Getting the Priesthood by proxy, if you are deceased

[mfbukowski]

Bluebell pointed out that it is mentioned at the beginning of the endowment that all the men have been given the priesthood....so if they've gone through the temple at all then they should know this though I can understand if it's your first time through how you might miss it and I can understand how you might miss it anyway, just that it's not because you haven't done any proxy initiatory work.

That was my point.

If you have ever even done one endowment- even your own only- and you actually listened, you could have picked that up.

Honestly I see that as damaging evidence of lack of knowledge of some pretty basic stuff. You can't blame the young people, of course who have not experienced it.

It is no wonder that no one understands the Book of Abraham and the treasures it contains if you don't even know when one receives the priesthood as a proxy.

[LeSellers]

To accept an eyewitness are credible one must have knowledge of the eye witness and how they qualify as an expert on the topic, this cannot be done on the internet since there is no way to verify that the person posting is who he or she says they are. So only official sources can be accepted since there is not way to prove any eyewitness statement.

Did you follow the link in cinepro's message, because, unless you did, you have no way of knowing that what he posted was the truth, either.

Then, too, one might wonder on what basis you discounted my own experience along with that of Pahoran and ERMD? Has any of us ever given the slightest cause to doubt our credentials? Is there something any of us has done that leads you to believe we are lying about who we are?

You may be slightly put off by some who use aliases, but my name has never been a mystery to anyone here for more than a day and a half: I make something of a point of it.

Further, in a court of law, when a witness testifies, the only thing the jury knows about him is his name (aside from "official" witnesses

[LDS Guy 1986]

Did you follow the link in cinepro's message, because, unless you did, you have no way of knowing that what he posted was the truth, either.

Yes, I did read the link he porvided to lds.org and mentioned it in my reply to him, if you are not going to read the posts on this thread how about you not comment?

Further, in a court of law, when a witness testifies, the only thing the jury knows about him is his name (aside from "official" witnesses

[TAO]

Mwahaha, I had not heard of it either.... although I wouldn't have doubted that it would happen. God is the sorta person that would make that sorta thing happen =).

And I do like the reference Lehi said that mentioned it was given to all men pre-1978. That is an interesting fact I like indeed =D.

Now I so want to go to the temple after I get endowed =D... a few more years! =)

[LeSellers]

Yes, I did read the link he porvided to lds.org and mentioned it in my reply to him, if you are not going to read the posts on this thread how about you not comment?

I've read every one on of them. Occasionally I miss a point. Sue me.

Key word here is A COURT OF LAW, this forum is an anonymous setting not a formal court of law where a prosecutor and a defense lawyer get to investigate the background and expertise of each witness and make there case on whether the witness is credible or not.

I have had thousands of messages on this forum. You have been here for long enough to have determined whether I have credibility on matter of Temple worship. I submit that any conclusion other than that I have is unfounded.

That cannot happen here, and the fact that you are too binded to see that is mind boggling to me.

The fact that you don't accept long-established credentials is mind boggling to me.

If we were in a court right now that would be a different story but we are not, and no one at all presented any verifiable support that they are an expert witness on the dealing on the temple. A blanket statement like "I worked in the temple for 44 years" cannot be verified on this forum like it can in a court of law to establish that one is a credible expert on the matter.

First, I did not say I have worked in the Temple for 44 years. I said "I've been performing Temple work for 44 years," and the difference, while subtle, is not insignificant (not as great as that between "a history book" and "a historical book", but significant).

Second, it is usual to take a person at his word until there is a reason to reject it. None of the three of us who told you this is the case, based on our own experiences, has offered the slightest cause for rejecting our claims.

Please tell me that you haven't read more than one or two posts on this entire thread and you are simply acting this way out of contention and pure anger, instead of being so blindly lacking of the basic understanding of the anonymous nature of internet forums and the very public nature of being a witness in a court of law.

Anger? Not close. I'm not even offended. I am put off by your seeming disrespect for our collective testimony about which you asked the initial question, and we rendered our answers. Your immediate demand for an "official" reference is hardly the response any reasonable person would expect.

It's as if you'd explicitly said, "I don't believe you. ... Prove it!" That's what Tom Riddle told Professor Dumbledore the morning they met in the orphanage.

What I'm saying is that your approach to getting information on matters that interest you is not as useful as it might be, and there are those who would ignore further requests.

Lehi

[Skylla]

Reminder: Temple content is not allowed here.

Skylla