently was not talked about until most of all the supposed participants were dead.

The quote above, even if it is a true story would not be referring to the meeting but any marriages performed after the manifesto.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Sarah wrote: April 28th, 2022, 9:47 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 8:42 pm
Sarah wrote: April 28th, 2022, 8:29 pm You mentioned that you believed there is a progression and there are levels of light out there the Lord sanctions, but the Lord condemns those who do not receive the greater light and revelation, and takes away light from those who reject the further light. It would have been wrong for John the Baptist to continue to baptize in opposition to the teachings of the apostles, just as it would have been wrong for Sydney to be independent of Joseph's authority. Once Joseph restored the higher priesthood, keys and ordinances, all those who go independent of his priesthood are rogue are condemned for rejecting the truth. So it comes down again to who you believe is telling the truth, Woodruff or Woolley. Anyone claiming to receive priesthood authority and keys directly from God should show the fruits that God is using them not only to bring the world to Christ but to bind the entire human family into God's great family, and that is being done currently by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Joseph explicitly stated otherwise.

As for the Woodruff vs Woolley thing, Woolley was never in opposition to Joseph's line of authority, because he received his authority from John Taylor. In fact, Joseph was there in the room directing the proceedings when John Taylor ordained the five men in 1886.

Woodruff lied in public, as history plainly shows, and further, he acknowledged that certain men had been ordained to keep CPM alive:
  • “A B Irvine told me that Apostle Woodruff told him that a certain number of worthy people had been commissioned to Keep alive the principle of plural marriage, this was in reference to the new marriages about which gossip was rife.”

    (Carlos Ashby Badger Journal, 8 October 1904, in LDS Church History Library, “Carlos Ashby Badger, 1878-1939” MS 2056 bx 2 fd 4)
Edit: I think that those with light in them would have aligned with Joseph, but I doubt God would have condemned them for not doing so. I also don't believe that principle is applicable today, seeing that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.
Right Joseph supposedly appeared at this meeting, which conveniently was not talked about until most of all the supposed participants were dead.

The quote above, even if it is a true story would not be referring to the meeting but any marriages performed after the manifesto.
Lorin Woolley talked about it to Spencer W. Kimball’s father in the 1890s. He said numerous times that he had met Joseph Smith.

As for the quote above, it doesn’t say either way, but it supports Lorin’s story more than anything. How many others claimed to have been set apart to keep the principle alive?

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Artaxerxes wrote: April 28th, 2022, 9:41 pm
JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.
Yup. God doesn't create organizations just to circumvent them.

"No wonder the angel told good old Cornelius that he must send for Peter to learn how to be saved: Peter could baptise, and angels could not, so long as there were legal officers in the flesh holding the keys of the kingdom, or the authority of the priesthood. "
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 2/11#facts
This quotation has nothing to do with a particular organisation. It only says that angels couldn’t baptise due to the fact of legal administrators being on earth.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by LDS Watchman »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:57 pm
  • . . . as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all deference to their mandates and teachings . . . (Joseph Smith, 22 March 1839, Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, No. 4, pg. 55, February 1840)
You're taking this quote completely out of context.

Here's the quote with more context:

And again, concerning the doctrine of the laying on of hands. Acts 8th chap. 14th to 17th verse. Now when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.— Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.— Acts 19th chap. 5th–6th verses.— 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 Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. We discover by these, the doctrine of the laying on of the hands.— And for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment: Hebrews 6th chap. 2nd verse, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of the hands, and of reserrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. I consider these to be some of the leading items of the gospel, as taught by Christ and his apostles, and as received by those whom they taught. I wish you would look at these, carefully and closely, and you will readily perceive that the difference between me and other religious teachers, is in the bible; and the bible and them for it: and as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written, and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all defference to their mandates and teachings; but see Gallations, 1st chap. 6th to 10th verse. I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Further, the 11–12 verses. But, I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1839/5

He's saying that he doesn't have any deference to the sectarian religious teachers of his day because they don't teach the Bible and we're not called by revelation and the ordained by the laying on of hands as was Aaron.

Notice how he talks about the necessity of the laying on of hands in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, a doctrine which you and the religious leaders of his day reject.

This quote actually says the exact opposite of what you are claiming it does.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Luke »

Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 11:10 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:57 pm
  • . . . as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all deference to their mandates and teachings . . . (Joseph Smith, 22 March 1839, Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, No. 4, pg. 55, February 1840)
You're taking this quote completely out of context.

Here's the quote with more context:

And again, concerning the doctrine of the laying on of hands. Acts 8th chap. 14th to 17th verse. Now when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.— Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.— Acts 19th chap. 5th–6th verses.— 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 Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. We discover by these, the doctrine of the laying on of the hands.— And for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment: Hebrews 6th chap. 2nd verse, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of the hands, and of reserrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. I consider these to be some of the leading items of the gospel, as taught by Christ and his apostles, and as received by those whom they taught. I wish you would look at these, carefully and closely, and you will readily perceive that the difference between me and other religious teachers, is in the bible; and the bible and them for it: and as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written, and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all defference to their mandates and teachings; but see Gallations, 1st chap. 6th to 10th verse. I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Further, the 11–12 verses. But, I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1839/5

He's saying that he doesn't have any deference to the sectarian religious teachers of his day because they don't teach the Bible and we're not called by revelation and the ordained by the laying on of hands as was Aaron.

Notice how he talks about the necessity of the laying on of hands in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, a doctrine which you and the religious leaders of his day reject.

This quote actually says the exact opposite of what you are claiming it does.
I have read the full quotation, and no, it evidently doesn’t say the opposite of what I claimed it does.

The point Joseph makes is that if they teach the Biblical Gospel, are inspired, and are “called as Aaron” (by revelation) they would be accepted of God.

Not sure how this contradicts anything I’ve said on these threads surrounding this quotation.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by Artaxerxes »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 11:03 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: April 28th, 2022, 9:41 pm
JLHPROF wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:48 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 5:51 pm You're simply wrong.

So there's three ways to obtain Priesthood:

1. by revelation to oneself
2. by ordination from a man of God
3. by ordination through the "regular Priesthood"
There are restrictions. God made it clear throught Joseph that he will never do 1 if 3 is in existence.
And I'm still waiting on a single reference from this dispensation after priesthood was restored to Joseph where ordination came from heaven without going through the presiding authority. Just one valid occurrence of #1 since Joseph. Any time.
Yup. God doesn't create organizations just to circumvent them.

"No wonder the angel told good old Cornelius that he must send for Peter to learn how to be saved: Peter could baptise, and angels could not, so long as there were legal officers in the flesh holding the keys of the kingdom, or the authority of the priesthood. "
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 2/11#facts
This quotation has nothing to do with a particular organisation. It only says that angels couldn’t baptise due to the fact of legal administrators being on earth.
And the only legal administrators that will ever exist are in the Lord's church.
Screenshot_20220428-222342.png
Screenshot_20220428-222342.png (669.97 KiB) Viewed 171 times
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/c ... tar/id/948

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

Post by LDS Watchman »

Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 11:12 pm
Atticus wrote: April 28th, 2022, 11:10 pm
Luke wrote: April 28th, 2022, 6:57 pm
  • . . . as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all deference to their mandates and teachings . . . (Joseph Smith, 22 March 1839, Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, No. 4, pg. 55, February 1840)
You're taking this quote completely out of context.

Here's the quote with more context:

And again, concerning the doctrine of the laying on of hands. Acts 8th chap. 14th to 17th verse. Now when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.— Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.— Acts 19th chap. 5th–6th verses.— 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 Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. We discover by these, the doctrine of the laying on of the hands.— And for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment: Hebrews 6th chap. 2nd verse, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of the hands, and of reserrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. I consider these to be some of the leading items of the gospel, as taught by Christ and his apostles, and as received by those whom they taught. I wish you would look at these, carefully and closely, and you will readily perceive that the difference between me and other religious teachers, is in the bible; and the bible and them for it: and as far as they teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is verily written, and are inspired, and called as was Aaron, I feel myself bound to bow with all defference to their mandates and teachings; but see Gallations, 1st chap. 6th to 10th verse. I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Further, the 11–12 verses. But, I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... rch-1839/5

He's saying that he doesn't have any deference to the sectarian religious teachers of his day because they don't teach the Bible and we're not called by revelation and the ordained by the laying on of hands as was Aaron.

Notice how he talks about the necessity of the laying on of hands in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, a doctrine which you and the religious leaders of his day reject.

This quote actually says the exact opposite of what you are claiming it does.
I have read the full quotation, and no, it evidently doesn’t say the opposite of what I claimed it does.

The point Joseph makes is that if they teach the Biblical Gospel, are inspired, and are “called as Aaron” (by revelation) they would be accepted of God.

Not sure how this contradicts anything I’ve said on these threads surrounding this quotation.
It contradicts what you are saying because Aaron was called by revelation to one who already had priesthood authority and was then ordained by this same individual.

If people are called as was Aaron and preach the true gospel, which includes the requirement to receive the laying on of hands to receive the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, then of course they will be accepted. They will also of necessity by members of the Lord's true church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is very clear from everything Joseph taught.

Post Reply