Legitamacy Of The Prophets

[Guest Starsky]

I understand the scripture extremely well...it is you who do not.

And your logic is faulty to claim the CofC must be wicked according to what I stated. The principle envolved here, is that God is in charge of who holds the priesthood according to their righteousness....so my logic was that the CofC...if righteous...still hold the priesthood given to them through JS just the same a ourselves....and infact we would have to assume that we don't have thepriesthood in the LDS church if we claim the RLDS didn't have it.

BY did a lot of down right evil things back in Navoo...like holding back the money that was paid to the battalions families...for his own ...

Many who chose to stay behind, who experienced his tyranny, left him just as Alma left Noah.

[Kevin]

Peace, I find your response very very unconvincing.

You said:

Always and forever, as God is an unchanging God, the keys of the kingdom are only held upon righteousness and sacrifice and hearts filled with charity. (D&C 121)

Having the keys to 'all' the ordinances is based upon having all of the ordinances ...which we don't.

We have all the ordinances which are necessary for us to progress as far as we can in this life. The keys to the performance of those ordinances are found only with the President of the LDS church. I wonder how it is that you know that we don't have all of the ordinances.

It is entirely right to think that the CofC has priesthood as far as they exercise what they have been given in righteousness.

If LDS doctrine is correct then the CoC does not have the priesthood unless you define the priesthood to mean something other than the authority to act in the name of God.

BY or JS once stated in teachings of JS or BY that the protestant churches held the lower priesthood of Arron...but did not have the Melchizedek priesthood.

If they were prophets...then this is as true as anything else they stated.

Source? Can you show me where they said this? Also, the Aaronic priesthood is conferred by those holding the Melchezedek priesthood or at the approval of those holding the Melchezedek priesthood. Is it your opinion that the leaders of the church have been approving the ordaining of members of others churchs to the Aaronic priesthood? Is it your opinion that members of other faiths even want such an ordination?????????? If so, which faiths?

If the protestant churches can still hold the AP, then the CofC can still have some of the Melchizedek priesthood.

The protestant churches neither hold nor claim to hold the Aaronic pristhood.

The churches only hold what they are willing to exercise and magnify....and you have to be truthful and admit there are lost ordinances and covenants pertaining to the MP today in the LDS as well as the RLDS/CofC churches.

This is just bizzarre. Lost ordinances? Can you tell me which ordinances that are essential for salvation and exaltation are missing??

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 20 2004, 10:41 AM

I understand the scripture extremely well...it is you who do not.

And your logic is faulty to claim the CofC must be wicked according to what I stated. The principle envolved here, is that God is in charge of who holds the priesthood according to their righteousness....so my logic was that the CofC...if righteous...still hold the priesthood given to them through JS just the same a ourselves....and infact we would have to assume that we don't have thepriesthood in the LDS church if we claim the RLDS didn't have it.

BY did a lot of down right evil things back in Navoo...like holding back the money that was paid to the battalions families...for his own ...

Many who chose to stay behind, who experienced his tyranny, left him just as Alma left Noah.

And your logic is faulty to claim the CofC must be wicked according to what I stated.

It was your argument, not mine. You stated that if the LDS ordinances performed by a wicked LDS priesthood holder were valid then the CoC priesthood was also valid.

The principle envolved here, is that God is in charge of who holds the priesthood according to their righteousness....so my logic was that the CofC...if righteous...still hold the priesthood given to them through JS just the same a ourselves....and infact we would have to assume that we don't have thepriesthood in the LDS church if we claim the RLDS didn't have it.

Apparently you're not aware of the difference of opinions between the two orginzations. One believes or believed (RLDS) that the priesthood authority passes from prophet to prophet through a patriarchal process and the other believes that it passes through revelation. If the latter is the case (revelation) and Joseph Smith's son received the priesthood at one point then the point at which he departed from the LDS faith his priesthood was ended. Remember D&C 121:37?? Your selectively applying this scripture.

Your argument assumes that if a person has the priesthood he also has the keys to preside. I have received the priesthood. Just because I go off and start my own church doesn't mean that I have the all the keys of the priesthood - I don't. If I leave God's church within which the authority to officiate resides then I no longer have that authority. Same with the RLDS.

[Guest Starsky]

We have all the ordinances which are necessary for us to progress as far as we can in this life. The keys to the performance of those ordinances are found only with the President of the LDS church. I wonder how it is that you know that we don't have all of the ordinances.

I have lived a very very long time and watched the changes. My husband was an ordinance worker when one of the most drastic changes were made.

What is the fullness to you..?? Crumbs off the toast? Compared to what JS put forth and what we have now...there is very little left.

Certainly you have read these before:

JOSEPH SMITH: The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction. (Contributor, Vol 5 p. 259)

BRIGHAM YOUNG: The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. (J.D. 11:268-9) Pretty clear cut, eh?

ORSON PRATT: ...We will show that it [plural marriage] is incorporated as part of our religion and NECESSARY FOR OUR EXALTATION to the fulness of the Lord's glory in the eternal world.

JOSEPH F. SMITH: Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it... (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29)

Also Joseph F. Smith: Man cannot receive the fulness of the blessings unless he fulfills the law.... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. (J.D. 20:28)

Maybe the most important is from the revelation about it–Section 132. Carefully read verses 3, 4, and 6.

"What is the fulness of the gospel?"

This phrase has been used a lot with different connotations. Basically, I believe it would include ALL of the teachings, commandments, ordinances, laws, and principles associated with the Plan of Salvation. The fulness of a principle is every part of it. In the Church we are no longer required to live the fulness of tithing, which is only a part of Consecration. The fulness of an ordinances is every part of it. For example, the fulness of the endowment is no longer given in the Church. The fulness of the ordinances of the temple are no longer available. The fulness of a law is every part of it. To tie this in with the first question, consider this quote from Joseph Smith:

"All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs of Jesus Christ will have to have received the fulness of the ordinances of His Kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory, if they do not lose the whole." (DHC 5:424)

BRIGHAM YOUNG: Hear it ye Elders of Israel and mark it down in your log-book, THE FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL IS THE UNITED ORDER AND PLURAL MARRIAGE. (Sermon at the dedication of the St. George Temple)

If LDS doctrine is correct then the CoC does not have the priesthood unless you define the priesthood to mean something other than the authority to act in the name of God.

It isn't doctrine...it is heracy to claim they don't. The authority to act in the name of God/priesthood was given to those men under JS just as BY received it.

Source? Can you show me where they said this? Also, the Aaronic priesthood is conferred by those holding the Melchezedek priesthood or at the approval of those holding the Melchezedek priesthood. Is it your opinion that the leaders of the church have been approving the ordaining of members of others churchs to the Aaronic priesthood? Is it your opinion that members of other faiths even want such an ordination?????????? If so, which faiths?

I gave you the source...start reading both books...'The Teachings of the Prophet JS' and 'The Teachings of Brigham Young'.

I have both books, but not the time to find the reference again. (I know, I should have written it down...but I had 7 kids and my physically and mentally disabled mother to care for at the time I found it...I did share it with many others...showed them the very page and everything....so I know it is in there somewhere. LOL happy hunting.)

Source? Can you show me where they said this? Also, the Aaronic priesthood is conferred by those holding the Melchezedek priesthood or at the approval of those holding the Melchezedek priesthood. Is it your opinion that the leaders of the church have been approving the ordaining of members of others churchs to the Aaronic priesthood? Is it your opinion that members of other faiths even want such an ordination?????????? If so, which faiths?

LOL....I didn't say the protestants claim the arronic priesthood. Kevin you have to try harder. I said OUR PROPHETS said they did.

This is just bizzarre. Lost ordinances? Can you tell me which ordinances that are essential for salvation and exaltation are missing??

The one above is a good one. There is also the 'second annointing' which isn't available since the very early 1900's. That one is also absolutely necessary for exaltation.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Kevin@Jan 20 2004, 10:14 AM

Peace,

Perhaps you wonder why I have stated that you have apostate views. You said:

There is only one true church....and it isn't denominational.

Its interesting that you use the Doctrine and Covenants (misinterpretation really) to support your views yet you ignore or are unaware of the portions of the Doctrine and Covenants which directly oppose your views.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:30

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

According to LDS doctrine there is indeed only one truch church and it is the LDS church. You are, of course, free to believe otherwise but your view in this matter is directly opposite that of LDS doctrine.

Leaders of the LDS church have said on numerous occasions that the LDS church is the only true church. It has been made very clear from the restoration of the church that the LDS church is the only one with the authority and direction from God. Consider the following:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...ng%20church.htm

and

If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, for he was the instrument in the hands of God in bringing to light this testimony of the divinity of our Lord.

If this book is true, Ezra Taft Benson is a prophet, for he holds all of the keys, gifts, powers, and authority held by the Prophet Joseph, who brought forth this latter-day work.

If the Book of Mormon is true, the Church is true, for the same authority under which this sacred record came to light is present and manifest among us today. It is a restoration of the Church set up by the Savior in Palestine. It is a restoration of the Church set up by the Savior when he visited this continent as set forth in this sacred record.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Power of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, June 1988, 2

and

Church organizations made by men, without claim to divinity or revelation, were everywhere in abundance. The corrupted doctrines of former centuries were all there. Religious confusion reigned and most of the world opposed the work bitterly and cried “false prophet” at the first mention of the restored truth.

The tiny organization, begun in 1830 with six members, has had phenomenal growth to some four million in that short period. It is here to stay. This church of Jesus Christ (nicknamed Mormon) is the “only true and living church” that is fully recognized with the authority to perform for him, and the only one with a total and comprehensive and true program which will carry men to powers unbelievable and to realms incredible.

This is an absolute truth. It cannot be disproved. It is as true as the near-spherical shape of the earth, and as gravity; as true as the shining of the sun—as positive as the truth that we live. Most of the world disbelieves it; ministers attempt to disprove it; intellectuals think to rationalize it out of existence; but when all the people of the world are dead, and the ministers and priests are ashes, and the highly trained are mouldering in their graves, the truth will go forward—the Church will continue triumphant and the gospel will still be true.

The Lord has defined truth as being a “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” (D&C 93:24.) God’s existence is a reality. Immortality is a reality. These realities will not go away simply because we have different opinions about them. These realities will not be dissolved just because some have doubts about them.

Spencer W. Kimball, “Absolute Truth,” Ensign, Sept. 1978, 3

USN, as I was reading the above article I thought you might be interested. Its a quick read and addresses some of your questions better than I can. Here's the link. I'd be interested in knowing what you what you think.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...ute%20truth.htm

You missed the point...And the D&C 130...says it is speaking to the churches collectively...not individually. Of course that was referring to the 'branches' or 'stakes' as the word church has changed meanings in our 20th century...Not even our leaders will refer to this particular usage when speaking about the only true 'church'.

And that talk by BKP is nothing more or less than 'logical' conclusion game...which doesn't work. The many keys on the piano...oh my Kevin...Where is our polygamy key, or our consecration key, or our second annointing key...we don'thave all the keys either!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Kevin@Jan 20 2004, 10:53 AM

Apparently you're not aware of the difference of opinions between the two orginzations. One believes or believed (RLDS) that the priesthood authority passes from prophet to prophet through a patriarchal process and the other believes that it passes through revelation. If the latter is the case (revelation) and Joseph Smith's son received the priesthood at one point then the point at which he departed from the LDS faith his priesthood was ended. Remember D&C 121:37?? Your selectively applying this scripture.

Your argument assumes that if a person has the priesthood he also has the keys to preside. I have received the priesthood. Just because I go off and start my own church doesn't mean that I have the all the keys of the priesthood - I don't. If I leave God's church within which the authority to officiate resides then I no longer have that authority. Same with the RLDS.

You are convinced, because you are LDS, that the RLDS were the ones who did the leaving. That is only true from your bias. According to my bias, the LDS were the ones who did the leaving, thus making them not the successors to the priesthood.

But, I can see Peace's argument because it is so close to what is happening today in the RLDS church.

If someone is ordained to the priesthood and is not ex-communicated, then that person still has the authority to stand as a spokesman for that church. Now, if that person is not happy with the direction men have taken God's church, and others feel the same, even the person who was designated to succeed the prophet, then that person still holds the authority of God and continues to carry the priesthood. Even if it is against what the men who diverted the church claim.

[Guest Starsky]

You are convinced, because you are LDS, that the RLDS were the ones who did the leaving. That is only true from your bias. According to my bias, the LDS were the ones who did the leaving, thus making them not the successors to the priesthood.

Interesting point! LOL

[USNationalist]

<<Why would the fact that one of the two faiths is wrong cause you to question the method by which members of those faiths choose to adhere to one or the other? >>

-because if you say the holy gohst told you your church is the one true one and you use that to validate your faith but a false church says that the holy gohst also told them they are the true church obviously that claim that the holy gohst has validated either is suspect. They believe just as strongly and in the same way as you that their church is true because the holy gohst told them so- but you say its false anyway.

what is the difference between your claims? What makes yours valid and theirs not?

Personaly it is obvious to me that in this example alone the testimonies people get from the prayer of moroni are completely unrealiable if not bogus and are no means to determine if ones faith is valid.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Jan 20 2004, 02:48 PM

<<Why would the fact that one of the two faiths is wrong cause you to question the method by which members of those faiths choose to adhere to one or the other? >>

-because if you say the holy gohst told you your church is the one true one and you use that to validate your faith but a false church says that the holy gohst also told them they are the true church obviously that claim that the holy gohst has validated either is suspect. They believe just as strongly and in the same way as you that their church is true because the holy gohst told them so- but you say its false anyway.

what is the difference between your claims? What makes yours valid and theirs not?

Personaly it is obvious to me that in this example alone the testimonies people get from the prayer of moroni are completely unrealiable if not bogus and are no means to determine if ones faith is valid.

US -- I would imagine that a person who believed that the Moroni 10 method of learning truth was valid (i.e. read, ponder, pray, and receive a spiritual witness) would say that a true spiritual witness was something unmistakeable, and completely different from the sensations received by a person who believes he's received a witness of something that's not true.

In other words, a Mormon who's received a Moroni 10 witness would say that if the RLDS person, who thought he'd received a witness, actually received the real thing, he'd recognize it as being different and more reliable than the sensations he'd mistaken for a witness of the RLDS teaching. And vice versa.

I really can't say I've ever received such an unmistakeable witness, so more detail will have to be provided by others.