Stone holm Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 That sounds like unrighteous dominion.Nope sounds like my help mate as well.
Avatar4321 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 What do you make of these ECF quotes compiled by John Tvedtnes? Were these also contrived by Joseph Smith? What do they mean?http://bookofmormonresearch.org/dc-articles/priesthood-officesMichael SandersBook of Mormon BelieverIndependence, MOI find it very interesting that they associate the bishop with the aaronic high priest the same as Joseph did. Quite fascinating considering there isn't any reason to think Joseph knew about the ecf
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) he did just ask for a scripture. Nothing says it has to be from the bibleThat's the whole point- who cares that its not in the bible? 80% of what we believe is not in the bible. OH YEAH, he's got us now. You want a list of beliefs of ours that are not- thank God- Biblical? This is a real yawner. And look back on how many posts he repeats this nonsense. He is quite proud of himself. He hit another anti mormon site and got another yawner argument. Pardon my lack of vigor in defense of the one true church. They believe the bible is inerrant and then assume we do too and so we are supposed to be devastated with their brilliance. Its just another case of them not studying what we believe before trying to argue with us, or.... whatever. Edit- left out a word Edited January 20, 2015 by mfbukowski 3
Canadaigua Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 The problem is we can PROVE easily that all these people exercised the authority that today we call the Melchezidek Priesthood.But in perfect pedantic fashion, the lack of the term "Melchezidek" is what causes you to say they didn't hold it.A ridiculous claim on your part.So you would agree then that the Bible doesn't teach that Moses held the "Melchizedek Priesthood". Fair enough. Do you think that the Bible simply failed to address this fact OR do you think that the Bible was tampered with and this was edited out of the Bible?
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 It could be one or the other or both. None of those are prohibited by the Bible.
JLHPROF Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 So you would agree then that the Bible doesn't teach that Moses held the "Melchizedek Priesthood". Fair enough. Do you think that the Bible simply failed to address this fact OR do you think that the Bible was tampered with and this was edited out of the Bible? Whoa, old thread resurrection...I agree with the post above - it could be either, and we'll never likely know. It doesn't matter whether it's called the Melchizedek priesthood or not. The laws and ordinances and actions under it are the same. The method for obtaining it is the same. And since we are LDS and believe scripture beyond the Bible I absolutely believe that Moses held what we today call the Melchizedek priesthood as recorded in our scripture, regardless of whether that phrase was used in the OT.
Flyonthewall Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 In the beginning was the Priesthood. It did not need to be named because there was only one... The Preisthood. During the time of Moses, Moses was given the priesthood. There was no need to identify which priesthood it was because there was only one to choose from. When the House of Israel, the Israelites, rejected God and His attempt to teach them the fullness of the Gospel, there needed to be a change to the priesthood, a lesser preisthood to officiate in the lesser teachings or gospel. Thus the Aaronic/Levitical preisthood was formed. It is a subset of The Preisthood or the Preisthood after the order of Melchize**** as it is referred to subsequently. Now there is the full preisthood and a lesser preisthood. The lesser preisthood was in affect until Jesus Christ came and taught the fullness of the gospel. There may have been individual Prophets that held the higher preisthood during this time but the Mosaic law was run by the lesser preisthood. When Jesus Christ came, then there was a neccissity of a change in preisthood as described in the Bible. This is my take on it. It may be very simplistic but hopefully it clarifies things... or not. 1
Gillebre Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I believe that the authority was given when Jehovah was chosen by our Heavenly Father to be the Savior and Redeemer as part of His role in the Plan of Salvation. The authority of the Priesthood itself is unto the fulfilling of the Father's work and glory.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 That's the whole point- who cares that its not in the bible? 80% of what we believe is not in the bible. OH YEAH, he's got us now. You want a list of beliefs of ours that are not- thank God- Biblical? This is a real yawner. And look back on how many posts he repeats this nonsense. He is quite proud of himself. He hit another anti mormon site and got another yawner argument. Pardon my lack of vigor in defense of the one true church. They believe the bible is inerrant and then assume we do too and so we are supposed to be devastated with their brilliance. Its just another case of them not studying what we believe before trying to argue with us, or.... whatever. Edit- left out a word Actually we do come pretty close to an "inerrant" view of the Bible, along with other canonised scripture. What we don't hold is an "all-encompassing" view, which equates to "If it ain't in the Bible, it didn't happen." An assumption which some people think is entailed by inerrancy, but it really isn't. As far as I can tell, it's only entailed by not thinking things through. Regards, Russell
Russell C McGregor Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Actually we do come pretty close to an "inerrant" view of the Bible, along with other canonised scripture. What we don't hold is an "all-encompassing" view, which equates to "If it ain't in the Bible, it didn't happen."An assumption which some people think is entailed by inerrancy, but it really isn't.As far as I can tell, it's only entailed by not thinking things through.Regards,RussellJust to add to the above:The "all-encompassing" assumption I alluded to is the unspoken basis of a doctrine known as the "all-sufficiency" of scripture -- meaning, of course, the 66-book Protestant Bible.Note that "all-sufficiency" assumes that everything necessary for a Christian to know in order to be saved is found in the Bible. However, "all-sufficiency" is not found in the Bible, anywhere. It is not even hinted at.Therefore, "all-sufficiency" is a self-excluding doctrine. For if, guided by the assumption of "all-sufficiency" we must reject anything not found in the Bible, it rather remorselessly follows that we must reject "all-sufficiency" itself, since it is not found in the Bible!Regards,Russell The new tone is appreciated. Even one justified post report and you will be banned again. 2
Vance Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Just as "sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible and therefore due to "sola scriptura" must be rejected. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The new tone is appreciated. Even one justified post report and you will be banned again.Don't worry. I'm sure the previous complainer will find some excuse to take offense again.And I have absolutely no doubt where you will stand when he does.I think it a very good thing that the Pahoran account remains banned. It shows exactly where this board's priorities now lie. It does. Those who persistently demean and ridicule other posters and generate reports from multiple people are not welcome no matter who they are.
Canadaigua Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 Just as "sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible and therefore due to "sola scriptura" must be rejected.By this standard all of the unique teachings of Mormonism--not found in the Bible--must also be rejected. Your statement brings up an interesting topic for discussion which is what books should be included or excluded from the Bible. I will start a new thread on this.
Canadaigua Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 No, it is what you don't know but think you do that is causing you problems.Perhaps you could explain it for me--why do you think that LDS have so many unique beliefs that are not supported by the Bible? Missing books not included in the current Bible canon? Corrupted text?
Canadaigua Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 I believe that the authority was given when Jehovah was chosen by our Heavenly Father to be the Savior and Redeemer as part of His role in the Plan of Salvation. The authority of the Priesthood itself is unto the fulfilling of the Father's work and glory.Thanks for your post. If I understand your position correctly which is that Jesus has not always held the priesthood but rather obtained the priesthood sometime after his spiritual birth to Heavenly Mother--then this would be in agreement with some other LDS that I have spoken with. If this is indeed your position permit me to ask you a follow up question. Do you believe that Jesus has always been God--which would include the time prior to Him holding the priesthood?
Freedom Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Perhaps you could explain it for me--why do you think that LDS have so many unique beliefs that are not supported by the Bible? Missing books not included in the current Bible canon? Corrupted text?Perhaps you could explain for my why protestants have so may unique beliefs that are not supported by the teachings of Jesus found in the gospels. 1
Canadaigua Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 Perhaps you could explain for my why protestants have so may unique beliefs that are not supported by the teachings of Jesus found in the gospels. So your question for me is why do Protestants believe in the entire NT--not just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? To me that is a strange question since LDS also claim to believe in the entire New Testament not just the first four books, but I will be happy to answer your question. Protestants believe in the entire NT--not just the first four of 27 NT books. One could come to the impression from your post that you accept only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as scripture and reject the remaining 23 books of the NT. I am sure that is not your position. Or is it?
Freedom Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 So your question for me is why do Protestants believe in the entire NT--not just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? To me that is a strange question since LDS also claim to believe in the entire New Testament not just the first four books, but I will be happy to answer your question. Protestants believe in the entire NT--not just the first four of 27 NT books. One could come to the impression from your post that you accept only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as scripture and reject the remaining 23 books of the NT. I am sure that is not your position. Or is it?It looks like irony is completely missed on you. I turned your question back onto you to show that your argument is hypocritical. You are questioning why we have books other than the bible and I am questioning why you have books other than the gospels. I accept the bible but my question is, why do you? you are claiming that our teachings are not supported by the bible. I am saying that your teachings are not supported by the gospels. You are trapped in a logical fallacy. 1
Tacenda Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 It looks like irony is completely missed on you. I turned your question back onto you to show that your argument is hypocritical. You are questioning why we have books other than the bible and I am questioning why you have books other than the gospels. I accept the bible but my question is, why do you? you are claiming that our teachings are not supported by the bible. I am saying that your teachings are not supported by the gospels. You are trapped in a logical fallacy.Good point!
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 By this standard all of the unique teachings of Mormonism--not found in the Bible--must also be rejected. Your statement brings up an interesting topic for discussion which is what books should be included or excluded from the Bible. I will start a new thread on this.Pretty sure this is a non sequitur. Try again. Sola scriptura is not found in the bible. There for you should not hold to that doctrine. Since we don't believe that only the bible is scripture your points make absolutely 0 sense. 2
Vance Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 By this standard all of the unique teachings of Mormonism--not found in the Bible--must also be rejected. Only if you subscribe to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which we don't. Thus missing the whole point. Sola Scriptura, is self contradictory because it is not found in scripture and therefore excludes itself.
Avatar4321 Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 By this standard all of the unique teachings of Mormonism--not found in the Bible--must also be rejected. Your statement brings up an interesting topic for discussion which is what books should be included or excluded from the Bible. I will start a new thread on this.Except, that's not our standard. It's yours. We believe every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. You are the one insisting that if it's not in the Bible it's wrong. 2
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Mosiah 3:5 makes it clear Jesus had no Father along with Hebrews 7:3
Russell C McGregor Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Mosiah 3:5 makes it clear Jesus had no Father along with Hebrews 7:3 If The Son of God has no father, then it rather inexorably follows that God does not exist. Actually neither passage says that Jesus has no father. It's talking about the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is not based upon patrilineal descent. Regards,Russell
Recommended Posts