Yes He gave them authority, which was taken from the earth at the death of the last Apostle. It was never conferred onto anybody else. The term apostasy means turning away from the truth. The Great Apostasy, as it is called now, was more than that. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys, or the presiding priesthood authority, were taken from the earth. Without these watchmen—the Apostles who had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and who maintained the order and standard of worthiness in the Church—the members faced serious challenges. Over time doctrines were corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.
The Apostles were killed during a time when the entire Church was being persecuted. Nero, a Roman emperor, was the first to make laws to exterminate Christians, in about A.D. 65. Under his reign, thousands were cruelly killed. A second round of persecutions began in about A.D. 93 under Emperor Domitian. Succeeding emperors continued torturing and killing Christians. As a result of these persecutions, thousands of Christians were martyred. Many others apostatized.
In about A.D. 324 Constantine became the emperor of the Roman Empire. He made Christianity a legal religion, stopping centuries of persecution. His actions linked the church to the government, and corrupt church leaders began seeking power and the honors of the world.
Teachers within the church began to adopt false religious concepts from Greek philosophy and pagan religions. False ordinances and ceremonies were also introduced. Even though the church still taught some truth, the true Church of Christ and the priesthood were no longer on the earth. And as Christianity spread to various parts of the world—including to Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas—new churches were formed and grew. None of these churches, however, was the true Church, since the Lord had already taken priesthood authority and priesthood keys from the earth.
I haven't experienced "mass" anything. All rituals are man-made. None of them are efficacious in and of themselves. They are merely the framework within which we work as we partner with God.
The ordinance of Baptism was given to us by God. The sacrament was given to us by Jesus Christ, The method of repentance and prayer was also given to us by Christ. All of these, and more, were given to us by deity. All of thes can be performed by anybody who is authored to act in His name. We are all equal partners with God, if we have been converted by the Holy Ghost..
Oh, you mean like when all the witnesses saw the Plates, and witnessed Joe Smith "translating" through the peepstones?
I just knew that you were going to insult the Mormons. You cannot stop your hostility, can you? His name was
Joseph Smith, to call him Joe Smith is an insult and quite frankly, disrespectful, no matter what you think about him.
It was not a peepstone it was called a seer stone, and there are documented events around that which make it hard not to believe.
There were many witnesses to the translation, sadly, most were related. I have my doubts about the translation, however, he produced the BOM with 62 days and was partially illiterate. There are many documented coincidences and strange happening that surround the translation. It is hard not to consider whether it is in fact, a real translation of those plates, that many people saw and bore witness of.
You mean like when the Quorum gets together and ratifies new doctrine and policy? Those who live in glass houses ...
I am ignorant to the Quorum so I cannot comment
Who decided that missionaries should wear white shirts, black ties, and name tags? Did Jesus, or any of his followers wear such strange attire while riding bicycles?
You would have to ask the Church authorities as I have no idea. What I can tell you is that if suits existed in the time of Christ then he may well have worn one. Plus, they are not used ceremoniously. The missionaries wear the same cloths as anybody else. The clergy don't. They act in a manner that is not stipulated in the Bible. Missionaries don't What they do was done by Christ and His apostles. and on and on. What you do was never even considered by the apostles so how you think your calling is apostolic beats me.
Where did such pomp and ceremony come from, as nowhere in the bible does it say that followers of Jesus needed a temple in which to hold secret ceremonies,
Solomon's Temple was full of painting of symbolic secret ordinances. Ordinances that are used by the Freemasons and the LDS, only LDS are dress in white and Freemasons in Black and the ceremonies are slightly different as a result of the Freemason mistranslated the hieroglyphics .. But temple work is a complete separate part of the main church where there are no pomp and ceremonies other than the sacrament and baptism.
According to the Bible, Solomon's Temple, also known as the First Temple, was the Holy Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ: Bet HaMikdash) in ancient
Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount (also known as Mount Zion), before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar II after the Siege of
Jerusalem of 587 BCE.Wiki
and nowhere in the bible does it say that marriage is for eternity? We all have our symbology and ceremonies that help in meaning-making.
No, but it was found in Solomon's Temple and is performed in LDS temple that are a similitude of Solomon;s temple. It is also known as the New and Everlasting Covenant. Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world. They had an eternal marriage as they were eternal in nature. They taught the law of eternal marriage to their children and their children’s children. As the years passed, wickedness entered the hearts of the people and the authority to perform this sacred ordinance was taken from the earth.
Where or when did I say that they have "special powers?" I said that they symbolize.
Well, I did not say that you did.
Well, I suppose if we envision it, it does carry meaning for us. And no, it's not a sign of authority. It's a sign of humility. If you're going to try to dismiss it, you could at least get it right, for crying out loud! The benefit of it is only to remind everyone that the clergy are servant of Christ and of the people. It's only as nonsensical as any of the claptrap you -- or anyone -- does in her or his particular religious ceremonies.
I have no religious ceremonies.
Everyone who is a Christian is a servant of God.
I don't know what reality shows you've been watching, but that's simply not the case. But your lack of professionalism on the matter is touching in its naivete and encouraging in that it illustrates that you don't know what you're talking about.
My extracurricular qualification in Behavioral Psychology tells a different story. Plus, you are insulting my intellect again. You just cannot help it can you. You probably do it without even knowing you do it. It is no doubt etched on your personality.
And it's sad that, while you're comfortable in your own "authority" to minister, you are unable to extend the same courtesies to your colleagues that they extend to you.
How do you know that.
It's further sad that, even as you cry "foul" on grounds of insult, in virtually the same breath, you're doing everything in your power to insult someone else, because you, quite mistakenly, think that it "bothers me."
I think no such thing of the sort and your usual judgement is way wide of the mark again.
I am just responding to your posts that are full of offensive rhetoric.
You have said more than once that you do not recognize homosexual marriage. That is an objection to it.
Then quote me.
Nope. That's all you. it's in how you interpret the texts.
The text is without interpretation.
I see. People "like me" cannot possibly use the term "hyperbolic" in any honest way.
You think that my complaint just relates to the words "hyperbolic"?
Learn what "efficacious" means. It might be of help to you here. I said that your experience with the H. S. was not efficacious in critical readings of the text. I could have sworn I already went over this? And I explained why: that critical reading is a cognitive and not an intuitive exercise. It was cogent to the point of the debate, because it refutes the validity of an interpretation that weakens your argument.
So now I am uneducated.
