Traveler

Your term confuse me. For example "I believe that there is no true authority on Earth." to me means that G-d has authorized no agent anywhere on earth - ever. This contridicts scripture that says Jesus ordained apostles and gave them authority. Without authority no one has been authorized to do anything. Second the quote "First among equals" is not logical. If there are true equals there is no order of first. Lastly we are not talking about any man being "above" another - we are talking about order of authorization or authority. If there is authority there must be order - otherwise there is chaos. And we know that G-d authorized (gave more authority to) Moses over Aaron in order. The Traveler

Some years ago I was involved in a formal public debate with the president of the Utah chapter of Atheists, Chris Allen. At the time Chris and I were working at the same place and the debate took place during our lunch break. Over several weeks the debate took on quite a following (BTW – Chris and I were friends and worked together on issues of smoking in the workplace). The debate was friendly and centered on weather or not G-d exists. One of the points I presented is that there is a possibility that some individual being, with intelligence greater than man, (both individual and aggregate) that is involved in events unfolding around mankind and civilization on this planet, exists. It was not my intent to use the full extent of what G-d means, just a definition that we could utilize and discuss within the limited range that we have living on this earth. As part of that debate I presented 5 points that I submitted as governing of G-d’s superior relationship to man. I offer these points for the sake of understanding as follows: 1. G-d will not do anything for man that man is able to do himself. 2. G-d will do for man that which man cannot do for himself. 3. G-d will not do anything for man that will not be of greater benefit for man. 4. G-d will do for man that which will result in the greater benefit for man. 5. G-d will not do anything for man without man’s concurrence. In the discussion of salvation I would like to touch on numbers 1 and 2. I submit that there is something man can do to affect their own salvation. The reason I insist that man can do something is because of the logic in scripture that some will receive salvation (or greater blessings of salvation) than others that are excluded in some degree. The only reason that there is a difference or reason to differentiate is because of what man does or does not do. I present this idea not to define any or all such things only to indicate that such things exist and that they are things that man can do. At the same time I submit that G-d does what man cannot do for himself. Therefore, in order that man receives salvation, G-d must do what man cannot do as an unearned gift. It cannot be earned because it involves something that man cannot do or anything equivalent to something man can do. Therefore it cannot be earned or traded. In the LDS concept of salvation, it is both important and necessary that man do that which he can. In fact, it is LDS doctrine that if there is anything man can do for salvation, then he must do it even though man is reliant on G-d for what G-d does for man’s salvation. Or in other words: “After all that man can do, he is saved by the grace of G-d”. As far as Christians debate this issue I do not see that debate is over weather man does or does not do something necessary for salvation. Nor do I see the debate over that G-d does something for man that man cannot do for themselves. The only debate I see is over what it is that man can do that affects salvation. The argument that I present is that if there is nothing that man does, then all men are saved to the same degree or level or blessing of salvation regardless of what anyone does, believes, thinks, hopes or whatever - and no one believes that. It does not appear to me that the basic LDS concept of salvation is really that different from any other Christian’s basic concept. The Traveler

Thanks for your response PC. I was somewhat surprised in your confidence that Satan has little or no influence with how authority is utilized within the government of the United States of America. Though I believe that the founding fathers were inspired somewhat by G-d, I would currently categorize agent authority as shifting somewhat more towards what Satan would inspire rather than what those founding fathers intended. But that aside let us take a macro look at authority as it is exercised by agents of the government in our country of the good old USA. First I would point out that the law does not delegate authority directly to government agents although it does specify the manner that authority is delegated. For example; just because someone has understanding of the law does not mean that they have authority as an agent. We are all familiar with the authority that a policeman exercises as an agent of the law. As an agent a policeman can exercise some authority but there is an order in that authority. First order of a policeman’s authority is jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is usually a geographic area. Outside the defined area the policeman cannot exercise authority as an agent. Often this jurisdiction comes into conflict in cases that cross jurisdiction boundaries between city police departments and county sheriff departments. The second order of a policeman’s authority is rank. Within the police organization there is rank. For example a police caption has more authority than a police sergeant which has more authority than the rank and file policeman. Any event that involves the agency of policemen is subject to their rank and jurisdiction. There is always one agent that is in charge and all other agents are subject in their authority to the proceedings. There can be situations where an agent of higher authority can over ride the authority of the one agent in charge and another agent becomes the in charge agent but this must happen according to the order of authority as specified by the law. Interesting, most people are quite surprised when they learn of the authority given to agents called federal postal inspectors in that their order of authority surpasses the authority of any policeman in both rank and jurisdiction. But there are other agents with authority within the government of the USA. For example; there are agents to which appeals can be made if a citizen feels they have been wronged (have a dispute) with a police agent. These overriding agents are also ordered by rank and jurisdiction. I submit again that Jesus followed the methods of order of agents within the ancient kingdom of Israel. That Jesus gave agent authority to his apostles and that others were also given authority as agents but that authority was ordered. And that all agents of Christ exercised their authority according to the order of rank and jurisdiction. Some had jurisdiction over local congregations and others had jurisdiction throughout the world and that some agents had higher rank than others. The scriptures, like the law of the USA, may specify some of the governing aspects of agent authority but like the law, scripture does not authorize agents directly – especially just because someone has knowledge of scripture or of Christ. It is important to realize that this order or authority of Christ was given that the government of kingdom of the church could act as “one”. I would also point out that Jesus claimed to act as an “agent” of his Father, that Jesus claimed was ordered “Greater than” himself thereby showing that the order of authority even exist among the G-ds that make up what is known to Christians as “The G-dhead” – yet even though the G-dhead is ordered, Jesus still made claim that they exercised that authority as one united (in the same manner a husband and wife should be united as one family) and that all that exercise authority as an agent (regardless of rank or jurisdiction) within the kingdom of G-d must act as the same united oneness with them. The Traveler

It has only been the last 150 years or so that spelling has become so important. My usual line is that if you only know one way to spell a word - you are uneducated. :) The main point about order in authorization from G-d - is the understanding that to fail to accept someone sent by G-d is a failure to accept G-d. There are those that claim to know G-d but if they really knew him they would know his servants. I submit that servants are known by their fruits and that one of the fruits is order and with order a "way" to end all disputations. The Traveler

I do not intend to touch on all the diverse kinds of experiences but I thought I would relate one. I travel a lot because of my work. Over the years I began to notice rather odd things that would occur in my hotel room when I was alone. For an example when ever I would turn on the TV their would always appear a program without any moral standards. In time it got so bad that I quit turning on the TV at all. I mentioned this to a friend that had experienced the same thing that advised me that since I hold the priesthood that I should bless my hotel room to clean it when I arrived. This I have done and have found this to be a most effective pre-emptive action on my part. The Traveler

There are many scriptures that indicate that the opposition to Christ is not a mater of doctrine but a matter of behavior. Jesus pointed this out in the parable of the "Good Samaritan". In John chapter 8, Jesus tells us that we do the will of our Father be it Satan or the Father of spirits. If Satan is our father we will bring death (murder) to the world. This is a most interesting sign - I would ask who is the greatest mass murder of history? Here is a hint - this mass murder killed more people (including men, women and children in Europe than the Black Plauge). Second hint - It was not Hitler. I would submit that the Anti Christ is a person who leads those willing to kill in the name of G-d for the reason of doctrine. I would also submit that the Anti Christ is demonstrated in the New Testament with those that sought for the crusification of Christ. The Traveler

I have attempted to start a thread about the influence of unclean spirits but some would rather discuss the "Last Days" or the final time. For those interested in the last days of the world before G-d reigns - please feel free to use this thread. I will begin by asking the question - Why do the scriptures speak of the "Last Days" if we are not to know when it will occur? Some say that no man will know the hour or the day but I believe that is a misunderstanding of an ancient medifore. I present that the saints of G-d will be prepaired to welcome the Messiah and that when he comes will be no surprise. The Traveler

Unclean spirits are those spirits that were cast out of Father's presents for rebellion. They are the spirits that intend to influence mankind to turn from that which is sacred and of the Father. Since man is fallen and also removed from the Father's presents - man is most vulnerable to such spirits. I would summarize that a righteous spirit must be sought for; but unclean spirits seek us out at ever opportunity. The Traveler

I am aware of your point of view. I have been attempting to show you a slightly different point of view. One that requires a trial of faith (and exercise in faith) before obtaining the assurance you speak of. But you seem to be quite happy with the point of view that you have - which I have not quite been able to experience. The Traveler

The question I asked concerns the influence of unclean spirits and the relationship of such spirits to the events we see taking place. I was looking forward to your view of this concept. The Traveler

This discussion also begs the question of which is the truth. What is or that what is perceived to be true. I would slightly alter your current paradigm if you will listen. Using the concept of trees falling or not falling in the forest - We begin by accumulating information. From this accumulation of information we begin to formulate an opinion which becomes our paradigm or theory (or hypostasis). A witness is a kind of information. I think at this point we disagree slightly on faith. I believe faith is the motivation to put our paradigm or theory to the test as well as our information. It appears to me that your concept of faith is to think that your are right. My personal concept of faith is that belief or thinking is not faith. It is not faith until someone alters their behavior for the specific purpose of testing a concept. If someone is not willing to explorer the extents of their concept, I do not believe that they have faith in that concept. Part of this exploration is a consideration of opposition information and opinion. This is my concept of “exercising faith” to be willing to test. An example of this concept – I do not believe someone has “Faith” in Jesus Christ until they are willing to alter their lives to test the Christian paradigm. This corresponds with the notion that if someone claims to have faith in Christ but does not keep the commandments they are a liar and the truth is not in them. I am not a believer in “It sounds good therefore I believe paradigm”. Now we do not have to be stupid in our testing. Some things in life do not need to be repeated. We do not need to do something over and over again to see if something different will happen. And even if you saw a tree fall in a forest it is still wise to test and verify what you thought you saw. You might find out that trees do not just fall but there are other things acting on the trees (like termites) that took them down. I believe truth is not a place at which you arrive but rather a method of travel - Thus I am The Traveler The Traveler

I believe you are not understanding the question. If you are unaware of a tree or trees falling in the forest then your paradigm of things cannot make an accurate account of them falling or not falling. The question then is: How can one become aware of trees falling or not falling? One method is the scientific method. In this method one makes as guess or theory if you will and from that guess or theory assumptions follow. Using the assumptions one then predicts what then would be found in the forest to demonstrate if the trees are falling or not falling. But science goes beyond this simple test in that the theory and assumptions are also open to discussion among other to examine, discuss and test. At each point the view and opinion must be verified by more than one source and the results recorded. The theories and assumptions that are reproducible gain broader acceptance in time and the theories and assumptions which are not reproducible tend to become less acceptable over time. Although I prefer the scientific method over most others there are some flaws. That is that the view of information can taint all levels. For example if all are convinced that dinosaurs are cold blooded then everyone will tend to bend the information to accept that as fact. This happened for over 80 years. It was not until opposing views were brought in that the possibility of warm blooded dinosaurs was shown. It is this concept of opposition that is important. If one is correct the truth becomes more obvious but if in error the flaw become more and more difficult to define and defend. The Traveler

Not in modern scriptures but in every ancient copy of every version of scripture the vowels are left out of the words that reference G-d. The Traveler

Utah cities are silly? How about Ann Arbor Mi. They will not allow any fast food places within the city. Just wanted everyone to know that Liberals can be snobs just like conservatives. The Traveler

For some time I have been concerned with events involving odd violence directed at innocent people, the latest being the Winkler (minister killed by his wife). There is also the Hacking case and several disappearances similar to the Elizabeth Smart case. I saw a report the other day that such events are occurring at an accelerated rate. Many years ago, in the neighborhood I grew up, nothing was locked. I never was given a key to our house, nor did I know kids that carried keys for their houses. I never remember our home being locked, even when we left for extended vacations. I also remember taking my father’s hunting rifle to school to refinish the stock and blue the barrel. The rifle would not fit in my locker so I took it with me to the classes before shop class, laying the rifle on the floor by my desk. No one even asked me why I had the weapon. I even remember taking a flight and watching a gentleman place a gun case in the overhead compartment. Why have things suddenly changed in one generation? What is so different that there is fear and concern about some one doing something quite vile? Why are people doing horrible things to their friends and family (people that they know and should care about)? Has the nature of mankind changed? Are we safe – or can we be safe? Here is one thought for you all to consider. There has been a change in how society deals with and thinks of Satan (the devil and his dark angles – “unclean spirits”). Most people today think of unclean spirit influence as being possessed. And such possessions cause people to float in the air, burn things up by looking at them, and moving stuff without touching it. But I wonder? I wonder if unclean spirits are far more subtle. I wonder if 99% of the time, that people being influenced by unclean spirits act and behave just like everybody else, then, they do something so vile no one (including themselves) can understand why. Does anybody believe in the devil? Do any physiologist? I wonder if the Ted Bundies, the Jeffery Dalmers and others are enjoying the enrichments offered by unclean spirits. I wonder what roles unclean spirits are playing in some of the things we see happening. The Traveler

It is my personal opinion that money and the church is one of the prime signs of apostasy, even more so than doctrine. Money is the twin of power and as much as the misuse of power is a sign of Satan’s influence and ultimate corruption so is the misuse of money. I am so ingrained and sure of money as incentive of corruption that I will not donate to any charity that uses professional (paid) solicitors especially if they are paid by commission. I submit that Simony is a sure sign of apostasy as are indulgences and any other pay for blessing or ecclesiastical position. I am adamant that anything remotely associated with salvation be completely dissociated with price in money to obtain. Salvation is free. There is no price in money to be taught by a servant of G-d, of Christ or of any eternal doctrine. There in no price in money to be paid to any minister of Christ to feed his flock. I do not believe that anyone inspired of Christ or the spirit of G-d will write and publish the doctrines of salvation for profit - for such are freely given and received. I do not care if the amount is small or large - I do not believe the things of G-d are for sale, only the things of this world and not the next. This is not to say that someone ministering for Christ will not accept gifts or assistance, just that such things are always considered property of G-d and never for personal enrichment but are believed to belong to all of G-d’s servants and not personal property or salary of any individual. I believe the scriptures teach by example that G-d does not call professional priests and prophets. Moses tended flocks as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Joseph worked in Egypt and even Jesus Christ was a carpenter by profession. Others were fishermen, tax collectors, physicians, tent makers and other professions - none were professional clergy. I do not wish to offend anyone - but to state clearly where I stand and how I feel. There is no doubt in my mind that the kingdom of G-d can and will roll forth without salaries or monetary benefit. It is all accomplished by covenant which was the method established in the beginning with the creation. The Traveler

This is an obvious missunderstanding of scripture. If there was no mediator between man and G-d in OT times then Jesus did not tell the trueh when he said no man can come unto the father but by Me! Unless the G-d of the OT is not G-d the Father. The point is that Jesus is the mediator and the only G-d that can bring man to the Father. Since man was cut off from the Father through the fall - Jesus is the only L-rd and G-d. As I said the Trinity denies the fall - for because of the fall man must have a mediator with G-d the Father. According to the OT man does not need a mediator to come unto G-d. The reason is so simple. The G-d of the OT is Jesus and man needs no mediator to come unto G-d the Son who is Jesus Christ. The mediator is only needed for man to have relationship with the Father. I know because of things in our past you look for every opportunity to widen the devide between us but I believe the truth is that for man to receive anything from the Father or for man to enjoy enything of the Father - it can only be by dirrect mediation of Jesus Christ - G-d the Son and it does not make any difference if it is a man of OT time or modern time - No man comes unto the Father except by the one and only mediator with the Father - Jesus Christ. The Scriptures to me clearly indicate that there exist G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. I personally will not accept any Creed that denies that each is entitled to be addressed as G-d distinguished as an individual from the other and that the oneness is the same oneness that those the worship is truth we are as one as G-d the Father and G-d the Son. The Traveler This is exactly why I'm praying for you-----that God enlighten you. Because you have no idea of what you project in your posting. The messages I get from others on this board about you and against you[some lds] are proof of that to me, and no I will never share them with you. I forgive you of your anger and milicious character assasinations that you sling out . I am not harmed by them nor do I feel like any kind of victim------but others are hurt and have said so--even on this thread---and you missed that too I already ask God for my forgiveness---I did not ask for yours because ---at least right now you won't give it. I pray Gods blessing upon you, snow and hope you give things at least a minute of reflextion---and no I'm not innocent---and neither are you------- I see two problems - One: I agree with all that say that a creed ought to be no more than someone's expression of belief. Two: I disagree that the creed of the Trinity in the year 325 was just some Christians expressing their belief. The council that produced the Creed declaired that the purpose of the creed was because the scriptures were not complete or sufficent and that the Creed was necessary not as a declarition of individual belief but as equal to scripture as defining doctrine and identifying heresy. As a Christian I do not believe any Creed should be the measure for defining heresy or what is a Christian. I personally believe that those that do so - do so outside of scripture or any authority of G-d. The Traveler

One notion that is present in all religions with which I have understanding is the notion of difference between good and evil. The most consistent notion of difference is that of “Order” (considered good) as opposed to “Chaos” (considered evil). The eternal struggle between good and evil in every ancient and modern concepts is represented as the struggle between order and chaos. From the classic Jewish and Christian scripture in Genesis we learn of creation as a presentation of order coming from the declarations (word) of G-d and that G-d saw the order of his creation and recognized that it was good. I submit the idea that evil and Satan; are opposed to the order of G-d and seek to disorder G-d’s work and that disorder of Satan in the classic sense is what is called “chaos”. I also submit that one way to identify that which is of G-d is to recognize order as opposed to recognizing that which is of Satan by recognizing his effort to establish chaos by upsetting G-d’s order. Jesus spoke of order when he indicated that his disciples are to be “one”. The oneness of which he spoke is not a “cloning” but an uniting by order into one body as the head, hands, legs, feet and so on into a single creature. Indeed the comparison of G-d’s kingdom to a living thing of many parts demonstrates the order expected by G-d within his kingdom. This now bring me to the concept of authority. I submit again that it is the will and nature of G-d to have order in his kingdom and that such order is expressed in how he channels authority among those called to service within his kingdom. One example comes to us with Isaiah. Isaiah is shown and given explanation of a temple by G-d and then later Isaiah shows and gives explanation of that same temple to Israel and then Israel becomes the model of G-d’s expression to the world. Thus we seed the order of authority. First, G-d authorizes his servant the prophet who in turn authorizes the next level and so on and so on. This order implies a couple of things - first that the greatest authority is at the top and belongs to G-d. And second that the authority branches out giving life to all participating parts. Jesus also used this example of authority with the concept of an olive tree. He being the main trunk, others as branches and so on. He also pointed out that without him all other branches and parts of the olive tree will die because all must receive nourishment from him and those who he chose and ordained to authority. In contrast Satan intends to destroy the order of G-d within the kingdom of G-d. Therefore, Satan is attempting to convince man that there is no need for order in authority. One way Satan has done this is to teach that authority comes from scripture. Without order of authority there is no way or method to resolve disputes within the body of the church. One says that they believe a scripture is to be understood to mean one thing and another says that the same scripture is to be understood to mean something different. Without order for authority there is no means to settle any question or dispute - only chaos. Remember that Moses ordered authority in Israel so that he did not have to judge all the people in all matters? So we know from scripture the method used in how the kingdom of G-d is ordered. There is lower authority over which there is higher authority all the way up to the highest authority on earth under G-d. Moses was that highest authority in ancient Israel. We see the same concept of order among the disciples of Christ where the 12 apostles were overseers of authority for the whole church and Peter, James and John formed authority over the 12 apostles and Peter had authority in the presidency of three with power to seal or loose on earth that was backed by the power and authority of heaven. Remember that Satan opposes the ordered authority of G-d (along with every thing else of G-d). Therefore his work is to separate the body of believers in Christ from the order of authority. His primary target - the authority of the apostles. Once the authorized kink to the L-rd has been severed the rest of the limbs will be cut off from the nourishment and order of heaven and will spiritually die. The Traveler

Because of the fall Adan (man) was cast out of the Garden of G-d and can only come unto the Father by the Messiah, who is the mediator, between man and G-d the Father. Using the "Creed" please demonstrate a single instance in the Old Testament of the necessary mediator for anything between man and G-d. We do not learn of Mary as the "mother of G-d" from the creed but from scripture. Please demonstrate how that Mary is the mother of the divine nature of Christ. I personally disagree with this notion. The world is not now nor ever has been in need of creeds and the councils that produce such things but the world is now and always has been in need of scripture and the prophets that spoke such things.

Especially the part:

LDS do not accept the Nicene Creed. In fact we believe it is an abomination. I will offer two reasons with the idea that these are not the only two just two that I have time for right now. 1. The Creed denies the fall. That because of the fall man must deal with the mediator (Jesus Christ) to have anything at all to do with G-d the Father. That the only G-d since the fall is the G-d the Son that performs his role “in the name of the Father”. 2. The Creed denies Mary is the mother of our L-rd and therefore is contrary to scripture. The Trinity implies that Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature. If this was true then of what is Mary the mother? It could not be the divine nature because that is eternal and without beginning. The Traveler

I think you just refuted yourself here Ray. Im arguing that the Priesthood comes from God, therefore God can do as he wants, and the Church has no authority to revoke Priesthood. You just said that God can do anything he wants....so what's the deal? I think there are some uses of term that give wrong impressions. First I would point out that G-d is just. This is a little different than "he does what ever he wants". It only works because he wills himself to want to be just. The point is that G-d follows a pattern of justice in how he delegates responsibility in his kingdom. Jason: I get the impression if you were before a judge having your driver's license revoked that you would tell the judge that the state issued you your license and therefore the judge cannot revoke it - and that the state can do what-ever it wants. Perhaps if the state is a totalitarian state it can do what it wants but if it is a just state then it must abide by just laws, principles and logic. If you believe G-d is totalitarian and not just; then you may have a point – but if G-d is just then the principles of delegated authority must be according to just principles. Here is a simple test my friend – if logic and principles concerning particular methods of G-d are not just and practical in society, there is a high probability such logic is flawed big time and in reality has nothing to do with an intelligent G-d. G-d is not an idiot nor is he stupid. He does not do stupid things. If you want to convince me that you have any inklings concerning G-d – you would have more respect and insight to how he delegates authority and runs his kingdom. So far you have not said a single thing to indicate that G-d is capable of a kingdom even comparable (let-a-lone superior) to any that have existed on earth. The Traveler

Jason: I hope you do not feel that I am critical. It is just that I am somewhat confused from your posts. Your odd use of terms confuses me. Perhaps if you would open an unabridged dictionary and review the meanings of excommunication and specifically indicate which meaning of the word excommunication from your point of view that does not apply to you and your relationship to the LDS church – I might better understand what you are trying to tell us. I would also refer you to “Common Law” as it relates to representation of authority and legal associations. You keep making reference to things as the Catholic view as though there is something odd or if such view is a minority view in society. Anytime an association is severed in a relationship where authority is given or implied that authority is revoked. I cannot think of a single legal exception. Perhaps if you could give a non religious example of how just law authorizes continued authority in a broken or severed contract – I might be able to understand what it is you are thinking. If your covenant contract (membership) with the LDS Church has been formally terminated (for what-ever reason) you have no priesthood authority granted by ordination of priesthood by LDS. If you want to claim priesthood authority by some other means; then that is between you and what-ever that other means is. This same logic and just sense applies to any legal association. If you were the treasure of some organization and authorized to write checks and transfer funds and for what-ever reason terminated that position then any effort to transfer funds would be illegal (criminal) and unauthorized despite your reasons for termination. Now I would refer you to another concept in “Common Law”. This is the concept of “Aggravated”. This concept implies that anyone that is currently or once in a position of authority that misuses that authority is guilty of greater impasse and should receive increased penalties. An example of “Aggravated” would be a policeman or ex policeman that polls over young ladies with his vehicle with lights and sirens and wearing his uniform, in remote places for the intent of raping them. Jesus implied that such from a religious standpoint – that, the “Aggravated” abusers, would have been better off had they never been borne. It is my personal opinion – for what it is worth – is that you seem to be taking the whole concept of priesthood and covenant obligation as it relates to authority; far too lightly and without any logical structure. Anyone that has ended their membership in the LDS church (regardless of reason) has no legal or just right to even speak in behalf of LDS to anyone for any purpose. Of course anyone is entitled to their own opinion(s) but no one has authority or right to speak for anyone else or for any group when no such authority is given and/or current. The Traveler

Jasen: I can give you 100 historical facts in the Book of Mormon that relate to the Arabian peninsula and traveling there that could not have been known by Joseph Smith in 1830 that are 100% accurate and demonstrate accuracy. Can you point me to a more accurate book published within 50 years of the Book of Mormon that can be shown to be that accurate today? Can you point out any historical fact in the Book of Mormon about the Arabian peninsula that is known to be wrong? The reason I bring this up concerning the Arabian peninsula is that we know exactly where the Arabian peninsula is. There can be confusion about where is the America's the Book of Mormon took place but there is evidence of migrations from the middle east to the Americas when the Book of Mormon suggested it. The Traveler

Jason: You have some confusion with Priesthood and Priesthood keys. This also concerns "agency". You have also confused the terms of excommunication and resigning your membership. Regardless if you have removed your membership from communion or if you were put from communion you are no longer in communion with the body of members and therefore excommunicated. If you are excommunicated you have no right to the priesthood or legal claim to any priesthood ordinances or covenants. There is a slight difference in your status because you once entered into priesthood covenants. You are forever responsible for that covenant but by removing you membership you are not held to any additional responsibilities under the covenant. You can be restored to your priesthood but the requirement for restoration is greater than for just receiving the priesthood for the first time. Thus the difference in terms. Now to highlight covenants and responsibilities. Those that hold the priesthood are under covenant to their priesthood leaders (See D&C 84). As with any legal contract failure to up hold your obligations will result in the nullification of covenant blessings and will enable covenant curses or penalties. If you disagree with a priesthood leader you have a number of options. One is to refer to the next higher authority of the priesthood. Another option is to become an agent unto one self thereby taking upon yourself all the obligations and releasing the priesthood leader from any responsibilities or consequences. If you do this then at the judgment you answer directly to the L-rd for your actions. If you are right then all is well for you - if you are wrong then you have taken the consequences to yourself. The final option is to do as your leader has directed. Under the covenant you are released of any responsibilities and your priesthood leader must answer for misdirecting you. This is why one can never go wrong in following their priesthood leaders. It is the legal "I was following orders" excuse. The Traveler