Salvation, Is It A Grace vs. Works Problem

[urroner]

Thank you for your comments. In a previous discussion with Urroner I appealed to the Bible alone. Urroner and others were unsatisfied with that and that is because they don't believe in the Bible alone and don't believe it was translated properly. That makes it impossible for Urroner and those who agree with him to be satisfied. So I provided something "more" for them. For me, The Bible is self-sufficient.

If the Bible, for you, is self-sufficient, then why are you reading those other books? Apparently it wasn't sufficient for you.

The problem you are having and refuse to admit it is that you are not appealing to the Bible alone, rather you are appealing to your interpretation of the Bible alone. Can you see the difference. Also, when your interpretation of the Bible is challenged, you pull up more scriptures and say, "See, I'm right," but then other pull up scriptures to strengthen their position and you say that they interpretation of those scriptures is wrong and of the Devil, while only yours is right and of God. So far this has been your main defense - "I'm right and your wrong and Satan is your father." It's gets very difficult to discuss things with somebody who has that attitude.

Then you ask me to read 4 book, not parts of 4 books and you don't offer to even posts some quotes from the books, no, you demand that I read 4 books. revelation, I have been reading an excellent book by Margaret Barker about the First Temple beliefs and I love the book and I'm lucky if I can get to read 10 to 15 pages a day. How many days would it take me to read all those four books at that rate? Give you a hint, I have been reading that book for a little over a month and I'm only on page 200.

And do you honestly think that I'm willing to make such a huge sacrifice of my time to read 4 books and then have you just throw more scriptures at me and tell me that I interpret the Bible incorrectly and that Satan is my father. I really don't know who you think you are revelation.

I have been discussing religion for many, many years, with all sorts of people and most of the people whom I have discussed with are able to apply logic to their arguments and haven't denigrated me and my beliefs the way you have. I even attended a Southern Baptist Bible study for about a year and they never looked down at their noses at me. They, among themselves, had all sorts of disagreements, some worse than they had with me, and they never denigrated each other. There were even a few knock-down, drag-out fights, but they always respected each other, something you have refused to extend to any who disagreed with you on this board. They would list a few scriptures that supported their position and then in lieu of trying to have the other people guess why those scriptures supported their beliefs, they would explain, sometimes in great detail why the support was there. revelation, you might try doing that more often. It would not only help us in discussion, but it would also help you to better understand your own beliefs. It would help you learn where the weaknesses and strengths in your presentation also.

I had a math professor in college who taught straight from the book and he really got irritated when any of his students asked him questions. He couldn't believe that we didn't get full understanding of what he told us in class simply by listening to him. He would often just ask us if we haven't read the book and even if we said we had, and we had, he would tell us to just go back and read the book. None of the students liked him as a professor. He was a nice person outside of class, but once inside the classroom, his people skills disappeared.

Usually revelation, I have a lot of patience, ask anybody on this board, sometimes I have too much, but I am really tired of trying to have a civil discussion where the other person refuses to recognize that I have good reasons for my beliefs and all they do is throw scriptures at me and when I or anybody else responds with a different, yet supported interpretation of those scriptures, they are told that they are of the Devil and that if they would just read the Bible with an open mind, then they would agree with you. Please revelation, give us some credit.

[revelation]

Cal, I already made that comment, but the irony of revelation's comments hasn't dawn upon him and the Catholics have commented upon Irresistible Ignorance. It is obvious from revelation's comments that he isn't here to discuss anything with us, he is only to to lecture and cast disdain and contempt in our direction. There is no love in his comments, only hauteur, pride, and scorn. I guess it should be changed from Irresistible Ignorance to Irresistible Arrogance.

I have no disdain, nor contempt, nor scorn, for anyone here. I consider you all freinds. I respect you all and consider you as prescious souls for whom Christ Died. I hope the clears up any confusion you have about my motives.

[RubyHunter]

Thank you for your comments. In a previous discussion with Urroner I appealed to the Bible alone. Urroner and others were unsatisfied with that and that is because they don't believe in the Bible alone and don't believe it was translated properly. That makes it impossible for Urroner and those who agree with him to be satisfied. So I provided something "more" for them. For me, The Bible is self-sufficient.

If the bible is sufficient, then you should be able to make your point to ANYONE without having to use anything else to "provide something more for them".

If not, then it obviously isn't sufficient.

[Hoops22]

If the bible is sufficient, then you should be able to make your point to ANYONE without having to use anything else to "provide something more for them".

If not, then it obviously isn't sufficient.

Unless that person has a theology that is dependent on the Bible being suspect.

[revelation]

If the bible is sufficient, then you should be able to make your point to ANYONE without having to use anything else to "provide something more for them".

If not, then it obviously isn't sufficient.

Yes, I have done that in another thread. But People will always resist even when things are sufficient because they think it is insufficient.

Perhaps I can draw a comparison for the sake of showing you what I mean: Jesus Christ came into the world to save the world, but many people in his day, despite the sufficieny of the evidence, the miracles, the death and ressurection etc, still found all of that evidence insufficient.

[Grothar]

But if it is sufficient you should be able to point out that it isn't suspect quite easily. Dontcha think?

Grothar elevates an eyebrow

(personally I think some of you non-mormons take our "suspection" of the Bible too far. I think it's basically saying that we have our own interpretation and believe it is correct. It also includes the few changes made by JS)

[Hoops22]

But if it is sufficient

It is.

you should be able to point out that it isn't suspect quite easily.

That's difficult. Suspicion is in the eye of the beholder. Lds theology requires that the Bible be suspect - therefor, it is.

I think it's basically saying that we have our own interpretation

Interpret away. But don't claim the Bible is telling us something when it is not. God can be known. He is known through His word, among other things. Words have meaning. If the Bible is His word, He is communicating Himself to us. Very little room for "interpretation.

[revelation]

Actually the Melchizedek was restored again. The lessor law of Moses lost the ministration of the higher priesthood and was administered under the lessor priesthood.

That is why perfection cannot come by the law of Moses, even if it is the pure uncorrupted law of Moses that had its faith centered in Christ properly.

It only administered in the preparatory gospel. Faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism.

There is no foundation for that conclusion from Hebrews.

You are getting confused with the office of high priest which was a type of Christ. But there were many Priests.

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law(of Moses), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law of Moses changed or replaced by the law of Christ. Note that the phrase "a change of the law" implies the gospel is also a law. And that gospel is administered by the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood.

There is no bases for that conclusion. It flies in the face of scripture and history.

It is not. All priesthood is forever, if we obey our covenants. That is a type of the Saviour's resurrected life which is forever.

It is priesthood that is without beginning of days, etc in Heb 7:3

Your argument falls apart when you consider that Jesus brought again the higher priesthood to supercede the lesser priesthood because the greater is associated with administering the gospel and the lessor is associated with administering the law of Moses. The gospel was a restoration. It existed before the law of Moses. Abraham lived it. Therefore the higher priesthood existed prior to the law of Moses as well. Therefore there was more than one priest after the order of Melchizadek.

Again the history of the Catholic church disproves your hypothesis. There was a priesthood in the church or how did it appear in the Catholic church?

Your analysis is oversimplified thinking drawn from the types of Christ found in the priesthood.

And scripture contradicts your hypothesis:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

There is a type of proof in mathematics that works when something can't be proven directly. You assume the contrary is true and if it leads to a contradiction then the proof of the original is made.

This is what happens with your hypothesis. Priesthood after Christ is an historical fact. It contradicts the idea you put forward.

If Peter were as bright as you he would know as much as you about priesthood and would not have let it continue in the church. Then the church would have been as bright as you as well. Then the following generations would have not had any priesthood either. But the facts are there was always a form of priesthood in the church as a matter of historical record. Not until the reformation did ideas such as yours spring into existence.

I don't know all that much about the LDS beliefs on the Priesthood so I read over your two posts and tried to understand it all but I had so many questions that it just became like: too much information at once. Can we slow it down? I would really like to understand your beliefs on this.

Back to the beggining. What was the purpose of the Aaronic preisthood in your view?

[revelation]

But if it is sufficient you should be able to point out that it isn't suspect quite easily. Dontcha think?

Grothar elevates an eyebrow

(personally I think some of you non-mormons take our "suspection" of the Bible too far. I think it's basically saying that we have our own interpretation and believe it is correct. It also includes the few changes made by JS)

What makes it difficult, is trying to point out the sufficiency of the Bible to people who already have their minds made up that it isn't. I am not calling you a Pharisee but as an example the Pharisees already had their minds made up and so nothing would be able to convince them.

[ERayR]

Yes, I have done that in another thread. But People will always resist even when things are sufficient because they think it is insufficient.

Perhaps I can draw a comparison for the sake of showing you what I mean: Jesus Christ came into the world to save the world, but many people in his day, despite the sufficieny of the evidence, the miracles, the death and ressurection etc, still found all of that evidence insufficient.

That runs both ways. You have had evidences presented to you that should have been sufficient yet you still think it is insufficient. The bottom line is the LDS think that they have sufficient evidences for their beliefs. You do not. One of those evidences is a spiritual confirmation(born again) which for some reason those not LDS seem to reject while not even questioning the born again experiences of non LDS christians.

Frankly it gets a little tiresome trying to justify the validity of the LDS church to you all the time. Now show me how your born again experience is any more valid than mine.

[Grothar]

Hey, listen, I believe the Bible is inspired. I read the Bible daily... (fine I try to) I simply believe that people have their own interpretations. Unless one is demonstratably false then two interpretations beating heads will get nowhere. The fact of the matter remains that I believe the BoM and Bible to go hand-in-hand along with other Mormons. We have our own interpretations of any verse you care to throw at us.

The matter is further complicated by the many different versions of the Bible in use today, (to the best of my limited knowledge only one edition of the BoM is in widespread use) There are fundamental differences between each version so unless we can agree on one as authorative the room for interpretation increases even further.

Grothar, hopes that helped.

(And Hoops, just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make it false. To respond to one of your points, yes words have meanings frequently they have more than one as well. This is where the interpretation comes in. We also have to decide whether they were speaking symbolically or literally, and also who they were addressing at the time. Then we have to cross reference it with a lot of other scripture and go over the whole process again in bulk. I don't believe the room for interpretation is as restrictive as you attempt to portray it as.)

[shalamabobbi]

Back to the beggining. What was the purpose of the Aaronic preisthood in your view?

Priesthood is the authority of God to act in his name. It is how he calls and sends his representatives with His message. It is how He controls the kingdom and keeps it pure from personal interpretations. And their is only one leader at any one time who wields the keys or directing powers. There is the final authoritative word on any matter to the church. But lay members hold the priesthood. It encompasses the organisational structure of the church.

There are beginning laws and ordinances, faith, repentance, baptism. These are administered by the Aaronic priesthood.

There are higher laws and ordinances, confering the holy ghost, sealings as families, healing by laying on of hands, etc. These are administered by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The children of Israel lost the higher priesthood and law until it was restored by Christ. Perfection could not come by the law of Moses. "Let us go on to perfection not laying again the foundation of faith repentance etc" Heb 6:1-3

[Hoops22]

I simply believe that people have their own interpretations.

Of course they do. That doesn't make it right.

Unless one is demonstratably false then two interpretations beating heads will get nowhere.

One should be.

The fact of the matter remains that I believe the BoM and Bible to go hand-in-hand along with other Mormons. We have our own interpretations of any verse you care to throw at us.

Which is the problem.

The matter is further complicated by the many different versions of the Bible in use today,

True. But I have yet to have an lds point to one version that is substantially different where it comments on essential doctrine. So, they are essentially the same.

(to the best of my limited knowledge only one edition of the BoM is in widespread use) There are fundamental differences between each version

Can you give me an example of fundamental difference?

so unless we can agree on one as authorative the room for interpretation increases even further.

Not at all. In context, there is very little wiggle room.

(

And Hoops, just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make it false.

No, it doesn't.

To respond to one of your points, yes words have meanings frequently they have more than one as well.

Not at the same time they don't.

We also have to decide whether they were speaking symbolically or literally, and also who they were addressing at the time.

Agreed. But wouldn't you agree that we should take it literally whenever we can?

Then we have to cross reference it with a lot of other scripture and go over the whole process again in bulk

Agreed. It takes work. Or motivation.

I don't believe the room for interpretations as restrictive as you attempt to portray it as.)

I do. When it comes to the essentials, certainly.

[revelation]

If the Bible, for you, is self-sufficient, then why are you reading those other books? Apparently it wasn't sufficient for you.

I read books like that to help others overcome their stumbling blocks.

The problem you are having and refuse to admit it is that you are not appealing to the Bible alone, rather you are appealing to your interpretation of the Bible alone. Can you see the difference.

The way I see it is that nothing in the word of God should contradict how I interpret it, if it does, then I must reconsider how I have interpreted it. That is why whenever any of you use scripture, I read it and compare it with other scriptures etc. in the event I am wrong. If God is going to change my interpretation, he is going to do it through his own word.

Also, when your interpretation of the Bible is challenged, you pull up more scriptures and say, "See, I'm right," but then other pull up scriptures to strengthen their position and you say that they interpretation of those scriptures is wrong and of the Devil, while only yours is right and of God. So far this has been your main defense - "I'm right and your wrong and Satan is your father." It's gets very difficult to discuss things with somebody who has that attitude.

I don't feel it is wrong to think I am right. I don't feel it is wrong for you to think you are right. Personally my attitude is that of Luthers, my conscience is held captive to the word of God, I will therefore stand on that word with my conscience until someone, somewhere shows me using that very word, where I am wrong. Then I will gladly get rid of my faulty beliefs. I don't feel the need to "be right at all costs", that is Satan's territory, I feel the need to "speak the truth" and when I find out that I am not, that is fine with me. I change my beliefs. Truth is more important to me than being right.

I also want to give you a big apology! I never intended that Satan is your father. What I intended is that Satan is the father of those who don't believe Jesus words. I intended it for all of us, myself included, as a warning that none of us should fall into the temptation of not believing Jesus' words.

Then you ask me to read 4 book, not parts of 4 books and you don't offer to even posts some quotes from the books, no, you demand that I read 4 books. revelation, I have been reading an excellent book by Margaret Barker about the First Temple beliefs and I love the book and I'm lucky if I can get to read 10 to 15 pages a day. How many days would it take me to read all those four books at that rate? Give you a hint, I have been reading that book for a little over a month and I'm only on page 200.

I understand. But we have been through this discussion already and it was "insufficient" for you. So I am only trying to further help you over your hurdle by reccomending those books. If you don't have the time to read those books, then you won't have the time for me to go through all of them with you without you having to read them yourself because it would take up even more of your time.

And do you honestly think that I'm willing to make such a huge sacrifice of my time to read 4 books and then have you just throw more scriptures at me and tell me that I interpret the Bible incorrectly and that Satan is my father. I really don't know who you think you are revelation.

Again I apologize for your misunderstanding of my intent with that verse.

I have learned so much from people testing my beliefs by throwing more and more scriptures at me. It's an awesome way to learn and it really fuels a deeper and greater understanding. it's a good thing~ Try changing the way you think about it.

I have been discussing religion for many, many years, with all sorts of people and most of the people whom I have discussed with are able to apply logic to their arguments and haven't denigrated me and my beliefs the way you have.

I highly respect you. I highly respect your knowledge of the Bible, I highly respect your Zeal and the great lengths you will go to stand up for the things you believe in to prove me wrong. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the same way about me.

I even attended a Southern Baptist Bible study for about a year and they never looked down at their noses at me.

It's unfortunate that you have misjudged me and think I am looking down my nose at you. To let you in on a little secret, I actually look up to you as I have explained above.

[They, among themselves, had all sorts of disagreements, some worse than they had with me, and they never denigrated each other.

I have never denegrated you that I am aware of. Could I make a suggestion that you simply read my words and stop judging my heart? Assume I have the best intentions and motives in all that I do and say and if something sounds denegrating to you, ask me what I mean or tell me how it makes you feel rather than going on ahead of me and judging my motives incorrectly. Let's be freinds!

There were even a few knock-down, drag-out fights, but they always respected each other, something you have refused to extend to any who disagreed with you on this board.

Let me fill you in a little about myself, maybe it will help. I am not a fighting kind of person, I don't get easily angered, all of my posts are done while I am calm and I try to write them in the freindliest way I know how. I try to write my posts with gentle words.

I try my best to never put people down in my posts, that is, I don't call people names, I never use sarcasm, I never laugh at people and make fun of them just because they disagree with me. I respect everyone here. I don't say things to make people feel small as a person. I look at all of you as if you are better than I am. People have feelings and I don't want to hurt their feelings if I can help it. Teachings on the other hand are different. Teachings don't have feelings, they aren't people. False teachings are destructive to people, they hurt, harm and destroy people and so if someone is believing in a false teaching that doesn't make them worthy to be called names, ridiculed, made fun of sacrcastically etc. I don't want to harm people in this way simply because they believe something different from me. But rather, I care about people who believe in something that I believe is a false teaching BECAUSE it could be harmful to them. Can you see the difference?

Now it's also true that you believe that I believe in false teaching, and if I do, I would think that your love for God and for man would lead you to want to help me out of my false beliefs because you know how harmful they are for me and because your love for God and man leads you to care about my soul in that way. Like a Shephard caring for his sheep, not wanting any harm to come to them. You know?

Why can't LDS and non LDS just assume that everyone means well and is looking out for one another instead of assuming the worst intentions as you have done repeatedly? (I am not throwing an attack at you, just wondering if you could try and stop judging my intentions to always be evil when they really are not.) Anyways, there is a passage in the Bible that is a wonderful reminder to you AND to me about what it means when we wrongfully judge the intentions of others to be evil when they are not:

Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

They would list a few scriptures that supported their position and then in lieu of trying to have the other people guess why those scriptures supported their beliefs, they would explain, sometimes in great detail why the support was there. revelation, you might try doing that more often. It would not only help us in discussion, but it would also help you to better understand your own beliefs. It would help you learn where the weaknesses and strengths in your presentation also.

Okay. Thank you for the advice, I will try to do that, let me know along the way when I fail so I can try again. I am willing to grow in this area since you have suggested I need to grow. Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.

Usually revelation, I have a lot of patience, ask anybody on this board, sometimes I have too much, but I am really tired of trying to have a civil discussion where the other person refuses to recognize that I have good reasons for my beliefs and all they do is throw scriptures at me and when I or anybody else responds with a different, yet supported interpretation of those scriptures, they are told that they are of the Devil and that if they would just read the Bible with an open mind, then they would agree with you. Please revelation, give us some credit.

Again my apologies for your misundersatnding as per above. I will try harder when I write to not give that impression. Thanks for pointing it out.

I want you to know that I truly believe you have good reasons for your beliefs and I am impressed by your knowledge of LDS teachings. I am also Impressed by your Zeal. And as we go, I am looking forward to learning more about your beliefs.

[revelation]

That runs both ways. You have had evidences presented to you that should have been sufficient yet you still think it is insufficient. The bottom line is the LDS think that they have sufficient evidences for their beliefs. You do not. One of those evidences is a spiritual confirmation(born again) which for some reason those not LDS seem to reject while not even questioning the born again experiences of non LDS christians.

What your saying it true! But please allow me the freedom God has given me to test everything and hold on to the truth. (1 Thes 5:21) For my soul is at stake in all of this so I don't test lightly.

Frankly it gets a little tiresome trying to justify the validity of the LDS church to you all the time. Now show me how your born again experience is any more valid than mine.

Do you not believe I have the freedom to test everything to my hearts content as per 1 Thes 5:21?

I never find it "tiresome" trying to justify the validity of my beliefs to you all the time. It is your soul at stake! Your God given freedom to test me as hard as you like! Who am I to stand in the way of the freedom God has himself given you! Therefore I will give you all the space you need! I will never tire of you testing my beliefs.

[revelation]

Priesthood is the authority of God to act in his name. It is how he calls and sends his representatives with His message. It is how He controls the kingdom and keeps it pure from personal interpretations. And their is only one leader at any one time who wields the keys or directing powers. There is the final authoritative word on any matter to the church. But lay members hold the priesthood. It encompasses the organisational structure of the church.There are beginning laws and ordinances, faith, repentance, baptism. These are administered by the Aaronic priesthood.There are higher laws and ordinances, confering the holy ghost, sealings as families, healing by laying on of hands, etc. These are administered by the Melchizedek Priesthood.The children of Israel lost the higher priesthood and law until it was restored by Christ. Perfection could not come by the law of Moses. "Let us go on to perfection not laying again the foundation of faith repentance etc" Heb 6:1-3

Can you show me from the Old Testament what the purpose of the Aaronic preisthood was?

[revelation]

Hey, listen, I believe the Bible is inspired. I read the Bible daily... (fine I try to) I simply believe that people have their own interpretations. Unless one is demonstratably false then two interpretations beating heads will get nowhere. The fact of the matter remains that I believe the BoM and Bible to go hand-in-hand along with other Mormons. We have our own interpretations of any verse you care to throw at us.The matter is further complicated by the many different versions of the Bible in use today, (to the best of my limited knowledge only one edition of the BoM is in widespread use) There are fundamental differences between each version so unless we can agree on one as authorative the room for interpretation increases even further.Grothar, hopes that helped.(And Hoops, just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make it false. To respond to one of your points, yes words have meanings frequently they have more than one as well. This is where the interpretation comes in. We also have to decide whether they were speaking symbolically or literally, and also who they were addressing at the time. Then we have to cross reference it with a lot of other scripture and go over the whole process again in bulk. I don't believe the room for interpretation is as restrictive as you attempt to portray it as.)

We can all come together in perfect unity of interpretation eventually if we are but willing to submit to the word of God at all costs whatever they may be. Problem is, not everyone is willing to pay the cost.I hope I didn't miss anyone's posts. If I did, let me know!I hope I didn't miss anyone's post. If I did, let me know.

[ERayR]

What your saying it true! But please allow me the freedom God has given me to test everything and hold on to the truth. (1 Thes 5:21) For my soul is at stake in all of this so I don't test lightly.

Do you not believe I have the freedom to test everything to my hearts content as per 1 Thes 5:21?

Me: Please do not misunderstand what I have said. I am all for you having the right and freedom to accept or reject what ever it is you wish to. I would not have it otherwise. It is always better to make an informed choice. However, if you don't agree it is always better to politly disagree than to arrogantly dismiss. Example: johnny for one.

I never find it "tiresome" trying to justify the validity of my beliefs to you all the time. It is your soul at stake! Your God given freedom to test me as hard as you like! Who am I to stand in the way of the freedom God has himself given you! Therefore I will give you all the space you need! I will never tire of you testing my beliefs.

Me: Again do not misunderstand. What is tiresome to me is the cavalier way, that many, dismiss my freedom to hold to the truth that I have found. The way they come on the board and tell us what we believe and when told they are wrong they ignore or tell us we don't know our own religion.

[shalamabobbi]

Can you show me from the Old Testament what the purpose of the Aaronic priesthood was?

It is easier from the NT.

Zacharias walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. v6

He executed the priest's office v8 (I'm surprised an EV hasn't used this verse to claim the end of priesthood)

John the Baptist was his son. John baptised. Therefore Aaronic priesthood was used among other things as the authority to baptise.

The jews challenged his authority. Therefore it was understood that authority was required to perform the ordinance of baptism.

No one challenged the ordinance of baptism itself, therefore it follows that baptism was nothing new.

[shalamabobbi]

Unless one is demonstratably false then two interpretations beating heads will get nowhere.

One should be.

Compare your interpretation of Genisis with what is known about the furthest objects observable in the universe and the length of time for light to travel from those objects to the earth.

[LeSellers]

More rewards

Okeh, you said that good works would get us more rewards. I asked "more what?" and you come back with "more rewards"?

Okeh, I'll be more explicit. "What, exactly are there rewards, more of which we get if we do good works?

"Rewards" is not a "good answer". It begs the question, or circles the logic, or whatever, but it does not answer the question, and it is not logical.

You might start with the minimal reward one receives for mere "salvation", and then explain how one gets more of it. Or, if it's not more of the same, then what these additional rewards might be.

Lehi

[shalamabobbi]

I think it is a second harp..

and the really good might get a harmonica..

[revelation]

It is easier from the NT.

Zacharias walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. v6

He executed the priest's office v8 (I'm surprised an EV hasn't used this verse to claim the end of priesthood)

John the Baptist was his son. John baptised. Therefore Aaronic priesthood was used among other things as the authority to baptise.

The jews challenged his authority. Therefore it was understood that authority was required to perform the ordinance of baptism.

No one challenged the ordinance of baptism itself, therefore it follows that baptism was nothing new.

Can we move this conversation to another thread? I think it is going to derail the thread. I think it is such a great topic but it can be lengthy. I would like to learn more about what you believe and share what I believe also. Maybe we can start a new thread and call it something like: Examining what the scriptures teach us about the priesthood. Or somthing like that. What do you think?

[Hoops22]

Okeh, you said that good works would get us more rewards. I asked "more what?" and you come back with "more rewards"?

Okeh, I'll be more explicit. "What, exactly are there rewards, more of which we get if we do good works?

"Rewards" is not a "good answer". It begs the question, or circles the logic, or whatever, but it does not answer the question, and it is not logical.

You might start with the minimal reward one receives for mere "salvation", and then explain how one gets more of it. Or, if it's not more of the same, then what these additional rewards might be.

Lehi

There will be a government or administration of sorts. Those who have shown faithful to good works will get more "responsibility" in that administration. Kingdom of heaven.

[urroner]

I think it is a second harp..

and the really good might get a harmonica..

So are you saying this Dylan will be in Heaven?