Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Blessed]

Doing well, doing well! Life has been busy around these cold, nothern parts, but it is being busy for all the right reasons if that makes any sense.

Good to see you here and to be able to discuss things here. You are passionate about your beliefs and I hold no fault with that as I think Jesus was the same way.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 11 2004, 06:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 11 2004, 06:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 10 2004, 10:14 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 06:11 PM

Ray, the only people who broke off of BY's group are those who have broken off since they got to Utah.

Not true.

Zenas H. Gurley, who ordained JS III to prophethood in the RLDS was a "Brighamite" but splintered off on the way to Utah and BEFORE he got to Utah.

In ordaining JS III, Gurley was joined by William Marks, who in the ordination of Smith III functioned as the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth. How did Marks come to be the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth? Prior to ordaining JS III he, upon the death of JS, followed the Rigdon organization until 1846. He then joined James Strang and the Strangites where he served as counselor from 48 to the mid 50's. Marks then abandoned Strang and joined Charles B. Thompson's Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion and became the First Chief of the Quorum of Traveling Teachers. After that Marks joined another organization along with John Gaylord and John Page. The next year leaders of that group defected from it and founded the RLDS Church where Marks was the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth for JS the 3rd ordination.

At the time Marks left the Church in his church shopping escapades, he held no calling in the Church - that is, he had no authority to ordain anybody.

Snow, you can put whatever spin on it you want that makes you feel better, more important, whatever. That doesn't change the truth of what happened and why it happened.

That's right Jenda.

Whether I like it or not and whether you like it or not, after the death of the prophet, a new prophet was duly appointed by those in authority and the Church moved west. That fact is indisputable.

What is also indisputable is that a decade after the fact, the reorganized movement was founded which had admirably ambled on with not much impact on the world and man's salvation in it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 11 2004, 06:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 11 2004, 06:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 10 2004, 10:17 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:12 PM

Huh???

Exodus 32:14 And• the LORD repented• of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

What does this have to do with anything?

What on earth do you mean what does that have to do with anything.

You claim that God doesn't change his mind. Ex 32:14 says that God was going to harm his own people but then changed his mind.

You are (purposely?) confusing doctrine the Lord requires us to believe and practice and actions that God does or doesn't take. You can't put us on the same level as God.

Not only does God say He does not change, He also says He is not a respecter of persons. For God to change his mind regarding issues of doctrine makes him, not only a respecter of persons, but it makes him not God (for if I change, I cease to be God.)

What is meant by the idea that God does not change is unknown. You can only interpret or opine what that means. What is clear that by any standard man knows, the God of recorded scripture, God changes a lot.

God used to demand we worship him by cutting the heads off animals. God used to be vengeful and jealous and violent. Now he is kind and benevolent. Reading the Bible for God's personality is an exercise in change.

Besides Jenda, using your argument, flawed though it is, would require us to accept polygamy because God accepted polygamy anciently. Your own argument defeats you.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Nov 11 2004, 01:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Nov 11 2004, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Blessed@Nov 11 2004, 01:27 PM

Well if it makes you feel any better, Randy.  I remember.  

Tamara!!

Thank you! LOL! You are so much fun! How are you doing? I hope all is going well with you and yours!

I got put in "time out" on the CoC discussion board because I thought I would inject some humor....but I guess it wasnt very funny. So Pam thought I needed some time to cool my heals! I suppose she is right.

It is kinda frustrating though..when Joanne can literally rip into someone and she gets nothin...nada..zilch...zippidy do da! Oh well. I will be back around the 13th or so! LOL!

I just want to tell you again how much I enjoyed meeting you during your conference! You are and were so kind, thoughtful and sweet!

randy

How come you never want to meet me? I come out there frequently, and you have never said "Hey, let's hook up!"

Randy, how long was your time out? They gave me 4 months when everyone else who ever got one was given 2 weeks. I think it sounded a bit ......... shall we say........biased, to me. But I was quicker than they were. I got in two requests to have my account deleted before they sent me my "scolding". When they refused to delete my account and sent me that letter, I became a little less placid about it. They finally gave me my wish.

And, even though you have seen some great things from Joanne, believe me, you ain't seen nearly the things I have. Among other things, she accused me of having a "less than honorable" relationship with another poster on the board. And she got away with every single thing. Not once did she get "scolded". When I complained about that incident, they reprimanded ME. I threatened to send all my Joanne folder to the apostle in charge of the webboard if they didn't delete my account the way I asked. They did, but it took a threat to make them do it.

So, Randy, what was the humor you tried to interject. I would love to hear it. B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 11 2004, 06:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 11 2004, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 10 2004, 10:25 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 07:16 PM

You might also wish to remind Ray that BY had everyone re-baptized once they got away from Nauvoo, thus creating a new organization

My handy "bull" detector just went off. I don't even know what you are talking about but I know it fails the smell test.

Explain how re-baptism (if there is a thing such as you claim) = a new organization. Who's mangy dog invented that rule?

Think about it.

I thought about it and apparently you don't know either who invented that rule.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 06:32 AM

Snow, you have got to be kidding!!! I can't believe you are saying this with a straight face.

The church was set up in a very legalistic manner, with revelations stating what the hierarchy is, how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to progress in case of a calamity. You can't just throw those things aside and say "Nobody agreed with those interpretations so we did away with them." That is the first cardinal sin of not following God's directions. God gave those revelations, it seems, for just such a case, and you are, in effect, saying, "Forget you, God. We will do it our own way so we get our own way."

I didn't imply that he wrote a letter. You implied that he laid a foundation for their claim of succession, and I am asking you to provide that.

Jenda,

Don't be diliberately obtuse. That is not what I am saying at all. I am say that YOU are intepreting the scriptures incorrectly. As evidence of your incorrect interpretation, I point out that the entire hierarchy of the Church as constituted at the time of Joseph's death disagreed with your interpretation.

We, The Church of Jesus Christ, do believe the revelations in question. We don't, however, rely upon the Community of Christ Church to interpret them for us.

This, according to President Hinckley is the basis of apostolic succession:

As all students of our history know, we have maintained and followed the position that the keys and the authority of the priesthood, that authority without which there can be no true Church of Jesus Christ, were given to the Council of the Twelve Apostles in the very early days of the Church so that in the event of the death of the president the authority would remain and be passed on legally and properly for so long as the Church should continue.

For instance, in the great revelation on priesthood which we know as section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which was received and recorded on March 28, 1835, the Lord spoke of the governance of his Church and said of the Twelve after speaking of the Presidency: “They form a quorum, equal in authority and power to” the presidency. (D&C 107:24.)

Two years later, on July 23, 1837, this principle was again affirmed through revelation: “For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time.” (D&C 112:30.)

Again on January 19, 1841, the Lord said through the Prophet Joseph: “I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council;

“Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.” (D&C 124:127-28.)

The record of a special conference held in Nauvoo on August 16, 1841, states: “The time had come when the Twelve should be called upon to stand in their place next to the First Presidency, … and assist to bear off the kingdom victorious to the nations. …

“Motion seconded and carried that the conference approve of the instructions of President Smith, in relation to the Twelve, and that they proceed accordingly, to attend to the duties of their office.” (“Conference Minutes,” Times and Seasons, 2 [1 Sept. 1841]: 521-22.)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 08:21 AM

I was referring to the fact that the topic is exhausted and the rehashing is just bringing out unpleasant personality traits.  Read some of Snow's posts.  I have purposely ignored those posts of his that were written merely to reflect his anger.  They are the ones that are sarcastic in nature, very easy to spot.  I am not going to play that game.  Contention and division are not of God, so if the easy road is the high road, then I will take it.

No Jenda, you play another game. You ignore questions and point you can't rebutt and retreat into, "Well I don't like his tone..." That wouldn't be necessary if you had a strong enough case. Then you could just make your case without hiding behind personalities.

By the way, I notice that you ignore plenty of post that are essentially "toneless." But please, don't play the "high road" card. You are the one that continually dresses down the Church as apostate and our prophet Brigham Young as evil.

...and by the wa, from what I can tell, you are the only experience anger and contention. There is zero animosity on my part.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 11 2004, 10:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 11 2004, 10:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 06:32 AM

Snow, you have got to be kidding!!!  I can't believe you are saying this with a straight face.

The church was set up in a very legalistic manner, with revelations stating what the hierarchy is, how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to progress in case of a calamity.  You can't just throw those things aside and say "Nobody agreed with those interpretations so we did away with them."  That is the first cardinal sin of not following God's directions.  God gave those revelations, it seems, for just such a case, and you are, in effect, saying, "Forget you, God.  We will do it our own way so we get our own way."

I didn't imply that he wrote a letter.  You implied that he laid a foundation for their claim of succession, and I am asking you to provide that.

Jenda,

Don't be diliberately obtuse. That is not what I am saying at all. I am say that YOU are intepreting the scriptures incorrectly. As evidence of your incorrect interpretation, I point out that the entire hierarchy of the Church as constituted at the time of Joseph's death disagreed with your interpretation.

Take a wild guess as to why. Duh!

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 11 2004, 10:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 11 2004, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Nov 11 2004, 01:24 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Blessed@Nov 11 2004, 01:27 PM

Well if it makes you feel any better, Randy.  I remember.  

Tamara!!

Thank you! LOL! You are so much fun! How are you doing? I hope all is going well with you and yours!

I got put in "time out" on the CoC discussion board because I thought I would inject some humor....but I guess it wasnt very funny. So Pam thought I needed some time to cool my heals! I suppose she is right.

It is kinda frustrating though..when Joanne can literally rip into someone and she gets nothin...nada..zilch...zippidy do da! Oh well. I will be back around the 13th or so! LOL!

I just want to tell you again how much I enjoyed meeting you during your conference! You are and were so kind, thoughtful and sweet!

randy

How come you never want to meet me? I come out there frequently, and you have never said "Hey, let's hook up!"

Randy, how long was your time out? They gave me 4 months when everyone else who ever got one was given 2 weeks. I think it sounded a bit ......... shall we say........biased, to me. But I was quicker than they were. I got in two requests to have my account deleted before they sent me my "scolding". When they refused to delete my account and sent me that letter, I became a little less placid about it. They finally gave me my wish.

And, even though you have seen some great things from Joanne, believe me, you ain't seen nearly the things I have. Among other things, she accused me of having a "less than honorable" relationship with another poster on the board. And she got away with every single thing. Not once did she get "scolded". When I complained about that incident, they reprimanded ME. I threatened to send all my Joanne folder to the apostle in charge of the webboard if they didn't delete my account the way I asked. They did, but it took a threat to make them do it.

So, Randy, what was the humor you tried to interject. I would love to hear it. B)

Dawn!!

This is SOOO weird! My very NEXT post was going to extend an invitation to you to go out to dinner with my wife and I. I would absolutely love to meet you! I am not saying this just cuz you asked....I was really gonna ask ya. Honest injun!

So....let me know the next time you are up here....deal? Great!

Hmmmm....lets see....about Joanne.....I was at work...and I have one of those "old english words that are never used anymore" calenders on my desk. (its not mine). I was thumbing through it....looking for some funny words I might use in my next post to Joanne or "David".

I found the words "flibbergib" which means "gossipy person, "Cappernoited" which means "giddy or excited". So...I made up a post to Joanne that had them in it.

Well, she didnt see the post right away but others did...and started asking me about the meanings. I played dumb....I know, I know..easy for me to do. Anyway....as it turned out....in addition to meaning "excited and giddy"...Cappernoited also means "tipsy or inebriated"....well, I wasnt aware that she was a recovering alcoholic. So....needless to say it didnt go over very well. I did write her an email apologizing for my mischief. She accepted it graciously. Pam the "pickle" didnt however....so I was told to go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on...till Nov 13th.

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 11 2004, 10:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 11 2004, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 08:21 AM

I was referring to the fact that the topic is exhausted and the rehashing is just bringing out unpleasant personality traits.  Read some of Snow's posts.  I have purposely ignored those posts of his that were written merely to reflect his anger.  They are the ones that are sarcastic in nature, very easy to spot.  I am not going to play that game.  Contention and division are not of God, so if the easy road is the high road, then I will take it.

No Jenda, you play another game. You ignore questions and point you can't rebutt and retreat into, "Well I don't like his tone..." That wouldn't be necessary if you had a strong enough case. Then you could just make your case without hiding behind personalities.

By the way, I notice that you ignore plenty of post that are essentially "toneless." But please, don't play the "high road" card. You are the one that continually dresses down the Church as apostate and our prophet Brigham Young as evil.

...and by the wa, from what I can tell, you are the only experience anger and contention. There is zero animosity on my part.

I said the church was apostate once (after my church had been referred to as apostate about 10 times), and it was said as a joke, and you even acknowledged that it was a joke.

Snow, all your posts, but one, I have considered not worth answering because they have not been written in a positive spirit. Fatboys started this thread because he had some honest questions. I agreed ahead of time to answer those questions just so he knew what the RLDS position was and how it came about. It was never intended to become a "succession in the presidency debate". Besides which, we have rehashed this over and over, not only in this thread, but in past ones. I can go back through just this one thread and point out the same answers to the same questions (several times over) in 2 or 3 places each. So what is it to you if we end it? If you want to have the last word, feel free.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Nov 12 2004, 06:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Nov 12 2004, 06:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Nov 11 2004, 01:24 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Blessed@Nov 11 2004, 01:27 PM

Well if it makes you feel any better, Randy.  I remember.  

Tamara!!

Thank you! LOL! You are so much fun! How are you doing? I hope all is going well with you and yours!

I got put in "time out" on the CoC discussion board because I thought I would inject some humor....but I guess it wasnt very funny. So Pam thought I needed some time to cool my heals! I suppose she is right.

It is kinda frustrating though..when Joanne can literally rip into someone and she gets nothin...nada..zilch...zippidy do da! Oh well. I will be back around the 13th or so! LOL!

I just want to tell you again how much I enjoyed meeting you during your conference! You are and were so kind, thoughtful and sweet!

randy

How come you never want to meet me? I come out there frequently, and you have never said "Hey, let's hook up!"

Randy, how long was your time out? They gave me 4 months when everyone else who ever got one was given 2 weeks. I think it sounded a bit ......... shall we say........biased, to me. But I was quicker than they were. I got in two requests to have my account deleted before they sent me my "scolding". When they refused to delete my account and sent me that letter, I became a little less placid about it. They finally gave me my wish.

And, even though you have seen some great things from Joanne, believe me, you ain't seen nearly the things I have. Among other things, she accused me of having a "less than honorable" relationship with another poster on the board. And she got away with every single thing. Not once did she get "scolded". When I complained about that incident, they reprimanded ME. I threatened to send all my Joanne folder to the apostle in charge of the webboard if they didn't delete my account the way I asked. They did, but it took a threat to make them do it.

So, Randy, what was the humor you tried to interject. I would love to hear it. B)

Dawn!!

This is SOOO weird! My very NEXT post was going to extend an invitation to you to go out to dinner with my wife and I. I would absolutely love to meet you! I am not saying this just cuz you asked....I was really gonna ask ya. Honest injun!

So....let me know the next time you are up here....deal? Great!

Hmmmm....lets see....about Joanne.....I was at work...and I have one of those "old english words that are never used anymore" calenders on my desk. (its not mine). I was thumbing through it....looking for some funny words I might use in my next post to Joanne or "David".

I found the words "flibbergib" which means "gossipy person, "Cappernoited" which means "giddy or excited". So...I made up a post to Joanne that had them in it.

Well, she didnt see the post right away but others did...and started asking me about the meanings. I played dumb....I know, I know..easy for me to do. Anyway....as it turned out....in addition to meaning "excited and giddy"...Cappernoited also means "tipsy or inebriated"....well, I wasnt aware that she was a recovering alcoholic. So....needless to say it didnt go over very well. I did write her an email apologizing for my mischief. She accepted it graciously. Pam the "pickle" didnt however....so I was told to go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on...till Nov 13th.

randy

Let's see.

Margie 2 weeks

Krista 2 weeks

Glenn 2 weeks

Randy 2 weeks

Dawn 4 months

Kathy Widener banned

Mamusz banned

Ron Cearley banned

Do you see something odd here?

If they changed the focus of the board to be an outreach board, that would be one thing. But to say that it is a discussion board, and then ban those people who want to discuss the issues (instead of just saying "Yes, you are sooo right", etc., etc., is absolutely ridiculous. I'd say just leave. There are some really great people who post there, but they (the mod squad) are more biased there than any other place I have posted, even ChristianForums.

Just my opinion.

(Why did you put David's name is ""?)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 12 2004, 05:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 12 2004, 05:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 11 2004, 10:18 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 06:32 AM

Snow, you have got to be kidding!!!  I can't believe you are saying this with a straight face.

The church was set up in a very legalistic manner, with revelations stating what the hierarchy is, how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to progress in case of a calamity.  You can't just throw those things aside and say "Nobody agreed with those interpretations so we did away with them."  That is the first cardinal sin of not following God's directions.  God gave those revelations, it seems, for just such a case, and you are, in effect, saying, "Forget you, God.  We will do it our own way so we get our own way."

I didn't imply that he wrote a letter.  You implied that he laid a foundation for their claim of succession, and I am asking you to provide that.

Jenda,

Don't be diliberately obtuse. That is not what I am saying at all. I am say that YOU are intepreting the scriptures incorrectly. As evidence of your incorrect interpretation, I point out that the entire hierarchy of the Church as constituted at the time of Joseph's death disagreed with your interpretation.

Take a wild guess as to why. Duh!

I don't know. Perhaps because you don't have an answer so you are pretending not to get it.

[Ray]

I think some of you are still missing the most important point, and that is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued since it was first organized on April 6, 1830.

No matter who the leaders or members are or ever have been, and no matter what decisions or actions any leaders or members of the Church have ever made, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued in existence since the very first day it was organized.

In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an organization consisting of leaders and members, and no matter who the leaders are, and no matter who the members are, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues and has always continued since the very first day it was organized.

Got that now? And as I also said before, according to prophecy, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will always continue to fill the Earth.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 12 2004, 11:06 AM

I think some of you are still missing the most important point, and that is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued since it was first organized on April 6, 1830. 

No matter who the leaders or members are or ever have been, and no matter what decisions or actions any leaders or members of the Church have ever made, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued in existence since the very first day it was organized.

In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an organization consisting of leaders and members, and no matter who the leaders are, and no matter who the members are, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues and has always continued since the very first day it was organized.

Got that now?  And as I also said before, according to prophecy, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will always continue to fill the Earth.

You are correct!

[Blessed]

Ok, randy and Jenda, let's leave people's names out of posts. It is kind of tasteless to talk about this on a public forum. And just something to think about... you have no idea IF J was given a time out either.

The mods are some of my friends just as you are... so move it to PM's.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Blessed@Nov 12 2004, 11:45 AM

Ok, randy and Jenda, let's leave people's names out of posts. It is kind of tasteless to talk about this on a public forum. And just something to think about... you have no idea IF J was given a time out either.

The mods are some of my friends just as you are... so move it to PM's.

The mods were also my friends, but felt the need to choose between friendship and moderating, instead of finding a way to do, or be, both. And, since Joanne has been posting right along, it is kind of obvious that she hasn't gotten any time outs.

Besides, I don't believe that gross errors in judgment should necessarily be covered up.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 12 2004, 10:06 AM

I think some of you are still missing the most important point, and that is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued since it was first organized on April 6, 1830.

No matter who the leaders or members are or ever have been, and no matter what decisions or actions any leaders or members of the Church have ever made, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued in existence since the very first day it was organized.

In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an organization consisting of leaders and members, and no matter who the leaders are, and no matter who the members are, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues and has always continued since the very first day it was organized.

Got that now? And as I also said before, according to prophecy, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will always continue to fill the Earth.

Is this point being ignored or simply overlooked?

[Blessed]

Jenda, like I said, you don't know for sure if J was given a time out. And if indeed they were/are your friends your respect of them should carry over any problems you have with they way they moderate and should not list them here. It just isn't right. IMO.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 12 2004, 12:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 12 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 12 2004, 10:06 AM

I think some of you are still missing the most important point, and that is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued since it was first organized on April 6, 1830. 

No matter who the leaders or members are or ever have been, and no matter what decisions or actions any leaders or members of the Church have ever made, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued in existence since the very first day it was organized.

In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an organization consisting of leaders and members, and no matter who the leaders are, and no matter who the members are, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues and has always continued since the very first day it was organized.

Got that now?  And as I also said before, according to prophecy, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will always continue to fill the Earth.

Is this point being ignored or simply overlooked?

No, it was not overlooked. We just have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "the" Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I believe it is the RLDS, and in that vein, I believe you are right. It was restored for the last time on April 6, 1830, and has been present on the face of the earth ever since then. It faced a good deal of internal stife and external persecution, but the Lord provided a way for it to move on without all the baggage that was not correctly part of it.

[Ray]

Heh, I think you’re trying to say that the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” became known as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, which shows that you fail to see those organizations as 2 separate and distinct organizations.

Let me see if I can say this some other way so that you can better understand me.

In other words, the same organization that was formed on April 6, 1830 has continued as an organization without interruption since April 6, 1830, with no dissolutions or “re-organizations” in its history. True, there have been changes in leadership, and membership, and church teachings, and ordinances, and procedures, but it has always remained the same organization.

Any student of history should be able to tell you this, but for some reason I don’t think you’re going to be able to get it until the Holy Ghost enlightens your mind with understanding.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 12 2004, 02:41 PM

Heh, I think you’re trying to say that the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” became known as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, which shows that you fail to see those organizations as 2 separate and distinct organizations.

Let me see if I can say this some other way so that you can better understand me.

In other words, the same organization that was formed on April 6, 1830 has continued as an organization without interruption since April 6, 1830, with no dissolutions or “re-organizations” in its history. True, there have been changes in leadership, and membership, and church teachings, and ordinances, and procedures, but it has always remained the same organization.

Any student of history should be able to tell you this, but for some reason I don’t think you’re going to be able to get it until the Holy Ghost enlightens your mind with understanding.

Ray, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. You are stating that since the "organizational structure" of the church remained intact, that the church remained the "true church". Those two concepts are not necessarily entwined with each other. For example, the same argument has been (and still is) made about the Catholic Church. The spiritual authority is God's to give, not man's to assume.

[Ray]

Ray, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. You are stating that since the "organizational structure" of the church remained intact, that the church remained the "true church". Those two concepts are not necessarily entwined with each other. For example, the same argument has been (and still is) made about the Catholic Church.  -

The spiritual authority is God's to give, not man's to assume.

Exactly, which is why only Jesus could reorganize His Church.

Let’s see if you can follow this line of reasoning.

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have been the only Church remaining on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize. The Lutherans couldn’t assume His authority to organize their organization, the Methodists couldn’t assume His authority to organize their organization, and no other “Protestant” organization could assume His authority to organize their organization, just as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” couldn’t assume our Lord's authority to organize their organization.

Right?

Or do you suppose that all of these organizations have been authorized by our Lord?

You could argue that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in apostasy, just as the Catholic Church is in apostasy, but that still wouldn't give another organization our Lord's authorization to organize their organization. And btw, I'm not recommending that you make that argument because that would be a lie.

But, IF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer has our Lord's authorization to continue, just as the Catholic Church no longer has His authorization to continue, then nobody has it and nobody can assume it without explaining how the Lord gave them His authority to organize their organization.

Can you agree with all that?

The next step in reasoning then is to understand that all authority is limited to certain conditions, and where those conditions no longer remain, the authority becomes invalid. That’s the way authority works in every kingdom.

For instance, if someone receives authority to be a police officer in a police force and then leaves that police force, he no longer has the authority he once held in that police force.

If someone receives authority to be the President of the United States and he then leaves office, he no longer has the authority he once held as the President of the United States.

And if someone receives authority to be a high priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then leaves the Church, he no longer has the authority he once held as a high priest in the Church.

Right?

So how does the RLDS organization or any other organization explain how they received our Lord's authority to organize their organization? Do you suppose that the authority of high priests in the Church extend to other organizations outside the Church? In other words, do you suppose that I can organize another Church simply because I have been ordained a high priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... and expect to have our Lord authorize that Church as His own? If so, how do you suppose I have received the authority to do that...and what were the conditions?

Btw, I want to make sure you understand that I state as fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints REMAINS the Lord's authorized organization of believers on Earth, and that if you want to worship Him and learn about Him as much as He makes His will known to the people on Earth, you should join with us. :)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 12 2004, 03:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 12 2004, 03:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 12 2004, 02:41 PM

Heh, I think you’re trying to say that the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” became known as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, which shows that you fail to see those organizations as 2 separate and distinct organizations.

Let me see if I can say this some other way so that you can better understand me.

In other words, the same organization that was formed on April 6, 1830 has continued as an organization without interruption since April 6, 1830, with no dissolutions or “re-organizations” in its history.  True, there have been changes in leadership, and membership, and church teachings, and ordinances, and procedures, but it has always remained the same organization.

Any student of history should be able to tell you this, but for some reason I don’t think you’re going to be able to get it until the Holy Ghost enlightens your mind with understanding.

Ray, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. You are stating that since the "organizational structure" of the church remained intact, that the church remained the "true church". Those two concepts are not necessarily entwined with each other. For example, the same argument has been (and still is) made about the Catholic Church. The spiritual authority is God's to give, not man's to assume.

Dawn,

The problem that I see you have is this....

Lets say for an example...just as a comparison that :

1) LDS church began teaching plural marriage

2) CoC/RLDS began teaching that women can be ordained to the PH

3) LDS church has "open communion"

4) CoC/RLDS began practicing "open communion"

5) LDS church teaches the concept of "Exaltation"

6) CoC/RLDS believes that salvation can to people through other ways...and NOT only through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

My point is this...just as you believe the LDS church began teaching false doctrine that necessitated a "reorganization".....so also the CoC/RLDS has began teaching false doctrine...hence (according to the initial rational for the Reorganization) certain Restorationists have (according to their testimony) sought the Lord in prayer....and in answer to that prayer...the Lord directed them to RE-Reorganize the RLDS church....hence we now have the REMNANT Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints....which according to them is the "continuation" of the original church.

So....my position is this....if you cannot support the rational of the Remnant Church seeing the need for a RE-Reorganization because the CoC/RLDS is teaching false and apostate doctrine (in their opinion) how is it you can support the initial "reorganizers" in their separating from the the main body of the Saints and the duly authorized and recognized leadership of the Church?

It just doesnt make sense to me.....its ok to reorganize in 1851 because of the teaching of false doctrine...yet, when your Church is shown to be teaching false doctrine (according to your beliefs)....for some reason...its not ok to "RE-Reorganize" in 2000. How come?

Explain please.

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 12 2004, 03:17 PM

Ray, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. You are stating that since the "organizational structure" of the church remained intact, that the church remained the "true church". Those two concepts are not necessarily entwined with each other. For example, the same argument has been (and still is) made about the Catholic Church.  -

The spiritual authority is God's to give, not man's to assume.</span>

Exactly, which is why only Jesus could reorganize His Church.

Let’s see if you can follow this line of reasoning.

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have been the only Church remaining on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize. The Lutherans couldn’t assume His authority to organize their organization, the Methodists couldn’t assume His authority to organize their organization, and no other “Protestant” organization could assume His authority to organize their organization, just as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” couldn’t assume our Lord's authority to organize their organization.

Right?

Or do you suppose that all of these organizations have been authorized by our Lord?

I agree with you up until the point of the last sentence in your paragraph, for this reason: The Catholic Church was already in apostacy by the time of the reformation, so there was no authority to pass on. Those men who were becoming priesthood in the RCC, and those that came after them in the reformation, only had the authority of men, so they couldn't pass on God's authority. The men who formed the Reorganization were active, authoritative priesthood holders in the original church, so they continued to carry that authority with them, because, just as God gives the authority to man, only God can withdraw it. Just because they "left" the "organization" doesn't mean that they didn't continue to carry their authority with them.

You could argue that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in apostasy, just as the Catholic Church is in apostasy, but that still wouldn't give another organization our Lord's authorization to organize their organization.  And btw, I'm not recommending that you make that argument because that would be a lie.

But, IF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer has our Lord's authorization to continue, just as the Catholic Church no longer has His authorization to continue, then nobody has it and nobody can assume it without explaining how the Lord gave them His authority to organize their organization.

Can you agree with all that?

This is all part of the same argument as above. Because God gave the men their authority, they continued to have the authority. They didn't have to assume it because it was already theirs.

The next step in reasoning then is to understand that all authority is limited to certain conditions, and where those conditions no longer remain, the authority becomes invalid. That’s the way authority works in every kingdom. 

For instance, if someone receives authority to be a police officer in a police force and then leaves that police force, he no longer has the authority he once held in that police force. 

If someone receives authority to be the President of the United States and he then leaves office, he no longer has the authority he once held as the President of the United States. 

And if someone receives authority to be a high priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then leaves the Church, he no longer has the authority he once held as a high priest in the Church.

Right?

So how does the RLDS organization or any other organization explain how they received our Lord's authority to organize their organization?  Do you suppose that the authority of high priests in the Church extend to other organizations outside the Church?  In other words, do you suppose that I can organize another Church simply because I have been ordained a high priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... and expect to have our Lord authorize that Church as His own?  If so, how do you suppose I have received the authority to do that...and what were the conditions?

Btw, I want to make sure you understand that I state as fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints REMAINS the Lord's authorized organization of believers on Earth, and that if you want to worship Him and learn about Him as much as He makes His will known to the people on Earth, you should join with us. :)

I do agree that the "authority" becomes invalid at a certain point in certain situations. Unfortunately for you, I don't believe that the hierarchy of the church at Nauvoo and what later became the LDS church had the authority (God's authority) to take the actions they took. They might have had man's authority, but the two are not the same. As I said earlier, God bestows priesthood, only God can withdraw priesthood. YOU and the LDS might not recognize the authority God has granted the priesthood in the RLDS church, but that does not make it invalid except in your eyes. Just as the LDS priesthood is not valid in my eyes.

Let me say this, Ray, I do admire your persistence. B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Blessed@Nov 12 2004, 11:45 AM

Ok, randy and Jenda, let's leave people's names out of posts. It is kind of tasteless to talk about this on a public forum. And just something to think about... you have no idea IF J was given a time out either.

The mods are some of my friends just as you are... so move it to PM's.

Or not. Feel free to say whatever you want. People behave and other people are free to comment on their behavior. It's the nature of public bb's.