Jump to content

Wade Englund

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wade Englund

  1. As long as you understand that the office and keys of the bishopric (Aaronic priesthood) need to be conferred (i.e. designated, found worth, anointed, and ordained) under the hand of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood, even with the lineal descendants of Aaron, then we are in agreement., However, this condition is critical to whether the Aaron priesthood is or was of heaven or of earth, of God or of man, at various times within certain dispensations. When the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood were taken from the earth, then logically the office and keys of the bishopric could no longer be conferred, and were likewise subsequently taken from the earth, and could only be restored through the restoration of the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood. I am of the belief that at the time of Christs mortal ministry, the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood had long been taken from the earth--at least in the Old World, which meant that the Aaronic priesthood functioning at that time, was in a state of apostasy. And, while the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood were restored at the time of Christ, they, along with the keys of the bishopric (Aaronic priesthood) were eventually taken from the earth via the "Great apostasy," until they were restored in the latter days. I believe that Christ and his disciples submitted to the apostate rituals and ordinances as a mater of form, but I think that much of what Christ preached not only differentiated the new law from the old, but legitimate authority vs. apostate--particularly in Christ's discussion with Nicodemus and John the Baptists' subsequent discussion with the Rabbi, in John 3. But, I could be wrong. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  2. Actually, the Church culture I live in views everyone but Christ as flawed and defective--I view myself that way in particular. It would be harmful were it not for the healing and perfecting power of he who is without flaw. As it is, I have found the Christ-centered life in my Church culture, rather than a flaw-centered life, to be extremely healthy. But, to each their own. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  3. Yes, it is in "full force" (whatever that means) as an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood, with the bishopric as its presidency and holder of the keys. However, as I understand tings, while the lineage of Aaron do have a legal right to the office and keys of bishopric, that doesn't mean that they automatically hold the office and keys. The office and keys need to be conferred under the hands of the First presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood. (D&C 68:19-20) Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  4. You don't speak for me. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  5. Given that I have close family members who have reluctantly gone through the process of temple divorce, later to find wonderful spouses, to which they became sealed, it is a comfort to know that Christ will be our merciful arbiter and judge rather than you. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  6. I can't rightly answer your question because it presupposes something that is false. I am not trying to diminish others. Rather, I have exerted extreme patience trying to surmount your evident serious barriers in comprehending simple points. Since I can't smell your breath through my monitor, it seems perfectly reasonable to kindly ask if alcohol may be one of those barriers. I note that you didn't answer my question. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  7. I said no such thing. There was priesthood on the earth. To me, the priesthood of the Jews at the time of Christ, was in a state of apostasy. Their priesthood was thus of man, and not of God.. Similarly, there were priesthoods within the various Christian churches at the time of the latter-day restoration and even today. To me, those priesthoods were and are in a state of apostasy, and of man and not God. That is why the keys and priesthood from heaven needed to be restored. Is it starting to sink in yet? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  8. Ummmm... no I wouldn't ask that since the meaning of the very simple concept of "from heaven" isn't foreign to me. And, you didn't ask me How? The issue of authority had to do with where it came from (heaven vs earth), not how.. Do you not understand the difference? You are failing to follow the explanatory dots and confusing "where" with "how " questions. You are also falsely assuming that my intent is to convincingly differentiate my claims from those of other religions leaders, rather than simply explain my own beliefs about where Jesus and John got their authority as opposed to the Jews. Is there a point at which you just might correctly grasp anything I have said? By the way, I need to ask, are you inebriated? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  9. That is nice. However, it isn't my case to make. I was the one who issued the CFR. What I am primarily questioning is whether the divorce rates were higher than in other states, and whether those alleged high rates made Utah a Vegas-like divorce magnet, and whether that alleged magnet could be laid at the feet of Brigham Young. According to the report, the first divorce law in Utah was enacted in 1852. And, it evidently contained two flaws which enabled certain probate courts to game the system. Yet, as also indicated, "It is simple justice to the Mormon people , however, to say that they did not make any single misuse of these lenient provisions, for up to 1875, comparatively few divorces were granted." In 1886 and 87, though, Utah did become a "dumping ground for fraudulent suits from the East." Divorces jumped from 295 in 1875, to 709 in 1876, and 914 in 1877.(ibid) How that compares to other states is open to question. Now, when this spike, due to abuse in the probate courts , came to the public's attention, the adverse reaction was across the board (including "pulpits") , and legislative action was quickly taken to close down the loop holes and the "Divorce Bureau" practice. So, for two of the 25 years in question, both of which were 20 years after Brigham had left state office, Juliann was correct about the Vegas metaphor. Beyond that....fake news. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  10. It evidently doesn't make things clear for you. But, I didn't know that until I tried. I am using whatever strategies I can to help you grasp the seemingly simplest thing.. I base it, in part, on the quote from Christ I cited earlier. There is more scriptural evidenec, but it wouldn't make sense to move on if you can't grasp that first and very important piece of evidence. John got his authority to do various works, including baptism, from heaven (hopefully bold will work if all caps doesn't) just as did Jesus. But, I repeat myself.... I will let Robert speak for himself. With understanding comes responsibility. The failure to understand certain things may give good indication whether one is capable of rightly accepting the attendant responsibility or not. Jesus alludes to this notion when he explained why he spoke in parables. (see Mt. 13:10-17) Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  11. They were of the same race and religious heritage, but had different AUTHORITY. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? They lost the HEAVENLY AUTHORITY when the KEYS of HEAVENLY AUTHORITY were taken from the EARTH (I have no idea exactly when that was, but perhaps following the death of Malichi), just like with other previous dispensations and the subsequent "great apostasy" that followed. People have retained EARTHLY AUTHORITY, or the authority of man rather than God--not unlike how the various Christian denominations have held EARTHLY or man's authority since the meridian of time, whereas the HEAVENLY KEYS and AUTHORITY have been restored within Christ's church in the latter days. If this doesn't compute, then it is likely best that you not understand. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  12. No. But, technically,, the "easy divorce requirements" only apply to the non-legal plural marriages. The first/legal wife of a plural marriage would be subject to the legal requirements, rather than the ecclesiastic requirements. Non-LDS women wouldn't be scampering in from all over the nation to take advantage of the ecclesiastical requirement, since it wouldn't apply. Sorry! Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  13. Yes. However, if I understood the linked article correctly, the "easier divorce requirements "were in regards to polygamous marriages, which weren't' legal, and thus were handled by Church courts. If so, then Juliann's potshot fired blanks. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  14. The difference is quite simple. the Jews didn't have heavenly authority, whereas Jesus and John did. And, the difference between heavenly and earthly authority, is the one is authority that comes from God, whereas the other is authority that comes from man. The one binds in heaven that which is bound on earth, whereas the other binds only on earth. The authority of the Jews was little different than the secular authority of Herod--both were of man, and carried little or no weight in heaven. Does that help? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  15. Fascinating. Brigham gave preferential treatment to women? I suppose it could be considered Vegas-like were the nation filled with polygamous wives looking to be freed from matrimonial bondage in an LDS ecclesiastical court. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  16. That makes sense. to me now. It isn't so much the same scale as it is the same path (to use Christ's word), and that path includes several points of transcendence (deaths and rebirths and quickenings--again, using Christ's words), not the least of which is the resurrection--the truth of which is celebrated each Easter.. I see now what you are saying, and it makes sense. Where things can get interesting is in distinguishing the part from the whole when it comes to creation or uncreated, and may expose more overlap in our beliefs than may be supposed. By this I mean that the members of my faith believe that there is an aspect of our souls that is uncreated (we call it "intelligence," which has to do with the "breath of life"), whereas our physical bodies are created. Isn't this similar to your belief that the "God" portion of Jesus was uncreated, but his mortal body, and ultimately his resurrected body, were created? If so, then can you see how we can become even as God, as we both understand it? Thanks, -Wade Engluynd-
  17. In our class, your wonderful point was underscored using the account of a certain rich ruler (Lk 18:18-30) who was told that, in order to obtain eternal life, in addition to keeping the commandments, he needed to sell all and give it to the poor, and follow Jesus (which echoes the messages of the parable of the Pearl of Great Price--Mt 13:46) Beyond earning wages, the sacrifice of all is required to attain eternal life, and this only because God makes all things possible. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  18. My point wasn't that John received his authority from Jesus, but that he received it from the same source as Jesus--that source being heaven, as contrasted with the Jews of that day, who received their authority from earth. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  19. My post made no mention of baptism. So, I am not sure why you are specifically bringing it up in relation to what I said. For that matter, I don't see how much of anything in your response speaks to what I actually said--making it quite unlikely that you agree with me. To assist in your comprehension, my post dealt with the source of Jesus' authority, and thus by extension the source of John's authority as well, which has nothing directly to do with the history of baptism. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  20. I don't see how this addresses my question. My question rhetorically pointed out the internal contradiction of your definition--which describes God explicitly as unlimited and implicitly as limited.. From where I sit, it is your definition that is squaring circles. Your definition is, itself, logically impossible--even though, with God, all things are possible. Somewhat like you, I believe that God is unlimited (though in a relative sense rather than absolute), and that God cannot do ungodly things, else wise he ceases to be God. However, to me, THE most Godly thing the Father can do is enable His children to become even as He is. Divine love demands no less. The pattern of His creations nearly screams it. Said another way, it would be ungodly for Him NOT to enable His children to become as He is, and would thus make Him cease to be God. But, as always, to each their own. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  21. But, doesn't your definition put a limit on God's nature in that it lacks the capacity to be acquired? Bringing this back to the topic of the thread, doesn't your definition limit God's atonement in that he can't entirely make man at one with him even as he is at one with the Father? Thanks, -Wade Engund-
  22. Since there isn't all that much written about John the Baptist, it might be better to ask "then how did Jesus have authority?" and extrapolate from there about the source of John's authority. The Gospels contain a number of events in which the mortal Messiah was challenged on his authority, which gave Jesus the opportunity to compare the Jewish understanding at the time about how authority was established as contrasted with what Jesus preached was the true source of authority. From what I gather, the Jews back then believed that their authority, in addition to the priest and ruling class, was a function of: a) heritage ("we have Abraham to our Fathers"); b) wealth and station ("the upper rooms"), c) the scriptures, and d) strict adherence to the law of Moses, among other things. In contrast, Jesus intimated, using the words of John, "...A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven....he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all." (Jn 3:27, 31) There is so much more in the scriptures, but this should get the ball rolling. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  23. I don't know if it is better or not. I can't read her mind. It is possible that she didn't see the need, and it is also possible that she determined not to use the label so as to avoid petty quibbles over labels, even though she may view herself as a scientist based on the merits of her work. Who knows? If you wan't to restrict yourself to using only those labels she uses on her website, that is fine. I, on the other hand, have no problem using other labels as I deem appropriate. After all, I don't recall her using the label "human" to describe herself on her website (which hardly suggests that she doesn't see herself as human), and so I don't see why that would prevent me from rightly viewing her as such. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  24. If you assume that since she doesn't use the word "scientist" on her website to describe herself, this somehow means she doesn't "see herself as a scientist," then with that kind of fallacious assuming, then why should I care how you may perceive anyone else I call a scientist? I wouldn't care even if your assumption wasn't fallacious. Clearly, we have different ways of assessing her qualifications. That is why I repeatedly said, "to each their own." Thanks,, -Wade Enlgund-
×
×
  • Create New...