Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry to ask because it is a pain maybe, but more specific, scripture ref?

No pain at all! 😀 2 Nephi 31 and 3 Nephi 11....word of the Lord. “No disputations among you.”

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No pain at all! 😀 2 Nephi 31 and 3 Nephi 11....word of the Lord. “No disputations among you.”

Well, that is fine and good, but where does it mention the temple ordinance besides baptism? When you have the time. 

ETA: Actually, if I'm remembering right, there isn't anything beyond baptism. I should have read your comment better,  I re-read your comment below:

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

Me: Salvation, not exaltation.

"

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, that is fine and good, but where does it mention the temple ordinance besides baptism? When you have the time. 

ETA: Actually, if I'm remembering right, there isn't anything beyond baptism. I should have read your comment better,  I re-read your comment below:

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

Me: Salvation, not exaltation.

"

I was responding to this...

Quote

This is the position that is driving me out of Mormonism.  LDS believe that Christ saves us more than others because we have the authority?  Where in Christ's teachings does he tell us that conversion to him requires authority?

 The atonement is His, and I believe he will save all who accept his atonement!  I am not arrogant enough to think that my membership makes me have a "whole conversion" while there are many, many better men than me out there who are not on the membership records of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who are way more converted to Christ than I am.

I believe there is temple-related knowledge in the Book of Mormon such as the Plan of Salvation, the pre-mortal existence, and deification.

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I agree, but there are many examples of individuals who have struggled for long periods and were not relieved of their burdens; they bore their burdens through a tough slog and just kept going. I think of an example in Br. Robison's book, Believing Christ, where the woman prayed consistently, daily, hourly that she be healed and allowed to walk and was utterly denied for decades.

Oh, absolutely! I know from personal experience that righteous desires often go unfulfilled for decades, quite possibly till the end of our mortal lives, and that burdens of one kind or another often accompany us to the grave. But in the midst of all of that is the very real presence of the Holy Ghost in my life. He brings peace, comfort, quiet assurance, and the compensation of spiritual gifts. As a consequence, I've never had to feel alone since my baptism. In addition, though the Father on occasion has been slow (in my opinion) to respond to me directly, He always has. I genuinely don't know the silence depicted in the film. At all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

I wasn’t aware that Elohim’s words are in the Book of Mormon. Can you show me the passages you’re referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I wasn’t aware that Elohim’s words are in the Book of Mormon. Can you show me the passages you’re referring to?

3 Nephi 11:7 is one example of the Father directly speaking. 3 Nephi 16 is mostly the Son saying “thus saith the Father”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, pogi said:

The problem is that you are under the presumption that we are sliding backwards instead of forwards.  That our practices and ordinances are becoming more corrupt instead of more refined.  You are also under the false presumption that early prophets were less fallible and less influenced by society than modern prophets.  If modern prophets can make mistakes, why not older prophets?  How can you say that these changes are not more in line with what God intended, and that it was not actually the old wording that was influenced by false and corrupt societal views of the roles of women and men?  Or perhaps there are other reasons all together for these changes that you are not considering.

God may be unchanging, but the laws and covenants he makes with men do change - sometimes towards higher levels and sometimes towards lower levels.  God's church is progressive. 

I fundamentally disagree with the way you view things.  You view the restoration in terms of being whole and perfectly polished as it was restored in the early days, only to become dinged, chipped, marred, and corrupted as it roles along in these last days; whereas I view it as a rough stone rolling forward knocking of rough edges and becoming polished in the river bed as it rolls along. 

Thank you for that beautifully written and thought out post.

We may disagree but I respect someone who expresses their view so well.

And I will admit there are scriptures and prophetic teachings that support both views in your last paragraph.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

3 Nephi 11:7 is one example of the Father directly speaking. 3 Nephi 16 is mostly the Son saying “thus saith the Father”.

 

Thanks!  I’d forgotten about 3Nephi 11. Still looking for the BOM instance in which God the Father explains that one needs authority to be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, the narrator said:

But even the understanding of "keys" has changed. The contemporary view of keys as some sort of metaphysical and transferable token of authority did not originate with Joseph Smith. For Joseph, "keys" referred to knowledge. It wasn't until after the death of Joseph that we start to see keys as some sort of metaphysical thing.

I'm not at all convinced that's the case. I know some have argued for that but there are several passages that don't make much since (IMO) if keys = knowledge. Certainly it was a common usage of Joseph's. But I've very skeptical he always used it in that fashion.

So for instance "Why send Elijah because he holds the Keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the priesthood and without the authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness." (October 5, 1840) While you could try and read that as knowledge of the authority, that contextually really doesn't make much sense. It's much more key as permission/power. I'd not say the contemporary usage is metaphysical - it seems a rather normal sense of permissions and performances. Nothing particularly unusual about it. On par with a police officer having something that gives them authority. What is that? Permission from the state typically tied to requirements and some ritual. 

Even the more common use by Joseph of key as knowledge really is much more permission to give knowledge. In that same sermon as above for example, "Why he magnified the Priesthood which was confired upon him and died a righteous man, and therefore has become a righteous man an angel of God by receiving his body from the dead, therefore holding still the keys of his dispensation and was sent down from heaven unto Paul to minister consoling words & to commit unto him a knowledge of the mysteries of Godliness and if this was not the case I would ask how did Paul know so much about Abel and why should he talk about his speaking after he was dead. How that he spoke after he was dead must be, by being sent down out of heaven, to administer."

An other example that doesn't work as knowledge is April 6, 1837. "He here remarked something concerning the will of God, and said, that what God commanded, the one half of the church would condemn.2 -A high Priest, is a member of the same Melchisedec priesthood, with the presidency, but not of the same power or authority in the church. The seventies are also members of the same priesthood, are a sort of travelling council, or priesthood, and may preside over a church or churches until a high priest can be had. The seventies are to be taken from the quorum of elders and are not to be high priests. They are subject to the direction and dictation of the twelve, who have the keys of the ministry. All are to preach the gospel, by the power and influence of the Holy Ghost, and no man, said he, can preach the gospel without the Holy Ghost." Contextually key here clearly means authority and duty.

Finally one great one is October 9, 1843.  "It was the established order of the kingdom of God--the keys of power and knowledge were with them to communicate to the saints--hence the importance of understanding the distinction between the spirits of the just, and angels. Spirits can only be revealed in flaming fire, or glory. Angels have advanced farther--their light and glory being tabernacled, and hence appear in bodily shape." It wouldn't make sense to say "keys of power and knowledge" if it was just knowledge. I recognize some appeal to the JST of Luke 11:52 here. There "key of knowledge" is the fulness of the scriptures. But even contextually that implies not just knowledge but power and authority as well as knowledge of how to obtain knowledge.

It's worth noting the masonic context, particularly in the 1840's to the use of key as well. There key was tied to silence & secrecy of the knowledge the masons claimed. There you have the knowledge aspect - usually representing the "tongue of good report." i.e. only saying what was appropriate. But it also was tied to power. Both the masons and Joseph appealed to Isaiah 22:22. "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house."  The later part of that stanza had strong masonic meaning and obviously had special meaning to Joseph and Brigham as well. Keys in masonry also were tied to a physical lockbox requiring three keys. The three key holders had to all consent to open the box. This then led to lots of various puns and so forth in masonry. Keys are also indices or code books for ciphers that enable information to be accessed. So key is also intrinsically tied to unveiling hidden knowledge - but again it's not just knowledge but permission and power to access the knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks!  I’d forgotten about 3Nephi 11. Still looking for the BOM instance in which God the Father explains that one needs authority to be saved.

I mean, it’s not God the Father, but Alma 13 explains in pretty clear terms the need for authority and priesthood in order to be saved. It’s one of the most elaborate explanations of how both ordination to the priesthood and service therein saves.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, halconero said:

Hopefully I didn't come off as condemning Brigham Young. I hold him in high esteem.

I was merely saying that Brigham Young defined the endowment as receiving all the ordinances which enable someone to pass by the sentinels which stand along the way to eternal life. He then further defined that as a set of components which must be given to them. I was just stating that to the best of my knowledge those components could be given by an endowed Latter-day Saint of any era.

Sorry - wasn't speaking of you but of others who've been rather critical of Brigham. Particularly on Twitter.

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

And yet none of those ten are synonymous with “faith” or “believe.”  It’s a linguistic discussion, but clearly the Mormon culture has its own unique definition of “know” that I personally do not find useful.

I really don't think it does. I think Mormons use "know" is a pretty mundane fashion. We may disagree over whether people really do know but I don't think the semantics are particularly unusual. Even if it's just a feeling of certainty that again isn't a particularly unusual use. If a teacher asks me a question, I have a belief of what the answer is and I feel confident and certain, I say I know regardless of whether or not I could justify the belief. So confidence or feeling certain is why people say they know. If anything I'd say it's philosophers who tend to restrict the language.

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

Again I think it fair to question whether someone knows when they say they know. But that doesn't imply they don't have knowledge. I'd certainly agree that it's less common for religions to push knowledge rather than a kind of blind trust. As I've argued elsewhere I think Mormons tend to see religion in terms of verification. (I recognize Mark vehemently disagrees) Whereas in much of Christianity religious knowledge is seen either in terms of unknown processes or else a kind of trust in the Bible combined with reason. Mormonism takes a certain element of mystic knowledge and puts it in a much more mundane setting. (IMO)

Anyway, while I agree many other Christians tend to emphasize belief while Mormons emphasize knowledge, I think that's because the underlying process is viewed quite differently. i.e. it's not really our language replacing knowledge with belief. If anything Mormons are very wont to distinguish belief from knowledge and emphasize that we should aspire to knowledge not belief.

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

I just don't see infant baptism--especially as framed by Mormon--being a thing in the 4th century Americas. If the BofM is based on ancient history, I think you need to go with either Joseph translating/converting some other concern of Mormon's into something of 19th century relevance or pseudopigraphically/prophetically introducing the concern into the text for the same reason.

Getting somewhat afield. If Nephite baptism largely arises out of pre-exilic mikvah then even ignoring other competing traditions it makes sense to raise the issue. Put an other way, I don't see infant baptism being particularly more troubling than baptism. If Nephites by the time of Mormon have modified mikvah quite a bit then it makes sense ritual washing of children would be frowned upon. It's worth noting that in post-diaspora Judaism that mikvah's were retained primarily for ritual cleansing after various fluid discharges in males and females that only arise with the onset of puberty. Whether or not that's a context for Mormon I can't say. Possibly not given that he sees it as tied to accountability and forgiveness rather than ritual uncleanliness. There's even a potential controversy since within rabbinical Judaism the tradition is a mikveh for converted children including babies with an ability to renounce at 12. Impossible to know when that tradition arose, but it's plausible among the Nephites.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

. Both the masons and Joseph appealed to Isaiah 22:22. "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house."  The later part of that stanza had strong masonic meaning and obviously had special meaning to Joseph and Brigham as well.

Im curious about Masonrys use of the that verse. I’ve done some google searches but I honestly don’t know where to look to see what they believed about that certain verse. Maybe you could DM me since it isn’t necessarily relevant to the thread, but now you’ve got me thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Here's my take on it, especially related to the challenge the brethren have of making changes that appear liberal without upsetting the conservative base of the Church.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/lds-temple-changes-for-2019/

Honestly I don't think conservatives would be upset with changes. Usually it's just liberals upset both by changes and not changes (or oddly today both simultaneously). 

46 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks!  I’d forgotten about 3Nephi 11. Still looking for the BOM instance in which God the Father explains that one needs authority to be saved.

Authority is needed to baptize (3 Nephi 12:1) Baptism is needed for salvation. (3 Nephi 23:5) QED

7 hours ago, blueglass said:

In the temple initiatory as of the 1880's or so men can be ordained by proxy to the office of elder.  It's literally only one line.  I ordain you an ELder for and in behalf of First name _ Last name. . Then the same Exodus 40 is read to both men and women.  What are your thoughts on Hugh B Brown's quote on the duties of priests and priestesses in the home ?  To prepare for the office of king and queen in heaven.  Not sure I understand Stapley's cosmological ideas, when we are to use the endowed power to build up the kingdom outside the temple in a process of converting the elect abroad dwelling in the dark and dreary world.   

Yes, but that tends to imply that the office is separate from the cosmological priesthood with a separate ordinance. So I'm not sure that goes against Stapley's thesis.

As for Brown, which quote were you thinking of? The one I'm familiar with is pretty vague and just implies ruling over posterity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It is true that my daughter, her feminist crowd and Ordain Women associates (who for the most part aren't active any more) are mad about the changes, non changes and it took too long to change.  Outrage is the order of the day for them.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks!  I’d forgotten about 3Nephi 11. Still looking for the BOM instance in which God the Father explains that one needs authority to be saved.

Seems like you are shifting the goalposts, but here is the Father quoted in 2 Nephi 31....

Quote

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

In 3 Nephi 11, it is made very clear that the words of Jesus are the words of the Father....

Quote

21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.

22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputationsamong you.

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghostwill bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

It is true that my daughter, her feminist crowd and Ordain Women associates (who for the most part aren't active any more) are mad about the changes, non changes and it took too long to change.  Outrage is the order of the day for them.   

The radicals are not the only ones that display this attitude.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Attendance this evening alone was more than double the usual.

Ditto in Seattle in the 11:00am.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, halconero said:

I mean, it’s not God the Father, but Alma 13 explains in pretty clear terms the need for authority and priesthood in order to be saved. It’s one of the most elaborate explanations of how both ordination to the priesthood and service therein saves.

I see the connection here between the service of ordination, but I didn’t pick up a requirement that one needs the priesthood to be saved. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

How am I moving the goalposts asking you for a reference in the BOM in which God the Father “clearly spells out ... exactly what is required for salvation...”?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I think it fair to question whether someone knows when they say they know. But that doesn't imply they don't have knowledge.

Asking how someone knows is key. My experience has been that when Mormons say they know something, and I ask how, their knowledge usually comes from feelings. This is the basis of testimony?

In US courts, when testimony is given, feelings are not accepted as knowledge. Why should I accept feelings as knowledge in some cases, but not in others?  Having a lesser standards for religious knowledge reduces religion’s credibility (I think).

Also, I personally do not like such a fluid use of the word knowledge because it dilutes the potency of the testimonies born by those who have more experience than just feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

How am I moving the goalposts asking you for a reference in the BOM in which God the Father “clearly spells out ... exactly what is required for salvation...”?

Well the words of the Son are the Father for He doesn’t say anything the Father hasn’t asked Him to say. Also you don’t need the priesthood in the general sense to be saved, no offices in the priesthood will save anyone. One simply needs Power (or in modern terms, priesthood) from Heaven to perform ordinances righteously. Moroni in the last few chapters explains how Priests are to be ordained, and of course in Alma it is through righteousness  and prayer that someone receives power from God.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I see the connection here between the service of ordination, but I didn’t pick up a requirement that one needs the priesthood to be saved. 

No probs.

Quote

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

Their holy calling to the priesthood was prepared with a preparatory redemption for those receive it.

Quote

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

The foreordination and calling to the priesthood is enabled via the Atonement of Christ.

Quote

11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

Their calling to the holy order of the priesthood sanctified them and washed their garments in the blood of the Lamb. Sanctification is defined elsewhere as being both saved, elect, redeemed, holy, and without spot (2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2, Moroni 10:33)

Quote

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

Their entering into the rest of the Lord their God was preceded by purification, having their garments made white and being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, which sanctification came in and through their calling to the holy order of the priesthood.

Edited by halconero
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, halconero said:

No probs:.

Their holy calling to the priesthood was prepared with a preparatory redemption for those receive it.

The foreordination and calling to the priesthood is enabled via the Atonement of Christ.

Their calling to the holy order of the priesthood sanctified them and washed their garments in the blood of the Lamb. Sanctification is defined elsewhere as being both saved, elect, redeemed, holy, and without spot (2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2, Moroni 10:33)

There entering into the rest of the Lord their God was preceded by purification, having their garments made white and being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, which sanctification came in and through their calling to the holy order of the priesthood.

Thank you.

It looks like the priests' ordination was what sanctified them.  I don't see how the priests' ordination was required to sanctify others.

Maybe that is the message?  It is our own ordination that can be sanctifying?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Hi all-
      How can I get tickets to the Salta Argentina Temple Dedication?
      Emailed my wife's mission pres, now a GA, with no luck.
      Descamisados! Mi compañeros!
      Otherwise I'll have to ask that you not cry for me, Argentina
    • By nuclearfuels
      Was chatting at Scouts last night - RIP and good riddance BSA - with an expert on Russia.
      Asked him 'bout the announced Temple in Russia; he thinks St. Petersburg; I don't know as I dont' study that country much,,,
      He said it could be 10+ years away like when Kiev Temple was announced
      Curious as to if Church HQ's legal team advised President Nelson or Bishop Davies to not announce the Russia Temple until a location had been selected and approved.  
      Laughed at the response to the lawyers: Thank you for your advice.  This meeting is over.
      -
      Curious as to what steps are in place before a Temple is announced (site acquisition, govt permitting approval, etc.)?
      Also I'd like to attend the dedication but not sure who would sponsor my Visa as a US passport won't get you in Russia, especially not after their recent laws regarding foreigners proselytizing? 
×