Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:39 PM

Ray, I will get to your last post later this evening, but you failed to answer my question earlier?  Who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., as president of the high priesthood?

You would have found this if you had clicked on my link to section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants:

I don't think you understand. I know the answer to the question. I want you to tell me in your own words who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., to be president of the High Priesthood.

The church, by common consent. Is that clear enough for you?

Btw, I believe the church consented to that ordination because they understood and had Faith that our Lord had chosen Joseph Smith Jr. as His prophet, just as they also understood and had Faith that the Book of Mormon and all those other revelations Joseph published were inspired by our Lord.

And btw, btw, that is also how the Church knew and continues to know that Brigham Young was and continues to be a chosen prophet of our Lord, too.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 16 2004, 02:51 PM

Ray, I will get to your last post later this evening, but you failed to answer my question earlier?  Who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., as president of the high priesthood?

You would have found this if you had clicked on my link to section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants:

I don't think you understand. I know the answer to the question. I want you to tell me in your own words who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., to be president of the High Priesthood.

The church, by common consent. Is that clear enough for you?

Btw, I believe the church consented to that ordination because they understood and had Faith that our Lord had chosen Joseph Smith Jr. as His prophet, just as they also understood and had Faith that the Book of Mormon and all those other revelations Joseph published were inspired by our Lord.

And btw, btw, that is also how the Church knew and continues to know that Brigham Young was and continues to be a chosen prophet of our Lord, too.

The church ordained him by common consent? This answer doesn't make sense.

I was looking for names and/or priesthood offices.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 16 2004, 03:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 16 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 16 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 16 2004, 02:31 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:11 PM

Ray, I will get to your last post later this evening, but you failed to answer my question earlier?  Who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., as president of the high priesthood?

You would have found this if you had clicked on my link to section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants:

I don't think you understand. I know the answer to the question. I want you to tell me in your own words who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., to be president of the High Priesthood.

The church, by common consent. Is that clear enough for you?

Btw, I believe the church consented to that ordination because they understood and had Faith that our Lord had chosen Joseph Smith Jr. as His prophet, just as they also understood and had Faith that the Book of Mormon and all those other revelations Joseph published were inspired by our Lord.

And btw, btw, that is also how the Church knew and continues to know that Brigham Young was and continues to be a chosen prophet of our Lord, too.

The church ordained him by common consent? This answer doesn't make sense.

I was looking for names and/or priesthood offices.

Oh, well, if you want to get technical about it, the members of the Church first sought inspiration from the Lord about it, they then arrived at the idea that Joseph Smith Jr. should be the President of the Church, and then then agreed by common consent that Joseph Smith Jr. should be the President of the Church.

Brigham Young was ordained in a similar fashion. The apostles of the Church first sought inspiration from the Lord about the question, they then arrived at the idea that Brigham Young should be the next President of the Church, they then submitted the name of Brigham Young to the Church for approval, at which time the Church agreed by common consent that Brigham Young should be the next President of the Church.

Some members of the Church were opposed to that idea, but since they were outnumbered some of them started other organizations, while the Church continued under the direction of Brigham Young, as they agreed by common consent, and as they sustained to uphold him by prayers of Faith.

[Amillia]

You should all read a book called the Acts of the Apostles. It has all this kind of information.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Amillia@Nov 16 2004, 03:57 PM

You should all read a book called the Acts of the Apostles. It has all this kind of information.

I think the Doctrine & Covenants has more details, though. Do you agree? If so, please indicate by an uplifted hand.

Any opposed?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 16 2004, 03:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 16 2004, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 16 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 16 2004, 02:31 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:11 PM

Ray, I will get to your last post later this evening, but you failed to answer my question earlier?  Who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., as president of the high priesthood?

You would have found this if you had clicked on my link to section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants:

I don't think you understand. I know the answer to the question. I want you to tell me in your own words who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., to be president of the High Priesthood.

The church, by common consent. Is that clear enough for you?

Btw, I believe the church consented to that ordination because they understood and had Faith that our Lord had chosen Joseph Smith Jr. as His prophet, just as they also understood and had Faith that the Book of Mormon and all those other revelations Joseph published were inspired by our Lord.

And btw, btw, that is also how the Church knew and continues to know that Brigham Young was and continues to be a chosen prophet of our Lord, too.

The church ordained him by common consent? This answer doesn't make sense.

I was looking for names and/or priesthood offices.

Oh, well, if you want to get technical about it, the members of the Church first sought inspiration from the Lord about it, they then arrived at the idea that Joseph Smith Jr. should be the President of the Church, and then then agreed by common consent that Joseph Smith Jr. should be the President of the Church.

Brigham Young was ordained in a similar fashion. The apostles of the Church first sought inspiration from the Lord about the question, they then arrived at the idea that Brigham Young should be the next President of the Church, they then submitted the name of Brigham Young to the Church for approval, at which time the Church agreed by common consent that Brigham Young should be the next President of the Church.

Some members of the Church were opposed to that idea, but since they were outnumbered some of them started other organizations, while the Church continued under the direction of Brigham Young, as they agreed by common consent, and as they sustained to uphold him by prayers of Faith.

On the 26th, I called a general council of the church, and was acknowledged as the president of the high priesthood, according to a previous ordination at a conference of high priests, elders and members, held at Amherst, Ohio, on the 25th of January, 1832. (Times & Seasons, vol. 6, p. 624.)

From RLDS Church History, vol. 1, pp. 244-247

An incidental mention is made in the above historical statement of the ordination of Joseph as "president of the high priesthood," at Amherst, Ohio, on January 25,1832. This seems to be a very meager mention of so important an event, but we see that provision had been made for such an office, even before the church was organized; which the reader may see by referring to Doctrine and Covenants 17:17 (that would be Utah D&C section 20:67), where the person to hold such office is called "president of the high priesthood (or presiding elder)" This parenthetical clause explains and makes clear the clause in paragraph 1 of the same section, where it is said Joseph was called "to be the first elder of this church," etc. Thus the two are connected and the person to hold such position pointed out. Hence the ordination referred to is in harmony with provision made, and done also in harmony with the provision; viz., by direction of a General Conference, or it was as nearly a General Conference as circumstances would allow. A part of the church was far away in Missouri with no adequate means of transportation, but to make good this deficiency (if deficiency it was) he was, on Thursday, April 26, 1832, presented to the church in Missouri at a "general council of the church," and the action of the church at Amherst ratified.

In the last revelation referred to; viz., section 80, provision is also made for further perfecting the quorum of three presidents, which was afterwards consummated by the calling of F. G. Williams to be "a counselor unto my servant, Joseph Smith, Jr., unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belongeth always unto the presidency of the high priesthood" etc.

There is one point in the ordination at Amherst that may trouble some; viz., that this council of high priests ordained Joseph to a higher office than was held by themselves. But this is in harmony with the event mentioned before, where the office of elder in the Melchisedec priesthood was bestowed upon Oliver Cowdery under the hands of Joseph Smith, prior to Joseph's ordination; and also in harmony with the action of elders ordaining high priests at the June conference of 1831. These examples make it clear that those in whom the rights of priesthood exist may officiate in any ordination, where emergency demands and a command of God directs; though where the church is perfectly organized the general rule is for the greater to ordain the lesser.

So the answer to the question is that it was more than just a general assumption that that was what role he should fulfill and so he did, he was ordained by the council of high priests into that office.

[Jenda]

Brigham Young was ordained in a similar fashion. The apostles of the Church first sought inspiration from the Lord about the question, they then arrived at the idea that Brigham Young should be the next President of the Church, they then submitted the name of Brigham Young to the Church for approval, at which time the Church agreed by common consent that Brigham Young should be the next President of the Church.

So, instead of doing what God wanted done (using the person who was designated under the provision that was created for that purpose and fulfilled by Joseph Smith), the council of twelve thought about it for a while and then decided to go against what God said they should do.

Ray, if you have followed any of these conversations, it should be clear that BY knew that Joseph had designated Joseph, III. He mentioned it on several occasions. I have posted those remarks numerous times here on this board. The fact that BY knew that Joseph designated Joseph, III, remarked about it several times, and then rejected suggestions that the church be kept in a guardianship for young Joseph shows to me that it was his intention all along to make himself president. Whose idea do you think it was that the twelve present his name to the church? How many of them do you think went along with him because they had seen what he did to those who didn't go along with his suggestions?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 16 2004, 02:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 16 2004, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 16 2004, 02:34 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:15 PM

…our priesthood… can be traced all the way back to Joseph Smith, Jr. Do you think that someone just up and ordained themselves into the priesthood at some point in time and claimed that it was from some unknown priesthood member? Every priesthood member in our church's priesthood, if that is your definition of "authoritative", is authoritative.

While the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may trace it’s priesthood back to Joseph Smith Jr., they do NOT trace it to Brigham Young, and since he is the person who was authorized and ordained by the Church to be the presiding high priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, YES, someone did just up and ordain themselves into another line of priesthood that is unknown or unrecognized as an authority in the Church.

Ray, you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

BY had everyone repaptized, and now you are telling me he had everyone re-ordained? How can you see what has happened here and not understand that a new organization was started?

Sorry, that really is the end of the conversation for me. There is NO authority in the LDS church if this is what happened. None whatsoever. Except whatever authority BY gave.

I didn't say that Brigham Young had everyone re-ordained. Where did you get that idea? Heh, are your eyes playing tricks on you?

Ray, you posted it in your own post. I highlighted it.

Either you are saying that Brigham Young re-ordained everyone, or that only those who he ordained himself became "authoritative" priesthood in the LDS church.

Heh, I said the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t trace their priesthood to Brigham Young, silly. Read the rest of my post with that idea in your brain.

The fact that you are suggesting that priesthood needs to be traced back to him at all is why I am raising the question. What did he do, if he didn't re-ordain everyone or reject those whose ordinations he didn't personally do, that would require that everyone be able to trace their priesthood back to him?

[Jenda]

Ray, you asked me this.

God did give instructions to several men who were priesthood members who were faithful to the restoration to gather the rest of the saints who also continued to be faithful to the restoration and wait for Him to provide a leader, so they did, and so He did.

Can I see a copy of those instructions? If God gave those instructions to those “several men who were priesthood members”, surely those men would have written it down. You’re saying that those men received revelations from our Lord, right? So where are those revelations? I’d like to read them.

One of the revelations can be found here. http://home.earthlink.net/~jptandy/rlds/index.htm

It is a split page. On the left side, scroll down to the bottom and click on the link that says "Revelation to Jason W. Briggs -- Starting point of the Reorganization (1851)"

The revelation to Zenos Gurley was short, and stated "Rise up, cast off all that claim to be prophets, and go forth and preach the gospel, and say that God will raise up a prophet to complete his work." (originally published in the "True Latter Day Saints Herald, vol. 1, no. 1, January 1860)

[Ray]

Originally posted by Ray+ Nov 16 2004, 02:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 16 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 02:11 PM

Ray, I will get to your last post later this evening, but you failed to answer my question earlier?  Who ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., as president of the high priesthood?

You would have found this if you had clicked on my link to section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants:

Every president of the high priesthood (or presiding elder), bishop, high councilor, and high priest, is to be ordained by the direction of a high council or general conference. – verse 67

I recommend that you read that verse in context, however, so that it will add even more to your understanding of the scriptures.

Here’s verses 65 & 66, for instance:

No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church; But the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.

And here’s what you would find in verses 61 – 64:

The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in conference once in three months, or from time to time as said conferences shall direct or appoint;

And said conferences are to do whatever church business is necessary to be done at the time.

The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences.

Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

You might also want to take a look at section 26:

…all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

Jenda,

I’m still absolutely flabbergasted by the idea that you can’t even see the point I’m trying to make… and I’m not talking about the idea that you don’t agree with my point, but that you don’t even see it!

Did you even read the post that I re-quoted above?

You seem to be arguing the point that some people who were once given priesthood authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints retained their authority once they left the Church to form another organization known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I can see no authorization or justification for that point in anything you have written or referenced.

For instance:

These examples make it clear that those in whom the rights of priesthood exist may officiate in any ordination, where emergency demands and a command of God directs; though where the church is perfectly organized the general rule is for the greater to ordain the lesser. - notice that I highlighted a different selection than you highlighted.

And yes, this authorization does exist in the Church, but this authorization does not extend to the ordination of people to priesthood offices outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In other words, section 20 reveals our Lord’s will concerning how His church is to be organized and established, with the understanding that the church being mentioned is one organization. Our Lord doesn’t authorize people to establish other organizations !!!

In other words, according to our Lord’s will, all priesthood offices and officers are to become a part of one organization, and that organization is the one known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… you know, the one that was

regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—D&C 20:1

Where do you get the idea that our Lord has authorized priesthood officers to ordain people into priesthood offices in other organizations ?!?

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 08:02 PM

Ray, if you have followed any of these conversations, it should be clear that BY knew that Joseph had designated Joseph, III. He mentioned it on several occasions. I have posted those remarks numerous times here on this board. The fact that BY knew that Joseph designated Joseph, III, remarked about it several times, and then rejected suggestions that the church be kept in a guardianship for young Joseph shows to me that it was his intention all along to make himself president. Whose idea do you think it was that the twelve present his name to the church? How many of them do you think went along with him because they had seen what he did to those who didn't go along with his suggestions?

Did you miss this earlier post from me?

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@ Nov 16 2004, 11:01 AM

Even if you argue that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith Jr. to ordain Joseph Smith 3 as his successor, that would only give Joseph Smith 3 the ordination to succeed him in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and not the authority to establish another organization. And that ordination would, of course, be subject to the condition that Joseph Smith 3 choose to accept that ordination and abide by the conditions thereof.

In other words, even if Joseph Smith Jr. did ordain Joseph Smith 3 to succeed him as the next presiding high priest in the Church, that ordination would only qualify Joseph Smith 3 to succeed Joseph Smith 3 in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that ordination would of course still be subject to the common consent of the Church, including the common consent of the officers and priesthood authorities in the Church. Can’t you see that?

In other words, even an ordination from our Lord Himself isn’t binding upon an individual or a group of individuals without common consent and acceptance. Even our Lord's ordaination of Joseph Smith Jr. as His prophet would not have been approved by the Church without the common consent of the Church, leaving Joseph Smith Jr. to be President over nobody but himself… even though our Lord had personally ordained him and chosen him to be the President of His church !!!

Anyway, I suggest that you read section 20 again, and while you’re at it, read a few other sections of the Doctrine & Covenants that follow that section, because you seem to have no clue how authority and priesthood functions in the church of Jesus Christ... in accordance with scripture.

[Jenda]

Ray, I have to chuckle, because you are just as blind as you are accusing me of being. I have been having these discussions with LDS since 1977 and know exactly all the points you are trying to make, I just don't believe them. There is nothing in those sections that states that if the church is in apostasy that the faithful can't unite apart from the structural organization.

Here is a scripture I find interesting. Section 104:3b-7(RLDS); 107:8-12(LDS)

3b The Melchisedec priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church, in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

4 The presidency of the high priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

5 High priests, after the order of the Melchisedec priesthood, have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the Presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

6 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.

7 The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeably to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

Verse 7 (which would be your verse 12) states that the high priest has the right to officiate in all the offices when there is no higher authority. And since the church was in apostasy, having rejected the person who was chosen to lead the church as well as introducing false doctrines and ordinances, there was no higher authority present, therefore the high priest had the right to preside and organize the faithful who were left.

The place where you are blind is that you can't distinguish between the authority of God and man's authority. IMO, by the time Joseph Smith was killed and BY had badgered everyone in to accepting his leadership, there was no more divine authority in the church. And because of that, it had no authority to do what it did. So what it did do was not valid in the eyes of God. I am sure that God would have rather the faithful reorganize the church back to the way it was when it was restored and continue to follow his commandments than to lose them in a church that no longer followed Him and lose the restoration all together.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@ Nov 17 2004, 11:15 AM

The place where you are blind is that you can't distinguish between the authority of God and man's authority.

I could say the same thing to you, you know.

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the Church as long as the Church retains people who have the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

How about yet another approach?

For instance, what if I got a group of people from my High Priest quorum to get together and decide that we should start a new organization, because we all thought we could organize and lead the true followers of Christ a whole lot better than the President or First Presidency of the Church, and the reason we think so is because we consider the President and First Presidency of the Church to be in apostasy.

What do you think? Do you think the Lord would authorize our actions?

We’ve all been given the priesthood, you know. True, we’re not in the First Quorum of Seventy, or in the Quorum of Apostles, but what if we all decided that they were in apostasy too?

And btw, in making our decisions, we could all write down our thoughts and claim they are scripture too, considering ourselves to be enlightened by the light of Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.

What do you think? I’m sure we could even do a lot better than the RLDS is doing now too. Would you want to join our Church?

Btw, I’m speaking as a fool to make a point, because these are not by beliefs. Yet this idea does seem to reflect how some other people think.

And btw, btw, if you've maintained your beliefs for that long and have gone through conversations like this before, I think I'll simply bow out now and leave you to your own beliefs... because I do respect your right to have your own beliefs.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 17 2004, 11:41 AM

And btw, btw, if you've maintained your beliefs for that long and have gone through conversations like this before, I think I'll simply bow out now and leave you to your own beliefs... because I do respect your right to have your own beliefs.

As do I you! :)

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 12:15 PM

Here is a scripture I find interesting.  Section 104:3b-7(RLDS); 107:8-12(LDS)

3b The Melchisedec priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church, in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

4 The presidency of the high priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

5 High priests, after the order of the Melchisedec priesthood, have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the Presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

6 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.

7 The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeably to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

Verse 7 (which would be your verse 12) states that the high priest has the right to officiate in all the offices when there is no higher authority.  And since the church was in apostasy, having rejected the person who was chosen to lead the church as well as introducing false doctrines and ordinances, there was no higher authority present, therefore the high priest had the right to preside and organize the faithful who were left.

The place where you are blind is that you can't distinguish between the authority of God and man's authority.  IMO, by the time Joseph Smith was killed and BY had badgered everyone in to accepting his leadership, there was no more divine authority in the church.  And because of that, it had no authority to do what it did.  So what it did do was not valid in the eyes of God.  I am sure that God would have rather the faithful reorganize the church back to the way it was when it was restored and continue to follow his commandments than to lose them in a church that no longer followed Him and lose the restoration all together.

FB: Have you ever studied the history of Brigham Young? Although Brigham Young was strong minded, you make it sound like Joseph Smith went along with who ever was there at the time. I think that Joseph Smith learned many things in his life. I think it is just silly to think that Brigham Young influenced Joseph Smith in this way. I know it is the only way you can explain it, but Brigham Young did Joseph Smith's bidding, by going on missions for the church when really they were all needed at home. My Great Great Grand father went with him on one such mission when they were both so sick they could hardly sit up. I think your opinion of Brigham Young is way to harsh. He was a great man, and did what had to be done to lead. Who else could have done what Brigham Young did? Sidney Rigdon? James Strang? Joseph Smith III? There is no other leader that has kept the their own church growing, not even RLDS(CofC). Not one. Yet the LDS church which you claim is the apostate church is one of the fastest growing religions as far as converts go. The LDS church will baptise more in one year than you have members. Now don't take this as bragging. I am just saying that you need to rethink and do some research in the life of Brigham Young, and stop tearing him down as a person. I have never tore down Joseph Smith III. I have never said he fooled people into believe he was the prophet.

out

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Fatboy+Nov 17 2004, 07:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fatboy @ Nov 17 2004, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 12:15 PM

Here is a scripture I find interesting.  Section 104:3b-7(RLDS); 107:8-12(LDS)

3b The Melchisedec priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church, in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

4 The presidency of the high priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

5 High priests, after the order of the Melchisedec priesthood, have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the Presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

6 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.

7 The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeably to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

Verse 7 (which would be your verse 12) states that the high priest has the right to officiate in all the offices when there is no higher authority.  And since the church was in apostasy, having rejected the person who was chosen to lead the church as well as introducing false doctrines and ordinances, there was no higher authority present, therefore the high priest had the right to preside and organize the faithful who were left.

The place where you are blind is that you can't distinguish between the authority of God and man's authority.  IMO, by the time Joseph Smith was killed and BY had badgered everyone in to accepting his leadership, there was no more divine authority in the church.  And because of that, it had no authority to do what it did.  So what it did do was not valid in the eyes of God.  I am sure that God would have rather the faithful reorganize the church back to the way it was when it was restored and continue to follow his commandments than to lose them in a church that no longer followed Him and lose the restoration all together.

FB: Have you ever studied the history of Brigham Young? Although Brigham Young was strong minded, you make it sound like Joseph Smith went along with who ever was there at the time. I think that Joseph Smith learned many things in his life. I think it is just silly to think that Brigham Young influenced Joseph Smith in this way. I know it is the only way you can explain it, but Brigham Young did Joseph Smith's bidding, by going on missions for the church when really they were all needed at home. My Great Great Grand father went with him on one such mission when they were both so sick they could hardly sit up. I think your opinion of Brigham Young is way to harsh. He was a great man, and did what had to be done to lead. Who else could have done what Brigham Young did? Sidney Rigdon? James Strang? Joseph Smith III? There is no other leader that has kept the their own church growing, not even RLDS(CofC). Not one. Yet the LDS church which you claim is the apostate church is one of the fastest growing religions as far as converts go. The LDS church will baptise more in one year than you have members. Now don't take this as bragging. I am just saying that you need to rethink and do some research in the life of Brigham Young, and stop tearing him down as a person. I have never tore down Joseph Smith III. I have never said he fooled people into believe he was the prophet.

out

For once I agree with Jenda.

[speedomansam]

somebody should close this thread. it's breeding an arrogance on both sides that will destroy us all!

[Deb]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Nov 20 2004, 01:13 AM

somebody should close this thread. it's breeding an arrogance on both sides that will destroy us all!

Oooo, gosh, I hope not.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Nov 17 2004, 06:13 PM

FB: Have you ever studied the history of Brigham Young? Although Brigham Young was strong minded, you make it sound like Joseph Smith went along with who ever was there at the time. I think that Joseph Smith learned many things in his life. I think it is just silly to think that Brigham Young influenced Joseph Smith in this way. I know it is the only way you can explain it, but Brigham Young did Joseph Smith's bidding, by going on missions for the church when really they were all needed at home. My Great Great Grand father went with him on one such mission when they were both so sick they could hardly sit up. I think your opinion of Brigham Young is way to harsh. He was a great man, and did what had to be done to lead. Who else could have done what Brigham Young did? Sidney Rigdon? James Strang? Joseph Smith III? There is no other leader that has kept the their own church growing, not even RLDS(CofC). Not one. Yet the LDS church which you claim is the apostate church is one of the fastest growing religions as far as converts go. The LDS church will baptise more in one year than you have members. Now don't take this as bragging. I am just saying that you need to rethink and do some research in the life of Brigham Young, and stop tearing him down as a person. I have never tore down Joseph Smith III. I have never said he fooled people into believe he was the prophet.

Fatboys, I have never torn down BY for the fun of tearing down BY. And I don't believe that everything that BY accomplished was bad. But just as I believe that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, I believe that BY fell into the same ego pit. I believe it is a weakness to not be able to see the harm that individuals do (or have done). If you can't see the bad as well as the good, then you are in danger of coming real close to worshipping that individual and putting your faith in him as opposed to God. Also, when you can't see the bad, you are left defenseless when someone comes along who can only see the bad, and you have no way to defend your beliefs.

I think it is a great blessing to be able to see Joseph Smith as a man of God, and a man with human weaknesses. It gives me even greater respect for him. I can feel his struggles. I can feel his triumphs. I can understand how desperately he wanted to be accepted for his beliefs that God instilled in him. He was human. God chooses humans to do His will precisely because they are fallable. Because humans are fallable, we learn not to put our trust in the arm of flesh, and that is what God desires. For us to trust HIM, not some earthly creature that has earthly ambitions.

I also see the problems with each and every prophet that we have had along the way. I have seen the bad as well as the good. It keeps one balanced. It prevents you from looking like a fanatic.

I suggest you cultivate the ability to do the same.

IMHO.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 17 2004, 11:41 AM

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the Church as long as the Church retains people who have the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

I was wanting to play off this statement, Ray. I would say the same exact thing, except I would change one small part of it.

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the priesthood as long as the priesthood retains the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

As for the way you put it, it raises two questions. If the church is in apostasy, how can the church continue to carry authority? And, how many priesthood members that are true to the gospel does a church of 11,000,000 have to have to say that the church is not in apostasy? Is one good enough? or 10? maybe 100?

Don't you see the problem with that? or can you, at least, try to see why I see it as a problem?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 20 2004, 09:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 20 2004, 09:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 17 2004, 11:41 AM

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the Church as long as the Church retains people who have the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

I was wanting to play off this statement, Ray. I would say the same exact thing, except I would change one small part of it.

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the priesthood as long as the priesthood retains the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

As for the way you put it, it raises two questions. If the church is in apostasy, how can the church continue to carry authority? And, how many priesthood members that are true to the gospel does a church of 11,000,000 have to have to say that the church is not in apostasy? Is one good enough? or 10? maybe 100?

Don't you see the problem with that? or can you, at least, try to see why I see it as a problem?

My husband had a dream once, where he saw the keys of the priesthood laying on a beach in the sand and they were all rusty.

He picked them up along with a lesser set of keys and walked a ways up the beach. He came to a beach shack where a man in a white suit came out. My husband showed him the keys he'd found and the man said that he was to keep the lesser keys but the greater keys were to be taken back with him until the right time.

I wonder if no one has them now.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Nov 20 2004, 09:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Nov 20 2004, 09:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 20 2004, 09:42 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 17 2004, 11:41 AM

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the Church as long as the Church retains people who have the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

I was wanting to play off this statement, Ray. I would say the same exact thing, except I would change one small part of it.

I’ve been hoping that you would be able to see that the authority of God is with the priesthood as long as the priesthood retains the keys of the kingdom, and that nobody but our Lord can take away those keys, even if the whole church is in apostasy.

As for the way you put it, it raises two questions. If the church is in apostasy, how can the church continue to carry authority? And, how many priesthood members that are true to the gospel does a church of 11,000,000 have to have to say that the church is not in apostasy? Is one good enough? or 10? maybe 100?

Don't you see the problem with that? or can you, at least, try to see why I see it as a problem?

My husband had a dream once, where he saw the keys of the priesthood laying on a beach in the sand and they were all rusty.

He picked them up along with a lesser set of keys and walked a ways up the beach. He came to a beach shack where a man in a white suit came out. My husband showed him the keys he'd found and the man said that he was to keep the lesser keys but the greater keys were to be taken back with him until the right time.

I wonder if no one has them now.

That is a very interesting dream, and a very interesting question you asked, Amillia.

In the past, the Lord said that this is the last time He would restore His church. If the keys to the MP have been taken off the earth, would that mean that, until Christ returns, there can be no ordinances performed nor gospel taught? The world was without priesthood authority for 1260 years. Is it safe to remove it again with the tribulations so near?

And what is interesting about the dream is that he was able to keep the lesser keys. I have often wondered if the Aaronic priesthood was not entirely lost during that period of time. If it was lost, then the Lord, himself, prevented loads of people who wished to dedicate their lives to Him from doing so. I am concerned about this aspect of the story.

[Amillia]

That is a very interesting dream, and a very interesting question you asked, Amillia.

In the past, the Lord said that this is the last time He would restore His church. If the keys to the MP have been taken off the earth, would that mean that, until Christ returns, there can be no ordinances performed nor gospel taught? The world was without priesthood authority for 1260 years. Is it safe to remove it again with the tribulations so near?

And what is interesting about the dream is that he was able to keep the lesser keys. I have often wondered if the Aaronic priesthood was not entirely lost during that period of time. If it was lost, then the Lord, himself, prevented loads of people who wished to dedicate their lives to Him from doing so. I am concerned about this aspect of the story.

I think that God can and does do what must be done. After all, isn't it all about us? Doesn't God work with us one-on-one? Is it all about a church organization or about each individual?

Is the tribulations near? Do we really know what the tribulations are? Hasn't everyone had tribulations no matter when they lived?

If you look back through history, you will find that everyone, no matter when they lived, suffered from many of the same kinds of things. Everyone who lived has been tried, tested, and found to be either on the Lord's side, or not. The world is no more upside down today, or in more turmoil than it was when England rule with an iron fist over Europe, or when Hitler ruled over Germany.

The greater keys in this story, are the keys to Eternal Exaltation. The lesser keys are the keys of Salvation aren't they? The authority comes with the keys. The lesser authority with the lesser keys, but still with authority.

btw, I believe the second coming of Christ to be our own deaths. We neither know the day nor the hour, like a theif in the night, we die and Christ is there in all his glory, burning the wicked to stubble while the righteous are taken to dwell with him.

[Jenda]

If you look back through history, you will find that everyone, no matter when they lived, suffered from many of the same kinds of things. Everyone who lived has been tried, tested, and found to be either on the Lord's side, or not. The world is no more upside down today, or in more turmoil than it was when England rule with an iron fist over Europe, or when Hitler ruled over Germany.

I don't know that I can agree with you regarding this part of your post for this reason. For the first time in history, there are people who have the knowledge of how to blow up the world without the morals to tell them it is wrong. Not to bring politics into this, but this, IMO, is the whole point of getting rid of, not just the WMD, but the knowledge of how to do it, from the Moslem extemists. IMO, this puts the end of the world as we know it very close. Yes, everyone has been tried and tested, but in the past, humanity, itself, has not been put in jeopard they way it is today.

And, sorry, I interpreted your husband's dream to be the keys of the greater and lesser priesthoods.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 20 2004, 12:03 PM

If you look back through history, you will find that everyone, no matter when they lived, suffered from many of the same kinds of things. Everyone who lived has been tried, tested, and found to be either on the Lord's side, or not. The world is no more upside down today, or in more turmoil than it was when England rule with an iron fist over Europe, or when Hitler ruled over Germany.

I don't know that I can agree with you regarding this part of your post for this reason.  For the first time in history, there are people who have the knowledge of how to blow up the world without the morals to tell them it is wrong.  Not to bring politics into this, but this, IMO, is the whole point of getting rid of, not just the WMD, but the knowledge of how to do it, from the Moslem extemists.  IMO, this puts the end of the world as we know it very close.  Yes, everyone has been tried and tested, but in the past, humanity, itself, has not been put in jeopard they way it is today.

And, sorry, I interpreted your husband's dream to be the keys of the greater and lesser priesthoods.

He interpreted his dream to be the greater and lesser keys also.

I know it is hard for us to believe it today, but the Jews thought it was the end of their world when put into death camps, as did all the world when in tribulation periods.

There is an old expression that says, "What is the world coming to when this and that is allowed." It is an expression used by every generation since time immemorial.

When I was 16 I was told that the end of the world was eminant. Many groups commited suicide on a daily basis back then. I am now in my mid to late 40s and I hear the same things being said and done.

There is a self-proclaimed prophet who is constantly preaching doom and gloom. He is not the only one. I do not see the end of the world as predicted.

In fact, I would predict that many great and marvelous things are going to be seen. Good will win out and the world will continue to spin. But all of this is only going to happen on a personal basis. My world is as scary or good as I choose to see it.

I choose to see good coming.

My sister and I were talking not too long ago, and she made a statement to the effect that she remembered our home growing up as dirty all the time.

I was taken aback, because I always remembered it as being orderly and clean. As I pondered this later, I came upon the fact that my room was always clean and orderly, and I spend a lot of time cleaning the whole house and doing chores because I found a lot of satisfaction in do it. She didn't. She hated doing work around the house and left a lot messes that I cleaned up later.

I also spend a lot of time admiring and enjoying my cleaned spaces, while she only saw the messes she made and left for me.

We live in the world we creat for ourselves.

[Jenda]

When I said "the end of the world as we know it", I was alluding to bigger and better things. I am reminded of the movie "The Dark Crytal", where the (very) old woman(?) who had made the prediction the last time the world changed that when the next time the 'great conjunction' comes, the world would end. Her comment when that (2nd) point in time came was, "End. Beginning. All the same."

Anyway, given that I believe that Zion will come at the same time as the tribulations, the world will change for both the better and the worst. It will be an end. But it will be a new beginning, too.

Or, you could be right.