I don't even know what priesthood keys means. Can someone explain?
Why certainly my good sister! The priesthood is the authority to act on behalf of God, and the keys within the priesthood relate to the varying functions that can be performed within that priesthood. Both president Hinckley and the secretary within any Elder's Quorum within any ward hold the same priesthood. But the Elder's Quorum secretary doesn't hold the keys for the gathering of Israel, for instance. At any time, President Hinckley may call the lost 10 tribes home.
So why doesn't he do it already? Haven't they been freezing somewhere under the North Pole for long enough?
Gazelam wrote:Authority of a believer is ludicrous. Gods house is a house of order, not confusion.
Yes, there is no confusion in LDS land. What's doctrine and what's not? Did God the Father have a father? Which pronouncements of GBH are from God. Is the Adam God doctrine correct....
Jason Nice proof texts which does nothing other then to show you interpret them differently then LDS or Catholics do.
Yes, and Evs interpret them differently.
Seven asked
For the EV's out there, or others knowledgable on EV teachings, is there much scriptural back up for this belief?
And I provided them. Almost all texts are interpreted in different ways by different people. Does that mean that we can’t discuss them? Last May, an article of mine was published beginning with a quote which had a clear meaning in light of the rest of the article. A reader arrived at exactly the opposite meaning. I think I’m right and the fact that one strange letter arrived at a ridiculous interpretation does not refute my point. Please provide your interpretation of
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40"For he who is not against us is for us.
And how do the scriptures you offer, in your view, work together with these that I offered?
There are numerous accounts of priesthood authority, such as Christs declaration that the Twelve were specificly chosen and ordained (John 15:16), Saul and Barnabas were seperated and had hands laid on their heads to give them authority(Acts 13:1-3; Romas 1:1) Paul also reminds Timothy of the responsibility of the authority given to him by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14)
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Gazelam wrote: Joseph taught this in the King Follet discource. Did he declare it as a certain doctrine? No. But he said "I know it is good reasoning".
Documentation for that last part, please. I'd like to see that quote in the context in which it was first delivered.
My Apologies Harmony, I misquoted the source. The King Follet discource was given in April of 1844, the following June Joseph gave another talk entitled "Gods many and Lords many" which has the quote I sighted.
Here is the quote in context, The proceeding after commenting on John 17 and the intercessory prayer:
.......I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist - two men on earth, one wiser than another, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."
If Abraham reasoned this - If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? and Where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly. Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As thew Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning.
From God the Father Compiled by Gordon Allred pp. 248-249
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Richard Do all LDS agree with you here that God the Father had a father? The Lord's church is a church of order, you know.
Gaz Yes they do.
Richard Then why did GBH say
On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."
Richard Do all LDS agree with you here that God the Father had a father? The Lord's church is a church of order, you know.
Gaz Yes they do.
Richard Then why did GBH say
On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."
Why would the living Prophet not know if the LDS have a teaching, and an important one at that, which you claim is held by ALL LDS?
He seems to get embarrassed when confronted with LDS doctrine and hides. My TBM friend said of his Larry King interview:
"Oh, I guess he doesn't want to go there..." when he was aked a similar question. Most LDS do believe God was once a man and that we can all become Gods/exalted, but will also defend GBH whe he fibs about doctrine in interviews with media. The "God was once a man" , "we can become Gods", "God has a father and his father has a father" (it goes on forever) was something I knew most of my life but unsure of when exactly I learned it in church. Probably from a Sunday School teacher or Seminary.
GBH also said that he didn't believe polygamy was doctrinal in an interview with Larry King. Either he is lieing for the Lord, just like other LDS leaders before him, or he hasn't been reading his scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Richard Please provide your interpretation of
Quote:
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us."
39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40"For he who is not against us is for us.
Mark 9
Gaz
And how do the scriptures you offer, in your view, work together with these that I offered?
Quote:
There are numerous accounts of priesthood authority, such as Christs declaration that the Twelve were specificly chosen and ordained (John 15:16), Saul and Barnabas were seperated and had hands laid on their heads to give them authority(Acts 13:1-3; Romas 1:1) Paul also reminds Timothy of the responsibility of the authority given to him by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14)
Richard I think the normal protocol would be for you to answer my question first. Then you’re welcome to ask me questions.
Jason Nice proof texts which does nothing other then to show you interpret them differently then LDS or Catholics do.
Yes, and Evs interpret them differently.
Seven asked
For the EV's out there, or others knowledgable on EV teachings, is there much scriptural back up for this belief?
And I provided them. Almost all texts are interpreted in different ways by different people. Does that mean that we can’t discuss them? Last May, an article of mine was published beginning with a quote which had a clear meaning in light of the rest of the article. A reader arrived at exactly the opposite meaning. I think I’m right and the fact that one strange letter arrived at a ridiculous interpretation does not refute my point. Please provide your interpretation of
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40"For he who is not against us is for us.
Mark 9
Richard,
The problem for me is this. There are many ways to understand Bible passages. Sure we can discuss them. But where does that get us? The understandings that you present are steeped in reformed theololgy and many of them are unique and came on the scene based on the understanding of religous leaders 1500 years after the passages were written. There are many unique reformed Christian doctrines that just were not around for 1500 years.
Of course yuo can claim the same for Joseph Smith and the LDS Church and in some cases you would certianly be right. Difference is Joseph Smith claimed divine revelation on what he offered that was new or different.
Also, I have great difficulty with people of other faiths who use methodologies to tear down the LDS Church that if honestly applied to their own religion would certainly lead to some serious problems for them.
So I just don't get into it much with people of other religous presuasions. I know the issues with the LDS Church. I also know many of the issues with Christianity in general. There are big problems for you too Richard, if you want to explore them critically.