LDS Freedom Forum

To lay the foundation upon which an understanding of Priesthood Succession in this dispensation may be built, it first becomes necessary to have a correct understanding of the highest order of the Priesthood.

In a few weeks time, at the time of writing this, it will be 200 years since Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him this promise:

• “Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
  And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
  If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.” (D&C 2:1-3)

This restoration of Priesthood by Elijah took place on 3 April 1836, and the event was recorded as a third-hand account by the Prophet's scribe, Warren Cowdery, at the time of its happening, and was later published as a first-hand account in the 1850s, and can be found in D&C 110. It reads:

• “After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.
  After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
  After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:
  Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—
  To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—
  Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.” (D&C 110:11-16)

What did the power of this Priesthood entail? Joseph Smith said:

• “The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelations, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God, even unto the turning of the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the hearts of the children unto the fathers, even those who are in heaven.” — Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith <10 March 1844> page 337)

This Priesthood, then, is the Fullness of the Priesthood, of which Brigham Young said:

• “Every man that gets his endowment, whether he is High Priest or Seventy, may go into any part of the world and build up the kingdom if he has the keys, or on to any island. We have been ordained to the Melchisedeck Priesthood, which is the highest order of Priesthood, and it has many branches or offices. And those who have come in here and have received their washing and anointing will be ordained Kings and Priests, and will then have received the fullness of the Priesthood, all that can be given on earth, for Brother Joseph said he had given us all that could be given to man on the earth.” — Brigham Young (Heber C. Kimball, Journal, Kept by William Clayton, 26 December 1846, CHL, in George D. Smith, ed. An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, page. 234)

This Priesthood, then, is properly conferred through the Temple ordinances. John Taylor explained:

• “The Seventies have the High Priesthood, and many of them have received ordinances in the Temple, qualifying them to build up the kingdom of God, if every other officer was dead or killed, and so have the High Priests. So far, then, as authority is concerned, they both have authority . . .” — John Taylor (Millennial Star vol. 9 no. 21 <1 November 1847> page 325)

Orson Pratt explained the rights of this authority of a King and Priest:

• “Where the two [Kingly authority and Priestly authority] are combined and the individual perfected, he has almighty power both as a King and as a Priest; both offices are then merged in one. The distinctions then, will be merely in the name and not in the authority; either as a King or a Priest he will then have power and dominion over all things, and reign over all. Both titles, combined, will then not give him any more power than either one singly. It is evident that the distinctions of title are only expressive of the condition of things prior to the glorification and perfection of the persons who hold the Priesthood; for when they are perfected, they will have power to act in every branch of authority by virtue of the great, and almighty, and eternal Priesthood which they hold; they can then sway their sceptres as Kings, rule as Princes, minister as Apostles, officiate as Teachers, or act in the humblest or most exalted capacity. There is no branch of the Priesthood so low that they cannot condescend to officiate therein; none so high, that they cannot reach forth the arm of power and control the same.” — Orson Pratt (The Seer vol. 1 no. 10 <October 1853> page 145)

Joseph Smith first introduced this Priesthood among a small group of his friends in May 1842. Willard Richards, writing an account for the History of the Church from the perspective of the Prophet, said:

• “I spent the day in the upper part of the store, that is in my private office * * * in council with General James Adams, of Springfield, Patriarch Hyrum Smith, Bishops Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, and President Brigham Young and Elders Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the Firstborn, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days.” — Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith <4 May 1842> page 237, asterisks in original)

George Miller explained that the “highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood” conferred on this occasion was Patriarchal Priesthood:

• “Many of the Apostles and Elders having returned from England, Joseph washed and anointed as Kings and Priests to God, and over the House of Israel, the following named persons, as he said he was commanded of God, viz: James Adams (of Springfield), William Law, William Marks, Willard Richards, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Newel K. Whitney, Hyrum Smith, and myself; and conferred on us Patriarchal Priesthood. This took place on the 5th and 6th [i.e. 4th and 5th] of May, 1842.” — George Miller (George Miller, Letter to the Northern Islander, 26 June 1855, in Annual Publications of the Historical Society of Southern California vol. 10 part 3 <1917> pages 120-121)

Joseph Smith later referenced this Priesthood in some of his sermons:

• “I anointed him [James Adams] to the patriarchal power—to receive the keys of knowledge and power, by revelation to himself.” — Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith <9 October 1843> page 326)

• “[The] 2[nd Priesthood referred to in Hebrews 7 is] Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest [Priesthood] yet experienced in this church” — Joseph Smith (Franklin D. Richards, Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

One of the virtues of this Patriarchal Priesthood of Kings and Priests was the right to preside over one’s posterity. John Taylor said:

• “We find that after the days of Noah an order was introduced called the patriarchal order, in which every man managed his own family affairs, and prominent men among them were kings and priests unto God, and officiated in what is known among us as the Priesthood of the Son of God, or the Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek. Man began again to multiply on the face of the earth, and the heads of families became their kings and priests, that is, the fathers of their own people, and they were more or less under the influence and guidance of the Almighty.” — John Taylor (Journal of Discourses vol. 17 <7 October 1874> page 207)

One man wrote in Nauvoo:

• “I am ancious for you and all the rest of our family to be here. You know according to Scripture all things have got to be restored If so the old man or patriarch is not to be separated from his posterity until death nor the children from the father. But like good old Jacob who stood at the hed of his family till a good old age and then called his sons together and blessed them This doctrine along with many other glorious truths have got to be restored in there place This patriarchal order is already entered into by many families in this city This fornoon we have been hearing Jos[ep]h Smith preach in the open air to a congreagation of several thousand I rejoice in the truths which I hear from time to time All the tribulation and disappointment through which the Saints have to pass is forgotten when the glory and greatness of the Eternal worlds are placed before the mond. It is then of the greatest importance that we keep the commandments of God given to his Saints that we may escape the judgments which await the inhabitants of the earth My desire is that you and I with our Familys and conections may stand on Mount Zion where there shall be peace and safty.” — John Bennion (John Bennion, Letter to Samuel Bennion, 18 February 1844, CHL)

Part of this order of things was the Law of Adoption. Brigham Young said

• “While sick and asleep about noonday of the 17th inst., I dreamed that I went to see Joseph.
  * * *
  [He said ‘]Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Father in Heaven before they came into the world. Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion.’
  Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity. Joseph again said, ‘Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right.’” — Brigham Young (Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 23 February 1847, CHL)

He later explained:

• “With the introduction of the Priesthood upon the earth was also introduced the sealing ordinance, that the chain of the Priesthood from Adam to the latest generation might be united in one unbroken continuance. It is the same power and the same keys that Elijah held, and was to exercise in the last days. ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.’ By this power men will be sealed to men back to Adam, completing and making perfect the chain of the Priesthood from his day to the winding up scene.” — Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses vol. 9 <6 April 1862> page 269)

The Law of Adoption ensured that men whose fathers were not believers in the Gospel would be able to be sealed to other righteous men, thus allowing them to be full partakers of all the blessings God desired to give His people:

• “’Why is Adoption necessary?’ To constitute the person a legal heir to the promises. ‘What is the position of one not adopted, but yet has all the other blessings conferred upon him that can be conferred on man on earth?’ He is not legitimized and cannot enjoy the blessings out of the order of the priesthood.” — John D. T. McAllister (Levi Savage, Diary, 7 September 1888, HBLL)

One example of this was that of John D. Lee and George Laub:

• “Now in this time I attached myself to John D. Lee’s family to become his adopted son according to the order of the law of God through the obedience of the Gospel. And this time the endowment commenced and John D. Lee was one among the first that was chosen to receive his endowment, And on the 19th of December, I was chosen to enter into the House of the Lord (or the temple) in Nauvoo to receive my endowment . . .
  * * *
  Law of adoption tended on the 5th of February 1846. I and my wife Mary Jane, with many others, were adopted into John D. Lee’s family. This I took upon myself the name of Lee in this manner; George Laub Lee and my wife’s name Mary Jane Laub Lee. This order of adoption will link the chain of the priesthood in such a way that it cannot be separated.” — George Laub (Autobiography of George Laub, typescript, HBLL)

To be continued...

I've always wondered why Elias and Elijah are separated. Elias is the Greek/KJV NT name for Elijah, and the Arabic is similar. Unless Elisha is meant.

Niemand wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 4:48 am I've always wondered why Elias and Elijah are separated. Elias is the Greek/KJV NT name for Elijah, and the Arabic is similar. Unless Elisha is meant.

The way Joseph Smith understood it is that "Elias" was a title. At least in this context.

Luke wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 5:22 am

Niemand wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 4:48 am I've always wondered why Elias and Elijah are separated. Elias is the Greek/KJV NT name for Elijah, and the Arabic is similar. Unless Elisha is meant.

The way Joseph Smith understood it is that "Elias" was a title. At least in this context.

I think so. Or even the title of a spirit, as he explained it in the TPJS.
Elias as the spirit that John the Baptist and Moses represented. The Aaronic spirit as he also called it.
Elijah as the spirit of Enoch and Melchizedek and those that Joseph might have referred to as Melchizedek priesthood. The power to come into the presence of the Savior.
Messias as the spirit of well, Messiah. The power to be in the presence of the Father. Like Adam. Like Jesus.

Joseph had to choose the words that made sense to him to describe what he came to understand.

Can any priesthood be conferred unless the Lord manifests it through the witness of the HG (i.e. a personal commission)? In other words, can priesthood ever be conferred solely by the laying on of hands?

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:43 pm Can any priesthood be conferred unless the Lord manifests it through the witness of the HG (i.e. a personal commission)? In other words, can priesthood ever be conferred solely by the laying on of hands?

Authority, yes. Power, no.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:52 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:43 pm Can any priesthood be conferred unless the Lord manifests it through the witness of the HG (i.e. a personal commission)? In other words, can priesthood ever be conferred solely by the laying on of hands?

Authority, yes. Power, no.

I disagree. You can’t just think that you’ve received the Lord’s blessing (authority) when no witness was received from the HG. I know the church believes that, but it’s not true.

Let’s just look at the BoM example of King Noah. He would technically have been “authorized” to exercise all rights of the priesthood solely based upon the laying on of hands. He was a wicked man and had neither authority nor power.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:57 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:52 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:43 pm Can any priesthood be conferred unless the Lord manifests it through the witness of the HG (i.e. a personal commission)? In other words, can priesthood ever be conferred solely by the laying on of hands?

Authority, yes. Power, no.

I disagree. You can’t just think that you’ve received the Lord’s blessing (authority) when no witness was received from the HG. I know the church believes that, but it’s not true.

Let’s just look at the BoM example of King Noah. He would technically have been “authorized” to exercise all rights of the priesthood solely based upon the laying on of hands. He was a wicked man and had neither authority nor power.

Where does the BoM say that neither King Noah nor his priests had any priesthood authority?

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

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:57 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:52 pm

Authority, yes. Power, no.

I disagree. You can’t just think that you’ve received the Lord’s blessing (authority) when no witness was received from the HG. I know the church believes that, but it’s not true.

Let’s just look at the BoM example of King Noah. He would technically have been “authorized” to exercise all rights of the priesthood solely based upon the laying on of hands. He was a wicked man and had neither authority nor power.

Where does the BoM say that neither King Noah nor his priests had any priesthood authority?

Neither or either? Read the record. These men clearly felt they had authority. Take any of the wicked periods of the Nephites. They had their high priests with supposed “authority”, yet none of which had actually received a commission from the Lord. Hands do not give authority.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:14 pm

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

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 9:57 pm

I disagree. You can’t just think that you’ve received the Lord’s blessing (authority) when no witness was received from the HG. I know the church believes that, but it’s not true.

Let’s just look at the BoM example of King Noah. He would technically have been “authorized” to exercise all rights of the priesthood solely based upon the laying on of hands. He was a wicked man and had neither authority nor power.

Where does the BoM say that neither King Noah nor his priests had any priesthood authority?

Neither or either? Read the record. These men clearly felt they had authority. Take any of the wicked periods of the Nephites. They had their high priests with supposed “authority”, yet none of which had actually received a commission from the Lord. Hands do not give authority.

So by way of clarification, you’re saying that it’s your belief that they had no authority due to their wickedness, but you can’t provide a reference for where the BoM specifically states that they didn’t have any authority?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:14 pm

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

Where does the BoM say that neither King Noah nor his priests had any priesthood authority?

Neither or either? Read the record. These men clearly felt they had authority. Take any of the wicked periods of the Nephites. They had their high priests with supposed “authority”, yet none of which had actually received a commission from the Lord. Hands do not give authority.

So by way of clarification, you’re saying that it’s your belief that they had no authority due to their wickedness, but you can’t provide a reference for where the BoM specifically states that they didn’t have any authority?

So, from what I gather, you believe he did have authority. Correct?

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:34 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:14 pm

Neither or either? Read the record. These men clearly felt they had authority. Take any of the wicked periods of the Nephites. They had their high priests with supposed “authority”, yet none of which had actually received a commission from the Lord. Hands do not give authority.

So by way of clarification, you’re saying that it’s your belief that they had no authority due to their wickedness, but you can’t provide a reference for where the BoM specifically states that they didn’t have any authority?

So, from what I gather, you believe he did have authority. Correct?

Yes, it is my opinion that he and his priests had authority. But as far as I am aware the BoM doesn’t specifically tell us one way or the other.

Authority :

1.
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
"he had absolute authority over his subordinates"

2.
a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.
"the health authorities"

Did King Noah have authority from the Lord, and to act in His name? A resounding No!!

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 10:57 pm Authority :

1.
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
"he had absolute authority over his subordinates"

2.
a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.
"the health authorities"

Did King Noah have authority from the Lord, and to act in His name? A resounding No!!

They may or may not have. The scriptures don’t specifically tell us one way or the other. I believe that they did have legitimate priesthood authority and retained that authority even though they had no priesthood power due to their wickedness. You are free to disagree.

Read that definition again, in particular the second. Notice the word power. Authority and power are synonyms. You do not pass authority through the simple act of the laying on of hands.

Did the Lord "authorize" them to act in his name? No. If we believe they were, then we don't understand the priesthood.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 11:14 pm Read that definition again, in particular the second. Notice the word power. Authority and power are synonyms.

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.

Then we disagree.

Speaking in sincerity, this all appears very ambiguous. So far, there has been no power manifest nor any authority over anything in this world. In the present day, there are none exhibiting power or authority. I've always considered the priesthood as a mystery since there is no discernible difference between a man with the priesthood and man without it.

I speculate that the priesthood is relative to the Egyptian rites of priests as found in the religion of Osiris which is as a man once told me, The priesthood is "The power of God unto salvation". I have pondered that statement, which he shared with me from a direct encounter with divinity, for decades now.

I realize that Brigham is held in derision by many on this forum and I , myself don't hold any respect for him, but his statement concerning a future time may be valid. He said something like "the priesthood shall then take effect" in regards to the power or rites of resurrection and that "strangers" would come and teach it to those that were ready.

What intrigues me the most in the OP is the "turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children and children to the fathers." This obviously holds a key of understanding of what the priesthood is.

The debatable point of authority is murky at best. Every polygamous offshoot claims the sole "authority" without exception no matter how large or small the group is. They go at lengths in giving their account and lineage of how they, alone, hold the keys. I find the debate to be a farcical argument between highly subjective men , all desiring the power and authority for themselves yet having no comprehension whatsoever of what it even means.

When a man of authority and power comes into view, the speculation will abruptly end with many self perceived "great men" slinking off into the shadows.

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

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 11:14 pm Read that definition again, in particular the second. Notice the word power. Authority and power are synonyms.

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.

I think we make this idea of “authority” far to difficult. And, I fear, the LDS org has messed with the meaning of words. They do this often BTW.

Let’s just look at the root of the word: Author.

In reality, an author is the originator. The priesthood and its authority cannot originate with man. It cannot be given by man. And for some odd reason, we tend to want to categorize the priesthood, divorcing the meaning of the word. At the very core of the word “authority” is power, even though Bjorn doesn’t believe that. And why do I think he wants to? Because we aren’t seeing the power of the priesthood w/in the church by its highest officers. We are not seeing God’s authority, because His authority was never given.

And, as a side note, I do believe there are people who exercise priesthood authority. There are men and women who heal. There are men and women who serve God with a pure heart. The priesthood has become corrupt in what it means in the LDS org. “Authority” has become a tool for unrighteousness dominion in their hands. The LDS org teaches that they hold the right to tell other people what to think and believe. They believe it is their right to speak for God in all that they say. Hence the harsh criticism given by many ancient writers for the church leaders of our day.

FrankOne wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 11:50 pm Speaking in sincerity, this all appears very ambiguous. So far, there has been no power manifest nor any authority over anything in this world. In the present day, there are none exhibiting power or authority. I've always considered the priesthood as a mystery since there is no discernible difference between a man with the priesthood and man without it.

I speculate that the priesthood is relative to the Egyptian rites of priests as found in the religion of Osiris which is as a man once told me, The priesthood is "The power of God unto salvation". I have pondered that statement, which he shared with me from a direct encounter with divinity, for decades now.

I realize that Brigham is held in derision by many on this forum and I , myself don't hold any respect for him, but his statement concerning a future time may be valid. He said something like "the priesthood shall then take effect" in regards to the power or rites of resurrection and that "strangers" would come and teach it to those that were ready.

What intrigues me the most in the OP is the "turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children and children to the fathers." This obviously holds a key of understanding of what the priesthood is.

The debatable point of authority is murky at best. Every polygamous offshoot claims the sole "authority" without exception no matter how large or small the group is. They go at lengths in giving their account and lineage of how they, alone, hold the keys. I find the debate to be a farcical argument between highly subjective men , all desiring the power and authority for themselves yet having no comprehension whatsoever of what it even means.

When a man of authority and power comes into view, the speculation will abruptly end with many self perceived "great men" slinking off into the shadows.

The priesthood is "The power of God unto salvation"

Only in that, he has the honor, the authority to save.

The power of the priesthood is only manifest in the ordinances thereof.

D&C 84:21
And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

Priesthood is a collection of priests (like neighborhood is a collection of neighbors). The priests are part of an order. Priests follow an order, or a pattern. Which is why the priesthood is named the "Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God". Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

This tires into following the example of Jesus, becoming like Him. In addition, the fathers set an example as well, an example of turning to God and making covenants and receiving blessings.

Look at Abraham, he sought the blessings of the fathers (such as from Adam to Noah to Melchizedek). In this Abraham turned his heart to the fathers. Next look at the four P's of the Abrahamic covenant; Priesthood, Posterity, Protection, and Promised land. Right their we have posterity, and a father turning his heart toward the children: seeking blessings for the children.

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.

When i obtained my divine rank anf memories and authorities, there were a number of tests that came with it. Tests that were not present in lds land. These tests are tailored for a person.

They test one s courage, grit, obedience, loyalty, stalwardness, integrity, faith, and even ingenuity.

There is little doubt that one is worthy after passing the tests. The irony is that nobody tells you that you have powers. You just find out via life.

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

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

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 9th, 2023, 11:14 pm Read that definition again, in particular the second. Notice the word power. Authority and power are synonyms.

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".

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?