Gender Is Eternal

[danielwoods]

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. 

 

 

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?

 

 

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. 

 

 

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.   

 

As for other Apostles using the keys. I think that Paul made quite a few declarations (binding and loosing) in his letters (and by implication in person as well). I agree he sought approval from Peter later, but he already had the Holy Spirit's approval, so if Peter had objected, who knows Paul might have ignored him. I think another example is James (who wasn't an apostle, but the brother of Jesus). He wasn't even a believer when Jesus died. Yet he was a huge leader in the Church, to the point that his book has a lot of directives to the believers everywhere. And lastly I think that John, who lived the longest, also did the same. His letters to the seven churches is a good example of that. 

 

I guess my point is that God uses those whom he wishes and when he wishes. Regardless of what church organization one belongs to. 

[EllenMaksoud]

 

 

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. 

 

Gosh, now you are going to force me to go back and study some more.   So, correct me if I am wrong please, Peter lived about 50 years after Jesus Christ was crucified, perhaps longer. So, my assumption was he had adequate time to assume this role of being the Rock of the Church Mt 16:18  I am only vaugely familiar with the term "Keys". IN reading about it in D&C 107 I can see that the subject will become very convoluted. And while I tend to be skeptical about such things, it is easy to see that Priesthood holders know things I can not discern.

 

And though I know that at first the Apostles thought the Church at first would be a Jewish Church, I know that later all were taught. It "seems" like a shift occured around Matt 28, but I am unclear what triggered that apparent change.

Edited November 14, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[thesometimesaint]

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.

If I want to learn mathematics. I'll go to a mathematician.

If I want to learn how to drive a car. I'll go to someone whom knows how to drive a car.

If I want to learn the law. I'll go to the law books, and probably talk to a lawyer.

etc., etc., etc..

Why would it be any different than if I wanted to learn about God? It seems logical to me that I'm going to go to someone whom knows more about God than I do.

 

I don't believe it is a milk diet. I'm always discovering different and sometimes challenging ways of honoring my God by serving my fellow man.

 

PS. The Gospel is the good news. It is also a call to serve.

Edited November 14, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stargazer]

Disappointment based on our choices is fine with me. I do have a hard time with someone making the choices he or she was supposed to make and then being disappointed because God said so.

 

I do believe it is possible that some individuals might not join the church because the Spirit declines to give them a testimony, for one reason or another.  One such might be General Doniphan, who accomplished more for the church OUT of it than he could IN it.  In such cases, I do believe that those folks will not lose their reward.

[Stone holm]

If I want to learn mathematics. I'll go to a mathematician.

If I want to learn how to drive a car. I'll go to someone whom knows how to drive a car.

If I want to learn the law. I'll go to the law books, and probably talk to a lawyer.

etc., etc., etc..

Why would it be any different than if I wanted to learn about God? It seems logical to me that I'm going to go to someone whom knows more about God than I do.

 

I don't believe it is a milk diet. I'm always discovering different and sometimes challenging ways of honoring my God by serving my fellow man.

 

PS. The Gospel is the good news. It is also a call to serve.

 

Except that you don't have to learn mathematics or how to drive a car for eternal purposes -- well you probably will have to take a remedial class in the afterlife to prepare you for exaltation, I personally consider that to be part of my repentance process in hell -- with regards to law, you have to not only learn it but have to become one with it (talking about the law of the Gospel) -- yes these are important tools and helps to gaining personal knowledge, but that does not mean you are not entitled to and probably have a duty to obtain a knowledge yourself by a form of direct revelation.  My wife favors a heavy diet of "raw milk", I confess I prefer a good pot roast.  To each their own, I guess.

[thesometimesaint]

Even Christ had to learn line upon line from here a little and from there a little.

 

I prefer a good medium doneness, 1 1/2 inch thick Rib Eye steak myself.

Edited November 14, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

As for other Apostles using the keys. I think that Paul made quite a few declarations (binding and loosing) in his letters (and by implication in person as well). I agree he sought approval from Peter later, but he already had the Holy Spirit's approval, so if Peter had objected, who knows Paul might have ignored him. I think another example is James (who wasn't an apostle, but the brother of Jesus). He wasn't even a believer when Jesus died. Yet he was a huge leader in the Church, to the point that his book has a lot of directives to the believers everywhere. And lastly I think that John, who lived the longest, also did the same. His letters to the seven churches is a good example of that. 

 

I guess my point is that God uses those whom he wishes and when he wishes. Regardless of what church organization one belongs to. 

 

I don't disagree that the Apostles use the keys.  Matt 18:18 used the plural "ye" when speaking to the Apostles about binding and loosing.  In the LDS church all 12 Apostles hold the keys as a group, but not individually.  They can use those keys to bind and loose under the authority of the president who is the sole individual on earth who holds all keys.

 

Do you honestly believe that any believer would have been permitted to act authoritatively in teaching binding doctrines independent of the church authorities?  The New Testament proves that this was not the case.  The apostles were constantly writing letters to believers, correcting them of false doctrines and teachings that were going around in the church.  This idea of equal authority and independence from a president or prophet is a modern fabrication and would have been viewed as heretical in the early church.  There was never a time in scripture when the believers were not under binding oath to obey the word of God as they proceeded forth from the one who had authority to speak for the Lord.

 

You are not grasping the weight of binding and loosing as it was taught and practiced.  We are talking about declaring the binding word of the Lord that all were bound to obey by the authority of heaven.  We are not talking about personal inspiration and revelation that we are all entitled to, to guide and direct our own lives, we are talking about receiving revelation to guide and direct the entire body of believers.   

Until you grasp the authority required to do such an act, we are never going to get anywhere.  You seem to be disregarding all evidence (including your own), in support of your own beliefs which would have been viewed as heretical in the time of Christ. 

Edited November 14, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

 

I guess my point is that God uses those whom he wishes and when he wishes. Regardless of what church organization one belongs to. 

 

I don't disagree with this.  God uses whoever he wants to bring about his purposes.  The LDS recognize his hand all throughout the world in different religions, individuals, and groups.  While being instruments in the hands of God, they fall short of the authority to declare the binding word of God that all are bound to obey by the authority of heaven.  We are talking about their words becoming binding scripture and gospel to all believers.  This is the authority that Christ Gave to Peter and the Apostles.  Hence, their words became gospel and scripture, because they held the keys.  Without these keys and authority, their words would not be found in the Bible today but would have been disregarded as non-binding.  Inspirational perhaps, but not binding.  Do you see the difference?

Edited November 14, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

Gosh, now you are going to force me to go back and study some more.   So, correct me if I am wrong please, Peter lived about 50 years after Jesus Christ was crucified, perhaps longer. So, my assumption was he had adequate time to assume this role of being the Rock of the Church Mt 16:18  I am only vaugely familiar with the term "Keys". IN reading about it in D&C 107 I can see that the subject will become very convoluted. And while I tend to be skeptical about such things, it is easy to see that Priesthood holders know things I can not discern.

 

The LDS understanding of the rock that Christ referred to in Matt 16 (upon which his church would be established) was the rock of revelation.  Note that in the previous verses they were discussing revelation given to Peter that Jesus was indeed the Christ.  Christ is the rock and the cornerstone, it is through revelation to those who hold the keys, that Christ governs his affairs in the church.  

 

As convoluted as the idea of keys may seem to you, they actually keep the affairs of the church from getting "convoluted."  It is how the church organization is so effectively managed throughout the world.  Keys are actually a very simple principle and create order in the church.  They prevent false doctrines, teaching, and practices from arising in the church.  It is through these keys that Christ governs his church.  Without them, it is a free for all and contradictions and confusion would abound. 

 

Here are a couple of links that might help you understand keys better. 

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Keys_of_the_Priesthood

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/PDF/Priesthood%20Keys.pdf

[Stone holm]

Even Christ had to learn line upon line from here a little and from there a little.

 

I prefer a good medium doneness, 1 1/2 inch thick Rib Eye steak myself.

 

Except He was teaching in the Temple by age 12.  I prefer a little meat myself whether its fully cooked or not -- just not completely raw.

[pogi]

And though I know that at first the Apostles thought the Church at first would be a Jewish Church, I know that later all were taught. It "seems" like a shift occured around Matt 28, but I am unclear what triggered that apparent change.

 

In Mat 10, Jesus was clear that the gentiles were not to be proselytized.  Only after Christ had fulfilled the law of Moses through the shedding of blood did the new covenant begin, which allowed the gospel to be preached to the gentiles.  See Matt 26:28 and Hebrews 9:14-17. 

 

The baptizing of the gentiles was such a radical idea that the apostles perhaps did not quite grasp the scope of the injunction in Matt 28.  The 12 tribes had been scattered throughout the world, perhaps they thought that he was speaking of them.  It took a shaking of Peter (note that it came through Peter) through vision in Acts 10 before this injunction was fully understood.  It was only through the one who held the keys on earth that that the gentiles could be bound into the new covenant. 

Edited November 14, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

In Mat 10, Jesus was clear that the gentiles were not to be proselytized.  Only after Christ had fulfilled the law of Moses through the shedding of blood did the new covenant begin, which allowed the gospel to be preached to the gentiles.  See Matt 26:28 and Hebrews 9:14-17. 

 

The baptizing of the gentiles was such a radical idea that the apostles perhaps did not quite grasp the scope of the injunction in Matt 28.  The 12 tribes had been scattered throughout the world, perhaps they thought that he was speaking of them.  It took a shaking of Peter (note that it came through Peter) through vision in Acts 10 before this injunction was fully understood.  It was only through the one who held the keys on earth that that the gentiles could be bound into the new covenant. 

 

Interesting observation.  I remember my son when he came home from his mission in Spain, mentioning that they were not to proselytize the Gypsies.

[danielwoods]

I don't disagree that the Apostles use the keys.  Matt 18:18 used the plural "ye" when speaking to the Apostles about binding and loosing.  In the LDS church all 12 Apostles hold the keys as a group, but not individually.  They can use those keys to bind and loose under the authority of the president who is the sole individual on earth who holds all keys.

 

Do you honestly believe that any believer would have been permitted to act authoritatively in teaching binding doctrines independent of the church authorities?  The New Testament proves that this was not the case.  The apostles were constantly writing letters to believers, correcting them of false doctrines and teachings that were going around in the church.  This idea of equal authority and independence from a president or prophet is a modern fabrication and would have been viewed as heretical in the early church.  There was never a time in scripture when the believers were not under binding oath to obey the word of God as they proceeded forth from the one who had authority to speak for the Lord.

 

You are not grasping the weight of binding and loosing as it was taught and practiced.  We are talking about declaring the binding word of the Lord that all were bound to obey by the authority of heaven.  We are not talking about personal inspiration and revelation that we are all entitled to, to guide and direct our own lives, we are talking about receiving revelation to guide and direct the entire body of believers.   

Until you grasp the authority required to do such an act, we are never going to get anywhere.  You seem to be disregarding all evidence (including your own), in support of your own beliefs which would have been viewed as heretical to Peter. 

 

Then I guess James, the brother of Jesus, disproves your contention that it had to be only Apostles. 

 

 

 

The LDS understanding of the rock that Christ referred to in Matt 16 (upon which his church would be established) was the rock of revelation.  Note that in the previous verses they were discussing revelation given to Peter that Jesus was indeed the Christ.  Christ is the rock and the cornerstone, it is through revelation to those who hold the keys, that Christ governs his affairs in the church.  

 

As convoluted as the idea of keys may seem to you, they actually keep the affairs of the church from getting "convoluted."  It is how the church organization is so effectively managed throughout the world.  Keys are actually a very simple principle and create order in the church.  They prevent false doctrines, teaching, and practices from arising in the church.  It is through these keys that Christ governs his church.  Without them, it is a free for all and contradictions and confusion would abound. 

 

Here are a couple of links that might help you understand keys better. 

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Keys_of_the_Priesthood

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/PDF/Priesthood%20Keys.pdf

 

 

The idea that the "keys" were given to only 12 guys to govern the whole church around the world (over 7,000 different languages and people groups), is not supported by scripture or reality. The claim that without these 12 guys and the "Keys" it would be a "free for all..." is to display a lack of confidence and faith in Christ alone who is the actual head of the church. Notice that Christ said to Peter, "I will build my church."

 

I would contend that each and every people group would have leaders that govern the church in their areas, both culturally and geologically. And would do so far more effectively than listening to a top down organization that is millions of miles away. Christ is in all believers, and he governs his church, both by his Spirit and by his leaders who are local and speak the language and the culture, because somethings things are right or wrong in one culture but don't matter so much in another. The keys you refer to, are available to any believer willing and humble enough to lead, and Christ has been building his Church and will continue. 

[Stone holm]

Then I guess James, the brother of Jesus, disproves your contention that it had to be only Apostles. 

 

 

 

The idea that the "keys" were given to only 12 guys to govern the whole church around the world (over 7,000 different languages and people groups), is not supported by scripture or reality. The claim that without these 12 guys and the "Keys" it would be a "free for all..." is to display a lack of confidence and faith in Christ alone who is the actual head of the church. Notice that Christ said to Peter, "I will build my church."

 

I would contend that each and every people group would have leaders that govern the church in their areas, both culturally and geologically. And would do so far more effectively than listening to a top down organization that is millions of miles away. Christ is in all believers, and he governs his church, both by his Spirit and by his leaders who are local and speak the language and the culture, because somethings things are right or wrong in one culture but don't matter so much in another. The keys you refer to, are available to any believer willing and humble enough to lead, and Christ has been building his Church and will continue.

Except I don't believe that is how it is suppose to work, if the First Presidency dissolves and 12 do not survive, then it devolves onto First Quorum of Seventy and so forth, you have to eradicate all of the Melchizedec quorums before the Church cannot reconstitute itself, least wise that is how my feeble memory recalls it.

[Flyonthewall]

Then I guess James, the brother of Jesus, disproves your contention that it had to be only Apostles. 

 

 

 

The idea that the "keys" were given to only 12 guys to govern the whole church around the world (over 7,000 different languages and people groups), is not supported by scripture or reality. The claim that without these 12 guys and the "Keys" it would be a "free for all..." is to display a lack of confidence and faith in Christ alone who is the actual head of the church. Notice that Christ said to Peter, "I will build my church."

 

I would contend that each and every people group would have leaders that govern the church in their areas, both culturally and geologically. And would do so far more effectively than listening to a top down organization that is millions of miles away. Christ is in all believers, and he governs his church, both by his Spirit and by his leaders who are local and speak the language and the culture, because somethings things are right or wrong in one culture but don't matter so much in another. The keys you refer to, are available to any believer willing and humble enough to lead, and Christ has been building his Church and will continue.

FWIW... here is part of an article explaining how we view keys. Nobody is saying there are only 12 or 15 people in the world that hold keys - keys are delegated through out the church worldwide. So in a sense we are in agreement that there are local leaders throughout the world that hold keys.

From http://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/05/priesthood-keys?lang=eng

What do priesthood keys do? Why are they necessary?

Ordinances such as baptism and the sacrament help us to return to Heavenly Father in the celestial kingdom. Through the keys of the priesthood, the Church administers these ordinances and provides an organization to carry on the work of the Lord in an orderly manner—“Mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion” (D&C 132: .

So, for instance, although the Church has many worthy priesthood holders, they need authorization from someone holding keys before performing most ordinances. For example, if Aaronic Priesthood holders hear about a homebound ward member who would like to receive the sacrament at home, they cannot simply go and administer the sacrament to that member because they believe it’s the right thing to do. They must be authorized by the bishop, who holds the keys over the Aaronic Priesthood. And a father who holds the priesthood cannot simply baptize his 8-year-old daughter or ordain his 12-year-old son to the Aaronic Priesthood without first being authorized by the bishop to do so.

Who has priesthood keys?

Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold all the keys necessary for governing the Church. Only the President of the Church has the right to exercise all of those keys. He delegates these keys to others who preside in the Church—temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents, district presidents, bishops, branch presidents, and quorum presidents, including deacons and teachers quorum presidents.

What is the difference between holding keys and having a calling?

Having a calling means having responsibilities; holding keys means presiding over and directing the work of the priesthood. For instance, a ward Young Men president works under the direction of the bishop, who holds keys over the ward, but the Young Men president’s responsibilities do not include presiding over the priesthood, so he does not receive keys. The keys to direct the work of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward belong to the bishop, the teachers quorum president, and the deacons quorum president.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Flyonthewall

[pogi]

Then I guess James, the brother of Jesus, disproves your contention that it had to be only Apostles. 

 

My argument is that the 12 Apostles hold all of the keys together as a quorum.  As a united quorum they hold the same authority as the president of the quorum of the 12 who holds all of the keys (Peter).  There is another quorum below the 12 called the quorum of the 70, who also hold all of the same keys that the quorum of the 12 hold.  James, the brother of Jared (Edit: Ha, ha, I mean Jesus) was "the first of the Seventy Disciples,"  Meaning that he was the president of this quorum of 70.  In the LDS church, we consider the quorum of the 70, quorum of the 12 Apostles, and the First Presidency the "General Authorities" of the Church.  As president of the 70, James was a presiding general authority in the Church and did hold the keys under the direction of Peter.  In fact, he was the presiding authority over all of Jerusalem. 

 

Flyonthewall is correct in that these keys are passed down to all of the local leaders in the Church, but without approval of the president of the Church, these local leaders cannot make binding decisions for the church as a whole.  

 

I would contend that each and every people group would have leaders that govern the church in their areas, both culturally and geologically. And would do so far more effectively than listening to a top down organization that is millions of miles away. Christ is in all believers, and he governs his church, both by his Spirit and by his leaders who are local and speak the language and the culture, because somethings things are right or wrong in one culture but don't matter so much in another. The keys you refer to, are available to any believer willing and humble enough to lead, and Christ has been building his Church and will continue. 

 

I have more to comment about this, but I have to go for now.

Edited November 15, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Except He was teaching in the Temple by age 12.  I prefer a little meat myself whether its fully cooked or not -- just not completely raw.

 

I'm not entirely up on my ancient Judaism, but I think at age 12-13 a young man was considered an adult for religious purposes. Some beef, and seafood dishes are served raw. NEVER eat undercooked poultry it can make you VERY sick.

[danielwoods]

My argument is that the 12 Apostles hold all of the keys together as a quorum.  As a united quorum they hold the same authority as the president of the quorum of the 12 who holds all of the keys (Peter).  There is another quorum below the 12 called the quorum of the 70, who also hold all of the same keys that the quorum of the 12 hold.  James, the brother of Jared (Edit: Ha, ha, I mean Jesus) was "the first of the Seventy Disciples,"  Meaning that he was the president of this quorum of 70.  In the LDS church, we consider the quorum of the 70, quorum of the 12 Apostles, and the First Presidency the "General Authorities" of the Church.  As president of the 70, James was a presiding general authority in the Church and did hold the keys under the direction of Peter.  In fact, he was the presiding authority over all of Jerusalem. 

 

Flyonthewall is correct in that these keys are passed down to all of the local leaders in the Church, but without approval of the president of the Church, these local leaders cannot make binding decisions for the church as a whole.  

 

 

I have more to comment about this, but I have to go for now.

 

The designations the LDS give these (quorum of 12 and 70, etc.) people I don't see Jesus establishing his church in this way. For example. Jesus said I give you the keys to the kingdom. He didn't say, "OK, these keys I give you, you will pass them to another and so on...". Rather, it was more of an opening of Heaven and "here is the way to knowledge to manage my church...". He actually said many times, that anyone, or all may come to him. Now, of course there is organization and maturity among leaders, but I don't see that Jesus ever intended there to be highly bureaucratic and hierarchical system of Church government.

[thesometimesaint]

The principle of the Quorum of the Twelve is firmly established in the Bible. Upon the death of Judas they drew lots to choose whom was to be added to the quorum.

 

These verses sound pretty bureaucratic, and hierarchical, to me.

 

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:

 

The Quorum of the Seventy is also established in the Bible.

Gospel of Luke 10:1

Edited November 15, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

The keys you refer to, are available to any believer willing and humble enough to lead, and Christ has been building his Church and will continue. 

 

How do these willing leaders receive the Priesthood and the keys to bind and loose?  School? Does a piece of paper give them this authority?  I don't remember that part in the Bible.

The Bible is clear that people do not choose the priesthood and the keys, rather they are chosen by those who are in authority through the spirit of revelation.  It states, "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4).  One does not seek after the priesthood, rather they are called into the priesthood as was Aaron.  How was Aaron called?  Moses received inspiration from God to call Aaron as a high priest and Moses went to Aaron, not the other way around.  See Ex. 28:1. 

 

So I understand your perspective, can you define Christ's Church for me?

 

The designations the LDS give these (quorum of 12 and 70, etc.) people I don't see Jesus establishing his church in this way. For example. Jesus said I give you the keys to the kingdom. He didn't say, "OK, these keys I give you, you will pass them to another and so on...". Rather, it was more of an opening of Heaven and "here is the way to knowledge to manage my church...". He actually said many times, that anyone, or all may come to him. Now, of course there is organization and maturity among leaders, but I don't see that Jesus ever intended there to be highly bureaucratic and hierarchical system of Church government.

 

Yes, all may come to him.  This passage has nothing to do with keys and priesthood.  The Bible gives many examples of how the rights of office are passed on.  Moses ordained Joshua to be his successor by the laying on of hands (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9).  Jesus' apostles used this procedure in authorizing seven men to manage practical economic matters in the early church (Acts 6:1-6).  Paul and Barnabas were ordained as missionaries by the laying on of hands (Acts 13:3).  Peter gave his successor the keys to the kingdom.  Note that in all examples in scripture, a man is always called and ordained by one who is in authority.   

 

daniel, both the old testament and the organization of Christ's church in the new testament is set up in a hierarchical fashion, with Christ as the head.  There is always a "mouthpiece" for God or a prophet, there were 12 apostles there was a quorum of 70 (these are not latter day designations, this was the original organization of Christ's church, they are Biblical), there were bishops, etc. etc. etc.  There was a very clear order and organization where a man must be called by one in authority.  This non-hierarchical organization where each member had equal authority and right to office is simply not scriptural.  

 

There is not a single reference to the priesthood or the keys thereof magically descending from heaven on the heads of those who really wanted to lead.  That simply is not how it happened.  You could not become an apostle because you really wanted to.  You could not become a bishop because you want to serve.  You could not become a high priest by praying really hard and asking for this gift to descend upon you.  Simon made it clear that it cannot be purchased either.   They were always ordained by one already holding the keys and authority after being called by God.  They are given from God to man (Christ to Peter) then from man to man.  That is what the scriptures suggest.  Men were always called into office. 

Edited November 15, 2013 by pogi

[danielwoods]

How do these willing leaders receive the Priesthood and the keys to bind and loose?  School? Does a piece of paper give them this authority?  I don't remember that part in the Bible.

The Bible is clear that people do not choose the priesthood and the keys, rather they are chosen by those who are in authority through the spirit of revelation.  It states, "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4).  One does not seek after the priesthood, rather they are called into the priesthood as was Aaron.  How was Aaron called?  Moses received inspiration from God to call Aaron as a high priest and Moses went to Aaron, not the other way around.  See Ex. 28:1. 

 

So I understand your perspective, can you define Christ's Church for me?

 

 

Yes, all may come to him.  This passage has nothing to do with keys and priesthood.  The Bible gives many examples of how the rights of office are passed on.  Moses ordained Joshua to be his successor by the laying on of hands (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9).  Jesus' apostles used this procedure in authorizing seven men to manage practical economic matters in the early church (Acts 6:1-6).  Paul and Barnabas were ordained as missionaries by the laying on of hands (Acts 13:3).  Peter gave his successor the keys to the kingdom.  Note that in all examples in scripture, a man is always called and ordained by one who is in authority.   

 

daniel, both the old testament and the organization of Christ's church in the new testament is set up in a hierarchical fashion, with Christ as the head.  There is always a "mouthpiece" for God or a prophet, there were 12 apostles there was a quorum of 70 (these are not latter day designations, this was the original organization of Christ's church, they are Biblical), there were bishops, etc. etc. etc.  There was a very clear order and organization where a man must be called by one in authority.  This non-hierarchical organization where each member had equal authority and right to office is simply not scriptural.  

 

There is not a single reference to the priesthood or the keys thereof magically descending from heaven on the heads of those who really wanted to lead.  That simply is not how it happened.  You could not become an apostle because you really wanted to.  You could not become a bishop because you want to serve.  You could not become a high priest by praying really hard and asking for this gift to descend upon you.  Simon made it clear that it cannot be purchased either.   They were always ordained by one already holding the keys and authority after being called by God.  They are given from God to man (Christ to Peter) then from man to man.  That is what the scriptures suggest.  Men were always called into office.

 

 

There is no a single reference to the priesthood or keys being transferred either. 

Rather, Peter states that all who are believers are apart of the Priesthood. Paul has quite a bit of instruction to both Timothy and Titus about church planting and lists the qualifications for, and ordaining elders/Bishops. It's rather interesting that the "priesthood" isn't ever mentioned. Seems it would have been an opportune time to mention it. There is also an interesting statement in 1Tim. 3:1 where Paul states, "if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." And then goes on to list the qualifications of being a bishop. Notice that it was Timothy who would ordain those who wanted to be bishops. Their desire to be a bishop is what drove them. My only point here is that God gives us gifts and desires, and they are what compel us. Not a top down organization telling people what to do. God changes our hearts from the inside out, and this is the foundation of what drives ministry in God's economy. 

[pogi]

 There is no a single reference to the priesthood or keys being transferred either. 

 

Maybe you missed it but I just gave you several references.  Moses to Aaron, Moses to Joshua, Christ to Peter, Peter to his successor.  

 

 Rather, Peter states that all who are believers are apart of the Priesthood. 

 

True, they are a part of the priesthood, meaning they all take part in the priesthood.  That is not to say that they hold the priesthood.  We have already been through this, it is evident that the women were not authorized to hold the priesthood so your understanding of that passage is obviously misguided.

 

Paul has quite a bit of instruction to both Timothy and Titus about church planting and lists the qualifications for, and ordaining elders/Bishops. It's rather interesting that the "priesthood" isn't ever mentioned. 

 

Not that interesting.  To be ordained to an office of elder or bishop, one must hold the priesthood already.  These are offices in the priesthood.

 

 Notice that it was Timothy who would ordain those who wanted to be bishops. Their desire to be a bishop is what drove them. My only point here is that God gives us gifts and desires, and they are what compel us. Not a top down organization telling people what to do. 

 

Bishops most certainly have qualifications and are interviewed for worthiness, they also must have a desire to serve.  I don't disagree.  Again, it is clear that a man must be "called of God as was Aaron", who was called of God through Moses.  Note who gave them the authority to serve in that office of bishop.  It was Timothy, not Jesus directly.  This demonstrates again that the authority is passed from man to man, but originates from God.  It is evident that Peter was the first to receive this authority and then passed it on to the other apostles and offices.  Top down.  Christ to Peter, Peter to Timothy, Timothy to the Bishops, etc. etc.  This is how authority could be traced directly back to Christ. 

 

 God changes our hearts from the inside out, and this is the foundation of what drives ministry in God's economy. 

 

Many non-Mormons misunderstand us the same way you do.  We do not believe that the change of heart is an outside-in experience.  Many people erroneously assume that because we have a prophet, we do not have personal access to God, but must go through man first.  This is simply not the case.  We do not experience a change of heart any different than you.  The keys do not change us, the priesthood does not change us, it is the Sprit of the Lord that changes us.  We all have part in the economy of God, that is not to say that we have binding and loosing authority to command as Moses or Peter by the authority of God.  Our words do not become binding scripture and doctrine for others because we have a change of heart.  How does that not seem ridiculous to you?

 

You have not answered me as to you your definition of Christ's Church. 

Edited November 15, 2013 by pogi

[danielwoods]

Maybe you missed it but I just gave you several references.  Moses to Aaron, Moses to Joshua, Christ to Peter, Peter to his successor.  

 

 

True, they are a part of the priesthood, meaning they all take part in the priesthood.  That is not to say that they hold the priesthood.  We have already been through this, it is evident that the women were not authorized to hold the priesthood so your understanding of that passage is obviously misguided.

 

 

Not that interesting.  To be ordained to an office of elder or bishop, one must hold the priesthood already.  These are offices in the priesthood.

 

 

Bishops most certainly have qualifications and are interviewed for worthiness, they also must have a desire to serve.  I don't disagree.  Again, it is clear that a man must be "called of God as was Aaron", who was called of God through Moses.  Note who gave them the authority to serve in that office of bishop.  It was Timothy, not Jesus directly.  This demonstrates again that the authority is passed from man to man, but originates from God.  It is evident that Peter was the first to receive this authority and then passed it on to the other apostles and offices.  Top down.  Christ to Peter, Peter to Timothy, Timothy to the Bishops, etc. etc.  This is how authority could be traced directly back to Christ. 

 

 

Many non-Mormons misunderstand us the same way you do.  We do not believe that the change of heart is an outside-in experience.  Many people erroneously assume that because we have a prophet, we do not have personal access to God, but must go through man first.  This is simply not the case.  We do not experience a change of heart any different than you.  The keys do not change us, the priesthood does not change us, it is the Sprit of the Lord that changes us.  We all have part in the economy of God, that is not to say that we have binding and loosing authority to command as Moses or Peter by the authority of God.  Our words do not become binding scripture and doctrine for others because we have a change of heart.  How does that not seem ridiculous to you?

 

You have not answered me as to you your definition of Christ's Church. 

 

I didn't miss the several references to Moses to Aaron etc. I simply don't think they are applicable. There is no priesthood that is passed down to only men or select men from the old covenant. 

 

I must have missed where it was evident that women were not authorized to hold the priesthood. 

 

As far as authority passing from man to man. I agree to a point, in that Paul clearly supported/authorized Timothy and Titus as pastors/teachers. Where I disagree is that Peter was somehow over Paul. And what I mean by that is Jesus didn't just give authority to Peter, but to any of the leaders (James included), and even Paul who came later.

 

I hear you when you state that you (as in all LDS) have direct access to God, and Christ changes you from the inside out. Where I disagree is what I see on a daily basis. My experience with the LDS everyday demonstrates more of a "Do this and that, but don't do this or that..." Sort of a belief system. Which is fine, that's just my experience.

 

As far as binding and loosing being only applied to creating scripture, I don't think it's limited to that. I also think it extends to teaching and interpreting scripture. 

 

As far what my definition of Christ Church is? The Ekklesia. "The Called out ones" - those who have put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation are apart of the church of Christ. 

[pogi]

I hear you when you state that you (as in all LDS) have direct access to God, and Christ changes you from the inside out. Where I disagree is what I see on a daily basis. My experience with the LDS everyday demonstrates more of a "Do this and that, but don't do this or that..." Sort of a belief system. Which is fine, that's just my experience.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Are you saying that one cannot live by the spirit and the commandments at the same time?  Do you not subscribe to the "do this and that, but don't do this or that's" of the Bible?  One cannot live in the spirit while in opposition to God's command at the same time. 

 

You make it seem like our leaders are oppressive dictators standing in unrighteous dominion.  We have an unpaid clergy for the most part, those who are in positions of authority are called to these positions.  they are lay members called to positions of service. "...but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)  

[pogi]

As far as binding and loosing being only applied to creating scripture, I don't think it's limited to that. I also think it extends to teaching and interpreting scripture. 

Neither does it exclude it.  Please do tell, who holds this authority to create scripture on earth today?

 

 

As far what my definition of Christ Church is? The Ekklesia. "The Called out ones" - those who have put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation are apart of the church of Christ. 

This is still unclear to me.  Are you saying the church is a non-denominational, non-organizational, office-less, structure-less, conglomeration of believers who put their faith in Christ alone?

Edited November 16, 2013 by pogi