LDS Freedom Forum

mudflap wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:17 am

ransomme wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 5:35 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 11:18 pm

No, authority and power are not synonymous and the second definition confirms the legitimate authority that King Noah and his priests held over the people in my opinion.

They are synonymous.

God's authority is God's honor, and that is the basis for "power of the priesthood". The power is the right to officiate. And not to be confused with the gifts of the Spirit.

Authority should not be confused with being ordained. King Noah was in all likelihood ordained to the priesthood but he had no authority/power because he was not righteous.

Bingo.

Priesthood in the ancient world was always "father to son". It's only in our time that it's become "all worthy males". That's why (I think) Abraham, when he discovered he had a right to the priesthood, went about obtaining his promised blessings - except his own father was unrighteous, so apparently he got it from God himself.

But back to the wicked king Noah and his priests - If they didn't have "the priesthood", then how did Alma get it? And then eventually claimed authority to ordain others and start churches? God accepted Alma's authority.

So the priests of Noah must have had the priesthood, but just didn't have any authority or power due to unrighteousness.

D&C 121 holds the key here, as pointed out above: "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

In other words, you can have the priesthood, and still not have the recognition from heaven of your authority, based on unworthiness due to pride / ambition / seeking to control others.

As it says, "many are called, but few are chosen".

That means a majority of priesthood holders have no authority, if you believe that "many" = "a lot" and "few" = "not many".

Luke wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 4:44 am This restoration of Priesthood by Elijah took place on 3 April 1836

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

ransomme wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 10:33 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

1) There are examples where it is conferred simply through the Holy Ghost, the voice of the Lord or from Him directly.
2) It's not automatic, one has to receive the priesthood
3) Depends

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:01 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 10:33 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

1) There are examples where it is conferred simply through the Holy Ghost, the voice of the Lord or from Him directly.
2) It's not automatic, one has to receive the priesthood
3) Depends

You didn’t really answer my questions.

1) If you believe that ordination by the laying on of hands isn’t actually necessary to receive the priesthood, why has it consistently been conferred this way in all dispensations?

I would also love to see any examples you could produce that you believe are instances were the priesthood was undoubtedly conferred without laying on of hands.

2) This doesn’t answer my question at all. Here’s the question again:

If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) This also doesn’t answer my question at all. Here it is again:

At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

ransomme wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:45 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:01 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 10:33 pm

1) There are examples where it is conferred simply through the Holy Ghost, the voice of the Lord or from Him directly.
2) It's not automatic, one has to receive the priesthood
3) Depends

You didn’t really answer my questions.

1) If you believe that ordination by the laying on of hands isn’t actually necessary to receive the priesthood, why has it consistently been conferred this way in all dispensations?

I would also love to see any examples you could produce that you believe are instances were the priesthood was undoubtedly conferred without laying on of hands.

2) This doesn’t answer my question at all. Here’s the question again:

If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) This also doesn’t answer my question at all. Here it is again:

At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

Perhaps they weren't satisfactory to you, but nonetheless, they were still answers.

1) Off the top of my head, Helaman 10 lays out Nehpi son of Helaman receiving a great portion of authority/priesthood, and that was done by the voice of God.
Esaias received it under the "hand of God".

2) Unless you have the Spirit you have no authority.

After Adam was baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, God said: And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen. (Moses 6:67-68)

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121)

3) As soon as they offend the Spirit

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 5:57 am

ransomme wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:45 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:01 pm

You didn’t really answer my questions.

1) If you believe that ordination by the laying on of hands isn’t actually necessary to receive the priesthood, why has it consistently been conferred this way in all dispensations?

I would also love to see any examples you could produce that you believe are instances were the priesthood was undoubtedly conferred without laying on of hands.

2) This doesn’t answer my question at all. Here’s the question again:

If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) This also doesn’t answer my question at all. Here it is again:

At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

Perhaps they weren't satisfactory to you, but nonetheless, they were still answers.

1) Off the top of my head, Helaman 10 lays out Nehpi son of Helaman receiving a great portion of authority/priesthood, and that was done by the voice of God.
Esaias received it under the "hand of God".

2) Unless you have the Spirit you have no authority.

After Adam was baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, God said: And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen. (Moses 6:67-68)

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121)

3) As soon as they offend the Spirit

1) One of the scriptures you provided says that the priesthood was received “under the hand of God” in the middle of a list of men who all received it under the hand of other men. That clearly suggests an ordination by laying on of hands. In the other cases, you are merely assuming that an ordination by laying hands wasn’t part of the process.

And even if you assume that ordination wasn’t part of the process in a few isolated cases, you still haven’t explained why the priesthood was consistently conferred by laying on of hands through all dispensations and why God commanded it to be done, if it isn’t actually necessary.

2) What do you consider "offending the spirit?" One impure thought? One feeling of anger towards another? Or does it take more than that to lose all authority?

3) You are also avoiding the issue of the validity of ordinances performed by a priesthood holder who has "offended the spirit." Are these ordinances still valid in the eyes of God or must they be redone?

ransomme wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 6:17 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 5:57 am

ransomme wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:45 am

Perhaps they weren't satisfactory to you, but nonetheless, they were still answers.

1) Off the top of my head, Helaman 10 lays out Nehpi son of Helaman receiving a great portion of authority/priesthood, and that was done by the voice of God.
Esaias received it under the "hand of God".

2) Unless you have the Spirit you have no authority.

After Adam was baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, God said: And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen. (Moses 6:67-68)

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121)

3) As soon as they offend the Spirit

1) One of the scriptures you provided says that the priesthood was received “under the hand of God” in the middle of a list of men who all received it under the hand of other men. That clearly suggests an ordination by laying on of hands. In the other cases, you are merely assuming that an ordination by laying hands wasn’t part of the process.

And even if you assume that ordination wasn’t part of the process in a few isolated cases, you still haven’t explained why the priesthood was consistently conferred by laying on of hands through all dispensations and why God commanded it to be done, if it isn’t actually necessary.

2) What do you consider "offending the spirit?" One impure thought? One feeling of anger towards another? Or does it take more than that to lose all authority?

3) You are also avoiding the issue of the validity of ordinances performed by a priesthood holder who has "offended the spirit." Are these ordinances still valid in the eyes of God or must they be redone?

1) that is still out of the norm. As is by a voice. Take Alma's commission to baptize himself as being out of the norm. as well. There are many cases that don't seem standard. I think the lesson is don't paint God into s box, which you seen bent on doing.

Anytime it comes from the Spirit then it is authorized from Alma's baptism to Nephi executing Laban.

2) whether or not the Spirit is involved should be clear. There are a list of fruits after all. God is ultimately the arbiter of this obviously, not you or me.

3) I'm not avoiding it. You don't know, and neither do I. See #2 above.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 9:02 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:17 am

ransomme wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 5:35 am

They are synonymous.

God's authority is God's honor, and that is the basis for "power of the priesthood". The power is the right to officiate. And not to be confused with the gifts of the Spirit.

Authority should not be confused with being ordained. King Noah was in all likelihood ordained to the priesthood but he had no authority/power because he was not righteous.

Bingo.

Priesthood in the ancient world was always "father to son". It's only in our time that it's become "all worthy males". That's why (I think) Abraham, when he discovered he had a right to the priesthood, went about obtaining his promised blessings - except his own father was unrighteous, so apparently he got it from God himself.

But back to the wicked king Noah and his priests - If they didn't have "the priesthood", then how did Alma get it? And then eventually claimed authority to ordain others and start churches? God accepted Alma's authority.

So the priests of Noah must have had the priesthood, but just didn't have any authority or power due to unrighteousness.

D&C 121 holds the key here, as pointed out above: "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

In other words, you can have the priesthood, and still not have the recognition from heaven of your authority, based on unworthiness due to pride / ambition / seeking to control others.

As it says, "many are called, but few are chosen".

That means a majority of priesthood holders have no authority, if you believe that "many" = "a lot" and "few" = "not many".

If I understand you correctly, you believe that those who are called to the priesthood but not chosen, hold the priesthood but don't have any authority. Do you believe that the ordinances they perform are still valid? For example, do you believe that baptisms performed by the majority of the priesthood holders in the church are valid in the eyes of God or not?

the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:43 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 9:02 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:17 am
Bingo.

Priesthood in the ancient world was always "father to son". It's only in our time that it's become "all worthy males". That's why (I think) Abraham, when he discovered he had a right to the priesthood, went about obtaining his promised blessings - except his own father was unrighteous, so apparently he got it from God himself.

But back to the wicked king Noah and his priests - If they didn't have "the priesthood", then how did Alma get it? And then eventually claimed authority to ordain others and start churches? God accepted Alma's authority.

So the priests of Noah must have had the priesthood, but just didn't have any authority or power due to unrighteousness.

D&C 121 holds the key here, as pointed out above: "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

In other words, you can have the priesthood, and still not have the recognition from heaven of your authority, based on unworthiness due to pride / ambition / seeking to control others.

As it says, "many are called, but few are chosen".

That means a majority of priesthood holders have no authority, if you believe that "many" = "a lot" and "few" = "not many".

If I understand you correctly, you believe that those who are called to the priesthood but not chosen, hold the priesthood but don't have any authority. Do you believe that the ordinances they perform are still valid? For example, do you believe that baptisms performed by the majority of the priesthood holders in the church are valid in the eyes of God or not?

Yes. It's not the fault of the recipient as to whether the priesthood holder is worthy. But an "un-chosen" priesthood holder will rarely do anything by the Spirit - and definitely won't lead others to Christ - and may even lead them FROM Christ (and they will have to pay for those sins). As we read further in section 121:

the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

Folks think the priesthood is all about raw power - and I'll give them that power is contained within the priesthood. We often think of the grandiose priesthood manifestations as the norm - entire cities being leveled by an earthquake after being cursed by two elders wiping the dust from their shoes. But D&C 121 shows us that priesthood is more about the power of influence and persuasion - the seemingly mundane, quiet, non-spectacular everyday manifestations of priesthood power.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:55 am

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:43 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 9:02 pm

If I understand you correctly, you believe that those who are called to the priesthood but not chosen, hold the priesthood but don't have any authority. Do you believe that the ordinances they perform are still valid? For example, do you believe that baptisms performed by the majority of the priesthood holders in the church are valid in the eyes of God or not?

Yes. It's not the fault of the recipient as to whether the priesthood holder is worthy. But an "un-chosen" priesthood holder will rarely do anything by the Spirit - and definitely won't lead others to Christ - and may even lead them FROM Christ (and they will have to pay for those sins). As we read further in section 121:

the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

Folks think the priesthood is all about raw power - and I'll give them that power is contained within the priesthood. We often think of the grandiose priesthood manifestations as the norm - entire cities being leveled by an earthquake after being cursed by two elders wiping the dust from their shoes. But D&C 121 shows us that priesthood is more about the power of influence and persuasion - the seemingly mundane, quiet, non-spectacular everyday manifestations of priesthood power.

I agree that the ordinances performed by an "unworthy" priesthood holder are generally still valid. Which to me means that the priesthood holder retained his authority to perform the ordinance, though he lacks power in the priesthood. We could obviously debate terminology (which I’m not interested in doing) but it sounds like we are more or less in agreement about the practical application of the issue.

There’s also obviously a spectrum of “worthiness" and "power" in regards to the priesthood. Someone who has committed adultery and is unrepentant is much less worthy and has much less power in the priesthood (if any at all) than someone who is guilty of lesser crimes. And no priesthood holder is free of all sin.

mudflap wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 11:17 am

ransomme wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 5:35 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 11:18 pm

No, authority and power are not synonymous and the second definition confirms the legitimate authority that King Noah and his priests held over the people in my opinion.

They are synonymous.

God's authority is God's honor, and that is the basis for "power of the priesthood". The power is the right to officiate. And not to be confused with the gifts of the Spirit.

Authority should not be confused with being ordained. King Noah was in all likelihood ordained to the priesthood but he had no authority/power because he was not righteous.

Bingo.

Priesthood in the ancient world was always "father to son". It's only in our time that it's become "all worthy males". That's why (I think) Abraham, when he discovered he had a right to the priesthood, went about obtaining his promised blessings - except his own father was unrighteous, so apparently he got it from God himself.

But back to the wicked king Noah and his priests - If they didn't have "the priesthood", then how did Alma get it? And then eventually claimed authority to ordain others and start churches? God accepted Alma's authority.

So the priests of Noah must have had the priesthood, but just didn't have any authority or power due to unrighteousness.

D&C 121 holds the key here, as pointed out above: "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

In other words, you can have the priesthood, and still not have the recognition from heaven of your authority, based on unworthiness due to pride / ambition / seeking to control others.

As it says, "many are called, but few are chosen".

That means a majority of priesthood holders have no authority, if you believe that "many" = "a lot" and "few" = "not many".

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:55 am

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:43 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 9:02 pm

If I understand you correctly, you believe that those who are called to the priesthood but not chosen, hold the priesthood but don't have any authority. Do you believe that the ordinances they perform are still valid? For example, do you believe that baptisms performed by the majority of the priesthood holders in the church are valid in the eyes of God or not?

Yes. It's not the fault of the recipient as to whether the priesthood holder is worthy. But an "un-chosen" priesthood holder will rarely do anything by the Spirit - and definitely won't lead others to Christ - and may even lead them FROM Christ (and they will have to pay for those sins). As we read further in section 121:

the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

Folks think the priesthood is all about raw power - and I'll give them that power is contained within the priesthood. We often think of the grandiose priesthood manifestations as the norm - entire cities being leveled by an earthquake after being cursed by two elders wiping the dust from their shoes. But D&C 121 shows us that priesthood is more about the power of influence and persuasion - the seemingly mundane, quiet, non-spectacular everyday manifestations of priesthood power.

I agree that the ordinances performed by an "unworthy" priesthood holder are generally still valid. Which to me means that the priesthood holder retained his authority to perform the ordinance, though he lacks power in the priesthood. We could obviously debate terminology (which I’m not interested in doing) but it sounds like we are more or less in agreement about the practical application of the issue.

There’s also obviously a spectrum of “worthiness" and "power" in regards to the priesthood. Someone who has committed adultery and is unrepentant is much less worthy and has much less power in the priesthood (if any at all) than someone who is guilty of lesser crimes. And no priesthood holder is free of all sin.

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

2 Cor 12:9 for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

Moroni 10:32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm 2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm 3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

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

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:01 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm At what point are the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

when the church no longer recognizes the man's authority (takes away his membership card?), as implied in D&C 20:

Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 12:33 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:55 am

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:43 am

Yes. It's not the fault of the recipient as to whether the priesthood holder is worthy. But an "un-chosen" priesthood holder will rarely do anything by the Spirit - and definitely won't lead others to Christ - and may even lead them FROM Christ (and they will have to pay for those sins). As we read further in section 121:



Folks think the priesthood is all about raw power - and I'll give them that power is contained within the priesthood. We often think of the grandiose priesthood manifestations as the norm - entire cities being leveled by an earthquake after being cursed by two elders wiping the dust from their shoes. But D&C 121 shows us that priesthood is more about the power of influence and persuasion - the seemingly mundane, quiet, non-spectacular everyday manifestations of priesthood power.

I agree that the ordinances performed by an "unworthy" priesthood holder are generally still valid. Which to me means that the priesthood holder retained his authority to perform the ordinance, though he lacks power in the priesthood. We could obviously debate terminology (which I’m not interested in doing) but it sounds like we are more or less in agreement about the practical application of the issue.

There’s also obviously a spectrum of “worthiness" and "power" in regards to the priesthood. Someone who has committed adultery and is unrepentant is much less worthy and has much less power in the priesthood (if any at all) than someone who is guilty of lesser crimes. And no priesthood holder is free of all sin.

yes, agreed.

but on the part about "no priesthood holder is free of all sin" - I don't know - I think I could make a case for "human imperfections/sin + being perfected in Christ = "free from all sin.

I mean, don't we read about being "made free from sin" all over the place?

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

And being perfected in Christ - I don't think perfection has any sin in it:

2 Cor 12:9 for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

Moroni 10:32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

I think Mormons like to think of "being perfect" as some far off eternal goal, but why can't it be a present reality?

Anyway, just thoughts.

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:01 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

probably. I mean, God can do whatever He wants, right?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm 2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

I think anyone ordained to the priesthood by one having authority actually does have the priesthood.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm 3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

I think these are two separate questions - can I break them up into:

At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority?


IMO, it would be the instant he begins to cover his sins, gratify his pride / vain ambitions / exercise unrighteous dominion / compulsion - basically do the whole satanic "power and control" thing, just as it says in D&C 121 36-37:

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

At what point are the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

when the church no longer recognizes the man's authority (takes away his membership card?), as implied in D&C 20:

Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

Again in D&C 42:11 - he must be known (by the church) to have authority:

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

The question you didn't ask: at what point does the church lose authority? (can we even ask this?) I mean, D&C 13 clearly states that "this [priesthood] shall never again be taken from the earth", but it's not so clear on whether the church will or won't always stand - I mean, the "Kingdom of God" isn't necessarily always the Church of God, is it? - I hope it is, but some of the stuff they've come up with lately.... sheesh.... The Bride of Christ - at least in times past.... isn't always faithful to her Husband, right?

Anyway, interesting thoughts...

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 4:56 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:01 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

probably. I mean, God can do whatever He wants, right?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm 2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

I think anyone ordained to the priesthood by one having authority actually does have the priesthood.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm 3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

I think these are two separate questions - can I break them up into:

At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority?


IMO, it would be the instant he begins to cover his sins, gratify his pride / vain ambitions / exercise unrighteous dominion / compulsion - basically do the whole satanic "power and control" thing, just as it says in D&C 121 36-37:

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

At what point are the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

when the church no longer recognizes the man's authority (takes away his membership card?), as implied in D&C 20:

Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

Again in D&C 42:11 - he must be known (by the church) to have authority:

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

The question you didn't ask: at what point does the church lose authority? (can we even ask this?) I mean, D&C 13 clearly states that "this [priesthood] shall never again be taken from the earth", but it's not so clear on whether the church will or won't always stand - I mean, the "Kingdom of God" isn't necessarily always the Church of God, is it? - I hope it is, but some of the stuff they've come up with lately.... sheesh.... The Bride of Christ - at least in times past.... isn't always faithful to her Husband, right?

Anyway, interesting thoughts...

Excellent thoughts.

In regards to your last question, I think the church will retain it's authority at least until the literal kingdom of God is established upon the earth. And I expect the literal kingdom of God to come from out of the church, so in that sense I don't believe that the church will ever lose its authority. The righteous members of the church (the wheat) will just be separated from the wicked and ungodly (tares) and go and build up the kingdom of God on earth and establish the New Jerusalem. I believe that these righteous members of the church will maintain a consistent unbroken chain of authority.

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:57 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 4:56 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 2:01 pm

probably. I mean, God can do whatever He wants, right?


I think anyone ordained to the priesthood by one having authority actually does have the priesthood.


I think these are two separate questions - can I break them up into:

At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority?


IMO, it would be the instant he begins to cover his sins, gratify his pride / vain ambitions / exercise unrighteous dominion / compulsion - basically do the whole satanic "power and control" thing, just as it says in D&C 121 36-37:




At what point are the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

when the church no longer recognizes the man's authority (takes away his membership card?), as implied in D&C 20:



Again in D&C 42:11 - he must be known (by the church) to have authority:


The question you didn't ask: at what point does the church lose authority? (can we even ask this?) I mean, D&C 13 clearly states that "this [priesthood] shall never again be taken from the earth", but it's not so clear on whether the church will or won't always stand - I mean, the "Kingdom of God" isn't necessarily always the Church of God, is it? - I hope it is, but some of the stuff they've come up with lately.... sheesh.... The Bride of Christ - at least in times past.... isn't always faithful to her Husband, right?

Anyway, interesting thoughts...

Excellent thoughts.

In regards to your last question, I think the church will retain it's authority at least until the literal kingdom of God is established upon the earth. And I expect the literal kingdom of God to come from out of the church, so in that sense I don't believe that the church will ever lose its authority. The righteous members of the church (the wheat) will just be separated from the wicked and ungodly (tares) and go and build up the kingdom of God on earth and establish the New Jerusalem. I believe that these righteous members of the church will maintain a consistent unbroken chain of authority.

Yes, but it'll take an awful lot of painful cleansing at this point. I mean, they don't even really talk about Zion anymore - we're not really training our lay members how to even become a zion-like people (farmers / animal care-takers, builders, mechanics - oh, and all debt free.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 10:51 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 7:57 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 4:56 pm

Excellent thoughts.

In regards to your last question, I think the church will retain it's authority at least until the literal kingdom of God is established upon the earth. And I expect the literal kingdom of God to come from out of the church, so in that sense I don't believe that the church will ever lose its authority. The righteous members of the church (the wheat) will just be separated from the wicked and ungodly (tares) and go and build up the kingdom of God on earth and establish the New Jerusalem. I believe that these righteous members of the church will maintain a consistent unbroken chain of authority.

Yes, but it'll take an awful lot of painful cleansing at this point. I mean, they don't even really talk about Zion anymore - we're not really training our lay members how to even become a zion-like people (farmers / animal care-takers, builders, mechanics - oh, and all debt free.

I agree that a painful cleansing will be necessary. As far as being a Zion-like people is concerned, I think the only requirement is to be pure in heart. But I'm sure the life skills you mentioned would come in handy when it comes to building the New Jerusalem.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 11th, 2023, 3:46 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:56 pm For those who are arguing that ordination by the laying on of hands doesn't confer any priesthood authority, I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe that an ordination by the laying on of hands is even necessary to receive priesthood authority?

2) If a man is ordained to the priesthood, but you don't believe that he has actually received the priesthood because there wasn't a "personal commission" by the Holy Ghost (whatever that even means), and he performs an ordinance, do you consider this ordinance to be valid, or does it have to be redone?

3) At what point do you believe that a man loses his legitimate priesthood authority and the ordinances he performs are no longer valid and will need to be redone?

1. Necessary? No. I think it can be a physical sign though of something that already happened. If it is necessary then who did it to Adam, Lehi, Alma, or Isaiah who was called into God's council?
JST Genesis 14 mentions that the Melchizedek priesthood is conferred "not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother", but "by the calling of his own voice". Is God not powerful enough to give you authority without a physical touch?

2. If someone doesn't have the authority, but they think they do, then is God bound by their actions? Does man control God or does God control man?

3. Man loses his authority when God takes it away. Joseph lost his gift of translation because of sin which caused God to take it away. I don't think any man can take anyone's authority away. Certainly, a Stake President can't take someone's priesthood authority away by simply checking a box in a computer program. If you think they can then what if they are in error. Is the authority still removed just because a leader says it should be? Again does man control God?

Teancum1 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:02 am D&C 121: 34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Amen to the priesthood of those men.

JLHPROF wrote: ↑September 16th, 2023, 5:01 pm

Teancum1 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2023, 8:02 am D&C 121: 34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Amen to the priesthood of those men.

Easily the most abused scripture by apostates. Anyone does anything they don't like, pull out D&C 121 and shout Amen.