Gender Is Eternal

[pogi]

Yes that is essentially correct. 

 

Thanks,

 

I got curious and searched and read every reference to the words "bind" and "loose" in the bible form my scripture app.

 

This is what I came up with:

 

Bind/bound = Tie together or secure with cords (Exodus 28:28, Matt 13:30, Acts 12:

 

Bind/bound = To enter/duty to an obligatory commitment, covenant, or vow (Numbers 30:2, 3, 13; Romans 7:2)  Marriage and baptism come to mind.

 

Bind/bound = Enslave, capture, imprison (Judges 15:12, Matt 12:29; Matt 22:13)

 

Bind/bound = heal, bandage, fix, or make whole (Job 5:18, Psalms 147:3, Isaiah 61:, Ezekiel 34:16)

 

Bind/bound = seal or solidify (Isaiah 8:16)

 

Bind/bound = Marriage (1 Corinthians 7:27)

 

Bind/bound = Unify into one (Colossians 3:14)

 

Loose = Set free from bonds, infirmity, devils, pain and death (Lev 14:7; Luke 13:12, Luke 13:16, Acts 2:24)

 

Loose = Untie cords  (Deut 25:9; Matt 21:2)

 

Loose = To divorce, free from covenant, or excommunicate (1 Corinthians 7:27, Matt 18:15-18)

 

 

I did not find one reference that used the word "bind" or "bound" to mean "making illegal" or "forbidden."

Nor did I find one reference that used the word "loose" to mean "legalize" or "acceptable."

 

The passage we are discussing was used again in Matt 18:18.  It is interesting to note the context it was used in.  He used it in the context of excommunication or removing an individual from the covenant, thereby becoming a "heathen".  No doubt binding and loosing is in reference to entering or being released from binding covenants.  These covenants can only be binding with the proper keys which bind or loose them.   No talk about making legal or illegal, that just does not fit in this context.  Do you see the symbology of keys (authority) in relation to binding and loosing (covenants)?  We are bound (sealed) by covenant through the ordinances of the gospel by one who holds the proper authority.  The symbology of covenants and marriage cannot be more clear, just look at what bind means - to tie together or unite with cords, seal or solidify, to make whole, to unite, to make one, to mary.  

 

Vs 19 is particularly interesting in the context of binding and loosing from vs 18.  It says "if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."  Notice how the binding and loosing is originated from man on earth (who hold the keys) and then validated by God in heaven, not the other way around as you suppose. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[danielwoods]

Thanks,

 

I got curious and searched and read every reference to the words "bind" and "loose" in the bible form my scripture app.

 

This is what I came up with:

 

Bind/bound = Tie together or secure with cords (Exodus 28:28, Matt 13:30, Acts 12:

 

Bind/bound = To enter/duty to an obligatory commitment, covenant, or vow (Numbers 30:2, 3, 13; Romans 7:2)  Marriage and baptism come to mind.

 

Bind/bound = Enslave, capture, imprison (Judges 15:12, Matt 12:29; Matt 22:13)

 

Bind/bound = heal, bandage, fix, or make whole (Job 5:18, Psalms 147:3, Isaiah 61:, Ezekiel 34:16)

 

Bind/bound = seal or solidify (Isaiah 8:16)

 

Bind/bound = Marriage (1 Corinthians 7:27)

 

Bind/bound = Unify into one (Colossians 3:14)

 

Loose = Set free from bonds, infirmity, devils, pain and death (Lev 14:7; Luke 13:12, Luke 13:16, Acts 2:24)

 

Loose = Untie cords  (Deut 25:9; Matt 21:2)

 

Loose = To divorce, free from covenant, or excommunicate (1 Corinthians 7:27, Matt 18:15-18)

 

 

I did not find one reference that used the word "bind" or "bound" to mean "making illegal" or "forbidden."

Nor did I find one reference that used the word "loose" to mean "legalize" or "acceptable."

 

The passage we are discussing was used again in Matt 18:18.  It is interesting to note the context it was used in.  He used it in the context of excommunication or removing an individual from the covenant, thereby becoming a "heathen".  No doubt binding and loosing is in reference to entering or being released from binding covenants.  These covenants can only be binding with the proper keys which bind or loose them.   No talk about making legal or illegal, that just does not fit in this context.  Do you see the symbology of keys (authority) in relation to binding and loosing (covenants)?  We are bound (sealed) by covenant through the ordinances of the gospel by one who holds the proper authority.  The symbology of covenants and marriage cannot be more clear, just look at what bind means - to tie together or unite with cords, seal or solidify, to make whole, to unite, to make one, to mary.  

 

Vs 19 is particularly interesting in the context of binding and loosing from vs 18.  It says "if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."  Notice how the binding and loosing is originated from man on earth (who hold the keys) and then validated by God in heaven, not the other way around as you suppose.

 

It's ok if you aren't interested in what it actually says. I'm not hear to beat anyone over with a stick. 

 

I understand the LDS "Keys". However, the concept simply isn't supported by the biblical text. 

 

If you really don't believe me, and think that the correct translation is "shall be bound in heaven..." Then ask yourself this question. Why does the NAS translate it this way, "shall have been bound in heaven."?

If Jesus was saying what you think he said, why wasn't a simple future used? Instead he used, a simple future [tense] followed by a perfect participle passive. If a simple future passive had been used it would mean an automatic heavenly endorsement of the Church’s actions, but it wasn't.

Do you think that some translators might have been influenced by the church to translate it this way, to make the passage sound as it was saying that heaven was endorsing the church's actions?

Even your example with vs. 18 can't mean "anything", nor does it mention any keys. The context is church discipline and church government. And if any believers are gathered in his name they (any of them) have the same access to the same heavenly knowledge by the Spirit that anyone else does. There are no special keys that only certain people hold. 

[strappinglad]

It's ok if you aren't interested in what it actually says.

Pot, allow me to introduce Kettle .

[pogi]

 

It's ok if you aren't interested in what it actually says. 

 

Their is no need to be snide.  I am trying to be respectful and understand your perspective.  I am very interested in what the scriptures actually say, that is why I spent so much time researching the words "bind" and "loose."  There seems to be some discrepency with your definition of those words, so I am left wondering what that verse actually means to you. 

 

Please provide scriptural evidence that demonstrates the word "bind" in the context of " to make illegal" and "loose" in the context of "to make legal."  Or, perhaps you are just not interested in what the text actually says.  Sorry, couldn't resist. 

 

 

If you really don't believe me, and think that the correct translation is "shall be bound in heaven..." Then ask yourself this question. Why does the NAS translate it this way, "shall have been bound in heaven."?

 

If you really don't believe me, ask yourself this question.  Why do the New international version, New living translation, English Standard Version, New American, Standard Version, King James, God's Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Duoy-Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation translate it "shall be bound in heaven"?

 

 

Do you think that some translators might have been influenced by the church to translate it this way, to make the passage sound as it was saying that heaven was endorsing the church's actions?

 

Given the above translations, your conspiracy theory does not hold water. 

 

 

Even your example with vs. 18 can't mean "anything", nor does it mention any keys. The context is church discipline and church government. And if any believers are gathered in his name they (any of them) have the same access to the same heavenly knowledge by the Spirit that anyone else does. There are no special keys that only certain people hold. 

 

What do you mean vs 18 can't mean anything?  It is used in the context of "loosing" from covenant, which flies in the face of your understanding of the word "loosing" and validates mine.  It also demonstrates that binding and loosing can only be done by someone with authority (the apostles).

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

There are no special keys that only certain people hold. 

 

So then what did Christ give Peter?  Something that he and everybody else already had?  Hmmm

 

If Christ gave me the keys to the kingdom of heaven, I would think that was pretty special.  Especially sense there is no record of it ever happening before or sense.  Doesn't that make it special?

 

The keys are obviously inseparably related to binding and loosing.  Isn't that what keys do?  These are verbs which are only performed by someone with authority or "keys."  The loosing (excommunication) discussed in Matt 18:18 could not be performed by someone without special keys or authority.  The binding and loosing of marriage (even in the legal sense) in 1 Corinthians could not have been performed by someone without the proper authority.  How could it not be more clear?

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[danielwoods]

Their is no need to be snide.  I am trying to be respectful and understand your perspective.  I am very interested in what the scriptures actually say, that is why I spent so much time researching the words "bind" and "loose."  There seems to be some discrepency with your definition of those words, so I am left wondering what that verse actually means to you. 

 

Please provide scriptural evidence that demonstrates the word "bind" in the context of " to make illegal" and "loose" in the context of "to make legal."  Or, perhaps you are just not interested in what the text actually says.  Sorry, couldn't resist. 

 

 

If you really don't believe me, ask yourself this question.  Why do the New international version, New living translation, English Standard Version, New American, Standard Version, King James, God's Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Duoy-Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation translate it "shall be bound in heaven"?

 

 

Given the above translations, your conspiracy theory does not hold water. 

 

 

What do you mean vs 18 can't mean anything?  It is used in the context of "loosing" from covenant, which flies in the face of your understanding of the word "loosing" and validates mine.  It also demonstrates that binding and loosing can only be done by someone with authority (the apostles).

 I don't disagree that the term bind and loose also means the things you mentioned. The context of these two passages indicate that we are talking about bind and loosing as Jewish Rabbi's used the term. Here are 4 different links that explain it better than I can. 

 

From a Jewish Encyclopedia - Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting."

From Wikipedia (quoting Encyclopedia Britannica) - Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority.

From a THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision. To "bind" in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" is to permit.

From  Hebrew Root - ""Binding and Loosing" is actually a phrase well-known to the rabbis... it refers to the authority to make binding rulings based on Scripture rather than apart from it."

 

As for what the verses say, the tense of the words is very important as it dictates meaning. I think there can be many reasons why a translator doesn't acknowledge the seemingly awkward combination of tenses found here. One certainly could be the influence of the church. I wouldn't expect the Catholic Church or the LDS church to abandoned their teachings of these two verses anytime soon. They are both locked in, and invested in a particular interpretation by which they derive "authority". I was taught growing up that "binding and loosing" was the authority we had over Satan, so that was an incorrect interpretation of the passage as well. 

The best example of the use of the Keys are Acts 10 and 15.

 

 

 

 

So then what did Christ give Peter?  Something that he and everybody else already had?  Hmmm

 

If Christ gave me the keys to the kingdom of heaven, I would think that was pretty special.  Especially sense there is no record of it ever happening before or sense.  Doesn't that make it special?

 

The keys are obviously inseparably related to binding and loosing.  Isn't that what keys do?  These are verbs which are only performed by someone with authority or "keys."  The loosing (excommunication) discussed in Matt 18:18 could not be performed by someone without special keys or authority.  The binding and loosing of marriage (even in the legal sense) in 1 Corinthians could not have been performed by someone without the proper authority.  How could it not be more clear?

Peter was the defacto leader at that time. He represented any believer who is also a leader. Ultimately Jesus is the head of the Church and our leader. Anyone who is leading under the spirit and guidance of the Holy Spirit has the "keys" or access to Jesus to decimate God's word.

[thesometimesaint]

Anyone who is leading under the spirit and guidance of the Holy Spirit has the "keys" or access to Jesus to decimate God's word.

 

That really isn't supportable from the Scriptures. We are all to disseminate God's word, Having the Keys to decide what is God's word is held by only one mortal at a time.

[wenglund]

Anyone who is leading under the spirit and guidance of the Holy Spirit has the "keys" or access to Jesus to decimate God's word.

 

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

However, to me, your perception not only misconstrues where keys may apply, but it somewhat defies the very notion of "keyes." As I understand things, keys are functionally intended to restrict access to and use of certain things. Keys aren't used for things intended to be accessed by most everyone, like public roads and parks and scriptures, etc. But, they are intended to restrict access and use of some things (such as acting in God's name). If everyone had keys to your home and car, then what would be the point of having keys since everyone could get in and use your home and car as they wished?  You have keys to your home and car to limit access and use.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[danielwoods]

That really isn't supportable from the Scriptures. We are all to disseminate God's word, Having the Keys to decide what is God's word is held by only one mortal at a time.

 

Where in the scriptures does it state that "one mortal decides what is God's word"? 

 

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

However, to me, your perception not only misconstrues where keys may apply, but it somewhat defies the very notion of "keyes." As I understand things, keys are functionally intended to restrict access to and use of certain things. Keys aren't used for things intended to be accessed by most everyone, like public roads and parks and scriptures, etc. But, they are intended to restrict access and use of some things (such as acting in God's name). If everyone had keys to your home and car, then what would be the point of having keys since everyone could get in and use your home and car as they wished?  You have keys to your home and car to limit access and use.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Right, Christ restricted it to who so ever will believe and follow him. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where in the scriptures does it state that "one mortal decides what is God's word"? 

 

 

 

Well it does say that the scriptures are not for private interpretation.  And we know that God reveals he secrets to his servants the prophets. So something tells me it is prophets that get to decide that.

[wenglund]

Right, Christ restricted it to who so ever will believe and follow him. 

 

Again, you are entitled to that opinion.

 

However, extending the previous analogies one step further, parents, like Christ and his believing and following family, may wish for their children to have free access to and use of their homes, nevertheless they may wisely wish to limit personal use of their car to when the children become of age and have demonstrated sufficient ability to safely drive their cars. In other words, parents may give their young children keys to their home, but may wait to give keys to the car to when the children mature, and this at certain times and occasions as the parents so direct. In my opinion, the same goes for Church membership, the priesthood, and priesthood offices.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Well it does say that the scriptures are not for private interpretation.  And we know that God reveals he secrets to his servants the prophets. So something tells me it is prophets that get to decide that.

 

Thanx.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanx.

YW. See we can agree on things. I just try to limit the things we disagree on. Ha. Carry on.

 

(hugs).

[thesometimesaint]

YW. See we can agree on things. I just try to limit the things we disagree on. Ha. Carry on.

 

(hugs).

I think we agree far more than we disagree. The good thing about friends is that they know all about you, and still like you anyway.

Edited November 12, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think we agree far more than we disagree. The good thing about friends is that they know all about you, and still like you anyway.

Isnt that the truth.

[pogi]

 I don't disagree that the term bind and loose also means the things you mentioned. The context of these two passages indicate that we are talking about bind and loosing as Jewish Rabbi's used the term. Here are 4 different links that explain it better than I can. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the links, I actually really enjoyed them and found them very permitting of my interpretation of keys (your understanding of keys does not seem to be supported by these links), but they are also very supportive of my understanding of binding and loosing.

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing

 

This link talks about how binding was understood to mean vow (covenant). Or in other words "to bind herself by bond."

 

I also found this bit interesting:

 

"in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church."

 

From your link http://cicministry.org/commentary/worldview0020.htm, it says:

 

"It might surprise many to find out that "binding and loosing" are about declaring the terms of entrance into the kingdom, and about determining what is or is not binding on Christians after they have been added to the church."  I do not disagree with this at all.  

 

Regarding the keys.  It is interesting that each and every one of your links supports our stance that binding and loosing can only be performed by those who have "divine authority."  (from your first link).  Not any random Joe could bind or loose. 

 

I loved this from, http://www.hebrewroot.com/Articles/mat_16.htm it says:

 

"Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose, which they used to “loose” us from the shackles of the Old Law and “bind” us to the Law of Christ."  It is beyond evident that the proper authority, or keys, are required to bind into covenant.  Baptism has eternal consequences and is binding in heaven, but it (the covenant) first had to be bound on earth (all in accord with the mind of Christ of course.)

 

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." 

 

Peter was the defacto leader at that time. He represented any believer who is also a leader. Ultimately Jesus is the head of the Church and our leader. Anyone who is leading under the spirit and guidance of the Holy Spirit has the "keys" or access to Jesus to decimate God's word.

 

I agree that Jesus is the head of the Church and our ultimate leader, but he has only authorized those with keys on earth to bind and loose in terms of covenant making and in terms of being his mouthpiece for the church as a whole.  Your own links demonstrate this point.  One of your links says of the keys to bind and loose  - "It is not the authority to change Scripture, but the authority to interpret Scripture.  It is not the authority to annul a command, but the authority to make a ruling on how to apply the command."  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.

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

That really isn't supportable from the Scriptures. We are all to disseminate God's word, Having the Keys to decide what is God's word is held by only one mortal at a time.

 

I don't think you worded that quite right.  We all have the keys to know, and hence decide, what is God's word, however, only the Prophet has the key to declare revelation binding upon the Church -- yet we also sustain the whole Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency as "prophets, seers, and revelators".  So depending on what you really meant, you might not be right on that.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think you worded that quite right.  We all have the keys to know, and hence decide, what is God's word, however, only the Prophet has the key to declare revelation binding upon the Church -- yet we also sustain the whole Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency as "prophets, seers, and revelators".  So depending on what you really meant, you might not be right on that.

 

Temple Recommend Question #4: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

 

In LDS belief it is true that he can't act alone, and have it be binding on the Church as a whole. it must be with unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[pogi]

We all have the keys to know, and hence decide, what is God's word, however, only the Prophet has the key to declare revelation binding upon the Church 

 

Keys are not held by everybody, at least not the keys we are speaking of.  The Spirit can indeed reveal to us individually the meaning of scripture, but this is not done through authoritative priesthood keys.

 

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., who was a counselor in the First Presidency, explained:

“Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to...give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church” (“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, July 31, 1954, 10).

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

Temple Recommend Question #4: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

 

In LDS belief it is true that he can't act alone, and have it be binding on the Church as a whole. it must be with unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Keys are not held by everybody, at least not the keys we are speaking of.  The Spirit can indeed reveal to us individually the meaning of scripture, but this is not done through authoritative priesthood keys.

 

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., who was a counselor in the First Presidency, explained:

“Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to...give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church” (“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, July 31, 1954, 10).

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."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

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.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Keys are not held by everybody, at least not the keys we are speaking of.  The Spirit can indeed reveal to us individually the meaning of scripture, but this is not done through authoritative priesthood keys.

 

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., who was a counselor in the First Presidency, explained:

“Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to...give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church” (“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, July 31, 1954, 10).

 

I think this is what TSS had in mind. It is what I had in mind when I said was I said.

[pogi]

I think this is what TSS had in mind. It is what I had in mind when I said was I said.

I thought so.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the links, I actually really enjoyed them and found them very permitting of my interpretation of keys (your understanding of keys does not seem to be supported by these links), but they are also very supportive of my understanding of binding and loosing.

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing

 

This link talks about how binding was understood to mean vow (covenant). Or in other words "to bind herself by bond."

 

I also found this bit interesting:

 

"in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church."

 

From your link http://cicministry.org/commentary/worldview0020.htm, it says:

 

"It might surprise many to find out that "binding and loosing" are about declaring the terms of entrance into the kingdom, and about determining what is or is not binding on Christians after they have been added to the church."  I do not disagree with this at all.  

 

Regarding the keys.  It is interesting that each and every one of your links supports our stance that binding and loosing can only be performed by those who have "divine authority."  (from your first link).  Not any random Joe could bind or loose. 

 

I loved this from, http://www.hebrewroot.com/Articles/mat_16.htm it says:

 

"Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose, which they used to “loose” us from the shackles of the Old Law and “bind” us to the Law of Christ."  It is beyond evident that the proper authority, or keys, are required to bind into covenant.  Baptism has eternal consequences and is binding in heaven, but it (the covenant) first had to be bound on earth (all in accord with the mind of Christ of course.)

 

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." 

 

 

I agree that Jesus is the head of the Church and our ultimate leader, but he has only authorized those with keys on earth to bind and loose in terms of covenant making and in terms of being his mouthpiece for the church as a whole.  Your own links demonstrate this point.  One of your links says of the keys to bind and loose  - "It is not the authority to change Scripture, but the authority to interpret Scripture.  It is not the authority to annul a command, but the authority to make a ruling on how to apply the command."  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.

Agreed.

 

I was really surprised that he gave you sources which supported your position and not his.

[mfbukowski]

Temple Recommend Question #4: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

 

In LDS belief it is true that he can't act alone, and have it be binding on the Church as a whole. it must be with unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

These two points seem incompatible.

 

If the prophet is the only one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys, it MUST be the case that he can "act alone" at least theoretically.  No one else has the keys to do anything except under his direction.