Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Snow]

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?

What point?

You stated your opinion and then bolded parts of it so we wouldn't miss it. Okay, now we know your opinion.

On the other hand, do you have something education or an argument to make?

[Amillia]

This thread is all over the place. What was the original topic here?

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Amillia@Nov 12 2004, 10:58 PM

This thread is all over the place. What was the original topic here?

I asked why it took 14 years for the RLDS to reorganize and what happened to the church in the interim. It is logical to me that God would not allow his church to be tossed about to and fro with no leader for 14 years, and then loose all that was gained during the prophet Joseph Smiths day. His sacrifice of life for the members of his day would have been illogical. What makes sense is that God already had in place the organization to not only continue with his kingdom on earth but to increase and grow.

[Blessed]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 12 2004, 08:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 12 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

It is called "backbiting" and there are scriptures that speaks against doing so.

[Ray]

Jenda,

Before I continue to talk with you, let me first state that my main objective for talking with you is to share my ideas with you, in this case concerning my understanding of “priesthood” and “authority” and "succession of the Church", so that hopefully you will at least be able to understand the reasoning behind my beliefs. And still, I’m willing to be among the first to admit that I know my arguments won’t “convince” or “convert” you or anyone else to my beliefs.

Originally posted by Jenda@ Nov 12 2004, 07:31 PM

… the Catholic Church was already in apostasy by the time of the reformation, so there was no authority to pass on. Those men who were becoming priesthood in the RCC [Roman Catholic Church], 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.

From what you said here, I think you have the idea that “priesthood” or “authority” is somehow connected with a person’s level of activity within the church of Christ, or their personal relationship with Jesus, and as I have been trying to say all along, I don't think that has anything at all to do with it. Or in other words, those things are completely beside the point.

I think the only thing that matters is whether or not a person has been given authority by Jesus, or one of His servants with the authority to delegate authority, and then it becomes a matter of how much authority that person has been given and the conditions upon which that person maintains that authority.

I believe there are many good people with good and pure hearts who are very active in the church of Christ, or in other words, among people who desire to come unto Christ, but at the same time have no authority from Jesus to do anything in His name. And if they think they do, I would very much like to hear how they think they got it.

Let me put this another way.

Jesus delegated some of His authority to Peter, James and John and told them to teach the gospel to the whole world while baptizing all who believed, thus forming an organization of believers commonly referred to as Christians. But the fact that Jesus delegated some of His authority to Peter, James and John doesn’t mean that:

1) other people had authority to teach the gospel or baptize others, including people who were taught or baptized directly by Peter, James & John

2) Jesus authorized Peter, James & John to teach or do something contrary to what He told them, or

3) Jesus didn’t retain the authority to delegate His authority to other people, for that or any other purpose.

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.

I think it would help clarify our discussion if we clarified the details we are discussing, and in this case, I believe we’re discussing people who were once given authority to organize and build up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then left the Church to form another organization based upon ideas and beliefs they held in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think we’re also discussing how much authority these people were given, or in other words, the limits placed upon the authority they were given and at what point, if any, their authority would come to an end.

From the examples I gave, I was trying to illustrate how authority is always limited to certain conditions, and I believe I can illustrate how the authority of these people who left the Church was also limited to certain conditions. If you do not agree, please feel free to instruct me more perfectly so that I will at least be able to understand your reasoning.

For instance, you have often implied that because those people were once given authority to be high priests in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they maintained their authority to be high priests once they left the Church. You have also implied that since the quorum of Apostles and quorum of Seventy has authority equal to that of the President or First Presidency in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that any number of members who are or ever have been members of said quorums has the authority to lead the Church in opposition to the Church. Do you still maintain those beliefs, and if so, how do you justify them? Or in other words, where does your reasoning come from?

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.

I’d still like to understand how you can believe that those people retained their authority to act in opposition to the authority they were once given. From what you have stated thus far, I don’t see how you can, but maybe there is another point or two that you haven’t mentioned yet.

As I understand the issue, the authority those people were given did not come directly from our Lord, instead, the authority was given to them by other people who were delegated some of the authority that our Lord had given to Joseph Smith Jr.

In other words, I don’t know who exactly gave those people their authority, but if those people claim that their authority came through Joseph Smith Jr., then the authority they were given was limited to the authority Joseph Smith Jr. gave them, as a partial delegation of the authority that our Lord gave Joseph Smith Jr..

In other words, they had no authority to act outside of the appointment to which they were ordained, and even then they were limited to the conditions applying to that appointment. I believe you understand this because I believe you understand that there is only one person or quorum on Earth who can exercise all of the keys of the kingdom at any one time. But even then their authority is limited to the authority given to them.

If you believe those men were given the authority to organize and build up another organization on Earth, an organization other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then when and where and how do you suppose that authority was given to them, and by who? In the scriptures I have I only see our Lord authorizing 2 organizations, at least among those that remain on Earth… the organization now known as the Catholic Church, and the organization now known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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

Thank you. I’ll take every compliment I can get.

[Jenda]

I will share with you my ideas about priesthood and authority, also, although much of it I stated in the post you responded to.

Regarding authority, what I believe is that priesthood authority comes only from God. When we talk about the "true church", IMO, we are talking about the church that God has put his stamp of approval on. The one that follows His commandments and teaches and practices the doctrines He has provided for us so that we can grow and learn about Him and His ways, line upon line, precept upon precept, and hopefully become disciples for Him. Given we are talking about His church, the priesthood authority would be bestowed through His church, but it would be His priesthood. God gives it (via the church), so only God can take it away. The institution, for some reason, might decide it doesn't want a specific person who has already been ordained to speak officially for them, and they have the right to silence that person, but the priesthood is not taken away by the institution, only God can do that.

For me, what priesthood is is the authority God gives to an individual to stand in His stead. That is why a church organization cannot remove priesthood. That has to be God's decision.

Now we have a problem when the earthly structure itself seems to be steering away from the gospel, yet individuals in that organization continue to believe and accept it. That is the situation I believe happened in Nauvoo. That the church was doing things that were not sanctioned by God, yet there were individuals in that organization who continued to accept the gospel. Those individuals were priesthood members, all of them Melchesidic, some high priests, some seventies, some elders.

Let me take a break here and ask, after Joseph Smith was ordained by Peter, James and John into the Melchesidic Priesthood as elders, who then ordained them high priests? And then, who ordained JS as president of the high priesthood? See, you get caught here because you say that a high priest had no "authority" to ordain JS,III into the presidency of the priesthood when that is the only one who can.

Maybe you can give me a breakdown of the hierarchy of the high priesthood as you see it. As for me and the RLDS, in the MP there are three basic offices. The elder, the seventy and the high priest. Everything else is just a specialized office within the level of high priest. The patriarch is a high priest. The bishop is a high priest. The apostle is a high priest. So, when an apostle ordains someone to the presidency, he is doing so because, ultimately, he is a high priest, not because he is an apostle.

Anyway, back to my example. When many of the high priesthood were beginning to believe and practice doctrines and ordinances that didn't jive with what was restored, and God wanted the church to continue, do you think he would take the ones who weren't listening to him, or the ones who were? My guess is that he would take the ones who would listen to Him, no matter what was done by the ones who didn't listen to Him, and chose them to be the ones to carry on His authority.

The earthy structure of the church is, IMO, of no concern to God. It was only organized to follow the law of the country that it was organized in. A structure that was responsible to the government and the people regarding money, property, etc. God is more concerned with the the spiritual side of things than with the temporal side. That is not to say that the temporal side is unimportant, but it is something that follows the spiritual.

So, this is a long, drawn out explanation to state that I believe that spiritual authority comes from God. There is temporal authority that comes from the church, but that in no way alters spiritual authority. That the men who reclaimed the scattered saints had the spiritual authority to do so, and, indeed, had been instructed by God to do just that. To reclaim the scattered saints, to wait and He would privide a leader. That is what happened, and after many of the scattered saints were gathered, God provided a leader. Joseph Smith, III.

[Ray]

Regarding authority, what I believe is that priesthood authority comes only from God.

Ultimately all authority comes from God, but priesthood authority also comes from men who are authorized to delegate priesthood authority to other people. You can see examples of this throughout the scriptures in instances where the Lord was not the one who directly appointed people into priesthood offices. If after reading the scriptures you still believe priesthood comes only from God, then you have beliefs that I may not be able to help clarify.

When we talk about the "true church", IMO, we are talking about the church that God has put his stamp of approval on. The one that follows His commandments and teaches and practices the doctrines He has provided for us so that we can grow and learn about Him and His ways, line upon line, precept upon precept, and hopefully become disciples for Him. Given we are talking about His church, the priesthood authority would be bestowed through His church, but it would be His priesthood. God gives it (via the church), so only God can take it away. The institution, for some reason, might decide it doesn't want a specific person who has already been ordained to speak officially for them, and they have the right to silence that person, but the priesthood is not taken away by the institution, only God can do that.

What you said here seems to contradict what you said above.

If God gives His priesthood through His church, why can’t God also take it away through His church?

For me, what priesthood is is the authority God gives to an individual to stand in His stead. That is why a church organization cannot remove priesthood. That has to be God's decision.

So you don’t believe that some people are given more priesthood authority than other people? And you think all priesthood authority is the same?

So if a bishop ordains someone to the Aaronic priesthood in the office of a deacon, you think that person holds the same degree of priesthood as a priest? Both are offices in the same priesthood, you know.

Or, if a presiding high priest ordains someone to the Melchizedek priesthood as a high priest, you think the newly ordained high priest has just as much priesthood, and just as much authority, as the presiding high priest?

And you think that if a person shows themselves to be unworthy of the priesthood authority they were once given, that nobody but God remove them from office, or from the Church?

I think you should either give some more thought to this idea or clarify what you’re talking about.

Now we have a problem when the earthly structure itself seems to be steering away from the gospel, yet individuals in that organization continue to believe and accept it. That is the situation I believe happened in Nauvoo. That the church was doing things that were not sanctioned by God, yet there were individuals in that organization who continued to accept the gospel. Those individuals were priesthood members, all of them Melchesidic, some high priests, some seventies, some elders.

Yes, some people did not agree with other people, and many of the people who did not agree with some other people had a certain degree of priesthood. But that doesn’t mean that they all had the same degree of priesthood, or that each person’s priesthood authority was exactly the same as someone else’s.

Let me take a break here and ask, after Joseph Smith was ordained by Peter, James and John into the Melchesidic Priesthood as elders, who then ordained them high priests? And then, who ordained JS as president of the high priesthood? See, you get caught here because you say that a high priest had no "authority" to ordain JS,III into the presidency of the priesthood when that is the only one who can.

Maybe you can give me a breakdown of the hierarchy of the high priesthood as you see it. As for me and the RLDS, in the MP there are three basic offices. The elder, the seventy and the high priest. Everything else is just a specialized office within the level of high priest. The patriarch is a high priest. The bishop is a high priest. The apostle is a high priest. So, when an apostle ordains someone to the presidency, he is doing so because, ultimately, he is a high priest, not because he is an apostle.

If you’ll research the topic titled Priesthood, Authority, you’ll see that all of the officers in the Church were ordained into those offices of leadership at the instruction of our Lord, while clarifying the duties and responsibilities of each office in the priesthood. I also recommend that you take a look at D&C 27:12, to see how Joseph Smith Jr. was ordained an apostle.

Anyway, back to my example. When many of the high priesthood were beginning to believe and practice doctrines and ordinances that didn't jive with what was restored, and God wanted the church to continue, do you think he would take the ones who weren't listening to him, or the ones who were? My guess is that he would take the ones who would listen to Him, no matter what was done by the ones who didn't listen to Him, and chose them to be the ones to carry on His authority.

If you believe our Lord instructed people to organize and build up the RLDS organization, please provide the scriptures, but it sounds like you’re talking about people who organized the RLDS organization simply because they didn’t agree with some people in the Church. And if that is what you truly believe, please tell me how that is different than how any of the other “Protestant” religions were organized.

The earthy structure of the church is, IMO, of no concern to God. It was only organized to follow the law of the country that it was organized in. A structure that was responsible to the government and the people regarding money, property, etc. God is more concerned with the spiritual side of things than with the temporal side. That is not to say that the temporal side is unimportant, but it is something that follows the spiritual.

Are you aware of the revelation from our Lord telling Joseph Smith Jr. to organize the Church on the specific date of April 6, 1830, with Joseph Smith Jr. to be ordained as the first elder of the Church? And of all the other revelations stating how the Church was and is to be organized in these latter days? If so, then how can you say the structure of the church is of no concern to God?

So, this is a long, drawn out explanation to state that I believe that spiritual authority comes from God. There is temporal authority that comes from the church, but that in no way alters spiritual authority. That the men who reclaimed the scattered saints had the spiritual authority to do so, and, indeed, had been instructed by God to do just that. To reclaim the scattered saints, to wait and He would provide a leader. That is what happened, and after many of the scattered saints were gathered, God provided a leader. Joseph Smith, III.

I think your idea of “spiritual authority" is the idea that the authority God gives can’t be seen or understood in a “real” or “physical” sense, while I think "spiritual authority", which is "priesthood authority", can be seen and understood in a “real” and “physical” sense just as much as any other authority.

Anyway, am I correct in stating that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have scripture or any other written authorization stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 and other people to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and organize a new organization? If so, is that because the leaders of the RLDS didn’t consider revelations like that to be worthy of being written down? Or do you think priesthood leaders can do whatever they think is right once they get a certain degree of priesthood, with no authorizations from our Lord being necessary?

[Amulek]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints. C'mon, I am not stupid. That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish. It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was. You've been given a white-washed version of church history. We all have been.

Actually the practice of rebaptism was started in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith. In a letter of Jacob Scott from Nauvoo on 28 February 1843 he said: "Nearly All the Church have been Baptized again, for the Remission of their Sins, since they joined the Church, I have also, by the hands of Br. Joseph (as he himself has been,) & I would advise Jan and you Mary, to attend to it as soon as you can have the opportunity of an Elder or Priest of the Church to administer it." [Jacob Scott to Mary Scott Warnock, 28 February 1843, Research Library and Archives of The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Auditorium, Independence, Missouri.]

Amulek

~

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Regarding authority, what I believe is that priesthood authority comes only from God.

Ultimately all authority comes from God, but priesthood authority also comes from men who are authorized to delegate priesthood authority to other people. You can see examples of this throughout the scriptures in instances where the Lord was not the one who directly appointed people into priesthood offices. If after reading the scriptures you still believe priesthood comes only from God, then you have beliefs that I may not be able to help clarify.

Which specific scriptures? Could you provide some references because I am not aware of what you are talking about. Thanks.

When we talk about the "true church", IMO, we are talking about the church that God has put his stamp of approval on. The one that follows His commandments and teaches and practices the doctrines He has provided for us so that we can grow and learn about Him and His ways, line upon line, precept upon precept, and hopefully become disciples for Him. Given we are talking about His church, the priesthood authority would be bestowed through His church, but it would be His priesthood. God gives it (via the church), so only God can take it away. The institution, for some reason, might decide it doesn't want a specific person who has already been ordained to speak officially for them, and they have the right to silence that person, but the priesthood is not taken away by the institution, only God can do that.

What you said here seems to contradict what you said above.

If God gives His priesthood through His church, why can’t God also take it away through His church?

For me, what priesthood is is the authority God gives to an individual to stand in His stead. That is why a church organization cannot remove priesthood. That has to be God's decision.

So you don’t believe that some people are given more priesthood authority than other people? And you think all priesthood authority is the same?

I don't see priesthood as a hierarchy. It was never intended to be that type of set-up. The offices, while different in purpose and function, are all the same authority. Yes, I believe that.

So if a bishop ordains someone to the Aaronic priesthood in the office of a deacon, you think that person holds the same degree of priesthood as a priest?  Both are offices in the same priesthood, you know.

Yes, I do believe that they hold the same authority.

Or, if a presiding high priest ordains someone to the Melchizedek priesthood as a high priest, you think the newly ordained high priest has just as much priesthood, and just as much authority, as the presiding high priest?

Yes.

And you think that if a person shows themselves to be unworthy of the priesthood authority they were once given, that nobody but God remove them from office, or from the Church?

I think you should either give some more thought to this idea or clarify what you’re talking about.

Now see, here you didn't read what I wrote. I stated that it was the church's decision to silence anyone they didn't feel represented them (or God). And if we are sure that the church is the "true church" then that would be the same as God making the decision. However, when we talk about the church entering apostasy, who is to say that the decision was God's to begin with?

Ray, you stated earlier in this post that God doesn't call everyone himself, that he passes on some of that authority to men. Who is your priesthood calling from? God or man?

Now we have a problem when the earthly structure itself seems to be steering away from the gospel, yet individuals in that organization continue to believe and accept it. That is the situation I believe happened in Nauvoo. That the church was doing things that were not sanctioned by God, yet there were individuals in that organization who continued to accept the gospel. Those individuals were priesthood members, all of them Melchesidic, some high priests, some seventies, some elders.

Yes, some people did not agree with other people, and many of the people who did not agree with some other people had a certain degree of priesthood. But that doesn’t mean that they all had the same degree of priesthood, or that each person’s priesthood authority was exactly the same as someone else’s.

Ray, I just am not understanding what you mean here. Are you stating that not all high priests are equal? And if that is true, how do you know which ones are more equal than others? IMO, a high priest is a high priest is a high priest. The same with a seventy and an elder and an apostle and a priest, etc.

Let me take a break here and ask, after Joseph Smith was ordained by Peter, James and John into the Melchesidic Priesthood as elders, who then ordained them high priests? And then, who ordained JS as president of the high priesthood? See, you get caught here because you say that a high priest had no "authority" to ordain JS,III into the presidency of the priesthood when that is the only one who can.

Maybe you can give me a breakdown of the hierarchy of the high priesthood as you see it. As for me and the RLDS, in the MP there are three basic offices. The elder, the seventy and the high priest. Everything else is just a specialized office within the level of high priest. The patriarch is a high priest. The bishop is a high priest. The apostle is a high priest. So, when an apostle ordains someone to the presidency, he is doing so because, ultimately, he is a high priest, not because he is an apostle.

If you’ll research the topic titled Priesthood, Authority, you’ll see that all of the officers in the Church were ordained into those offices of leadership at the instruction of our Lord, while clarifying the duties and responsibilities of each office in the priesthood. I also recommend that you take a look at D&C 27:12, to see how Joseph Smith Jr. was ordained an apostle.

So, as we read in Section 27 (RLDS section 26), Peter, James and John ordained JS an apostle. Who ordained him president of the high priesthood? That was my (ultimate) question. And, while your other link was a good overview of authority, it really did not outline how the LDS views the priesthood set-up. You can look at what I wrote about how the priesthood is set up in the RLDS church to understand what my question means.

Anyway, back to my example. When many of the high priesthood were beginning to believe and practice doctrines and ordinances that didn't jive with what was restored, and God wanted the church to continue, do you think he would take the ones who weren't listening to him, or the ones who were? My guess is that he would take the ones who would listen to Him, no matter what was done by the ones who didn't listen to Him, and chose them to be the ones to carry on His authority.

If you believe our Lord instructed people to organize and build up the RLDS organization, please provide the scriptures, but it sounds like you’re talking about people who organized the RLDS organization simply because they didn’t agree with some people in the Church. And if that is what you truly believe, please tell me how that is different than how any of the other “Protestant” religions were organized.

Ray, I have done nothing but provide scriptures, it is the people who are responding to me who have not provided scriptures, even when I specifically asked for them.

Section 43 clearly gives the prophet of the church the right (and responsibility) to designate the person who is to succeed him in his office. Even if that person falls and loses his power of prophetic office, he still retains the power to appoint a successor.

The earthy structure of the church is, IMO, of no concern to God. It was only organized to follow the law of the country that it was organized in. A structure that was responsible to the government and the people regarding money, property, etc. God is more concerned with the spiritual side of things than with the temporal side. That is not to say that the temporal side is unimportant, but it is something that follows the spiritual.

Are you aware of the revelation from our Lord telling Joseph Smith Jr. to organize the Church on the specific date of April 6, 1830, with Joseph Smith Jr. to be ordained as the first elder of the Church? And of all the other revelations stating how the Church was and is to be organized in these latter days? If so, then how can you say the structure of the church is of no concern to God?

I didn't say it was of no concern to God. If you read what I wrote, I said that it was not unimportant, but that because God is a spiritual being and is concerned about our spiritual life, it is the spiritual aspects of the church that hold the most concern for Him. I will highlight it so you can see that I did not say it was of no concern to Him.

So, this is a long, drawn out explanation to state that I believe that spiritual authority comes from God. There is temporal authority that comes from the church, but that in no way alters spiritual authority. That the men who reclaimed the scattered saints had the spiritual authority to do so, and, indeed, had been instructed by God to do just that. To reclaim the scattered saints, to wait and He would provide a leader. That is what happened, and after many of the scattered saints were gathered, God provided a leader. Joseph Smith, III.

I think your idea of “spiritual authority" is the idea that the authority God gives can’t be seen or understood in a “real” or “physical” sense, while I think "spiritual authority", which is "priesthood authority", can be seen and understood in a “real” and “physical” sense just as much as any other authority.

Anyway, am I correct in stating that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have scripture or any other written authorization stating that our Lord authorized

Joseph Smith 3 and other people to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and organize a new organization? If so, is that because the leaders of the RLDS didn’t consider revelations like that to be worthy of being written down? Or do you think priesthood leaders can do whatever they think is right once they get a certain degree of priesthood, with no authorizations from our Lord being necessary?

See my answer above for the scriptural authority the Lord gave.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek+Nov 15 2004, 04:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amulek @ Nov 15 2004, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints.  C'mon, I am not stupid.  That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish.  It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was.  You've been given a white-washed version of church history.  We all have been.

Actually the practice of rebaptism was started in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith. In a letter of Jacob Scott from Nauvoo on 28 February 1843 he said: "Nearly All the Church have been Baptized again, for the Remission of their Sins, since they joined the Church, I have also, by the hands of Br. Joseph (as he himself has been,) & I would advise Jan and you Mary, to attend to it as soon as you can have the opportunity of an Elder or Priest of the Church to administer it." [Jacob Scott to Mary Scott Warnock, 28 February 1843, Research Library and Archives of The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Auditorium, Independence, Missouri.]

Amulek

~

Yes, I realize that people were rebaptized in the Nauvoo era, it was another downfall of the time. But it was never required, it was done as the person wanted according to how much they felt they needed to repent.

[Amulek]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 15 2004, 08:37 PM

Yes, I realize that people were rebaptized in the Nauvoo era, it was another downfall of the time.  But it was never required, it was done as the person wanted according to how much they felt they needed to repent.

What is the criteria that you use to determine if something is "another downfall"? At this point it seems very arbitrary or more along the lines of "if Jenda disagrees with it it was 'another downfall'". Now please don't take my questioning as being rude. I am not trying to be so, but I don't know any other way to put it. I am just having a difficult time understanding how a person can believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, yet in the final years of his life he "screwed up" so many times.

Amulek

~

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek+Nov 16 2004, 08:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amulek @ Nov 16 2004, 08:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 15 2004, 08:37 PM

Yes, I realize that people were rebaptized in the Nauvoo era, it was another downfall of the time.  But it was never required, it was done as the person wanted according to how much they felt they needed to repent.

What is the criteria that you use to determine if something is "another downfall"? At this point it seems very arbitrary or more along the lines of "if Jenda disagrees with it it was 'another downfall'". Now please don't take my questioning as being rude. I am not trying to be so, but I don't know any other way to put it. I am just having a difficult time understanding how a person can believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, yet in the final years of his life he "screwed up" so many times.

Amulek

~

I compare what the church looked like in 1844 to the way it looked in 1830 when it was restored, and go from there. This is the "restored" church. You can't "restore" something that has not previously been a doctrine or practice.

[Amulek]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 10:07 AM

I compare what the church looked like in 1844 to the way it looked in 1830 when it was restored, and go from there. This is the "restored" church. You can't "restore" something that has not previously been a doctrine or practice.

So you reject all priesthood offices that were not in the Church in 1830 when it was first established? What does the phrase "line upon line" mean to you?

Please remember when reading these questions, what I tell my wife. If something I say can be taken two ways and one way makes you mad. . . I meant the other way.

I am just trying to understand your line of thinking. Can you say that the RLDS or CofC also believes the same?

Thanks for enduring all of our questioning.

Amulek

~

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek+Nov 16 2004, 10:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amulek @ Nov 16 2004, 10:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 16 2004, 10:07 AM

I compare what the church looked like in 1844 to the way it looked in 1830 when it was restored, and go from there.  This is the "restored" church.  You can't "restore" something that has not previously been a doctrine or practice.

So you reject all priesthood offices that were not in the Church in 1830 when it was first established? What does the phrase "line upon line" mean to you?

Please remember when reading these questions, what I tell my wife. If something I say can be taken two ways and one way makes you mad. . . I meant the other way.

I am just trying to understand your line of thinking. Can you say that the RLDS or CofC also believes the same?

Thanks for enduring all of our questioning.

Amulek

~

The priesthood wasn't part of the church that was first put on the earth at the time of Adam? The priesthood wasn't part of the church that Christ established? That was the "restored" part. The church was restored because the priesthood was restored and the doctrine was restored. What was "added" later is not what was "restored". It was "added".

[Ray]

Originally posted by Ray+ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Ultimately all authority comes from God, but priesthood authority also comes from men who are authorized to delegate priesthood authority to other people. You can see examples of this throughout the scriptures in instances where the Lord was not the one who directly appointed people into priesthood offices. If after reading the scriptures you still believe priesthood comes only from God, then you have beliefs that I may not be able to help clarify.

Which specific scriptures? Could you provide some references because I am not aware of what you are talking about. Thanks.

Heh, okay I’ll help you out by doing a little research for you. Check out the following links:

DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

PRIESTHOOD, KEYS OF

PRIESTHOOD, POWER OF

All of these topics are subtopics of AUTHORITY, btw

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

I don't see priesthood as a hierarchy. It was never intended to be that type of set-up. The offices, while different in purpose and function, are all the same authority. Yes, I believe that.

So you honestly believe that a deacon has just as much authority as the presiding high priest of the church… to the point that the deacon can delegate responsibilities to other people in the Church and ordain other people to the priesthood in the Church just as the presiding high priest can? Heh, if that’s your belief then I’ll leave you to it, but it’s not what I believe and it’s not in agreement with the way our Lord has established His kingdom. And yes, I can honestly say that.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

So if a bishop ordains someone to the Aaronic priesthood in the office of a deacon, you think that person holds the same degree of priesthood as a priest?  Both are offices in the same priesthood, you know.

Yes, I do believe that they hold the same authority.

In the name of Jesus Christ, I am telling you that they do not.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Or, if a presiding high priest ordains someone to the Melchizedek priesthood as a high priest, you think the newly ordained high priest has just as much priesthood, and just as much authority, as the presiding high priest?

Yes.

See above.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

And you think that if a person shows themselves to be unworthy of the priesthood authority they were once given, that nobody but God remove them from office, or from the Church?

I think you should either give some more thought to this idea or clarify what you’re talking about.

Now see, here you didn't read what I wrote. I stated that it was the church's decision to silence anyone they didn't feel represented them (or God). And if we are sure that the church is the "true church" then that would be the same as God making the decision. However, when we talk about the church entering apostasy, who is to say that the decision was God's to begin with?

If our Lord wants to remove someone from authority, He will either:

1) personally remove them from office, by death or by any other means necessary

2) remove them from office through one of His authorized servants, or

3) re-organize His kingdom as He has done before, appointing new authorities Himself

Originally posted by Jenda+ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ray, you stated earlier in this post that God doesn't call everyone himself, that he passes on some of that authority to men. Who is your priesthood calling from? God or man?

My Aaronic priesthood authority was given to me my one of my first bishops, when he ordained me to the office of a priest, and my Melchizedek priesthood authority was given to me by one of my first Elder’s Quorum Presidents, when he ordained me to the office of an elder. I am also now called to be the Sunday School President in my ward, which calling I received through my bishop, and a Financial Auditor in my stake, which calling I received through my Stake President. All of these men can trace their line of authority back to Joseph Smith Jr, who received his authority by the hands of Peter, James & John, who received their authority from our Lord Himself.

In other words, my priesthood authority ultimately comes from our Lord by the hands of His authorized servants.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Now we have a problem when the earthly structure itself seems to be steering away from the gospel, yet individuals in that organization continue to believe and accept it. That is the situation I believe happened in Nauvoo. That the church was doing things that were not sanctioned by God, yet there were individuals in that organization who continued to accept the gospel. Those individuals were priesthood members, all of them Melchesidic, some high priests, some seventies, some elders.

Yes, some people did not agree with other people, and many of the people who did not agree with some other people had a certain degree of priesthood. But that doesn’t mean that they all had the same degree of priesthood, or that each person’s priesthood authority was exactly the same as someone else’s.

Ray, I just am not understanding what you mean here. Are you stating that not all high priests are equal? And if that is true, how do you know which ones are more equal than others? IMO, a high priest is a high priest is a high priest. The same with a seventy and an elder and an apostle and a priest, etc.

Yes, I am stating that all high priests are not equal, and the way I know which ones have higher authority is by knowing which office each high priest holds. For instance, the presiding high priest in the Church has more priesthood authority than anyone else on Earth.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

So, as we read in Section 27 (RLDS section 26), Peter, James and John ordained JS an apostle. Who ordained him president of the high priesthood? That was my (ultimate) question. And, while your other link was a good overview of authority, it really did not outline how the LDS views the priesthood set-up. You can look at what I wrote about how the priesthood is set up in the RLDS church to understand what my question means.

Have you taken a good look at Doctrine & Covenants section 20 recently ??? You can also see how the priesthood is set up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by looking at many other scriptures in the Doctrine & Covenants, but section 20 is a great place to start. Also check out the other links I gave above to the topics such as authority and priesthood keys.

Btw, what do you think priesthood keys are used for?

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

If you believe our Lord instructed people to organize and build up the RLDS organization, please provide the scriptures, but it sounds like you’re talking about people who organized the RLDS organization simply because they didn’t agree with some people in the Church. And if that is what you truly believe, please tell me how that is different than how any of the other “Protestant” religions were organized.

Ray, I have done nothing but provide scriptures, it is the people who are responding to me who have not provided scriptures, even when I specifically asked for them.

Section 43 clearly gives the prophet of the church the right (and responsibility) to designate the person who is to succeed him in his office. Even if that person falls and loses his power of prophetic office, he still retains the power to appoint a successor.

I could make the argument that Joseph Smith Jr. appointed Brigham Young to be his successor, by appointing him to the President over the Quorum of Apostles.

Can you tell me how Joseph Smith 3 has any claim to the keys of the kingdom?

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

The earthy structure of the church is, IMO, of no concern to God. It was only organized to follow the law of the country that it was organized in. A structure that was responsible to the government and the people regarding money, property, etc. God is more concerned with the spiritual side of things than with the temporal side. That is not to say that the temporal side is unimportant, but it is something that follows the spiritual.

Are you aware of the revelation from our Lord telling Joseph Smith Jr. to organize the Church on the specific date of April 6, 1830, with Joseph Smith Jr. to be ordained as the first elder of the Church? And of all the other revelations stating how the Church was and is to be organized in these latter days? If so, then how can you say the structure of the church is of no concern to God?

I didn't say it was of no concern to God. If you read what I wrote, I said that it was not unimportant, but that because God is a spiritual being and is concerned about our spiritual life, it is the spiritual aspects of the church that hold the most concern for Him. I will highlight it so you can see that I did not say it was of no concern to Him.

I was trying to point out that our Lord has given us clear and specific instructions on how the “earthly structure” or organization of His kingdom is to be established, and that without His authorization, we should do nothing in His name!!!

In other words, Man should not presume to do anything in the name of our Lord without first receiving authorization from our Lord, and even then, Man should only do what our Lord has authorized Man to do.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

…Anyway, am I correct in stating that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have scripture or any other written authorization stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 and other people to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and organize a new organization? If so, is that because the leaders of the RLDS didn’t consider revelations like that to be worthy of being written down? Or do you think priesthood leaders can do whatever they think is right once they get a certain degree of priesthood, with no authorizations from our Lord being necessary?

See my answer above for the scriptural authority the Lord gave.

You didn’t respond to the comment I was making, so I’ll restate it.

In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has scripture to show how our Lord specifically authorized Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young as His servants by giving them the keys of the kingdom, and as far as I can tell, the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t have anything like that.

In other words, I have seen no scriptures stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and establish a new organization, as He gave that authorization to Joseph Smith Jr.

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.

But if you have any other scriptures stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 to leave the Church, and how he should organize and establish the Reorganized church in consequence of a so-called rebellion or apostasy by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would very much like to see it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 16 2004, 11:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 16 2004, 11:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

I don't see priesthood as a hierarchy. It was never intended to be that type of set-up. The offices, while different in purpose and function, are all the same authority. Yes, I believe that.

So you honestly believe that a deacon has just as much authority as the presiding high priest of the church… to the point that the deacon can delegate responsibilities to other people in the Church and ordain other people to the priesthood in the Church just as the presiding high priest can? Heh, if that’s your belief then I’ll leave you to it, but it’s not what I believe and it’s not in agreement with the way our Lord has established His kingdom. And yes, I can honestly say that.

Ray, please, you are not reading what I am writing. You asked if I believed that the different priesthood members all had the same authority. My answer was, yes, as long as they functioned within their offices. The authority is God's authority, and God's authority is God's authority. Therefore, they have the same authority because God gave it to them. Now if you had asked if the priesthood offices were different with different focuses and responsibilities, I would have said yes, and there would have been no discussion on the topic.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

So if a bishop ordains someone to the Aaronic priesthood in the office of a deacon, you think that person holds the same degree of priesthood as a priest?  Both are offices in the same priesthood, you know.

Yes, I do believe that they hold the same authority.

In the name of Jesus Christ, I am telling you that they do not.

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Or, if a presiding high priest ordains someone to the Melchizedek priesthood as a high priest, you think the newly ordained high priest has just as much priesthood, and just as much authority, as the presiding high priest?

Yes.

See above.

I think we will just have to disagree here unless you are making the distinction between the authority that is God-given and the authority that is given by man. When God gives His authority to the priesthood, that authority for that office begins the moment the ordination prayer ends and, as far as I am aware, unless you can show me some scriptural justification, the authority is the same for each person ordained into the office because it is the same office. Just because one person is ordained before another doesn't make him more "authorized".

Originally posted by Ray+ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @  Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

And you think that if a person shows themselves to be unworthy of the priesthood authority they were once given, that nobody but God remove them from office, or from the Church?

I think you should either give some more thought to this idea or clarify what you’re talking about.

Now see, here you didn't read what I wrote. I stated that it was the church's decision to silence anyone they didn't feel represented them (or God). And if we are sure that the church is the "true church" then that would be the same as God making the decision. However, when we talk about the church entering apostasy, who is to say that the decision was God's to begin with?

If our Lord wants to remove someone from authority, He will either:

1) personally remove them from office, by death or by any other means necessary

2) remove them from office through one of His authorized servants, or

3) re-organize His kingdom as He has done before, appointing new authorities Himself

You haven't really said anything different than I did, you just said it in different words.

Originally posted by Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Ray, you stated earlier in this post that God doesn't call everyone himself, that he passes on some of that authority to men. Who is your priesthood calling from? God or man?

My Aaronic priesthood authority was given to me my one of my first bishops, when he ordained me to the office of a priest, and my Melchizedek priesthood authority was given to me by one of my first Elder’s Quorum Presidents, when he ordained me to the office of an elder. I am also now called to be the Sunday School President in my ward, which calling I received through my bishop, and a Financial Auditor in my stake, which calling I received through my Stake President. All of these men can trace their line of authority back to Joseph Smith Jr, who received his authority by the hands of Peter, James & John, who received their authority from our Lord Himself.

In other words, my priesthood authority ultimately comes from our Lord by the hands of His authorized servants.

So can every one of our priesthood members. Their 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.

Originally posted by Jenda+ Nov 15 2004, 01:13 PM --></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @  Nov 15 2004, 01:13 PM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Now we have a problem when the earthly structure itself seems to be steering away from the gospel, yet individuals in that organization continue to believe and accept it. That is the situation I believe happened in Nauvoo. That the church was doing things that were not sanctioned by God, yet there were individuals in that organization who continued to accept the gospel. Those individuals were priesthood members, all of them Melchesidic, some high priests, some seventies, some elders.

Yes, some people did not agree with other people, and many of the people who did not agree with some other people had a certain degree of priesthood. But that doesn’t mean that they all had the same degree of priesthood, or that each person’s priesthood authority was exactly the same as someone else’s.

Ray, I just am not understanding what you mean here. Are you stating that not all high priests are equal? And if that is true, how do you know which ones are more equal than others? IMO, a high priest is a high priest is a high priest. The same with a seventy and an elder and an apostle and a priest, etc.

Yes, I am stating that all high priests are not equal, and the way I know which ones have higher authority is by knowing which office each high priest holds. For instance, the presiding high priest in the Church has more priesthood authority than anyone else on Earth.

Ray, you must not be understanding what I am saying, or you are just ignoring it. Show me a scripture where it says that some apostles are more equal than others. Show me a scripture that says that some high priests, or elders or bishops, are more equal than others. You mentioned the office of the president of the church. Well, I guess you missed where I mentioned it, too. The president of the high priesthood is another office of high priest just as the apostle or bishop is. Of course a plain high priest is not going to have the same role and responsibility as the president of the high priesthood. So, maybe you can read my answers and comment on them instead of what you think I wrote, or ask me to clarify the question if you didn't understand it.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

So, as we read in Section 27 (RLDS section 26), Peter, James and John ordained JS an apostle. Who ordained him president of the high priesthood? That was my (ultimate) question. And, while your other link was a good overview of authority, it really did not outline how the LDS views the priesthood set-up. You can look at what I wrote about how the priesthood is set up in the RLDS church to understand what my question means.

You can see how the priesthood is set up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by looking at the scriptures, particularly in the Doctrine & Covenants. Check out the links I gave above to topics such as authority and priesthood keys.

Btw, what do you think priesthood keys are used for?

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 15 2004, 02:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

If you believe our Lord instructed people to organize and build up the RLDS organization, please provide the scriptures, but it sounds like you’re talking about people who organized the RLDS organization simply because they didn’t agree with some people in the Church. And if that is what you truly believe, please tell me how that is different than how any of the other “Protestant” religions were organized.

Ray, I have done nothing but provide scriptures, it is the people who are responding to me who have not provided scriptures, even when I specifically asked for them.

Section 43 clearly gives the prophet of the church the right (and responsibility) to designate the person who is to succeed him in his office. Even if that person falls and loses his power of prophetic office, he still retains the power to appoint a successor.

I could make the argument that Joseph Smith Jr. appointed Brigham Young to be his successor, by appointing him to the President over the Quorum of Apostles.

Can you tell me how Joseph Smith 3 has any claim to the keys of the kingdom?

In order for you to do that, you would literally have to discard Section 43. Because there is no other scriptural justification for any other method of succession. If you have some that I might have missed, please post it.

And a public designation, on two distinct occasions observed by numerous individuals, is good enough for me.

…Anyway, am I correct in stating that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have scripture or any other written authorization stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 and other people to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and organize a new organization? If so, is that because the leaders of the RLDS didn’t consider revelations like that to be worthy of being written down? Or do you think priesthood leaders can do whatever they think is right once they get a certain degree of priesthood, with no authorizations from our Lord being necessary?

See my answer above for the scriptural authority the Lord gave.

You didn’t respond to the comment I was making, so I’ll restate it.

In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has scripture to show how our Lord specifically authorized Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young as His servants by giving them the keys of the kingdom, and as far as I can tell, the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t have anything like that.

In other words, I have seen no scriptures stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and establish a new organization, as He gave that authorization to Joseph Smith Jr.

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.

But if you have any other scriptures stating that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith 3 to leave the Church, and how he should organize and establish the Reorganized church in consequence of the rebellion by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would very much like to see it.

Ray, as you have not provided one scripture in support of the LDS claim, and I have given the ultimate scriptural justification, I can't see how you can continue to go on and on about this point.

God didn't have to give JS,III, an order to leave the church because the church had already left God. 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. And He provided the person that Joseph Smith, Jr., designated under the direction given in section 43.

If you want to discuss this any more, you need to provide the scriptural justification, because without it, there is no justification.

[Ray]

Wow. I think I could probably go on talking about this FOREVER and never ever be able to show you what I’m trying to show you, and I’m absolutely flabbergasted by that idea.

How about a new approach?

How can you justify the appointment of Joseph Smith 3 as the leader of a new organization in light of the scriptures in Doctrine & Covenants section 20 ???

And btw, can you understand why I'm referring to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a new organization?

And can you understand why I’m citing section 20?

[Ray]

Btw, I’ll try to clear these points up without adding any new ideas this time.

Originally posted by Jenda+ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You asked if I believed that the different priesthood members all had the same authority. My answer was, yes, as long as they functioned within their offices. The authority is God's authority, and God's authority is God's authority. Therefore, they have the same authority because God gave it to them. Now if you had asked if the priesthood offices were different with different focuses and responsibilities, I would have said yes, and there would have been no discussion on the topic.

I think you’re trying to say that each person has an equal amount of God’s authorization to act in the office to which they’ve been appointed, and I can agree with that, but that does not mean that each person has an equal amount of authority in the Church.

For instance, I have been called to be the Sunday School President in my ward, and I have the same amount of authority to act in my calling as someone else with another calling, but nobody but me has the authority to be the Sunday School President in my ward.

Or in other words, nobody has the authority to act in any office to which they have not been appointed, because everybody does not have the same authority.

Does that clear that up for you?

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM

I think we will just have to disagree here unless you are making the distinction between the authority that is God-given and the authority that is given by man. When God gives His authority to the priesthood, that authority for that office begins the moment the ordination prayer ends and, as far as I am aware, unless you can show me some scriptural justification, the authority is the same for each person ordained into the office because it is the same office. Just because one person is ordained before another doesn't make him more "authorized”.

I wasn’t referring to when somebody was ordained, I was referring to to what they were ordained.

Originally posted by Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 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.

And as I said before, if you have some justification for that, I’d like to see it.

Originally posted by Jenda+ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ray, you must not be understanding what I am saying, or you are just ignoring it. Show me a scripture where it says that some apostles are more equal than others. Show me a scripture that says that some high priests, or elders or bishops, are more equal than others. You mentioned the office of the president of the church. Well, I guess you missed where I mentioned it, too. The president of the high priesthood is another office of high priest just as the apostle or bishop is. Of course a plain high priest is not going to have the same role and responsibility as the president of the high priesthood. So, maybe you can read my answers and comment on them instead of what you think I wrote, or ask me to clarify the question if you didn't understand it.

I referred you to the scriptures in section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which shows our Lord's will on how people are to be ordained into the priesthood and / or the different offices in the priesthood.

The point I’ve been asking you to clarify is how someone can be ordained into the priesthood or an office of the priesthood without the consent of the Church? And in case you don’t realize it, that is what happened when some people ordained Joseph Smith 3 into the office of presiding high priest over all people on Earth, or at least the people on Earth who desire to be associated with the true church of Christ.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 15 2004, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@ Nov 16 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM

Section 43 clearly gives the prophet of the church the right (and responsibility) to designate the person who is to succeed him in his office. Even if that person falls and loses his power of prophetic office, he still retains the power to appoint a successor.

I could make the argument that Joseph Smith Jr. appointed Brigham Young to be his successor, by appointing him to the President over the Quorum of Apostles.

Can you tell me how Joseph Smith 3 has any claim to the keys of the kingdom?

In order for you to do that, you would literally have to discard Section 43. Because there is no other scriptural justification for any other method of succession. If you have some that I might have missed, please post it.

And a public designation, on two distinct occasions observed by numerous individuals, is good enough for me.

Section 20 outlines how appointments are to be made in the Church, and accordingly, Brigham Young was publicly designated as the succeeding Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Presiding High Priest over all of the Church.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM

Ray, as you have not provided one scripture in support of the LDS claim, and I have given the ultimate scriptural justification, I can't see how you can continue to go on and on about this point.

Heh, I’ve given you tons of scriptures to show how the priesthood functions in the Church. If you don’t understand what I've given you, then ask me to clarify it, but don’t say that I haven’t provided any scriptures.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM

God didn't have to give JS,III, an order to leave the church because the church had already left God.

Is your only reason for saying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints left God because the Church accepted some things that you and some other people didn’t accept? Try considering the idea that the Church continued despite some other people who left God to form another organization.

Originally posted by -Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM

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.

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 16 2004, 12:50 PM

And He [i assume you're referring to God] provided the person that Joseph Smith, Jr., designated under the direction given in section 43.

Can you please explain to me how section 43 gives Joseph Smith 3 the authority to establish a new organization, calling itself the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Sorry, but I don’t see that written down anywhere.

[Jenda]

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?

[Jenda]

…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.

[Ray]

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.

[Ray]

Originally posted by 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?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 16 2004, 02:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 16 2004, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--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.

[Jenda]

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

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 16 2004, 02:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 16 2004, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.