Is God Restricted The Priesthood?

[Snow]

Cal said this:

He can alliviate suffering and refuses to do so on a regular basis. Oh, he does it for whom he "choses", according to mormons. Only if you are rightous enough and have the "priesthood"

and then he said that I, Snow, was making a bald assertion when I said that no, we don't believe that God blesses only the righteous priesthood holders. I say that God has a pretty solid history, according to our faith, of blessing and intervening in the affairs of mankind to help mankind and alleviate suffering. For example, we believe the Founding Fathers were blessed of God to create the US Consititution that all man might be blessed, directly or indirectly, for it.

So the question is, is LDS priesthood necessary for God to intervene in the affairs of mankind? I bet not one Mormon thinks that.

Oh, also; Cal says that the Mormon God is heartless. If any Mormon reading this thinks that Mormons believe that God does not have a heart, by all means speak up.

[Snow]

Hey logic-boy (CanardFier)

Cal thinks he has a pretty strong logical argument in the following:

"admitt(ing) that God does INDEED bless, favor, and heal WITHOUT the mormon priesthood being involved, you... establish(es) that Mormon Priesthood is UNNECESSARY"

Personally I think that the argument barely makes sense let alone proves anything.

You're a good test of reason. What say you - if God were to act through not priesthood channels, does that then mean that the priesthood is superfluous?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

What say you - if God were to act through not priesthood channels, does that then mean that the priesthood is superfluous?

Of course not. To say so requires the assumption that the only purpose of priesthood, as an institution, is to allow God to "bless, favor, and heal." It may have other purposes -- to refine the souls of priesthood bearers and those who deal with them, to provide a symbolic model of the heavenly order of things, or to preserve the integrity and cohesiveness of the Church.

To use a half-baked analogy, one of the functions of a Jaguar XJ is to play really high-quality sound on an excellent stereo system. The fact that you can get the same stereo system without the car doesn't render the car superfluous, because the car has more functions than playing music.

Of course God can, and evidently does, "bless, favor, and heal" outside the framework of the priesthood. Blessing, favoring, and healing is the 6-disc autochanger. The other functions of priesthood are (metaphorically, and in no particular order) the functions of transportation, facilitating hands-free cell phone use, and causing relaxation by exposure to obscene amounts of Connolly leather and birds-eye walnut burl trim. (Maybe in a decade or so. Hope my Saturn lasts that long ....)

Also, the fact that God can do things one way (i.e. outside the official priesthood) doesn't render other methods he might use "superfluous." There is more than one way to travel to Utah from California -- I can fly, drive, take the bus, or (I suppose) walk or bike. Or kayak, even, assuming I was willing to take really big detours and portage a lot. The point is that sometimes God's purposes may be accomplished best through the official priesthood, and sometimes in another way. That doesn't mean that either way is superfluous.

[Jenda]

What say you - if God were to act through not priesthood channels, does that then mean that the priesthood is superfluous?

No. The power of the priesthood, especially the Melchesidic, is to stand in the stead of Christ, and is required for carrying out the ordinances of the church.

[Cal]

Snow--you will recall that the substance of my comments were regarding use of the priesthood for HEALING THE SICK; that is what the thread was addressing. The discussion went on to debate whether the priesthood was necessary for this kind of thing. My argument was that if healing, and other similar blessing are in the hands of God, which a number of people on the thread agreed was so, then why not just call upon God to exercise what was already HIS will. You don't need the priesthood, if God is going to exercize his will in his own way. I don't recall extending that to say that the Priesthood isn't good for anything ELSE, you read it that way and proceeded to rant on as though I had.

Regarding my statement: "admitt(ing) that God does INDEED bless, favor, and heal WITHOUT the mormon priesthood being involved, you... establish(es) that Mormon Priesthood is UNNECESSARY"

It should have been evident in light of the context of "heal, bless, and favor" that the word UNNECESSARY meant unnecessary FOR THAT or THOSE PURPOSES. (I shouldn't have to say it, but if you need the clarification, there it is).

Whether God does or doesn't act outside of the mormon priesthood for OTHER PURPOSES really makes no difference to me. Since no one seems to understand the nature of the mormon God anyway, or exactly what this priesthood is, outside the definitions that mormons have given it, a debate on whether it is necessary for EVERYTHING God does is kind of a wasted effort.

[Snow]

Cal,

Your argument makes more sense now that you have changed it. Thank you.

[Tr2]

Jesus blessed those who didn't deserve it, what basis is there for saying God operates any different?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 12 2004, 10:37 AM

Jesus blessed those who didn't deserve it, what basis is there for saying God operates any different?

Jesus is God.

2 Ne. 26: 12

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

2 Ne. 10: 3.

3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

Mosiah 7: 27.

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth—

[Cal]

Peace--so you subscribe to the inferences in the BoM that would have Jesus and God as the exact same person?

[Tr2]

Use the bible please, I do not hold the book of mormon to be anything special because there is no reason to think so.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 12 2004, 07:57 PM

Use the bible please, I do not hold the book of mormon to be anything special because there is no reason to think so.

Trident -- You're on a Mormon message board. People are going to (shock!) quote Mormon scripture here. You're well enough versed in the Bible to provide the biblical Trinitarian passages yourself.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 12 2004, 07:11 PM

Peace--so you subscribe to the inferences in the BoM that would have Jesus and God as the exact same person?

Maybe Peace understands the trinity better than most Mormons.

My understanding of the trinity places Jesus as the person while God is the entity. There is one divine entity (nature) but 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So we can say that the Father is God, Jesus (the Son) is God and the Holy Spirit is God. God in 3 persons. Not sure if that's how Peace sees it, but I agree with her that Jesus is God.

M.

[Tr2]

Trident -- You're on a Mormon message board. People are going to (shock!) quote Mormon scripture here. You're well enough versed in the Bible to provide the biblical Trinitarian passages yourself.

So because I am on a mormon board I am expected to believe everything mormon? Jesus is a historical figure, the BoM is not a historical book because it has not been proven to be. I don't believe something just because it has been published, there is a lot of crap in print.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 13 2004, 04:29 PM

Trident -- You're on a Mormon message board. People are going to (shock!) quote Mormon scripture here. You're well enough versed in the Bible to provide the biblical Trinitarian passages yourself.

So because I am on a mormon board I am expected to believe everything mormon? Jesus is a historical figure, the BoM is not a historical book because it has not been proven to be. I don't believe something just because it has been published, there is a lot of crap in print.

Trident - No one said you had to believe Mormon scripture. But it's only logical to expect Mormon's are going to use their scripture on a message board because they believe it.

M.

[Tr2]

Trident - No one said you had to believe Mormon scripture. But it's only logical to expect Mormon's are going to use their scripture on a message board because they believe it.

Using a source that has no credibility is logical? I am not interested in what the BoM has to say because there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than a work of fiction.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 13 2004, 10:26 PM

Trident - No one said you had to believe Mormon scripture. But it's only logical to expect Mormon's are going to use their scripture on a message board because they believe it.

Using a source that has no credibility is logical? I am not interested in what the BoM has to say because there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than a work of fiction.

So?

[Tr2]

So?

What kind of childish response is that? Don't quote something that has no more factual base than Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Use the bible if you want to try and prove a point about Jesus. Either than or prove the BoM. Since nobody else has, I'm not going to expect you to.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 13 2004, 10:26 PM

Trident - No one said you had to believe Mormon scripture. But it's only logical to expect Mormon's are going to use their scripture on a message board because they believe it.

Using a source that has no credibility is logical? I am not interested in what the BoM has to say because there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than a work of fiction.

Then skip over it and go on to the next post. This is a mormon discussion board, and we will use what scripture we want to discuss things with each other.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 14 2004, 06:44 AM

So?

What kind of childish response is that? Don't quote something that has no more factual base than Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Use the bible if you want to try and prove a point about Jesus. Either than or prove the BoM. Since nobody else has, I'm not going to expect you to.

It is a response to a spoiled child's rants of what they will or will not do, or what they will or will not accept.

Why should anyone else care? And who are you to demand anything from me? You want to pay me $50 an hour...I will go to work for you, but otherwise, forget it. I will post how I please...just as you do.

[Traveler]

I thought I would clarify a “Christian Concept”. Jesus is the “Mediator” between mankind and the Father. No one come unto the Father but by Jesus. This also means that no blessings come to man from the Father but by Jesus. Since the Fall of Man any heavenly blessings that are possible for man come through Jesus. To teach another doctrine denies the Christ. The blessings of eternity come only through Jesus and all other thins of “good” fortune have an end in this life. It is LDS doctrine that only by the Priesthood of Jesus can anything be sealed for eternity. The Bible tells us that Peter was given such keys of the Priesthood. The D&C tells us that such priesthood authority can only be exercised in righteousness.

The Traveler

[Tr2]

Basically what I'm being told is that if I continue to ask for a source that has been proven to be accurate I'm told, "well we don't do that around here".

You post LDS scripture and when I ask you to state why it is valid I get no reason except if I don't like it I can leave or ignore it. It seems like you don't understand what you believe or why.

And who are you to demand anything from me?

I'm asking you to state why a source, that you volunteered to use, is valid. Since you refuse to do so I will assume that you cannot state why the BoM is valid, until proven otherwise.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Traveler@Feb 14 2004, 05:38 PM

I thought I would clarify a “Christian Concept”. Jesus is the “Mediator” between mankind and the Father. No one come unto the Father but by Jesus. This also means that no blessings come to man from the Father but by Jesus. Since the Fall of Man any heavenly blessings that are possible for man come through Jesus. To teach another doctrine denies the Christ. The blessings of eternity come only through Jesus and all other thins of “good” fortune have an end in this life. It is LDS doctrine that only by the Priesthood of Jesus can anything be sealed for eternity. The Bible tells us that Peter was given such keys of the Priesthood. The D&C tells us that such priesthood authority can only be exercised in righteousness.

The Traveler

Absolutely!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 14 2004, 09:25 PM

Basically what I'm being told is that if I continue to ask for a source that has been proven to be accurate I'm told, "well we don't do that around here".

You post LDS scripture and when I ask you to state why it is valid I get no reason except if I don't like it I can leave or ignore it. It seems like you don't understand what you believe or why.

And who are you to demand anything from me?

I'm asking you to state why a source, that you volunteered to use, is valid. Since you refuse to do so I will assume that you cannot state why the BoM is valid, until proven otherwise.

Assume away...we all know what happens to those who assssssummme.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 13 2004, 10:26 PM

Trident - No one said you had to believe Mormon scripture. But it's only logical to expect Mormon's are going to use their scripture on a message board because they believe it.

Using a source that has no credibility is logical? I am not interested in what the BoM has to say because there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than a work of fiction.

Then don't use the BofM yourself; but who are you to tell Mormons on a Mormon message board that they can't use it because you don't believe it is valid. What makes you so special on this message board Trident?

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 14 2004, 09:25 PM

Since you refuse to do so I will assume that you cannot state why the BoM is valid, until proven otherwise.

Stop the presses!

Trident is making an assumtion. What will we do? Whatever will we do?