Leaderboard

I briefly explained our family's general gospel participation, reminded her not all wards were back full-time, didn't mention my grown adult friends and their beverage preferences, and changed the subject.

As FYI, especially for @Traveler, my fellowship is unique, in that our ordination process is completely separate from our educational institutions. As a rather humorous example, one fellow graduated from our seminary with a Master of Divinity, and went across the tunnel to our headquarters. He went to the employment desk and said, "Okay. I have my degree. Now, where's my church?" The bewildered secretary basically said he was totally unqualified, because he was not even ordained as a minister. We require that our clergy candidates first sense a call directly from God. Then they go through the local church offices (similar to a stake office, I suppose). There is a process, which does include some study (though there are correspondence classes that would supply the knowledge). Further, there are interviews to help discern if a candidate really has a call from God, and then if s/he believes and teaches sound doctrine. It's not the same as LDS, of course. However, we do share a recognition that God's call is primary, and that the process of ordination is basically to confirm what God is doing.

@Jonah why do you ask Jack Chick style questions rather than ones to gleam actual learning?

I always ask myself, "could I do a better job"? "Do I want to be in his position?" The answer is always no.

One last time.

Nope

To be fair, I said I didn't see where it was implied. His article definitely implies the vaccine pushed some high-risk people over the edge.

As a side note - I have never encountered any bishop, stake presidency, 70 or otherwise that is doing such a poor job that I personally desire to replace them. The Traveler

I am glad to learn of your fellowship - perhaps someday I may have an opportunity to visit with you and listen to a sermon. As I read your post I thought to add again something. When a person is ordained to the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints they are ordained to a specific office. Usually they begin by being ordained a deacon. As a deacon they belong to a quorum (of 12) and are presided over by a quorum presidency (a president and 2 councilors). Part of the duties of a quorum of deacons and the presidency is to instruct and teach (mentor) new members in their duties. In most LDS congregations deacons are young men ages 12 and 13. As a young man learns his calling as a deacon he will be "advanced" to a teacher. Teachers are presided over by a quorum presidency similar to deacons but the quorum size is larger. Again the new members are mentored in their responsibilities by quorum as over seen by the quorum presidency. These young men (and presidency) are usually young men ages 14 and 15. The next progression is to the priest quorum - usually young men ages 16-17 or 18. This quorum is presided over by a bishop and two priest councilors. The bishop also presides over the teachers and deacons quorum presidencies. This constitutes the order of the lessor offices of the Aaronic Priesthood. A male member can advance from the Aaronic Priesthood to the Melchizedek Priesthood - usually ordained to the office of Elder. The Elders quorum is also presided over by a quorum presidency the mentors and teaches all quorum members in their duties. Bishops usually are ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood (office of High Priest) but there is a very rare exception. The Elder's quorum presidency and the Bishopric (Bishop and 2 councilors - but not the Priest) are ordained to the office of High Priest - all of which belong to a quorum and are presided over by Stake Presidents and his councilors. It is part of the duties of quorum presidents to mentor the members of the quorum. This constitutes all of the offices of the priesthood of Melchizedek. However, in addition there are "Keys" that are held through specific callings to quorum presidents, bishops, stake presidents, seventies and apostles. But once a person is ordained to the Melchizedek they are not ordained to any more priesthood. All holders of the Melchizedek (elders and high priest) hold the same priesthood - which means that all the guys on this forum with which you converse hold the same priesthood as our Prophet (with some possible exceptions). We believe this is the order by which Jesus organized his disciples in ancient times. Note that to qualify for office there are no connections to any institution of men - only that which is organized, authorized by Christ. We believe that our High Priest are presided over by Christ which in turn oversees the church, covenants and ordnances. We also believe this is the order of the Kingdom of Heaven that is presided over by G-d the Father. That presidency is also known as the G-dhead. But because of the fall Jesus presides over fallen man directly under the oversite of the Father. This order which is directly linked to the Father has both an oath and Covenant that is explained in Doctrine and Covenants - Section 84. The Traveler

This article is the type of backwards talk that has been inconsistent since the beginning of Covid. In this article, it is interesting how they minimize the death correlated with the vaccine with "underlying conditions" but since last year they have been reporting "underlying conditions" and Covid as -- Covid is the worst virus ever. Imagine if they treated these death correlated with the vaccine as they have treated other deaths with underlying conditions? I mean, if the article (once read a while back) was correct they applied a Covid death of a man who was killed in a motorcycle accident. Also, if you calculate 32 out of 42000 death that gives you 0.00076% chance of dying from the vaccine (correlation). In Utah we have a population of 3.2 million, with about 1600 deaths total in roughly a year now. The total death percentage and likelihood of death from Covid is 0.0005%. That's not very comforting. Let's say this remains static, and everyone in the world decided to give in and obtain the vaccine. This potential deaths would lead us to 5,600,000 deaths correlated with the vaccine. More than what has died in the first year from Covid. Just using the same principle that started with Covid in the beginning of this pandemic. At first I heard it had a 10% death rate. If 100 people were found with Covid 10 would die. Then my brother was all about all the research and family texts of 4-5% (fear, run, scare). Now, with actual statistics it is much, much lower. Should we treat these correlated deaths with the vaccine as they treated Covid correlated deaths in the beginning? This is why I place very little trust in the arm of flesh. Underlying conditions were seen as Covid deaths (all last year), but now with the vaccine they are giving excuses it isn't the vaccine, they had underlying conditions. It would be nice if things were simply reported accurately, rather than spewing the fear one way, while denying it the other way.

I would suggest that you suggest to your mother that she ought to talk to her bishop (proper channels). The Traveler

@prisonchaplain I would add something - perhaps to help you to understand our LDS structure and foundation. In ancient scripture the Scribes and Pharisees in the days of Jesus Christ looked upon Jesus and wondered at his ability to speak and act as a Rabbi having not received the letters or education and scholarly degrees thought necessary. Hebrews 5 instructs all those that "hear" that the priesthood of G-d does not come from the institutions of man but are given (through ordination - the laying on of hands) by G-d and through his Son Jesus Christ. Note that Jesus selected his Apostles and ordained them (with the laying on of hands) to receive that priesthood. But note also that he did not choose them from institutions of men that prepare such for a priesthood office. Rather Jesus chose his Apostles from the unschooled walks of life - such as fishermen and tax collectors. The Traveler

No. The article reported correlation and has yet to demonstrate causation.

This makes no sense. Only those with proof are adverse reactions, by definition of the term. The rest are adverse events. And I know you might think it's all syntax, but understanding the difference is imperative to understanding what's happening.

In all the links shared on this thread, I don't see anything that states or shows that the vaccine caused a death. That might be what some people take away from them, but I don't see it explicitly stated, or even really implied.

You're missing the link between the two articles. The Chief Physician issued the statement based on the data. I'm not sure why you're having trouble connecting the dots. There have been adverse reactions, including deaths, reported after receiving the vaccine. Physicians have attributed some of those deaths to the reactions to the vaccines.

Where? The word "death" doesn't appear anywhere on that link. It uses terms like "Reported suspected adverse reactions" When I follow through to the link Reported suspected adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines as of 21 January 2021, here's what it says (bolding mine): What am I missing? In a thread about people seeing what they want to see, can you help me see what you're seeing?

I just finished a wonderful documentary on BYU tv called, "I Saw the Hosts of the Dead". Long story short, it touches upon the background & circumstances that led Joseph F. Smith to have the vision found in D&C 138. It mentioned the Flu Pandemic, oddly enough about 100 years ago. The CDC's website states: Here we find ourselves in a 'pandemic'... again. I was impressed with a couple of thoughts while watching the show: 1. After 1918, life went on. The world 'overcame' that Pandemic, we all can do the same. 2. It took some ugly events in JFS's life to help push him to the point of the beautiful revelation in Section 138. Bored? Looking for something to watch? Give it a try. Not bad, not bad at all.

I understand data. When the virus first hit I regularly downloaded the CDC data to do my own statistical analysis. It appears to me that you may be interpreting more from my words than what is being said, and more than what is meant. I disagree with the person who made the statement about getting the virus and dying in six months rather than three; I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy. I think my statement of facts from the beginning is very simple. FACT: Old people have died in response to the vaccine. FACT: President Nelson is within the proper age group to be negatively affected, but as far as we know, has none of the pre-existing issues that would result in an adverse reaction (i.e. death). FACT: It can be reasonably assumed that if President Nelson were to die from an adverse reaction to the vaccine, millions of members would shy away from taking it. It can likewise be reasonably assumed that the absence of an adverse reaction will soften the hearts of millions who might otherwise be opposed, for whatever reason. I haven't said a single thing to suggest the vaccine is bad, or to suggest people shouldn't take it, etc. You seem to be in some kind of defense mode where every negative sounding statement about the vaccine automatically makes someone an anti-vaxer or something. I suppose it makes sense given you were part of the trial, but it still seems overblown and inappropriate.

And that's been my entire point. Odd that people appear to be writing it off.

Sure, now can you get the people who record all COVID-19 death's to follow that same advice? I heard someone put it this way: If people are willing to say that about the virus, why change tune when speaking of the vaccine?

No, that's not true at all. False equivalency. What we'd have if there were zero deaths associated with COVID vaccine is that there were ZERO deaths attributed to COVID vaccine. I'm not sure if you make long posts because you believe they support your argument or if you do it in hopes that it will confuse people reading it. This site is merely a collection site of related deaths and issues. This report, now over a week old, directly attributes deaths to vaccination symptoms. I'm not sure why some of you (yes, including you specifically) spend so much time downplaying verifiable facts. Saying the VAERS database isn't a source is nonsense. You can attempt to prove it isn't a reliable source, but you can't do that.

Sure, BUT there are is a known risk of severe side effects from mRNA vaccines. A search of VAERS shows there to be death and injury associated with the vaccine. The Norwegian Health Ministry released a warning regarding it. People have died as a result of being vaccinated. It's sad to see people picking and choosing when "underlying conditions" matter and when they don't, depending on their bias.

I wanted to invite all of you to join a new facebook group that I started today. It will be a great way for all of us to stay connected away from the forums. It's called Latter-day Saint Hangout https://www.facebook.com/groups/456036979095609

It is resulting in death in some people of his age. Odd that it isn't being reported.

I understand where you are coming from, but that simply isn't true. God may or may not prevent His prophet from death at any given moment; it all depends on His plan.

"Mom, you know I love you, but I'm not giving you my bishop's phone number so you can tell him how to do his job." Then change the subject and don't talk about it any more.

It does seem like she's crossing boundaries. I'd reply something along the lines as "Mom, I sustain my church leaders. And my friends will do whatever they want, regardless of the example I set."

If you're in a region that has restrictions in place concerning the size of public gatherings, then remind your mom that the law is the law. The split in the ward attendance may simply be the result of the ward having too many active members to handle them all in a given meeting. Does she have someone at home who can do the sacrament with her? As far as your friend goes, we can set the example, but we have to remember that other people have their free choice and free will.

She needs to be told to butt out. Nicely if you choose, but do it.

While I'm sure the vaccine is probably fine, we also should remember that President Nelson is in his late 90's, has lived a good, full life, and there is essentially no downside to him taking it. If it kills him, members will know worldwide and reject it; if he appears completely unharmed, members will be less skeptical and will take it, likely to their advantage. It is a win-win situation: either many members are guided away from an evil in the world (bad vaccine), or they are guided away from an evil within themselves (pride). I wonder if he will take a photo op for the second dose? 🤔

Elder Bednar dropping bombs:

My mother pretty much hid in her basement for the entire year... isolated, grumpy, depressed, scared. Missed b-day parties, holidays, etc. etc. She made fun of me for going to the Trump rally calling it a "super spreader", etc. etc. Well... she managed to get in her basement - hah! Same type of story for my father almost (separated from my mother), well... he got it too. My brother, sister and their whole families all got. Long story short... most didn't even know they had it except a super minor item that made them curious, so they got tested. They all lived in FEAR all year, MISSED life AND still all got it. I personally know 2 people who got it and died. They both were older (70s) and had other health issues, one was oxygen before getting it. So yah... there is danger factor for a specific demographic, yet everyone else is made to shake in their boots over a landslide of EXTREME media hype.

I'm still not getting it. As a side note, we are at day 7 of our family's exposure and nobody has symptoms.

Thank you, @Just_A_Guy. I've been here for several years, and have done some reading. However, a convert to the church who has been with you six-months may well know more than me. My main purpose for this string, which came to me as I was preparing this Sunday School lesson, was simply to better understand the LDS perspective. I know the priesthood has more meaning for you, and that Melchizedek is especially important. So, I figured I'd just ask. It was great to discover that the overarching supremacy of Christ is quite clear in your teaching--that what has been added to the priesthood understanding did not detract from the key truth that we share.

If you’re asking how Latter-day Saints interpret Hebrews 5’s talk of Melchizedek (and by extension, Hebrews 7 as well)—I think we mostly interpret it the same way you do: the author of Hebrews is trying to convert Jews to Christianity by showing that the levitical priesthood is not the be-all, end-all; that there is higher token of God’s covenant with Israel than the priesthood or the temple or even the Mosaic Law; and that thing is the Son of God Himself. The author is trying to shock the Jews by saying “look, you think your priests are the only true priests and that your father Abraham is the greatest guy in scripture; but your own scripture says that Abraham was subservient a member of a higher order/pattern of priesthood, and Christ is one of—in fact, the supreme embodiment of—that higher order of priesthood.” So far, so good. Where I think we may depart from each other is that (I presume) most Christians assume that the author of Hebrews is citing this business about Melchizedek primarily for rhetorical effect—from this passage their overall takeaway about “priesthood” as a concept might be that at different times in history, God has had His servants (“priests”) engage in different forms of work and has endowed them with greater or lesser portions of His power. Mormonism, by contrast, holds that this passage denotes formal orders of priesthood that can—and in this “dispensation of the fullness of times”, do—exist simultaneously, within the same body of believers at the same time; and our church structures its modern clergy and congregational organization around this concept.

The name "Melchizedek priesthood" is actually a nick name. The proper name of it is actually the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God". It is Christ's priesthood. The nickname is used to show reverence to things properly addressed and to avoid too frequent repetition of things (like internet folks would totally acronym it). Priesthood in general is the authority to act in God's name, doing God's will, with God's power. We are His disciples, and should be doing as He would have us. Back in the time of Moses, the children of Isreal were not ready for the fullness of Christ's law and convent (remember the whole golden calf thing...). So as a preparatory step, the Old Law, Old Covenant, and Aaronic priesthood were put in place. They are an appendage of Christ's fullness designed to help teach and prepare a person/people for the fullness of His ways. Come Christ's mortal life, He taught that higher law, new covenant, and ordained with the fullness of His priesthood (nicknamed the Melchizedek priesthood). Nowadays, a young man is ordained to the preparatory Aaronic Priesthood, as they prepare and strengthen their walk with Christ. Later they are ordained to the fullness of His Priesthood, the Melchizedek priesthood. If a person's growing up in the church, these steps occur age ~12 and ~18.

Jesus is the great high priest. The Priesthood, at least from our perspective and for our purposes, is Christ's. The Priesthood is, in effect, Christ. It is the very word of God, as Jesus is the Word. It is the power through which creation took place, both creation of things around us and creation of us ourselves. That a man, no matter how holy, can be given the very power of God is itself one of the greatest miracles I can imagine. The Priesthood is one, as God himself is One. In the large sense, there are not two "Priesthoods". There is exactly one true Priesthood, and it is called Melchizedek. The name "Melchizedek" means "King of righteousness", and thus is a name of Christ. The man named Melchizedek was the greatest or best-known high priest (meaning a holder of the high Priesthood) of his time, and typified the righteous Priesthood holder. Thus, we have the "Priesthood of Melchizedek" standing as a name for The Priesthood, the only true Priesthood that exists. But wait! If the "high priest" is a holder of the "high" Priesthood, that suggests there is more than just one! There must be a lower Priesthood or Priesthoods! Yes, it does suggest that. The suggestion is not quite true. There is indeed a lesser Priesthood, a Priesthood given to Aaron and his sons to serve the lesser Law of Moses after the children of Israel had rejected the greater law God sought to give them. This so-called Aaronic Priesthood is not really a different "priesthood" at all. Rather, it is a subset of the holy Priesthood, which concerns itself with outward ordinances and performances. Aaron's sons held this "lesser Priesthood", and through its authority they could conduct the temple worship of animal sacrifices that the Lord had revealed to Moses and other prophets before him*. These sacrifices served to atone for the sins of the people and bring them back to God, ultimately representing the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God which would truly accomplish those goals. The children of Israel quickly lost track of the underlying meaning of those ordinances, but the righteous and perceptive among them understood the meaning of the law of Moses. *Note that the leader of the priests of Aaron was designated the "high priest", e.g. Matthew 26:3. This "high priest" is not to be confused with a holder of the high Priesthood. In normal conversation today, Latter-day Saints use the term "high priest" to refer to a man who holds the office of high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. So the term "high priest" has at least three meanings among Latter-day Saints: (1) a Latter-day Saint man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood office of high priest; (2) any holder of the "high" or Melchizedek Priesthood (e.g. Alma 13:9); and (3) the leader or chief priest during the time of the law of Moses. Even today, the outward ordinance of baptism by water and the blessing of the emblems of the sacrament in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice are delegated to the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood. So the Aaronic Priesthood continues to serve its function as a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. But the greater law as restored by the Son of God (and as brought back to us today through the agency of Joseph Smith and other prophets) must of necessity operate under the auspices of the higher or complete Priesthood, which we commonly call Melchizedek. Thus, a couple of weeks or so after the resurrected John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, the last presiding leaders of Christ's Church, namely Simon Peter, James (the greater), and John the Beloved restored to them the Priesthood of Melchizedek. With this authority, they were enabled to restore the kingdom of God on earth once again. This is an incomplete explanation, and I invite others to add to it. But I hope it helps answer your questions about how the Latter-day Saints understand the place and purpose of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I watch the 2nd Amendment a lot in this nation. About thirty-six states presently have tolerable firearm laws. These states do not have magazine capacity restrictions on citizens, red flag gun confiscations without due process or silly laws against pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, bayonet lugs or adjustable stocks. Detachable magazines are a nice feature to have for a long gun or pistol as it enables a citizen to reload faster. There is no such thing as a "high capacity magazine." This was a term invented by people wishing to cripple and erode our 2nd Amendment liberties away. There are "full capacity magazines" and "crippled capacity magazines." From what I have experienced and read, most magazines that have over thirty five rounds in capacity are less reliable, heavy and bulky.

Heh. I always say that 8% tithing will solve any bad ideas of me in leadership...that and my speaking in "tongues" (how I speak at work sometimes.)

Most adverse reactions start out as adverse events. As I've posted numerous times, the Chief Physician of Norway agrees.

*sigh*. Ok, person0, let's quote directly from your link. So again, here's where ignorance about mortality and control groups and double-blind studies and whatnot, really do a number on someone's ability to understand what's truth and what isn't. No really - put 30,000 people in one room and give 'em the shot, put another 30,000 people in another room and don't give them any shot. Track everyone's health, symptoms, and deaths. The 30k unvaccinated folks have about the same amounts of deaths, syndromes, cancer, rotting teeth, erectile dysfunction, and cell phone reception as the 30k who got the shot. So when we hear that someone got the shot and died, we ask why, and we hear "yep, they were sick and at death's door already. Nothing to do with the vaccine." Can you understand that, person0?