Doctrinal Clarification Needed

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I love you, too, but it was SilverKnight started the thread.

...............I know.................

See post 40.

Take care. Mr Night Staker. AKA Ralphie's Father.

[consiglieri]

Take care. Mr Night Staker.

In a strange twist of television fate, The Night Stalker was the title originally applied to the vampire, Janos Skorzeny, in the original made-for-TV movie that first aired January 11, 1972, but the name eventually became inextricably associated with Darren McGavin's character, Carl Kolchak.

The 1974-75 TV series was a but the original move is still great fun to watch, and garnered the largest viewing audience of any TV movie up to that time.

I remember being glued to the set back in 1972. Good times.

It also has one of the best lines ever, and one that may be said to shape my attitude to life in general, and the LDS Church in particular:

This nut thinks he

[Doctor Steuss]

I would just like to take this oportunity to point out that Consiglieri is old.

You're welcome.

[consiglieri]

I would just like to take this oportunity to point out that Consiglieri is old.

It's not the years, Darlin'. It's the mileage.

[David T]

Of note that in its original context, the Oath and Covenant is not talking about being granted simply to those who are ordained to priesthood offices, but those who receive (which in the context is defined as accepting) the Lord's representatives.

There are two parts: Promises for those who obtain the priesthoods, and a separate section for those who recieve (or hearken to) the Lord's Priesthood (ie, those who obtained the priesthoods - the Lord's representatives) . Woes are pronounced on those who do not accept (recieve) the message and authority of the appointed Priesthood, and those who completely break from them.

That's not how we're accustomed to reading it today, but that's what the text says.

35And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father

[LDS Guy 1986]

For LDS Guy

Consider D&C 19. Apparently God is saying that those "eternal damnation" scriptures were written that way to work upon the hearts of men. Perhaps that business of no forgiveness in this world or the next is one of those "work on our hearts so we know it's serious" kind of thing.

Who knows, but I agree with ElfLord: This is too letter of the law and not spirit of the law stuff.

That is fine, I give heed to the law though, it is there to help us and warn us. I don't see it as suggestions from the Lord, but his eternal commandments for us in this day. Unless he changes the commandment of D&C 84:41, I exhort all who take the priesthood to understand that they are taking an oath and covenant that if broken cannot be forgiven in this life or the next. As I was warned and exhorted to consider these things carefully for many weeks before my interview with the Stake President.

[ELF1024]

That is fine, I give heed to the law though, it is there to help us and warn us. I don't see it as suggestions from the Lord, but his eternal commandments for us in this day. Unless he changes the commandment of D&C 84:41, I exhort all who take the priesthood to understand that they are taking an oath and covenant that if broken cannot be forgiven in this life or the next. As I was warned and exhorted to consider these things carefully for many weeks before my interview with the Stake President.

1986 must be your birth year. Only someone with a general lack of experience could evaluate the Gospel as so uniquely heartless.

[WalkerW]

1986 must be your birth year. Only someone with a general lack of experience could evaluate the Gospel as so uniquely heartless.

I resent that remark.

[ELF1024]

I resent that remark.

Then I suppose it's good it wasn't aimed in your direction...

[Nathair/|\]

I'd certainly rather be the Joker (who is completely insane and probably not responsible for his actions) than to have Joseph Smith's knowledge and then deny it. On the other hand, I would much rather be William W. Phelps (who apostatized after being ordained an apostle, then returned and repented) than Pol Pot, Castro, or Stalin.

[WalkerW]

I'd certainly rather be the Joker (who is completely insane and probably not responsible for his actions) than to have Joseph Smith's knowledge and then deny it. On the other hand, I would much rather be William W. Phelps (who apostatized after being ordained an apostle, then returned and repented) than Pol Pot, Castro, or Stalin.

I'd rather be David Whitmer, who never came back but continued to testify of the Book of Mormon, than Pol Pot, Castro, or Stalin.

[Nathair/|\]

I'd rather be David Whitmer, who never came back but continued to testify of the Book of Mormon, than Pol Pot, Castro, or Stalin.

I agree.

[Brade]

To be perfectly honest, and with all due respect to you 1986, I think your view is indicative of a shallow understanding of doctrinal developments in the early Church. There's good historical evidence, for example, that Joseph's understanding of salvation and priesthood underwent a change sometime in 1831. By mid to late 1831 Joseph was publicly preaching about an order of the priesthood whereby a holder of such authority could seal on earth and in heaven, and high priests were practicing an ordinance by which subjects where sealed up to eternal life. This later became the doctrine of calling and election, second endowment, and second anointing. At the time, as it is now, a person could be a priesthood holder, even a Melchizedek priesthood holder, and not have this "fullness" of the priesthood whereby they could perform such sealings. In fact, there is some evidence suggestive that Joseph understood there to be three priesthood orders. In any event, the language we have in D&C 84 is more consistent with Joseph's understand of the high priesthood, which, as I said, was something beyond merely holding the Melchizedek priesthood; and that priesthood did in fact have, according to Joseph, more serious consequences if abandoned.

To connect the strict consequences spoken of in section 84 with merely being inducted into the Melchizedek priesthood is, I think, to completely disregard what Joseph and his contemporaries actually thought, based on the best available evidence at our disposal, and to mistakenly project the modern correlated notion of priesthood onto a text where it doesn't belong. I do think this is something the correlation committee overlooked. I think as things are presented in modern manuals and Church teachings it does look as though D&C 84's mention of priesthood refers to the same priesthood that, say, I received just before going on a mission. And, if that were true, then, you're right, any violation of a covenant received by virtue of and through that priesthood would, according to D&C 84, entail the loss of one's ability to be forgiven in this life and the next. But, I don't think that section 84 is talking about that priesthood. I don't think the historical evidence supports that claim.

For my part, I don't really have a dog in this fight since I don't think there is such a thing as priesthood anyway. If there is, however, and if you and the correlation committee are right about the meaning of D&C 84, then there are an awful lot of very damned covenant breakers walking around if only because there are lots of loud laughing and lightminded Melchizedek priesthood holders walking around.

Edit: I forgot to mention some good resources on this. You might want to check out David Buerger's Dialogue article "The Fullness of the Priesthood" and his book The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship. Also, Andrew Ehat's masters thesis on the introduction and development of temple ordinances also has some good research about Joseph's later thoughts on salvation and priesthood authority.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I actually tend to agree with LDS Guy on this. I think we too easily assign people to the Telestial Kingdom. If you have continually rejected God, in this life and the next, you will be completely caste out to inherit the kingdom of the devil- only those who ultimately repent of their evil deeds will inherit the Telestial Kingdom. I am convinced that there will be those that will spit in the face of God including on the Day of Judgment- God's mercy will hold no hope for them.

[WalkerW]

Buerger's article can be found here.

[Brade]

Buerger's article can be found here.

Thanks, I was being kind of lazy.

[LDS Guy 1986]

1986 must be your birth year. Only someone with a general lack of experience could evaluate the Gospel as so uniquely heartless.

Come one now, the heartless argument! LAME

God provides us almost infinite chances for repentance for almost everything, but he has declared certain sins unforgivable, this means just that if we do these sins there is no forgiveness in this life of the next life.

This isn't heartless this is justice, and God is both a God of mercy and justice, he provided a plan of salvation for us to receive mercy through the Atonement, but there are transgression mentioned in the scriptures that Christ cannot atone for, just as he can't pay for our sins if we don't want him to.

Yon can't use the heartless argument it has more holes in it than the Iraqi Navy does.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Breaking the covenants is not an unforgiveable or unpardonable sin. Else people could not become rebaptized.

Murder, for one who has made covenants with God, is unforgivable.

Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is the unpardonable sin. And it's much more than merely breaking the covenants.

As I have said before to other posters, you are wrong according to D&C 84:41, it states that breaking the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood is unforgivable and at least 1 Stake President in the Church makes sure every potential Elder he interviews is fully aware of this, before he approves them for the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[ELF1024]

Come one now, the heartless argument! LAME

God provides us almost infinite chances for repentance for almost everything, but he has declared certain sins unforgivable, this means just that if we do these sins there is no forgiveness in this life of the next life.

This isn't heartless this is justice, and God is both a God of mercy and justice, he provided a plan of salvation for us to receive mercy through the Atonement, but there are transgression mentioned in the scriptures that Christ cannot atone for, just as he can't pay for our sins if we don't want him to.

Yon can't use the heartless argument it has more holes in it than the Iraqi Navy does.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say that the Lord was heartless, I said that your intrerperation was.

If your idea was in the same neighborhood as correct there would be no possible way for me (a former M. Preisthood Holder) to get re-baptized. Therefore, you cannot be correct.

[Mark Beesley]

As I have said before to other posters, you are wrong according to D&C 84:41, it states that breaking the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood is unforgivable and at least 1 Stake President in the Church makes sure every potential Elder he interviews is fully aware of this, before he approves them for the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Stake Presidents are fallible.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I'd rather be David Whitmer, who never came back but continued to testify of the Book of Mormon, than Pol Pot, Castro, or Stalin.

See Whitmer isn't an apostate IMO, he lost faith in the prophet and the Church, but never in the Church or the Restored Gospel. I feel that if he continued to live a moral and worthy life until he died that he too is fine, you make the promises to follow Christ not the men of the Church.

I don't think Whitmer ever broke his Priesthood Covenant (they were removed when he was excommunicated as a dissenter, but disagreeing with the Prophet is NOT a sin, and removal of the priesthood is NOT breaking your covenant in and of it self, of course in many cases the priesthood is removed because you broke your covenant but the removal in itself breaking the covenant.

So I agree that Whitmer, is better off than murders who never joined the Church, because Whitmer never broke his Priesthood Covenants.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Stake Presidents are fallible.

I never said they are infallible, only that I know at least one Stake in the Church makes sure that this is taught to men seeking to be conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood, so it would be a surprise to me to find out it is against Church Doctrine.

[ELF1024]

I don't think Whitmer ever broke his Priesthood Covenant (they were removed when he was excommunicated as a dissenter, but disagreeing with the Prophet is NOT a sin, and removal of the priesthood is NOT breaking your covenant in and of it self, of course in many cases the priesthood is removed because you broke your covenant but the removal in itself breaking the covenant.

What a sec... that makes no sense what so ever. You can be excommunicated for NOT sinning?

Why would they excommunicate you unless you were sinning?

Did I just fall out of reality and into some seriously screwed up universe where logic has been replaced with nonsense?

[LDS Guy 1986]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say that the Lord was heartless, I said that your intrerperation was.

If your idea was in the same neighborhood as correct there would be no possible way for me (a former M. Preisthood Holder) to get re-baptized. Therefore, you cannot be correct.

As long as he never broke the Covenant of the Priesthood he can, just like Oliver Cowder was re-baptized, Martin Harris was re-baptized after excommunication as dissenters. The same could of applied to David Whitmer if he wanted to rejoin the Church also since he was also excommunicated as a dissenter and never broke the oath of his priesthood simply lost faith in the Prophet.

This is why we have priesthood leadership, it is there job to determine things like this on a case by case basis with all the facts presented.

To act like one highly theoretical incident (also remember what Mark said Stake Presidents are not infallible even the Prophet isn't infallible so mistakes can be made) as support for your claim against the truth of the Restored Gospel as it is recorded in D&C 84:41 is not sufficient, IMO.

[Mark Beesley]

To be perfectly honest, and with all due respect to you 1986, I think your view is indicative of a shallow understanding of doctrinal developments in the early Church. There's good historical evidence, for example, that Joseph's understanding of salvation and priesthood underwent a change sometime in 1831. By mid to late 1831 Joseph was publicly preaching about an order of the priesthood whereby a holder of such authority could seal on earth and in heaven, and high priests were practicing an ordinance by which subjects where sealed up to eternal life. This later became the doctrine of calling and election, second endowment, and second anointing. At the time, as it is now, a person could be a priesthood holder, even a Melchizedek priesthood holder, and not have this "fullness" of the priesthood whereby they could perform such sealings. In fact, there is some evidence suggestive that Joseph understood there to be three priesthood orders. In any event, the language we have in D&C 84 is more consistent with Joseph's understand of the high priesthood, which, as I said, was something beyond merely holding the Melchizedek priesthood; and that priesthood did in fact have, according to Joseph, more serious consequences if abandoned.

To connect the strict consequences spoken of in section 84 with merely being inducted into the Melchizedek priesthood is, I think, to completely disregard what Joseph and his contemporaries actually thought, based on the best available evidence at our disposal, and to mistakenly project the modern correlated notion of priesthood onto a text where it doesn't belong. I do think this is something the correlation committee overlooked. I think as things are presented in modern manuals and Church teachings it does look as though D&C 84's mention of priesthood refers to the same priesthood that, say, I received just before going on a mission. And, if that were true, then, you're right, any violation of a covenant received by virtue of and through that priesthood would, according to D&C 84, entail the loss of one's ability to be forgiven in this life and the next. But, I don't think that section 84 is talking about that priesthood. I don't think the historical evidence supports that claim.

For my part, I don't really have a dog in this fight since I don't think there is such a thing as priesthood anyway. If there is, however, and if you and the correlation committee are right about the meaning of D&C 84, then there are an awful lot of very damned covenant breakers walking around if only because there are lots of loud laughing and lightminded Melchizedek priesthood holders walking around.

Edit: I forgot to mention some good resources on this. You might want to check out David Buerger's Dialogue article "The Fullness of the Priesthood" and his book The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship. Also, Andrew Ehat's masters thesis on the introduction and development of temple ordinances also has some good research about Joseph's later thoughts on salvation and priesthood authority.

You make some very valid points. Too bad pride will keep some from considering them -- heck, what can we possibly learn from an apostate?

Having re-read section 84, and puting verse 41 in the context of the entire section, I am convinced that the reference to receiving the priesthood in verse 41 refers to having one's calling and election made sure under the hand of the Savior. Such an understanding is consistent with our understanding of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.