On Melquisedec Priesthood

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

what day will the World end.........

It will be a Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

I figured it would be on a Monday morning.......LOL

[LionHeart]

Hello LionHeart,

Just wanted to clarify. My point was not, as you said, "...where ever there is reasoning, there is an absence of faith."[sIC] That is a self defeating statement. What I mean is, you are proposing a belief through your statement of a (if it was) factual statement. See they can exist simultaneously. I am of teh opinion that even hard science requires faith. I never meant to imply that wherever there is reasoning there is an absence of faith at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

Dr. T

No problem DR. T.

In your above statement, are you referring to faith in God, or just faith in general?

I believe it works both ways. Some people may be hard scientists and still maintain a good level of faith, while others learn a little about science and that is the very thing that destroys their faith.

Personally, I believe that there is a science behind the way God works. A science that could very well be understood by man if he had it explained.

For example, I read in a book that the force that destroyed the city of Jericho was an anomaly that formed above the city as a result of the people marching around it. They then shouted and disrupted this anomaly which blew the city down with destructive force. This book also said that the indian rain dance works on the same principle. I believe it accredited this theory to Albert Einstein.

[Dr T]

Hi LionHeart,

In your above statement, are you referring to faith in God, or just faith in general?

I hold to the idea that faith in God is reasonable. When Kierkegaard said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized" I said that if I come to that conclusion then I would be in good company. I was referring to the discussion about a belief of an illogical premise that cannot be reconciled because the law of noncontradiction with faith. And faith would have to prevail over human logic (so far). Now was that as clear as mud?

Thanks

[LionHeart]

Hi LionHeart,

In your above statement, are you referring to faith in God, or just faith in general?

I hold to the idea that faith in God is reasonable. When Kierkegaard said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized" I said that if I come to that conclusion then I would be in good company. I was referring to the discussion about a belief of an illogical premise that cannot be reconciled because the law of noncontradiction with faith. And faith would have to prevail over human logic (so far). Now was that as clear as mud?

Thanks

Well, I'm just a lowly truck driver fresh off the farm but I think I see what you mean. (I don't think that 'DR.' in your screen name is just for looks.) But basically this illogical premise which you speak of is summed up in the statement "Where there is reason, there is no faith"; which is a self contradicting statement. Or in other words before there can be reason, there must be faith. Am I getting warmer?

[Dr T]

Hello LionHeart,

First off, you are no more "lowly" than anyone else on this board/Earth. You are just as loved and valuable just because you are alive. It is not something that do or have that makes us higher or lower than anyone else. No letters after your name, not the amount of money you have, not intelligence, not how high you can jump, how nice you are, how many arms you have, etc. Just as my children do not help pay the bills, their value will never go up (or down) in my eyes. I have faith that we, mere humans, are in God's eyes as my children are in mine. Actually God's love is greater but I was trying to put it into perspective in human terms.

As far as the faith and reason issue is concerned, faith is always associated with reason. In whatever issue we decide to use reason, there is some faith inherent in the process of coming to that conclusion. Today I started reading a book where Einstein talks a little bit about Euclidian geometry and the use of "truth" when talking about it. I bringing this up only to show that even in mathematics, faith is required (based on certain axioms) to believe that certain things follow. I was going to quote it but thought that it might bore you. If you want to read it (about a paragraph) I can post it later.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

What significance does that hold?

None.

Thats what I was thinking myself........what significance does this hold???......NONE

[LionHeart]

As far as the faith and reason issue is concerned, faith is always associated with reason. In whatever issue we decide to use reason, there is some faith inherent in the process of coming to that conclusion. Today I started reading a book where Einstein talks a little bit about Euclidian geometry and the use of "truth" when talking about it. I bringing this up only to show that even in mathematics, faith is required (based on certain axioms) to believe that certain things follow. I was going to quote it but thought that it might bore you. If you want to read it (about a paragraph) I can post it later.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Sure DR.T. I would certainly be interested in reading it, if you wouldn't mind. Faith happens to be one of my favorite subjects. I have also read another booklet called The Lectures On Faith which addressses the same basic principle that you spoke of. It says that a certain degree of faith is required in everything we do.

Thanks

[Dr T]

Hey LionHeart,

Although this excerpt is not meant to be an explanation, I wanted to post it to show that even in the hard sciences, faith is an underlying factor.

This is from Relativity - The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein (Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924) Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920) Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd First Published: December, 1916 Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)

In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember -- perhaps with more respect than love -- the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers. By reason of our past experience, you would certainly regard everyone with disdain who should pronounce even the most out-of-the-way proposition of this science to be untrue. But perhaps this feeling of proud certainty would leave you immediately if some one were to ask you: "What, then, do you mean by the assertion that these propositions are true?" Let us proceed to give this question a little consideration.

Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognised manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning. We cannot ask whether it is true that only one straight line goes through two points. We can only say that Euclidean geometry deals with things called "straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of being uniquely determined by two points situated on it. The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves.

It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true." Geometrical ideas correspond to more or less exact objects in nature, and these last are undoubtedly the exclusive cause of the genesis of those ideas. Geometry ought to refrain from such a course, in order to give to its structure the largest possible logical unity. The practice, for example, of seeing in a "distance" two marked positions on a practically rigid body is something which is lodged deeply in our habit of thought. We are accustomed further to regard three points as being situated on a straight line, if their apparent positions can be made to coincide for observation with one eye, under suitable choice of our place of observation.

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies.* Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the "truth" of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the "truth" of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with rule and compasses.

Of course the conviction of the "truth" of geometrical propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience. For the present we shall assume the "truth" of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage (in the general theory of relativity) we shall see that this "truth" is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its limitation.

Just thought it was cool that he shows the need for reason and that Euclid based his work on material that was not consistent will all possible plains/situations.

Dr. T

[Serg]

Lion Heart;

I am as lds as anybody here, in fact, while talking to some leaders this weekend I decided to give it a chance, and i decided to go on my mission(as planned) on January. Anyways, that does not mean that I have to find every possible way to justify or "spiritualize" every wrong deed committed by the Leaders, starting with Joseph Smith. That is a healthy faith. Read "I dont have a testimony of the History of the Church" in FAIRLDS.ORG , and you'll see it.

My point, it is important the melquisedec issue, not because it will finally lead to any "falseness" in the Church, but because WE have made it hyper important. It is interesting though, that when Moroni spoke to Josepg he told him that he would eventually get the holy priesthood (of melquisedec) and be filled with the holy Spirit, but then, when John came and ordained them, as they baptized each other, Smith says they were "filled" with the Holy Ghost as to "prophecy" and "revelation", a concept that not every latter day saint agrees NOW, but because it was Joseph, well...If now i told you that my 12 year old kid, after being baptized(not confirmed) and ordained to the aaronic priesthood, he was "filled" and "prophecied" you are gonna tell me that is "not th eproper order' and hence "not of God". Just as we wrongly dismiss our fellow christians as apostates and not "rightful" partakers of the Fulness of the Grace of God in terms of His Spirit.

I see a historic struggle here, my point, is that although i see that, i dont have to stop believing in Joseph, but it is as wrong to stop believing in Joseph because of this, as it is to believe in him denying this altogether! That is why I admire lds scholars, they get it. We cant be good mormon christians if we deny every struggle in our history. Cause WE hold from such standards to judge th everacity of other Churches, but when it comes to ours...well.

Regards,

[Guest MrsS]

Lion Heart;

I am as lds as anybody here, in fact, while talking to some leaders this weekend I decided to give it a chance, and i decided to go on my mission(as planned) on January. Anyways, that does not mean that I have to find every possible way to justify or "spiritualize" every wrong deed committed by the Leaders, starting with Joseph Smith. That is a healthy faith. Read "I dont have a testimony of the History of the Church" in FAIRLDS.ORG , and you'll see it.

My point, it is important the melquisedec issue, not because it will finally lead to any "falseness" in the Church, but because WE have made it hyper important. It is interesting though, that when Moroni spoke to Josepg he told him that he would eventually get the holy priesthood (of melquisedec) and be filled with the holy Spirit, but then, when John came and ordained them, as they baptized each other, Smith says they were "filled" with the Holy Ghost as to "prophecy" and "revelation", a concept that not every latter day saint agrees NOW, but because it was Joseph, well...If now i told you that my 12 year old kid, after being baptized(not confirmed) and ordained to the aaronic priesthood, he was "filled" and "prophecied" you are gonna tell me that is "not th eproper order' and hence "not of God". Just as we wrongly dismiss our fellow christians as apostates and not "rightful" partakers of the Fulness of the Grace of God in terms of His Spirit.

I see a historic struggle here, my point, is that although i see that, i dont have to stop believing in Joseph, but it is as wrong to stop believing in Joseph because of this, as it is to believe in him denying this altogether! That is why I admire lds scholars, they get it. We cant be good mormon christians if we deny every struggle in our history. Cause WE hold from such standards to judge th everacity of other Churches, but when it comes to ours...well.

Regards,

HUH? Don't tell me that this is really Serg writing this! There is no way this is Serg. No grammatical errors, no spelling errors, no mixing up of sentences. Or is he quoting someone else??? If this is Serg, then he is a Dr Jeykell/ Mr. Hyde!!!

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

Lion Heart;

I am as lds as anybody here, in fact, while talking to some leaders this weekend I decided to give it a chance, and i decided to go on my mission(as planned) on January. Anyways, that does not mean that I have to find every possible way to justify or "spiritualize" every wrong deed committed by the Leaders, starting with Joseph Smith. That is a healthy faith. Read "I dont have a testimony of the History of the Church" in FAIRLDS.ORG , and you'll see it.

My point, it is important the melquisedec issue, not because it will finally lead to any "falseness" in the Church, but because WE have made it hyper important. It is interesting though, that when Moroni spoke to Josepg he told him that he would eventually get the holy priesthood (of melquisedec) and be filled with the holy Spirit, but then, when John came and ordained them, as they baptized each other, Smith says they were "filled" with the Holy Ghost as to "prophecy" and "revelation", a concept that not every latter day saint agrees NOW, but because it was Joseph, well...If now i told you that my 12 year old kid, after being baptized(not confirmed) and ordained to the aaronic priesthood, he was "filled" and "prophecied" you are gonna tell me that is "not th eproper order' and hence "not of God". Just as we wrongly dismiss our fellow christians as apostates and not "rightful" partakers of the Fulness of the Grace of God in terms of His Spirit.

I see a historic struggle here, my point, is that although i see that, i dont have to stop believing in Joseph, but it is as wrong to stop believing in Joseph because of this, as it is to believe in him denying this altogether! That is why I admire lds scholars, they get it. We cant be good mormon christians if we deny every struggle in our history. Cause WE hold from such standards to judge th everacity of other Churches, but when it comes to ours...well.

Regards,

HUH? Don't tell me that this is really Serg writing this! There is no way this is Serg. No grammatical errors, no spelling errors, no mixing up of sentences. Or is he quoting someone else??? If this is Serg, then he is a Dr Jeykell/ Mr. Hyde!!!

Are you serious MrsS, because it sure looks like Serg to me. Don't want to offend but I bolded Serg's errors.

M.

[Guest MrsS]

Are you serious MrsS, because it sure looks like Serg to me. Don't want to offend but I bolded Serg's errors. M.

I stand corrected, Maureen.

[BenRaines]

I was going to post something here but have sent PMs instead.

[shanstress70]

Could you send me a PM about this too? I've been following this thread, even though I haven't been posting. You've peaked my curiosity. :)

[Serg]

Are you serious MrsS, because it sure looks like Serg to me. Don't want to offend but I bolded Serg's errors. M.

I stand corrected, Maureen.

LOL.

[MBASS]

Lion Heart;

I am as lds as anybody here, in fact, while talking to some leaders this weekend I decided to give it a chance, and i decided to go on my mission(as planned) on January. Anyways, that does not mean that I have to find every possible way to justify or "spiritualize" every wrong deed committed by the Leaders, starting with Joseph Smith. That is a healthy faith. Read "I dont have a testimony of the History of the Church" in FAIRLDS.ORG , and you'll see it.

It seems odd to me that you would serve a mission with your opinions on Joseph Smith. Isnt one of the main purposes of a mission is to convince none believers that he is a prophet, the restoration, etc. If you have such disbelief in some of these areas why go out and preach it unto others?

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

Lion Heart;

I am as lds as anybody here, in fact, while talking to some leaders this weekend I decided to give it a chance, and i decided to go on my mission(as planned) on January. Anyways, that does not mean that I have to find every possible way to justify or "spiritualize" every wrong deed committed by the Leaders, starting with Joseph Smith. That is a healthy faith. Read "I dont have a testimony of the History of the Church" in FAIRLDS.ORG , and you'll see it.

It seems odd to me that you would serve a mission with your opinions on Joseph Smith. Isnt one of the main purposes of a mission is to convince none believers that he is a prophet, the restoration, etc. If you have such disbelief in some of these areas why go out and preach it unto others?

I have come to harmonize the defects of his character with the fruits of his ministry, and they are not so widely adverse at all. When you reffer to "my views" on Joseph Smith to the FACTS of his life(negative ones) that I have come to analize or expose here, that does not prove that I don't believe in him, or at least, that I could never believe in him, but that are there and are not comfortable.

Yes, I almost stepped(well, certainly did) on unbelief, but i think i can rely on God's testimony and the good things that have come into my life since i accepted this gospel. However odd that may seem, is due to my lack of blind faith and my actual effort to give a fight for this faith. That change and good things in my life thanks to this gospel is what I am going to testify of, none else.

Hope that does it for you,

Regards,

[Dr T]

Hey Serg,

That edited post is very different from the original. Can you share with me (perhaps on another thread) the reason for your apparent vacillation? What is bolstering you to continue on in doing missions work? What would it take for you to not follow that path? Just curious.

Thanks

[Outshined]

It seems odd to me that you would serve a mission with your opinions on Joseph Smith. Isnt one of the main purposes of a mission is to convince none believers that he is a prophet, the restoration, etc. If you have such disbelief in some of these areas why go out and preach it unto others?

I had the same thought; I was thinking of his reference to Joseph Smith as a "filthy liar," among other things...

[Serg]

Hey Serg,

That edited post is very different from the original. Can you share with me (perhaps on another thread) the reason for your apparent vacillation? What is bolstering you to continue on in doing missions work? What would it take for you to not follow that path? Just curious.

Thanks

That "edited" post is only edited because after finishing it I added "That change and good things in my life thanks to this gospel is what I am going to testify of, none else." Not because I changed anything at all.

Again, if you consider vacillation the fact that i said in another post to Ray(as I recall), that "why would I teach the message of a Church so false", etc... and now I say that i can reconcile negative facts with faith, well, it's call growing. At least in a profound matter, it is very tough for me to leave this church, and to satisfy your curiosity I tell you;

It's been very difficult for me to still believe in the ministry of Joseph Smith(so much covered by negative facts) while at the same time, accepting the changes(good ones) and great truths that have i received since I have been a part of the Church...One of my most important desires is to SERVE the Lord, be it on a mission or another ministry, in fact, by the time i was almost to step out i became VERY interested with the evangelistic ministry, and i feel in my heart the need and the rejoice of preaching. That is it.

That i spoke with "harsh" tones is a matter of conduct, of reactions and most of all of my perception of many of lds people here. That i try to make the case against Smith in TRUE events(that ARE negative), in front of a very biased community of blind faith, is normal, and is healthy, I base my faith both on reason and heart, not only one. Most peope here are unbalanced in that respect, though they may sound coherent and thoughtful about it

Enough?

PD(Long time no see "Paul"! we got a pending topic )

Regards,

<div class='quotemain'>

It seems odd to me that you would serve a mission with your opinions on Joseph Smith. Isnt one of the main purposes of a mission is to convince none believers that he is a prophet, the restoration, etc. If you have such disbelief in some of these areas why go out and preach it unto others?

I had the same thought; I was thinking of his reference to Joseph Smith as a "filthy liar," among other things...

The COMPLETE quote about that would be "filthy liar at least in that[poligamy] respect". So yes, most lds scholars say so, he lied. Is true, but it doesnt have to hurt your testimony brother, nor was it intended for such a thing

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Lion Heart;

I am as lds as anybody here, in fact, while talking to some leaders this weekend I decided to give it a chance, and i decided to go on my mission(as planned) on January. Anyways, that does not mean that I have to find every possible way to justify or "spiritualize" every wrong deed committed by the Leaders, starting with Joseph Smith. That is a healthy faith. Read "I dont have a testimony of the History of the Church" in FAIRLDS.ORG , and you'll see it.

My point, it is important the melquisedec issue, not because it will finally lead to any "falseness" in the Church, but because WE have made it hyper important. It is interesting though, that when Moroni spoke to Josepg he told him that he would eventually get the holy priesthood (of melquisedec) and be filled with the holy Spirit, but then, when John came and ordained them, as they baptized each other, Smith says they were "filled" with the Holy Ghost as to "prophecy" and "revelation", a concept that not every latter day saint agrees NOW, but because it was Joseph, well...If now i told you that my 12 year old kid, after being baptized(not confirmed) and ordained to the aaronic priesthood, he was "filled" and "prophecied" you are gonna tell me that is "not th eproper order' and hence "not of God". Just as we wrongly dismiss our fellow christians as apostates and not "rightful" partakers of the Fulness of the Grace of God in terms of His Spirit.

I see a historic struggle here, my point, is that although i see that, i dont have to stop believing in Joseph, but it is as wrong to stop believing in Joseph because of this, as it is to believe in him denying this altogether! That is why I admire lds scholars, they get it. We cant be good mormon christians if we deny every struggle in our history. Cause WE hold from such standards to judge th everacity of other Churches, but when it comes to ours...well.

Regards,

HUH? Don't tell me that this is really Serg writing this! There is no way this is Serg. No grammatical errors, no spelling errors, no mixing up of sentences. Or is he quoting someone else??? If this is Serg, then he is a Dr Jeykell/ Mr. Hyde!!!

Are you serious MrsS, because it sure looks like Serg to me. Don't want to offend but I bolded Serg's errors.

M.

Thank you maureen, you can be so handy when it comes to the progress of someone

[Serg]

Kind of a loaded question though. Why'd you ask when you knew the answer? Are you stirring up trouble Serg? Don't you have some missionaries or a bishop you can torture?

Harsh dont you think? Yet i consider good that people get to know this. Are'nt we in the so called "open forums"? Then if there I cant at all post things like these ,then where? in another forum?LOL.

Easy Jason, easy pa'l

regards,

[Outshined]

The COMPLETE quote about that would be "filthy liar at least in that[poligamy] respect". So yes, most lds scholars say so, he lied. Is true, but it doesnt have to hurt your testimony brother, nor was it intended for such a thing

"Most LDS scholars?" Which would those be? References, please. I read a lot of LDS scholars, and I've found few, if any, who accuse JS of lying, as you do, let alone call him a "filthy liar" as you did.

And of course our current prophet says no such thing, so your insulting comments contradict him as well.

And your inconsistencies could never affect my testimony (I read far too much for that), just my belief in your sincerity.

I'll be waiting to see your list of LDS scholars. B)

[BenRaines]

I read a lot too and would like to know how many LDS scholars there are first and then how many of them so that most, a majority, would consider Joseph Smith a liar.

I too look forward to some references so that I can read about them to be informed.

Not something that would challenge my testimony but I do like being informed.

Ben Raines

[Jason]

Im not sure who Serg has in mind here, but Im guessing that most of these scholars are actually non-lds scholars. Or at least formerly LDS scholars who have a new point of view.

Im thinking off hand of people like Fawn Brodie & Jan Shipps, or for the "ex" side perhaps a David Whitmer or a Sidney Rigdon.

[Serg]

Im not sure who Serg has in mind here, but Im guessing that most of these scholars are actually non-lds scholars. Or at least formerly LDS scholars who have a new point of view.

Im thinking off hand of people like Fawn Brodie & Jan Shipps, or for the "ex" side perhaps a David Whitmer or a Sidney Rigdon.

Ok, when I reffer to most scholars, i should refrase to "lds and non lds influent scholars". In these, i should mention Dr.Michael Quinn(early mormonism and the magic world view, etc..), later will i bring others, right now iam at the office

regards, :)