Gender Is Eternal

[Stone holm]

Acutallly no we don't have the right to determine for ourselves what is or is not the word of the Lord. What we do have is the ability to know the truth of all things. If the BoM is scripture we don't have the right to say that it is not and be correct about it.

 

We might be possibly saying the same thing.

Didn't say we had the right to say, the right to speak with authority depends on what you are talking about and what office you hold. But to know something for yourself for your own purposes is not something which we require someone else to tell us. Each of us is entitled to know for ourselves for our own purposes. The Lord is our personal God, we do not have to be told how to behave or how the world works by someone else. But we are not entitled to declare the Word of The Lord to others without authority.

[danielwoods]

Regarding the "future perfect indicative" matter.  You link says "Note the future perfect indicative..., a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ."  This is no different than what we teach and believe.   It then says, "This means that the apostles were Jesus' authoritative spokesmen and that their decisions would be binding." 

 

 

Obviously, this authority to make a ruling on how to apply a command was not given to all members of the church, but only belonged to those who were given the proper keys to bind and loose. 

 

Again, your own link says "This means that the apostles were Jesus' authoritative spokesmen and that their decisions would be binding."

 

By using your own evidence, it is clear that your understanding of keys is flawed, and your understanding of binding and loosing is perhaps myopic and lacks in scope.

 

 

First, If you honestly think that LDS teaching is the same, then great. I am done here. 

 

Second. Who has the authority? Any believer.

 

Which is easier? To say to a man your sins are forgiven, or to tell him to rise up and walk? 

 

Peter told the cripple, "Silver and Gold have I none, but what I have, I give to you. Rise and walk."

 

What made Peter any different than anyone else? 

[Stone holm]

First, If you honestly think that LDS teaching is the same, then great. I am done here. 

 

Second. Who has the authority? Any believer.

 

Which is easier? To say to a man your sins are forgiven, or to tell him to rise up and walk? 

 

Peter told the cripple, "Silver and Gold have I none, but what I have, I give to you. Rise and walk."

 

What made Peter any different than anyone else? 

 

How about that Peter wasn't being compensated with silver and gold? 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

First, If you honestly think that LDS teaching is the same, then great. I am done here. 

 

Second. Who has the authority? Any believer.

 

Which is easier? To say to a man your sins are forgiven, or to tell him to rise up and walk? 

 

Peter told the cripple, "Silver and Gold have I none, but what I have, I give to you. Rise and walk."

 

What made Peter any different than anyone else? 

1st. you should try to explain why the links that you link support your position.

2nd no only those that are set apart have authority. No were in the bible does it say that all believers are given authority.

3rd Neither are easy per se. Both require faith. I am not sure what your point it.

4th Peter was given authority.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the key point here is who is authorized to speak for the whole Church, but we all have the right to determine for ourselves what is or is not the Word of The Lord. A Prophet of The Lord may for example stand up and declare that man will never set foot on the moon because it is not appointed to him. A member listening can ask The Lord for himself and The Lord may for his personal edification tell the member, "Oh you know he is a great man and a prophet, and he just had a bad day that day , he shot first and aimed later."

That is really not a valid argument for the LDS. The exercising of Keys is in the hands of only one man, The Prophet(President) of the Church. Whatever his other qualification at the time JFS wasn't The Prophet(President) of the Church. Also keep in mind that we have a self correcting feature called Common Consent. Anyone in the Church, be they high or low, can have any opinion they want. For it to be binding on the Church there must unanimous agreement between the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Plus as JS said "A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such".

.

[danielwoods]

1st. you should try to explain why the links that you link support your position.

2nd no only those that are set apart have authority. No were in the bible does it say that all believers are given authority.

3rd Neither are easy per se. Both require faith. I am not sure what your point it.

4th Peter was given authority.

 

1) Each link was an example of how Binding and Loosing was understood in Jewish thought, which gives a context for what Jesus meant. 

 

2) The same authority is given to each believer, why? Because all authority comes from Jesus, not anyone else. There are many verses that describe our position in Christ, as a royal priesthood, a holy nation, not one of them says that Jesus only works through a few people because they have the keys. Rather, all believers have access to the throne of grace. The Holy Spirit flows through any and all believers who follow him. 

 

3) Point is that Peter was just a fisherman. He wasn't anyone special. What set him apart was his faith and trust in Christ, just an example for any believer. 

[Stone holm]

That is really not a valid argument for the LDS. The exercising of Keys is in the hands of only one man, The Prophet(President) of the Church. Whatever his other qualification at the time JFS wasn't The Prophet(President) of the Church. Also keep in mind that we have a self correcting feature called Common Consent. Anyone in the Church, be they high or low, can have any opinion they want. For it to be binding on the Church there must unanimous agreement between the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Plus as JS said "A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such".

.

We are actually pretty much in agreement, we have certain persons designated with authority to speak for "the Church" on matters, but to know for themselves is not only everyone's right, but in a sense their duty. Without that common consent truly becomes a pointless exercise. (Not to say it hasn't already become somewhat meaningless in practice already, I suspect that a toaster oven could be proposed for a calling and the majority of the Church would raise their hands to sustain it."

[thesometimesaint]

Nowhere in the the Bible is there a authority of all believers. In fact there is a repudiation of that idea.

Ephesians 4:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

 

¹¹ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

Yes; Peter was a fisherman, he was also a fisherman of men, with the authority to determine what constituted doctrine.

See Peter's Vision of the unclean.

[thesometimesaint]

We are actually pretty much in agreement, we have certain persons designated with authority to speak for "the Church" on matters, but to know for themselves is not only everyone's right, but in a sense their duty. Without that common consent truly becomes a pointless exercise. (Not to say it hasn't already become somewhat meaningless in practice already, I suspect that a toaster oven could be proposed for a calling and the majority of the Church would raise their hands to sustain it."

 

I agree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

Yes; Peter was a fisherman, he was also a fisherman of men, with the authority to determine what constituted doctrine.

See Peter's Vision of the unclean.

 

This is a great point one that I have brought up before in another conversation.

[thesometimesaint]

This is a great point one that I have brought up before in another conversation.

 

Great minds think alike.

[pogi]

 

Second. Who has the authority? Any believer.

 

 

 

2) There are many verses that describe our position in Christ, as a royal priesthood, a holy nation, not one of them says that Jesus only works through a few people because they have the keys. Rather, all believers have access to the throne of grace. The Holy Spirit flows through any and all believers who follow him. 

 

I don't disagree that the priesthood is the authority of God.  You should educate yourself historically as to who held the priesthood of God.  Was it all believers? The women of the primitive church certainly didn't hold the priesthood.  You should also educate yourself historically as to which priesthood holders held the keys and authority to make binding decisions.  Was it all priesthood holders?  Nope.  Read your links again.

 

I don't disagree that "all believers have access to the throne of grace."  I also agree that the Holy Spirit flows though all believers who follow him.  You are equating keys with grace, and the Holy Spirit, that simply is not what we believe.   I can tell by your comments that you really don't understand LDS keys, which happen to be the scriptural context of keys as evidenced by your links.  

 

 

 

What made Peter any different than anyone else? 

 

He was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven which allowed him to make binding decisions for the church.  TSS gives a great example of his vision of the unclean, which happened to be the same example you used earlier.  Seems that all of your examples and links come back to prove me right.  How can you not see that Peter was unique in his role as a leader because of his keys to make binding decisions that not any believer could make? 

 

What if some random believer decided to go baptize the gentiles before Peter received the vision and authorized it, making it binding.  How do you think that would have gone over for him?  He would have been a heretic and excommunicated (by one who has the authority or keys of course). 

 

1) Each link was an example of how Binding and Loosing was understood in Jewish thought, which gives a context for what Jesus meant. 

 

You are right they did give a great context, but you seemed to miss the whole context and only focused on a sliver.  Now perhaps you should go back and read your links again to understand the context of keys.  

 

 

2) The same authority is given to each believer, why? Because all authority comes from Jesus, not anyone else. 

 

I'm not following your logic here.  That is like saying, "all authority comes from the CEO, therefore all employees have authority to make binding executive decisions for the company as a whole".  Yes, all authority comes from Jesus.  No, not all authority is given to all believers.  There is absolutely no scriptural, historical, or cultural evidence of that.

 

Your link demonstrated that Peter gave the keys to his successor Clement.  If all believers hold the keys through Christ directly, why did Clement have to receive them from Peter?  Shouldn't he have already had them, along with all other believers?

Edited November 13, 2013 by pogi

[danielwoods]

Nowhere in the the Bible is there a authority of all believers. In fact there is a repudiation of that idea.

Ephesians 4:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

 

¹¹ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

Yes; Peter was a fisherman, he was also a fisherman of men, with the authority to determine what constituted doctrine.

See Peter's Vision of the unclean.

 

Nowhere? 

Acts 1:⁸ But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

And then the next chapter describes the event of all the believers receiving the Spirit. Receiving power to be witnesses, all of them. The keys were opened. The door flung wide open. Who so ever will, can come. There is now only one mediator between God and man, Jesus. No need for a priest, or bishop or church to limit your access, all are now apart of the Royal Priesthood as believers. The Church is made up of those who are believers. Do all have the same gifts? Of course not. That's not what I've said. All have the same authority and power and access to the throne of grace.

 

What isn't in the biblical text are statements limiting the believers authority based on what someone else says. There is no, "you can only do this if you have the proper authority given to you by the church..."

Edited November 13, 2013 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

 

Nowhere? 

Acts 1:⁸ But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

And then the next chapter describes the event of all the believers receiving the Spirit. Receiving power to be witnesses, all of them. The keys were opened. The door flung wide open. Who so ever will, can come. There is now only one mediator between God and man, Jesus. No need for a priest, or bishop or church to limit your access, all are now apart of the Royal Priesthood as believers. The Church is made up of those who are believers. Do all have the same gifts? Of course not. That's not what I've said. All have the same authority and power and access to the throne of grace.

 

What isn't in the biblical text are statements limiting the believers authority based on what someone else says. There is no, "you can only do this if you have the proper authority given to you by the church..."

 

Acts 1 isn't talking about all believers. It is addressed to the Apostles whom he hath chosen.

 

Your statement is directly contradicted by the Bible. SEE Ephesians 4:11-13

[danielwoods]

I don't disagree that the priesthood is the authority of God.  You should educate yourself historically as to who held the priesthood of God.  Was it all believers? The women of the primitive church certainly didn't hold the priesthood.  You should also educate yourself historically as to which priesthood holders held the keys and authority to make binding decisions.  Was it all priesthood holders?  Nope.  Read your links again.

 

I don't disagree that "all believers have access to the throne of grace."  I also agree that the Holy Spirit flows though all believers who follow him.  You are equating keys with grace, and the Holy Spirit, that simply is not what we believe.   I can tell by your comments that you really don't understand LDS keys, which happen to be the scriptural context of keys as evidenced by your links.  

 

 

 

He was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven which allowed him to make binding decisions for the church.  TSS gives a great example of his vision of the unclean, which happened to be the same example you used earlier.  Seems that all of your examples and links come back to prove me right.  How can you not see that Peter was unique in his role as a leader because of his keys to make binding decisions that not any believer could make? 

 

 

You are right they did give a great context, but you seemed to miss the whole context and only focused on a sliver.  Now perhaps you should go back and read your links again to understand the context of keys.  

 

 

I'm not following your logic here.  That is like saying, "all authority comes from the CEO, therefore all employees have authority to make binding executive decisions for the company as a whole".  Yes, all authority comes from Jesus.  No, not all authority is given to all believers.  There is absolutely no scriptural, historical, or cultural evidence of that.

 

Your link demonstrated that Peter gave the keys to his successor Clement.  If all believers hold the keys through Christ directly, why did Clement have to receive them from Peter?  Shouldn't he have already had them, along with all other believers?

When Peter used the keys to loose what was already loosed in Heaven (Acts 10 and 15). Was he the only one who knew this truth? Or did he simply get on board with the program that others already knew because they too had access?

I agree with you that Peter was the defacto leader of the church. He may have thought he had the power to hand over the "keys" to Clement. I don't think he did nor do I think it matters a whole lot. The head of the church is Christ. Anyone connected to him will have access to the knowledge which is the keys. Which is why Paul confronted Peter when he wasn't acting properly.

[danielwoods]

Acts 1 isn't talking about all believers. It is addressed to the Apostles whom he hath chosen.

 

Your statement is directly contradicted by the Bible. SEE Ephesians 4:11-13

So all believers didn't receive the spirit? Or rather more to the point, don't receive the spirit?

[thesometimesaint]

So all believers didn't receive the spirit? Or rather more to the point, don't receive the spirit?

 

Yes all believers receive the spirit. But that is not the same thing as the authority to determine doctrine. IE; I believe in Doctors, that doesn't give me the authority to pick up a scalpel and start operating on you.

[Stone holm]

Yes all believers receive the spirit. But that is not the same thing as the authority to determine doctrine. IE; I believe in Doctors, that doesn't give me the authority to pick up a scalpel and start operating on you.

 

Not a good analogy.  We have when we were born the right to be inspired as to what is doctrine for our personal edification, we just do not have the right to declare it to others.  So if you here someone other than the Prophet declaring that he or she has received personal direct revelation to declare to the world as the Word of the Lord, and you are LDS then you should be doubtful as to where that revelation is coming from -- unless that revelation is a testimony of the Gospel or the B of M or something like that.

[pogi]

When Peter used the keys to loose what was already loosed in Heaven (Acts 10 and 15). Was he the only one who knew this truth? Or did he simply get on board with the program that others already knew because they too had access?

 

I wasn't aware of other people baptizing or even teaching the gentiles.  I'm pretty sure it was forbidden (bound), I'm pretty sure that not just anybody could loose it.  Sure there may have been some who wanted to do so, and may have even been influenced by the Spirit that it was time, but they recognized and sustained Peter's authoritative keys.  To act without the authority from Peter would have been heresy.   It seems that  the context of keys and authority belonging to Peter was clear to all believers back then, why is it not clear to you?  Were they all confused?  Was Peter using unrighteous dominion?

 

I agree with you that Peter was the defacto leader of the church. He may have thought he had the power to hand over the "keys" to Clement. I don't think he did nor do I think it matters a whole lot. The head of the church is Christ. Anyone connected to him will have access to the knowledge which is the keys. Which is why Paul confronted Peter when he wasn't acting properly.

 

You don't think it matter that Peter thought that he had the keys to hand over to Clement?  Peter was confused?  You know better than Peter what Christ was giving him?  You don't think that Jesus made it clear for him?

 

You keep saying that knowledge = keys, but you have zero support for that theory.  All the evidence that you, and everyone else, has provided points to the contrary.  Peter obviously did not equate keys with knowledge, neither did the Jews or anybody else back then, but apparently you don't care what Peter or anybody else thought. 

 

The fact that Paul confronted Peter demonstrates that Paul recognized Peter's authority.  Holding the keys doesn't mean that inspiration cannot come through other men, and it does not mean that the apostles cannot disagree with and even confront the prophet, yet they all still recognize his authority and last word.  Paul did not act without the authority of Peter.  He always went to Peter first. 

Edited November 13, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

From the Proclamation on the Family:

 

 

I was reading the other day about children born with both male and female genitalia. According to the World Health Organization, about 5 such children are born every day in the United States (about 1 in 2000 births). Almost always, such children are "assigned" to be males, with attendant surgical removal of internal and external female genitalia, and this is usually based on the arbitrary decision of the parents. Some studies have shown that basing such gender assignment on visible external genitalia is problematic and that, more often than not, the hormonal and other makeup of the person is actually female.

 

This more or less arbitrary decision to assign gender can have major effects in a person's life. In the LDS church, it creates other issues, which may affect the eternities. Maxine Hanks mentions one interesting and sad case (IMO) from the late 1980s:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=981

So, my question is this: if a premortal female spirit is given a body with male and female genitalia, and the parents decide to make her a "boy," how does this affect the child's eternal destiny? Say the boy grows up, is ordained to the priesthood, serves a mission, and is married in the temple? Does the female spirit then become a male spirit? Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?

Based on the proclamation, if a spirit was female in the premortal stage then that spirit will continue to be female, forever.  Nothing can change it, even though someone may think they can correctly call it a "boy" at some stage.

 

The other issues you're raising can be settled with the understanding that anything done through the power of the priesthood must meet with our Father's approval, otherwise it is not being done through the priesthood.  That would mean that even though a female might be ordained to an office in the priesthood, the ordination would still be subject to our Father's approval.  Or if she was sealed to a woman in marriage, that sealing would still be subject to our Father's approval.  Not that the ordination or sealing would someday be cancelled, but that it was never valid in the first place even though some people may have once thought it was valid.

[Stone holm]

Based on the proclamation, if a spirit was female in the premortal stage then that spirit will continue to be female, forever.  Nothing can change it, even though someone may think they can correctly call it a "boy" at some stage.

 

The other issues you're raising can be settled with the understanding that anything done through the power of the priesthood must meet with our Father's approval, otherwise it is not being done through the priesthood.  That would mean that even though a female might be ordained to an office in the priesthood, the ordination would still be subject to our Father's approval.  Or if she was sealed to a woman in marriage, that sealing would still be subject to our Father's approval.  Not that the ordination or sealing would someday be cancelled, but that it was never valid in the first place even though some people may have once thought it was valid.

 

Sounds correct to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Not a good analogy.  We have when we were born the right to be inspired as to what is doctrine for our personal edification, we just do not have the right to declare it to others.  So if you here someone other than the Prophet declaring that he or she has received personal direct revelation to declare to the world as the Word of the Lord, and you are LDS then you should be doubtful as to where that revelation is coming from -- unless that revelation is a testimony of the Gospel or the B of M or something like that.

 

While I don't know every Christians beliefs. I am reasonably confident that they believe in the Holy Ghost(Spirit). I do believe that God has laid out the process by which he tells the world about himself through his authorized representatives. The Bible is replete with examples of people not having that authority. I am also reasonably confident that people can convince themselves of whatever it is they want to believe.

[Stone holm]

While I don't know every Christians beliefs. I am reasonably confident that they believe in the Holy Ghost(Spirit). I do believe that God has laid out the process by which he tells the world about himself through his authorized representatives. The Bible is replete with examples of people not having that authority. I am also reasonably confident that people can convince themselves of whatever it is they want to believe.

You don't think that God will reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom to you? That you absolutely have to learn everything from the Prophet? If that is the case, then you may have to wait until the hereafter to find them out because of late the Church has put everyone on a milk diet.

[danielwoods]

I wasn't aware of other people baptizing or even teaching the gentiles.  I'm pretty sure it was forbidden (bound), I'm pretty sure that not just anybody could loose it.  Sure there may have been some who wanted to do so, and may have even been influenced by the Spirit that it was time, but they recognized and sustained Peter's authoritative keys.  To act without the authority from Peter would have been heresy.   It seems that  the context of keys and authority belonging to Peter was clear to all believers back then, why is it not clear to you?  Were they all confused?  Was Peter using unrighteous dominion?

 

 

You don't think it matter that Peter thought that he had the keys to hand over to Clement?  Peter was confused?  You know better than Peter what Christ was giving him?  You don't think that Jesus made it clear for him?

 

You keep saying that knowledge = keys, but you have zero support for that theory.  All the evidence that you, and everyone else, has provided points to the contrary.  Peter obviously did not equate keys with knowledge, neither did the Jews or anybody else back then, but apparently you don't care what Peter or anybody else thought. 

 

The fact that Paul confronted Peter demonstrates that Paul recognized Peter's authority.  Holding the keys doesn't mean that inspiration cannot come through other men, and it does not mean that the apostles cannot disagree with and even confront the prophet, yet they all still recognize his authority and last word.  Paul did not act without the authority of Peter.  He always went to Peter first.

There are two things we are discussing at the same time (well, at least two).

One is the tense of the verse, the other is what do the "keys" actually mean.

With regard to Acts 10 and 15, and teaching the Gentiles, it was commanded by Jesus before this to "make disciples of every nation". So, it was already loosed by Jesus at that time, Peter was a little late getting on board. However, point number one was that the edict or law or teaching was already loosed before Peter was even prompted by a vision to think about it. Peter didn't decide it, Jesus did. Peter had the keys or access to God to receive the vision and then teach it to everyone else.

With regard to what the keys are. Your point is that Jesus gave Peter keys, which represented of some type of authority who then passed them on to Clement which was designed to be held by one person at a time to lead the church. Where we agree is that Peter was designated to be a leader of the Church. Where we disagree is the idea that Peter held some sort of keys that only he could pass on, or that only one person could hold at a time. 

 

Given that Jesus said to make disciples of every nation, and given that there are about 7,000 different people groups (depending on who's definition is used), then it is more than just a little short sighted to think that only one person would be the leader of 7,000 different groups of people who speak different languages and have completely different cultures. But, that isn't my only objection. I think my main objection is that Jesus never states that only one person will have keys to the kingdom. I agree, that Peter lead the early church, but there isn't any directive in scripture that limits it to one person. 

 

[pogi]

Peter didn't decide it, Jesus did. Peter had the keys or access to God to receive the vision and then teach it to everyone else.

 

We both agree then that Peter nor any other prophet or leader can seal or bind without Jesus's consent.  It must be done according to the will of God, so yes, God does will it first in heaven.  No prophet goes around making binding/loosing decisions for the church independent of revelation and the mind of Christ. 

 

With regard to what the keys are. Your point is that Jesus gave Peter keys, which represented of some type of authority who then passed them on to Clement which was designed to be held by one person at a time to lead the church. Where we agree is that Peter was designated to be a leader of the Church. Where we disagree is the idea that Peter held some sort of keys that only he could pass on, or that only one person could hold at a time. 

 

I'm fine with disagreeing about keys and who can hold them, but if we are going to get anywhere, I need some scriptural or historical evidence from you.  It is clear what Peter thought the keys were, it is clear what all the believers and other leaders thought as well, and It is clear what the Jews thought.  No one could bind or loose without keys.  Do you have any evidence of anyone other then the apostles making any binding decisions (in accord with the mind of Christ of course) for the church?

 

 

Given that Jesus said to make disciples of every nation, and given that there are about 7,000 different people groups (depending on who's definition is used), then it is more than just a little short sighted to think that only one person would be the leader of 7,000 different groups of people who speak different languages and have completely different cultures. 

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about the logistics of only one man holding the keys.  It has never been a problem for the LDS church.  We have been sending missionaries out into all of the world from almost day 1.  The Catholics seem to have done pretty well for themselves as well.  

 

What seems like a bigger nightmare is giving every believer the keys to claim the mind of Christ and make binding/loosing decisions for the church as a whole.  That is like giving every employee executive authority. 

 

I think my main objection is that Jesus never states that only one person will have keys to the kingdom. I agree, that Peter lead the early church, but there isn't any directive in scripture that limits it to one person. 

 

Neither is there any directive which gives no limits to the keys, so all we can go off is what actually happened.  In practice, it is clear who could and could not bind.  We can infer what the directive was from our limited scriptural writings by how it was practiced and perceived at the time.   

Edited November 14, 2013 by pogi