Does The Church Want People Who Don't Believe In The Book Of Mormon?

[ERayR]

Congratulations.

 

Over the years I've seen bomb threats. We've had a prophetess claim the apostacy of the church who was going to set things straight in meetings. We've had domestic disputes that overflowed into gun threats at the church. We've had death threats against the bishop by a mentally disturbed person with access to weapons.

 

Comparing safety precausions to unauthorized Danite violence is pathetic. I look forward to your next snarky remark.

 

MY lame attempt at humor.  Sorry it cam off differently.  I have just never experienced any of which you speak.

[DBMormon]

Right. There may be legitimate reasons to ban a person from the church, but I don't see how recording (even if the accusation is true) is grounds for bannishment and guarded doors.

If the rules say no recording and one continues to record after being asked not to, I can see valid reason if one was warned an appropriate number of times.... so on that I disagree but again the poster said they had no good evidence that he actually was.

[theplains]

The epistle to the Hebrews is merely attempting to demonstrate the superiority of this priesthood to that of the Aaronite or Levitical priesthood which had remained. It is not saying that Christ is our great high priest and therefore there is no need for this office (of high priest), it is merely comparing, contrasting, and demonstrating how Christ was a literal fulfillment of the duty of the High Priest in ancient Israel (which there is now no need of an Aaronite High Priest for the ultimate and eternal sacrifice had been given) in reconciling man to God. Just because Jesus is called our "great high priest" does not eliminate the need for the "high priesthood" which he restored and pre-existed before the mosiac legislation, in like fashion, just because he is called "the High Priest and Apostle of our profession (Heb 3:1)" does not negate the need for Apostles. Neither does it make null and void the office of Bishop when he is called the "Bishop of our souls" in 1 Peter 2:5.

"Biblically speaking..." of course.

 

Hello Mike,

 

I believe in the royal priesthood of believers, including both men and women. We offer

up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5). The temple in

the New Testament are individual believers.  In the Old Testament, a high priest did not

have another high priest to assist him. 

 

Regards,

Jim

[Michael Sanders]

Hello Mike,

I believe in the royal priesthood of believers, including both men and women. We offer

up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5). The temple in

the New Testament are individual believers. In the Old Testament, a high priest did not

have another high priest to assist him.

Regards,

Jim

Hi Jim,

How about the account of Phillip in Acts 8:4-22? Phillip goes down to Samaria and preaches Christ unto them in great power with signs following - many believe and are baptized as great joy comes to the city. Now it appears that Phillip had authority to preach and baptize with water but was unable to confer the Holy Ghost which is reserved to the Melchizedek Priesthood in our tradition. And when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent Peter and John:

"Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.). Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost."

Simon the Sorcerer thinks he can buy this power and is subsequently rebuked. This account reflects the same direction given in latter-day revelation where we read:

"Therefore, take with you those who are ordained unto the lesser priesthood [priests], and send them before you to make appointments, and prepare the way, and to fill appointments that you yourselves are not able to fill. Behold, this is the way that mine apostles, in ancient days, built up my church unto me."

Here we see two distinguishable degrees of authority [priesthood - don't get caught up on semantics] - one (lesser) could baptize but not confer the Holy Ghost and the other (higher) could apparently do both. This biblical arrangement finds complete agreement in the Book of Mormon and in Latter-Day Revelation.

These two degrees of authority as depicted in the Book of Mormon consists of "priests and teachers." These offices were obviously given watchcare responsibilities over the flocks of church members. A higher priesthood authority rested with the elders or disciples. This other "head" of priesthood authority enabled its recipients to confer the Holy Ghost and to ordain priests and teachers. The Book of Mormon reflects this basic level of organizational ministry and this pattern closely resembles several early revelations to the church.

Before mid-June, 1829 a revelation was given in response to the question by early leaders desiring further "instructions relative to building up the Church of Christ, according to the fullness of the gospel." The Lord responded with the giving of Section 16 (LDS 18) in which he directs the leaders to "rely upon the things which are written" previous to this, the Lord stated "Behold I have manifested unto you, by my Spirit in many instances, that the things which you have written are true; wherefore you know that they are true; and if you know that they are true, behold, I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written; for in them are all things written concerning my church, my gospel, and my rock..." They were then instructed to "build up my church" accordingly. The Book of Mormon is what was "written" that they were instructed to rely on. Scott H. Faulring has published a few articles on how the church was organized after the Book of Mormon patterns. The Articles and Covenants in particular and this also seems to have provided a basis for initial priesthood organization.

The same revelation informs us that Oliver and David were, "called even with that same calling" as the Apostle Paul. They were directed to "search out" others who would be given this same authority "even twelve" who would be my "disciples." This apparently follows the same basic pattern of priesthood organization as viewed in the BoM. The higher authority had power not only to confer the Holy Ghost, but to "ordain priests and teachers to declare my gospel." (Compare Sec 16:5-6 & Moroni 2&3) The "disciples" in the BoM were given the exact same charge as the brethren in the early church.

Here we see two different levels of authority represented or "two grand heads," each needful in their own sphere. On April 6, 1830 Joseph and Oliver are recognized as "Apostles" and "Elders" of the Church. (see Sec 19:1, 3b) Later in the same revelation the church is directed to "give heed unto all his words, and commandments, which he shall give unto you, as he receiveth them, walking in xall holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth..."( Sec 19:2a-b) This is further supported in another revelation given in September 1830 as council to Oliver concerning his position in the church, "But behold, verily, verily I say unto thee, No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting for my servantJoseph Smith, Jr., for he receiveth them even as Moses." (Sec 27:2).

Joseph's function to receive "them [revelations] even as Moses" is directly stated as the perrogative of the "president of the high priesthood" to "preside" and "be like unto Moses." Sec 104:42 (Compare Sec 19:1-2b; 27:1-2; 43:1-2) In the BoM, Alma seemingly held this same position in the Church of his day. Alma was the founder and high priest of the church (Mos 11:17), he had "power and authority of God" to baptize (Mos 9:35-50), to "ordain priests and teachers" (Mos 9:51; 11:18-20), and as "president of the high priesthood" he presided over the church "even as Moses." He was appointed by God to receive instruction and revelation---and to organize the church of his day. (see Mos 9:51-64; 11:15-20, 94-103; especially 11:111-149 where Alma inquires of the Lord concerning un-repentant sin which recently had entered the church and specific instructions he received on how to "regulate" the affairs of the church)

This basic pattern is reflected in OT, NT, BOM, and the Revelations of Joseph Smith.

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 13, 2015 by Michael Sanders

[stemelbow]

Right. There may be legitimate reasons to ban a person from the church, but I don't see how recording (even if the accusation is true) is grounds for bannishment and guarded doors.

Thanks, that's my take as well. And I still doubt he recorded it. he has no reason to.

[LittleNipper]

Why do Mormons care if anyone films anything? If a person is not being disruptive people must learn to rely on God to take care of such issues. And this I think is the real difference between Mormons and those who profess the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. A believer rests in the Lord. A person who is trying to control everything is not relying on God to intercede. 

[The Nehor]

Why do Mormons care if anyone films anything? If a person is not being disruptive people must learn to rely on God to take care of such issues. And this I think is the real difference between Mormons and those who profess the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. A believer rests in the Lord. A person who is trying to control everything is not relying on God to intercede.

Indeed, the true difference between a true follower of God and an imposter is whether they allow recordings in their meetings.

I do not know what happened in this instance but I would guess the Bishop and leaders had more information. What and who was he recording? The speaker? A Young Woman? Children? The leaders cannot win in these situations. If something untoward was going on should the Bishop announce it? The same people condemning the bishop here now would condemn him for slandering people unnecessarily.

I have seen a few people barred from church meetings. A homeless guy came to a YSA Ward to hit on women. On my mission a 30 year old investigator we stopped teaching (for good reason) continued to show up at church and stalk some laurels. How many of you have bishops that go out of their way to get people to come to church? Is it possible that the bishop had a very good reason for booting the guy?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If something untoward was going on should the Bishop announce it?

Absolutely. If there was a safety concern or a pedophile in the building it should be told to the membership

[stemelbow]

The same people condemning the bishop here now would condemn him for slandering people unnecessarily.

I'm not condemning him. I think it was a poor decision. That's all.

I have seen a few people barred from church meetings. A homeless guy came to a YSA Ward to hit on women.

You mean he was doing what all the other guys in the ward were doing? Burn him at the stake

.

[The Nehor]

I'm not condemning him. I think it was a poor decision. That's all.You mean he was doing what all the other guys in the ward were doing? Burn him at the stake

.

I assumed that by the context it was implied that it was not normal flirtation but was creepy and uncomfortable for the target to the point at least one girl left the building.

[stemelbow]

I assumed that by the context it was implied that it was not normal flirtation but was creepy and uncomfortable for the target to the point at least one girl left the building.

many women looking for a stable man to make into a father will run for the hills if a homeless guy hits on her. no doubt it is likely this man got out of hand to some level, but it's hard to tell from your description at this point.

[The Nehor]

many women looking for a stable man to make into a father will run for the hills if a homeless guy hits on her. no doubt it is likely this man got out of hand to some level, but it's hard to tell from your description at this point.

The proposition he offered was overt to the point of being obscene. Does that help?