Exaltaion requirements

[Jason]

Maybe because Paul was called directly by Jesus (God)as an Apostle to teach the Church and expand the Kingdom of God on earth... IHS jim

Nice theory. Is it scriptural?

I don't mean "is Paul's being called" scriptural, but "is his authority to set policy for the Church forever more" scriptural.

And again, are all of Paul's words commandments for the entire Church forever after? If not, how can we tell which are?

What about passages where Paul specifically says he isn't giving a commandment (1 Cor. 7:8, for example)?

[James Banta]

Huh?

Pray about it, asking if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. IHS jim

[Jason]

As I have said I disagree with most of President Monson belief and statements to the world but I respect him as an honest man.. I have nothing bad to say about his character.. Just because other disagree with what you stand for doesn't mean they hold you as a person of low reputation.. Standing up for ones beliefs when other are screaming for your hide shows great character.. Running away from your enemies avoiding an attack shows the weakness that is disrespected.. No disagree on the issue of homosexuality would not disqualify anyone as a Church leader. Not loving and caring about the sinners would.. IHS jim

You seem a bit inconsistent here. If the world finds homosexual behavior perfectly acceptable, and labels anyone who doesn't share that opinion a bigot, does this then disqualify the person from being a bishop?

I mean, sure, they might respect his integrity, but being labled a bigot is hardly "a good report", now is it?

[James Banta]

Of course he does.

This person seems to believe he is under direct orders from Jesus himself to preach against all false heresies which could result in the damnation of souls. It puts him in some good company for sure.

For crying out loud, the guy ends each post with "IHS"

Most people I run into don't even notice the IHS much less know what it means.. I am empressed..

Yes my marching orders have been given:

Matthew 28:19-20

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. IHS jim

[James Banta]

So if the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit came to dinner how many places would you set?

One... Jesus is the only divine Person that has been shown to eat... IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find this whole discussion of accepting something "in your heart", even though it is something condemned today, to be an exercise in futility. In our hearts today we will accept what the current prophet has said is right. To accept something in our hearts that is neither required and in fact is subject to church discipline if practiced is not following the prophet.

It's ridiculous to even expect people to answer a hypothetical. Remember the early saints did not want to practice plural marriage and many of them were repulsed by it. It was only after thoughtful prayer that they knew it was a commandment for them. We are in the same position where if the Lord commands something, it is incumbent on us to get our own spiritual confirmation. So it's ridiculous to feel we have to screen people as to their feelings on plural marriage, when if it were again a part of the practice, we would do the same thing the early saints did and follow the prophet after a confirmation of the spirit.

This is a great point that seems to be over looked in this thread. I think this is the 4th or 5th time it has been brought up. That is why current leadership is so important. This might explain why James keeps posting things about God not changing his ways. The bible is full of God changing how things are done.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One... Jesus is the only divine Person that has been shown to eat... IHS jim

So God the Father and the HG just wont be there then? Or are they just standing in the back? I guess they don't need to sit down?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pray about it, asking if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. IHS jim

Yeah.

[SilverKnight]

Most people I run into don't even notice the IHS much less know what it means.. I am empressed.. IHS jim

I could be wrong, but doesn't "IHS" stand for "In His Service"?

Do you find it perhaps a little sanctimonious to remind everyone, that you have been saved, and are now posting with the express authorization of Jesus Christ himself?

"Empressed"

Isn't that who Sebastian was trying to save in The Neverending Story?

IFLDS Silverknight

(and that doesn't mean I am in favor of polygamy, just that I am forever in the service of Falcor the Luck Dragon)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Most people I run into don't even notice the IHS much less know what it means.. I am empressed..

Yes my marching orders have been given:

Matthew 28:19-20

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. IHS jim

So do you believe Christ's words here, that you should teach all nations and baptising them? Or is that just optional?

[James Banta]

I find this whole discussion of accepting something "in your heart", even though it is something condemned today, to be an exercise in futility. In our hearts today we will accept what the current prophet has said is right. To accept something in our hearts that is neither required and in fact is subject to church discipline if practiced is not following the prophet.

It's ridiculous to even expect people to answer a hypothetical. Remember the early saints did not want to practice plural marriage and many of them were repulsed by it. It was only after thoughtful prayer that they knew it was a commandment for them. We are in the same position where if the Lord commands something, it is incumbent on us to get our own spiritual confirmation. So it's ridiculous to feel we have to screen people as to their feelings on plural marriage, when if it were again a part of the practice, we would do the same thing the early saints did and follow the prophet after a confirmation of the spirit.

I brought this up because I have a good LDS man saying that President Young was a prophet of God and God would never allow Him to give a false teaching.. So He said that it is still recumbent on members of the Lord only true Church to keep all the commandments that God has given especially those that are still in place as part of LDS standard works (scripture).. Hey I agree with you polygamy is not a doctrine that God would give as part of the commandments He of His Church.. I believe it is evil and what I see looking into it's history in Utah was tragedy.. So you my lady are preaching to the choir.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I could be wrong, but doesn't "IHS" stand for "In His Service"?

Do you find it perhaps a little sanctimonious to remind everyone, that you have been saved, and are now posting with the express authorization of Jesus Christ himself?

"Empressed"

Isn't that who Sebastian was trying to save in The Neverending Story?

IFLDS Silverknight

(and that doesn't mean I am in favor of polygamy, just that I am forever in the service of Falcor the Luck Dragon)

I might be wrong (which I typically am) I though it was Valcor the luck dragon. Did you know that Deep Roy was in that movie, the same guy that played the Oompa Loompas in the latest Willy Wonka movie?

[James Banta]

So was Joseph Smith.

I was asked about Paul's instructions for the Church not Joseph Smith's.. That is a whole different subject.. At this time I didn't want to get into.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I brought this up because I have a good LDS man saying that President Young was a prophet of God and God would never allow Him to give a false teaching.. So He said that it is still recumbent on members of the Lord only true Church to keep all the commandments that God has given especially those that are still in place as part of LDS standard works (scripture)..

James, Lets say that what you brought up was true and we all accept your spin on what BY meant when he gave his talk. It wouldn't matter now as polygamy is currently forbidden. There is no living that commandment at heart because it contradicts what is currently in practice. So BY could have meant exacley what you think he means and it could still be a true teaching even if it changed. This whole thread was set up to play gotcha. It won't work.

Hey I agree with you polygamy is not a doctrine that God would give as part of the commandments He of His Church.. I believe it is evil and what I see looking into it's history in Utah was tragedy.. So you my lady are preaching to the choir.. IHS jim

So I guess you consider Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be an evil man? Do you consider Moses to be evil too? What about Nathan, I guess he was an evil bad prohpet.

[James Banta]

Nice theory. Is it scriptural?

I don't mean "is Paul's being called" scriptural, but "is his authority to set policy for the Church forever more" scriptural.

And again, are all of Paul's words commandments for the entire Church forever after? If not, how can we tell which are?

What about passages where Paul specifically says he isn't giving a commandment (1 Cor. 7:8, for example)?

When Paul gave advice about marriage to the Church he made it clear that it was advice and not a commandment.. It was still excellent advice.. Lets look at the text:

1 Cor 7:6-9

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

God allowed Paul these words to the WHOLE Church but not as a commandment.. He would that all people were single but He saw that this is not God's plan for man that built into us is a desire to be loved and to give love to one specific person.. This passage shows that any relations outside a person marriage is wrong.. You might say that is a weak example for monogamy but I thing a case can still be made for it from this passage..

Because God allowed Paul this message I see that as authoritative advice.. IHS jim

[Deborah]

Hey I agree with you polygamy is not a doctrine that God would give as part of the commandments He of His Church.. I believe it is evil and what I see looking into it's history in Utah was tragedy.. So you my lady are preaching to the choir.. IHS

You aren't agreeing with me because I don't believe this at all. I think polygamy has its purpose when commanded and I don't find it repugnant and in fact see advantages if practiced as the Lord would have it done. It simply isn't practiced today and therefore I don't dwell on it as something I must adhere to.

I agree with Mola's statement that BY wasn't necessarily wrong but because of the times and the circumstances the Lord changed the practice so that the church could move forward. In other words, God is always cognizant of the needs of his people and his church, which is why it is so important to have a living prophet.

[James Banta]

You seem a bit inconsistent here. If the world finds homosexual behavior perfectly acceptable, and labels anyone who doesn't share that opinion a bigot, does this then disqualify the person from being a bishop?

I mean, sure, they might respect his integrity, but being labled a bigot is hardly "a good report", now is it?

I never said that had to agree with Him.. Many will see it as bigotry but other will hear him and see that He is teaching from the word of God and respect him for his consistent belief in the truth of God's word.. Enemies on the battle field often respected each other even though they had a lingering hatred for what the other person stands for.. Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy were examples of this.. They often hated the policies of the other and had heated exchanges but still they respected each other.. It's a character thing not an issue thing.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

James, Lets say that what you brought up was true and we all accept your spin on what BY meant when he gave his talk. It wouldn't matter now as polygamy is currently forbidden. There is no living that commandment at heart because it contradicts what is currently in practice. So BY could have meant exacley what you think he means and it could still be a true teaching even if it changed. This whole thread was set up to play gotcha. It won't work.

So I guess you consider Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be an evil man? Do you consider Moses to be evil too? What about Nathan, I guess he was an evil bad prohpet.

I think these men are no different than any other sinners.. Before a holy God Yes they are evil.. Is this you quoting from the 132nd section of the D&C? All the patriarchs made this poor decision on their own they were never commanded to take other wives.. Even David wasn't commanded to take other wives but to care for the wives of Saul.. It was Davids lust that lead him into polygamy not God's commands.. Hey even the BofM says that his action were an abomination..

This whole thread was set up to gather data to show RICHARD that he was up in the night.. I think that has been shown.. Now I am merely answering questions.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I could be wrong, but doesn't "IHS" stand for "In His Service"?

Do you find it perhaps a little sanctimonious to remind everyone, that you have been saved, and are now posting with the express authorization of Jesus Christ himself?

"Empressed"

Isn't that who Sebastian was trying to save in The Neverending Story?

IFLDS Silverknight

(and that doesn't mean I am in favor of polygamy, just that I am forever in the service of Falcor the Luck Dragon)

Yes IHS is short for in His service.. And so everyone should be.. It is as much a reminder to me that I am His child as a statement of what I am doing here.. As long as I keep my posts scriptural (I believe that the Bible is God's own message to mankind, literally God breathed) I stand in His full authority.. Is it sanctimonious to retell what God has already taught? I don't see that.. Sorry I don't know too much about The Neverending Story .. As I recall it was a movie.. But not one on my list of favorites.. IHS jim

[mercyngrace]

See right there is the same context it says that Moses can't see God's face.. Verse 11 them must be a metaphor for the special place in which God held Moses. A personal, intimate, position of privileged that no other man has ever been so blessed to have known.. Can you see that? IHS jim

So you can interpret Moses speaking to God "face to face" as metaphorical, ignoring the literal meaning of one verse in favor of a meaning derived through studying the scriptures in their entirety. When I say that the same can be done with other Biblical statements, you say that I am twisting the words in an attempt to fit my beliefs. Okay.

So you're saying...

He has a voice (John 5:37) but no vocal cords?

He has a shape (John 5:37) but no body?

He has a mouth (Num. 12:8 ) but doesn't eat?

He has feet (Ex. 24:10) but no flesh and bone?

He has a finger (Duet. 9:10) but no hand?

He has a face (Rev, 22:4), eyes that see (Ps. 33:18), ears to hear (1 Pet. 3:12), and a nose to smell (Job 4:9) but is incorporeal and intangible?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And according to your last response - no one has seen God but Moses (being as you said the face to face verses were a metaphor for God's special relationship with this singular mortal) in spite of what it says in Exodus 24:11 (children of Israel saw God) and what it says in John 6:46 specifically about man's ability to see The Father and what the Lord said "neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think these men are no different than any other sinners.. Before a holy God Yes they are evil.. Is this you quoting from the 132nd section of the D&C? All the patriarchs made this poor decision on their own they were never commanded to take other wives.. Even David wasn't commanded to take other wives but to care for the wives of Saul.. It was Davids lust that lead him into polygamy not God's commands.. Hey even the BofM says that his action were an abomination..

This whole thread was set up to gather data to show RICHARD that he was up in the night.. I think that has been shown.. Now I am merely answering questions.. IHS jim

Yet for some reason you dwell on these supposed evil acts of BY and others. If "bad" acts didn't prevent a man from being a prophet in the past, why do you think they disqualify "bad" men today form being prophets?

With regards to David, it is specifically reported that God gave David wives through Nathan. The part taht was bad was that David lusted after that which was forbiddin. Polygamy wasn't this issue here, it was going after another woman that wasn't given to him by God. David was given wives by Nathan the prophet. You know the best part too, some of these women even had other husbands.

[James Banta]

So do you believe Christ's words here, that you should teach all nations and baptising them? Or is that just optional?

Didn't you see that I am a Conservative Baptist? I believe in obeying God at every turn.. Of course we should baptize those that believe.. We should teach them to obey all His commandments not just baptism.. Don't you believe in all that? You and I have been through the sin of lying we both understand how serious it is and yet it is the number one sin committed.. The Phone rings and it's someone you don't want to talk to, it's a small thing to make up an excuse to not take the call or end it quickly.. That is lying.. Hey we all have done that or something very similar. The Prophet Isaiah even called himself a liar (Isa 6:5).. So do we obey Jesus (God) in all things? NOPE!

Isaiah lied, someone else doesn't submit to baptism. Is one sin worse than the other? Because of the Blood and death of Jesus can't both be forgiven? After all the person who wasn't baptized was just putting it off, they meant to do it.. But sin is sin.. Disobedience to God's commands.. I know you aren't the sort to live in sin but that doesn't make the sins in our lives any less objectional to a Holy God.. These still require blood as evidence of the death of the sinner.. You believe Jesus is the savior already, I just hold Him up as the means for ALL sin to be forgiven, past sin, present sin, and future sin. In tat the truth of 1 John 5:13 comes to life..

1 John 5:13

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Because our sin is forgiven we can know we have eternal life in His Kingdom.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

So God the Father and the HG just wont be there then? Or are they just standing in the back? I guess they don't need to sit down?

I didn't say that they wouldn't be there, just that they woudn't need a chair.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

You aren't agreeing with me because I don't believe this at all. I think polygamy has its purpose when commanded and I don't find it repugnant and in fact see advantages if practiced as the Lord would have it done. It simply isn't practiced today and therefore I don't dwell on it as something I must adhere to.

I agree with Mola's statement that BY wasn't necessarily wrong but because of the times and the circumstances the Lord changed the practice so that the church could move forward. In other words, God is always cognizant of the needs of his people and his church, which is why it is so important to have a living prophet.

Saying that there is no need to be a polygamist (even if just of the heart) is a great answer to the question.. Even one I personally support.. Maybe not for the same reasons you do but I do support that if is not a doctrine that God wants in His Church.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I didn't say that they wouldn't be there, just that they woudn't need a chair.. IHS jim

Shouldn't only one chair be needed because they are one being? That is the point. I won't hold that doctrine to you if you don't believe it. It isn't what I believe, thought I have been told that in order to be a true christian you need to believe in teh "Trinitarian Jesus".