Jump to content

Robert F. Smith

Contributor
  • Content Count

    16,184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert F. Smith

  1. Yes, you appear to be correct, based on comments here. Very strange.
  2. I have never heard of wearing the garments even while having sex. Sounds like folklore on a par with some Three Nephite Stories. I have always been told by those in authority that one may remove the garments for sex, for bath/shower, and for athletic activities such as swimming.
  3. A lot of Jews likewise prefer not to wear their daily holy garments, such as tallit qatan with tzitzit (undershirt with tassels hanging out), in addition to the visible yarmulke (kippa) for men. They are not secret in any way, and are a constant reminder of one's Jewishness.
  4. Not just undergarments, but even temple robes used to be worn by Saints in their own ward buildings when doing the Prayer Circle. They even had lockers specially for that activity. I believe that it was done regularly as recently as the 1950s.
  5. Are you sure that you are not masquerading as The Nehor?
  6. Yes, it certainly is undeveloped, and you raise a bunch of legitimate concerns. However, you are likely correct to see that Pres Oaks has pointed our way to understanding the broader priesthood functions by non-priesthood holders (women on missions or in the temple, for example), which may suggest a way in which someone who holds the power equivalent to that of the chief kohen Caiaphas in Jesus' day could be only an Aaronide, yet have tremendous authority. We don't know how an Aaronide would function as a ward bishop because I don't think that it has been done yet. I don't envy anyone trying to figure it all out, but they could at least begin with your helpful list of problems.
  7. So you are saying that the angel Gabriel coming to Zechariah in the temple was nonsense, that his son John the Baptizer had no role since he had no priesthood, that Gabriel coming to Miriam was also nonsense, and that the greeting of John to Jesus, both still in their mothers' wombs, is likewise just nonsense, and that John's actions in the spirit of Elijah as the Forerunner of Christ are also nonsense, that his priestly status was nil. We can just ignore Luke 1:5-45. Right? All that so that they could just go through the motions. Getting baptized by John, having his Father voice approval, and the Holy Spirit alighting upon him, all just a matter of form, in order to fulfill all the .....apostate wink-wink? Is that what Joseph Smith would say?
  8. His office has nothing to do with the Melchizedek priesthood. He heads the Aaronic priesthood in his ward, and is a common judge in Israel. The lineal priests of Aaron perform rites today within Judaism, e.g., blessing the congregation on Yom Kippur, performing Redemption of the Firstborn, etc. Every Orthodox Jew understands that and accepts it. There is no "de facto cessation of priesthood ordinances" among the Jews. American "Conservative" Jews are actually not conservative at all. The priesthood within Judaism is considered to have the same authority they always had. A rebuilt temple would simply increase the demands for their services. It is the Orthodox Jews who are preparing for that. Most of this is rank speculation, without a solid basis.
  9. Third party intercessory prayer appears to work:
  10. Good advice, if you are LDS. If you are a Jew, another set of rules applies.
  11. You're thinking of an LDS context, instead of the Jewish context. A lineal descendant of Aaron who is also an LDS convert can theoretically be an LDS bishop without counselors. He need not even be a High Priest. You are correct that he needs the approval of the LDS First Presidency to do that. However, that is not my point: My point is that LDS doctrine on the lineal priesthood of Aaron is very clear. It is still in force, as in Numbers 8.
  12. Read the D&C on the lineal priesthood of Aaron. It is LDS doctrine that the priesthood of Aaron is in full force. I am talking about the actual, lineal priesthood of Aaron, not the LDS substitute priesthood of Aaron, which is also valid in its own sphere.
  13. The apostasy of the Jewish people was not a "personal apostasy." There is more than one priesthood of God. The lineal Aaronic priesthood is a permanent priesthood for Israel. Read Numbers 8. The Melchizedek priesthood is another matter entirely.
  14. Apostasy can happen to anyone, and it happened to the Jewish people as a group. They have now found favor with the Lord, having returned from long Exile. The Levites have continued to perform their required duties all during that Exile. In 1841, on the Mount of Olives, Apostle Orson Hyde (dispatched by Joseph Smith) formally dedicated the Holy Land to the final gathering of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of their Temple. His Prayer of Dedication can be found in both Hebrew and English in the Orson Hyde Garden on the Mount of Olives, if you care to visit it.
  15. You need to read the D&C sections I cited carefully. Both Judaism and LDS theology agree that Aaronic priesthood authority is by lineal descent. That means father to son, down through time. John's father doesn't give him the authority. It comes to him by lineal, inherited, genetic descent. His father has it, so he has it. It is automatic. The D&C makes it clear that this lineal authority continues today among the tribe of Levi. Among the Jews today, Aaronic priests continue to have authority to perform ordinances. On the Day of Atonement, for example, a priest will bless the entire synagogue congregation. At the birth of a firstborn male to a Jewish couple, an Aaronic priest will accept a redemption payment from the couple in exchange for the freedom of that baby (the rite is called Redemption of the Firstborn). When the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, the Aaronides and Levites will begin blood sacrifices again, along with all other temple rites. They have full authority from God to do so.
  16. I just assumed that you are familiar with the story in Luke 1:5-45, The authority comes direct from God.
  17. The form and exacting wording of rites will differ over time. Even LDS temple rites have changed over time. Such concerns are of little importance.
  18. One could have been chosen ten minutes ago, or ten thousand years ago. I'm not privy to the minutes of those meetings. Even with the Noble and Great Ones mentioned in the BofAbraham, free agency means that some will and some will not abide their calling. Thus, there is no certainty as to who will keep his obligations. Most likely receive their callings relatively recently, but that is only my opinion. Free thinkers may differ.
  19. The Divine Council (not Counsel) sits continuously. It is not a one-time thing. It is a working body. There can be foreordination, but not predestination. Most LDS know nothing of these matters, and are not affected by them in their daily lives.
  20. Maybe you need to speak with a rabbi, since your friends know nothing about Judaism. Wikipedia sums conversion to Judaism as follows: Tevilah is Hebrew for "baptism, immersion." Membership at Qumran required a one-time baptism, and membership in Judaism at that same time required one-time baptism, just as it does today. Where do you imagine that Jewish Christianity got the rite? They were all Jews. Jesus and the Twelve were all Jews. The New Testament was written by Jews.
  21. I wasn't present at that Council Meeting in Heaven when Russell Nelson was chosen as the next prophet in an LDS context, so cannot report on the precise terms of that action. It may have been decided long ago, for all I know. Not sure why you assume he was born with that authority. Being an ordinary prophet on a single assignment, such as Nathan being sent to rail against King David, is not the same as being selected as part of an organized group (like Jesus and his Twelve Apostles) which heads a large church -- the Kingdom of God the Earth -- in which the Prophet is also the President of that Church. Indeed, even in the case of the Levites, there had to be formal ordination by laying on of hands (Numbers 8:10-19).
  22. Both Jews and Christians only baptize once for initiation into the religion. Only Christians use either a priest or a non-priest pastor to officiate in the name of the Triune God. Water immersion is symbolic of death-rebirth and of coming forth again from the womb ("born again"), while the Holy Spirit purifies with fire (Acts 2:3). John the Baptizer himself emphasized the difference (Matt 3:11).
  23. John's priestly authority came from his father, down from Aaron. However, he was also a prophet, with authority from the Divine Council in Heaven.
  24. Jesus was a member of the tribe of Judah. He had no lineal Levitical priesthood authority. John the Baptizer was a kohen (an Aaronide), a member of the tribe of Levi, and a direct descendant of Aaron. Jesus was, however, a prophet and the Son of God, whose priesthood was after the Order of Melchizedek (after the Order of the Son of God), and you can read about that in the Letter to the Hebrews. All Roman Catholic and Orthodox priests claim that Melchizedek Priesthood. "Jews" in that sense refers to the larger cultural or ethnic association, even though Paul is a Benjaminite, and Jesus a Judahite, and John the Baptizer a Levite. All are "Jews" only in the broad sense of the Jewish people. The BofM also uses the term Jew in both senses.
  25. So at least from his perspective, the Jews DID perform a ritual analogous to the Christian baptism, but for purification only. However, from our perspective, John performed an enhanced baptism to include preparing the Jews for a coming new kingdom, and Jesus introduced that Kingdom of God on earth, continuing with John's type of baptism as a requisite. No. Mikveh for purification is always distinct in Judaism from mikveh for initiation into Judaism (membership within the Jewish people). Jews have regular purification rituals which are distinct from initiation into Judaism. Circumcision is another required ritual of initiation.
×
×
  • Create New...