If not LDS, then what...

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

In the research for the paper by the late scholar John Tvedtnes on early temple rituals, (Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices... fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999TveJ.html), he cited 15... 15... references to the practice of baptism for the dead in the various Christian texts, and several Mandean and Jewish texts.  We have clung to the one reference from the Bible (1 Cor 15:29) when Tvedtnes included 15 in his article "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity," scheduled for publication later in 1999 in another FARMS temples volume.

GG

Thanks Calm, I've always tried to understand what is up or down with this subject. Just saw this Catholic perspective, and it mentions the BoM scriptures that seem to contradict baptism for the dead in the temple.https://www.catholic.com/tract/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead

[Joshua Valentine]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Isaiah 61:

7 ¶ For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Now, was Jerusalem the land of the Gentiles? Is that where God would give the Gentiles the double? Or where He made an everlasting covenant with them? Wasn't His new covenant made with Israelites in their land? To spread elsewhere? That doesn't sound like the everlasting covenant made with the Gentiles in "their land." "Pauline Christians" seem content in being saved from hell, but will they be made a pillar in the temple? It seems to me maybe they don't understand all there is to understand.... I do not condemn them for that, but I am inclined to show them a more complete interpretation.
 

Yeshua seems pretty clear about baptizing all that would come. Making baptism some kind of invalid work is off putting to me, because it just ignores scripture. Covenants are not a work. They are a promise. If people won't enter them, then they can't receive the blessings of Isaiah 61. I am more than happy to help my ancestors who did not have access to all the truth, or help those who died having never heard of Yeshua. If they want to make those promises too, I am all about helping them do it. I see no evil in that... only good.

But then you seem to be doubling down here...
 

Again, you seem to be giving a narrow view of non-LDS Christian thought and teaching on baptism. Even if non-LDS Christians would accept your description of baptism as an ¨invalid work¨ it still does not mean that baptism is not important to them. Simply because they make the point that baptism is not necessary as a work for salvation does not mean that they are saying don´t get baptized. I don´t know of any Christians anywhere who say that people should not get baptized. They say that baptism is not necessary for salvation but they still say get baptized because Jesus told us to and because of (all the other much deeper takes on baptism than you represented with ¨invalid work¨ and imply with your other ¨narrow¨ representations).

Lastly, this appears to be the second time in a row that you reply to Tacenda´s comments with something almost completely unrelated to what she said. Are you doing that on purpose or do you just really want to talk about works right now? Maybe you should pick up an old works thread (or maybe start a new one😬).

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

No offense intended, but it seems you are the one making it ¨very narrow, and frankly misleading way to believe¨ RevTestament. As Tacenda already replied, no one said no works at all - she was talking about salvation by works. You seem to be broadening this to no works at all - which is a strawman - I don´t know of any Christian (at least those serious enough to make a statement about it) that does not believe in good works and doing the will of the Lord. Maybe you misunderstood Tacenda?  But then it still sounds like you think some Christians actually believe this? Or maybe you think those verses in fact have to do with salvation, but your own commentary seems to indicate otherwise. Please clarify if you think we are misunderstanding you - not to divert the thread, just to clear up this little bit here and then we can proceed with the OP.

Tacenda said "Other faiths believe Jesus is all that is needed. Why do you need saving ordinances and covenants? That sounds like works." This sounds to me like a very narrow Pauline interpretation I have run across. I am not inferring that Tacenda lives that for herself, but this is how I was interpreting what she said. That there are those who believe works are not needed and all we must do is say "Jesus, I believe in you, and repent" and they are good to go home... It is a once saved, always saved mentality that even says they can do no evil once "saved." It is out there, and I have seen it. It is a very narrow interpretation of Paul, which doesn't really fit what he says. He says to forsake all sin. He warns the Church which is supposed to be saved from committing sin, and admonishes them to do the works of their Savior. Paul is not railing against works, but is railing against the Jewish mentality that their works would save them without repenting and believing in Christ. He is saying that works without the grace of the Lord are dead, He calls them dead works. But to infer from that we should refrain from doing ordinances because they are a "dead work" is really a horrible misinterpretation, and a false teaching. But it is out there. There are those who teach baptism is not necessary, etc. 

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

But then you seem to be doubling down here...
 

Again, you seem to be giving a narrow view of non-LDS Christian thought and teaching on baptism. Even if non-LDS Christians would accept your description of baptism as an ¨invalid work¨ it still does not mean that baptism is not important to them. Simply because they make the point that baptism is not necessary as a work for salvation does not mean that they are saying don´t get baptized. I don´t know of any Christians anywhere who say that people should not get baptized. They say that baptism is not necessary for salvation but they still say get baptized because Jesus told us to and because of (all the other much deeper takes on baptism than you represented with ¨invalid work¨ and imply with your other ¨narrow¨ representations).

Lastly, this appears to be the second time in a row that you reply to Tacenda´s comments with something almost completely unrelated to what she said. Are you doing that on purpose or do you just really want to talk about works right now? Maybe you should pick up an old works thread (or maybe start a new one😬).

Let's put it this way. I believe baptism is necessary to enter into the works of the Lord - to become a follower. If someone accepts Christ on their deathbed, and repents without getting baptized, will they be saved (from hell)? Perhaps. I am not really sure.  However, I do believe that to really be considered a follower or disciple by Christ one will need to accept baptism at some point - or they won't get resurrected until the end. The restored gospel makes this possible for them to accept the baptismal covenant. There are those who consider baptism a work. I don't believe it is. It is an act representing our rising clean out of the sea of the world by following Christ. It is an act representing our physical resurrection as clean vessels. It is an act of commitment. Is that necessary to be resurrected? I say yes. But there are those awaiting resurrection in spirit paradise who have been saved from hell.  I can't really say more than that, because I do not know more at present. So in the end, I believe baptism is necessary to inherit a heavenly kingdom in a resurrected state - at least in the celestial kingdom.  

As I see it what I am saying is completely related to Tacenda's comments. In her second post she brought up baptisms for the dead, and stated she wasn't sure what that meant. My comments are completely relevant in that regard. Perhaps, you don't really understand her comments from a LDS point of view, or are just not really reading or understanding what Tacenda is saying.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Calm, I've always tried to understand what is up or down with this subject. Just saw this Catholic perspective, and it mentions the BoM scriptures that seem to contradict baptism for the dead in the temple.https://www.catholic.com/tract/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead

 But really look at that article. When discussing that verse they say that it might refer to a heretical cult .

 That was no heretical cult.

That was the true gospel of Jesus  Christ from which the present Catholics apostasized !

 All those other comments are red herrings.

Note they mention that one the last, because it is our strongest defense, and they want to minimize it. Regarding the Book of Mormon the Nephites did not have all the ordinances restored by Joseph. No one did until Joseph restored them.

Also we do not believe that-non Mormons go to hell.

They wait in spirit prison until they have heard the gospel. At that point they can go as far as they allow themselves. They can go to the Celestial Kingdom. There would be no purpose for temples and genealogy if non-mormons go to hell.

No contradictions. The Nephites simply had not known  those ordinances.

Edited May 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 Also we do not believe that-non Mormons go to hell.

They wait in spirit prison until they have heard the gospel. At that point they can go as far as they allow themselves. They can go to the Celestial Kingdom. There would be no purpose for temples if non-mormons go to hell.

There is spirit prison and there is spirit paradise. I believe spirit prison is hell. Those who have died without being saved go there. They do not escape until they accept the gospel or until they are resurrected at the end, and accept Christ. 

Rev 20:

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do they avoid the lake of fire/hell? By repenting and accepting Christ. In the end only the sons of perdition who refuse to repent will suffer the second death. Those who accept Christ will escape it - I believe even if they do so only at the last judgment. But until that time they are in hell/spirit prison. Otherwise there would be no dead to be delivered out of hell for final judgment. 

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There is spirit prison and there is spirit paradise. I believe spirit prison is hell. Those who have died without being saved go there. They do not escape until they accept the gospel or until they are resurrected at the end, and accept Christ. 

Rev 20:

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do they avoid the lake of fire/hell? By repenting and accepting Christ. In the end only the sons of perdition who refuse to repent will suffer the second death. Those who accept Christ will escape it - I believe even if they do so only at the last judgment. But until that time they are in hell/spirit prison. Otherwise there would be no dead to be delivered out of hell for final judgment. 

Yes I agree.  I was keeping it simple.

Spirit prison has been called "hell" but it is not the eternal burnings of endless punishment that most Christians believe in.  Obviously they can be released when they accept the gospel and go to paradise.  I was avoiding the term "hell" because what it is to others, like perhaps Tacenda is not what it is to us.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 But really look at that article. When discussing that verse they say that it might refer to a heretical cult .

 That was no heretical cult.

That was the true gospel of Jesus  Christ from which the present Catholics apostasized !

 All those other comments are red herrings.

Note they mention that one the last, because it is our strongest defense, and they want to minimize it. Regarding the Book of Mormon the Nephites did not have all the ordinances restored by Joseph. No one did until Joseph restored them.

Also we do not believe that-non Mormons go to hell.

They wait in spirit prison until they have heard the gospel. At that point they can go as far as they allow themselves. They can go to the Celestial Kingdom. There would be no purpose for temples and genealogy if non-mormons go to hell.

No contradictions. The Nephites simply had not known  those ordinances.

Thanks for the explanation...I know I'm a broken record. 

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There is spirit prison and there is spirit paradise. I believe spirit prison is hell. Those who have died without being saved go there. They do not escape until they accept the gospel or until they are resurrected at the end, and accept Christ. 

Rev 20:

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do they avoid the lake of fire/hell? By repenting and accepting Christ. In the end only the sons of perdition who refuse to repent will suffer the second death. Those who accept Christ will escape it - I believe even if they do so only at the last judgment. But until that time they are in hell/spirit prison. Otherwise there would be no dead to be delivered out of hell for final judgment. 

yeah cause He got the keys way back in Rev 1

Quote

 

¹⁷ And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

¹⁸ I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

You just have to go to Him to get the key if you are stuck inside.  No eternal burning.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for the explanation...I know I'm a broken record. 

No it's just that there are always 2 or 200  sides to any story and it's hard to remember them all!    Sometimes some seem more plausible until you remember the others!

 

 

[Joshua Valentine]

Tacenda can certainly respond, and has, for herself, but because you said:

Quote

Perhaps, you don't really understand her comments from a LDS point of view, or are just not really reading or understanding what Tacenda is saying.

I will respond further:

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Other faiths believe Jesus is all that is needed. Why do you need saving ordinances and covenants? That sounds like works. But I'll get backlash, come and get me...for saying it. 

And a bit about being a bit lost, that's my journey. Now I can't rely on the church, now I'm going to have to be like other people in the Christian faith and get my own faith. Relying on the church put me in this spot, when you disbelieve in the LDS church than you doubt the rest, God/Jesus and have to figure it out on your own. You have to adult it. You can no longer be handheld through.

To answer the OP, I'm leary of many churches. Some of them are far worse than LDS, so I am thinking being on my own to search is better for now. 

She says nothing about ¨no works¨ (as she responded to you) and she specifically brings up ¨SAVING ordinances and covenants¨ so far from no works as your following comment focuses on, she is specifically referencing works for salvation.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is just a very narrow, and frankly misleading way to believe. What about all the rest of the scriptures besides a few sentences by Paul? Even Paul repeatedly warns against sin. He also mentions doing the work of the Lord:

1 Corinthians 3:13

13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

1 Corinthians 15:58

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 9:8

8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

What Paul is trying to say is that we aren't saved because of our works. We are saved from sin through the grace of Christ based on our repentance. But he also certainly recognized that Yeshua calls us to work for him, even as he did.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

So what happens if we don't do the good works Christ has called us to do? Can we be rewarded for them? Is being saved from punishment in Hell really the same as being rewarded? If not, a lot of "Pauline Christians" may find themselves very disappointed and feel very mislead.... just sayin....

 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I really never said "no works", did I? I understand there are works, and I believe the works are those that come from believing Jesus is Lord and then acting on it. Not just I believe and therefore I get to sin no matter what. Where in the Bible does it mention the works like in the temple though? Or having to acquire a TR? Only in the D&C right, whoops, maybe that scripture that is obsure to me that says baptisms for the dead, now does that mean no baptisms or baptisms, it isn't clear to me.

 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Isaiah 61:

7 ¶ For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Now, was Jerusalem the land of the Gentiles? Is that where God would give the Gentiles the double? Or where He made an everlasting covenant with them? Wasn't His new covenant made with Israelites in their land? To spread elsewhere? That doesn't sound like the everlasting covenant made with the Gentiles in "their land." "Pauline Christians" seem content in being saved from hell, but will they be made a pillar in the temple? It seems to me maybe they don't understand all there is to understand.... I do not condemn them for that, but I am inclined to show them a more complete interpretation.
 

Yeshua seems pretty clear about baptizing all that would come. Making baptism some kind of invalid work is off putting to me, because it just ignores scripture. Covenants are not a work. They are a promise. If people won't enter them, then they can't receive the blessings of Isaiah 61. I am more than happy to help my ancestors who did not have access to all the truth, or help those who died having never heard of Yeshua. If they want to make those promises too, I am all about helping them do it. I see no evil in that... only good.

As you say later, this comment is more on point because you are dealing with baptism as it relates to baptisms for the dead as Tacenda brought up (just as you say she did), however you were doubling down on this narrow view when you bring up an idea of baptism as ¨invalid work¨. Your next statement...

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Tacenda said "Other faiths believe Jesus is all that is needed. Why do you need saving ordinances and covenants? That sounds like works." This sounds to me like a very narrow Pauline interpretation I have run across. I am not inferring that Tacenda lives that for herself, but this is how I was interpreting what she said. That there are those who believe works are not needed and all we must do is say "Jesus, I believe in you, and repent" and they are good to go home... It is a once saved, always saved mentality that even says they can do no evil once "saved." It is out there, and I have seen it. It is a very narrow interpretation of Paul, which doesn't really fit what he says. He says to forsake all sin. He warns the Church which is supposed to be saved from committing sin, and admonishes them to do the works of their Savior. Paul is not railing against works, but is railing against the Jewish mentality that their works would save them without repenting and believing in Christ. He is saying that works without the grace of the Lord are dead, He calls them dead works. But to infer from that we should refrain from doing ordinances because they are a "dead work" is really a horrible misinterpretation, and a false teaching. But it is out there. There are those who teach baptism is not necessary, etc. 

 

... indicates that you have met some very interesting people. But to refer to these people as ¨Pauline Christians¨ (as you did previously) as if they fully represent this classification is unlikely to be appropriate for the very arguments you make in this comment. Here you do refer to ¨a very narrow Pauline interpretation¨ so that was a helpful qualifier that was missing in your previous mention of Pauline Christians that you associated with no works.
 

56 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Let's put it this way. I believe baptism is necessary to enter into the works of the Lord - to become a follower. If someone accepts Christ on their deathbed, and repents without getting baptized, will they be saved (from hell)? Perhaps. I am not really sure.  However, I do believe that to really be considered a follower or disciple by Christ one will need to accept baptism at some point - or they won't get resurrected until the end. The restored gospel makes this possible for them to accept the baptismal covenant. There are those who consider baptism a work. I don't believe it is. It is an act representing our rising clean out of the sea of the world by following Christ. It is an act representing our physical resurrection as clean vessels. It is an act of commitment. Is that necessary to be resurrected? I say yes. But there are those awaiting resurrection in spirit paradise who have been saved from hell.  I can't really say more than that, because I do not know more at present. So in the end, I believe baptism is necessary to inherit a heavenly kingdom in a resurrected state - at least in the celestial kingdom.  

As I see it what I am saying is completely related to Tacenda's comments. In her second post she brought up baptisms for the dead, and stated she wasn't sure what that meant. My comments are completely relevant in that regard. Perhaps, you don't really understand her comments from a LDS point of view, or are just not really reading or understanding what Tacenda is saying.

Your comments on baptism were relevant, sorta. But the ¨no works¨ was certainly off base, both not brought up by and confirmed not brought up by Tacenda, and seemed to be a stretch just to bring up some very narrow, inconsistent, and I suspect small group of non-LDS Christians. Then, although Tacenda did bring up baptism - she brought up baptism for the dead (again implying a work necessary for salvation) - but also all works performed in the LDS temple along with the works required to get to do the works in the LDS temple (TR), you go on to continue only treating baptism in general and not showing anything concrete for baptism as necessary for salvation. I also think that Tacenda is not arguing against baptism at all, but specifically temple ordinances (for the salvation of self and others) and the works required to gain access to the temple. But, unless I missed it, you didn´t treat these issues directly with any of your comments on no works, covenants, baptism for the dead, works without faith, etc.

And then, instead of a reply with general clarification or a concern for a general misunderstanding (as I did with you in my first comment), you go with: 

Quote

Perhaps, you don't really understand her comments from a LDS point of view, or are just not really reading or understanding what Tacenda is saying.

I confirm that I am not sure what Tacenda was specifically referring to in the DnC and baptism for the dead, simply because I find her sentence here vague. But I think Tacenda and I have shown enough to indicate that while she was talking about saving works (not no works) and saving works of the LDS temple (not just baptism in general) that, indeed, your replies to her comments have expanded too far out of the topics she has brought up and, at the same time as I pointed out, you use a very narrow, inconsistent, and relatively small group (I hope) to represent non-LDS Christians and Pauline Christians specifically. This uncalled for expanding out from the issue of saving works seems to serve little more than to bring up these extreme views of some non-LDS Christians. I could be overreacting out of a sensitivity, but I think the quotes and my comments here indicate otherwise.

I did appreciate your second to last comment and its defense of Pauline teaching and thus more fair description of Pauline Christians. And I appreciated your last comment about your personal/LDS beliefs. But, again, none of this seemed to get as far as justifying works for salvation or ¨saving ordinances¨.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 But really look at that article. When discussing that verse they say that it might refer to a heretical cult .

 That was no heretical cult.

That was the true gospel of Jesus  Christ from which the present Catholics apostasized !

Just point of info: do you know the group that the article is referring to here and that they indeed had other unique parts of the LDS Gospel that shows that they were the orthodox from which the Catholics apostasized or are you just giving the LDS assumption/view in contrast to the Catholic assumption/view?

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 All those other comments are red herrings.

Note they mention that one the last, because it is our strongest defense, and they want to minimize it. Regarding the Book of Mormon the Nephites did not have all the ordinances restored by Joseph. No one did until Joseph restored them.

If you are referring to point 4 where they bring up the possibility of a heretical group, is that your strongest defense? When I have read other Christians deal with LDS baptism for the dead (which basically always includes the use of Paul´s statement) the Christians always bring up the same idea in point #4. I may have seen only one other source that brings up anything like the other 3 points. So I think it is inaccurate to claim they want to minimize this point (again if #4 is the one you are talking about), it is both too directly apparent/appropriate because of the verse and too widespread as the common response of so many other non-LDS Christian groups.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Also we do not believe that-non Mormons go to hell.

They wait in spirit prison until they have heard the gospel. At that point they can go as far as they allow themselves. They can go to the Celestial Kingdom. There would be no purpose for temples and genealogy if non-mormons go to hell.

The article did not say that the LDS Church teaches (nor that ¨we do not believe¨ - watch who of your brethren you are telling what they believe, mfbukowski!) that non-Mormons go to hell. I thought the following paragraph was pretty accurate:

Quote

Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the “spirit world” who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. Should any of these dead people want to convert to Mormonism, they are required to abide by all its rules, one of which is water baptism. Hence the need for proxies to receive the corporeal waters of baptism.

I think you are referring to the article´s interpretation of the BoM where they say:
 

Quote

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. There’s no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church.

This is, in fact, a pretty straightforward interpretation of these verses, even if it is short-sighted. It is just two verses and, as I would have challenged the article´s interpretation - it does not take into account people who have never heard the LDS gospel, the context of this verse is that it is being said to people who are being given the gospel according to the BoM. The writer may be reading too generally into the phrase ¨procrastinated the day of your repentance¨- allowing the writer to believe that these verses refer to all people everywhere and every when. Within the context of this BoM passage, it could be said that repentance was specific to the gospel that Amulek and Alma were teaching these same people being addressed in these versese.
 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No contradictions. The Nephites simply had not known  those ordinances.

I don´t quite follow you on your take with the Nephites.

Why would the Nephites not know about baptism for the dead? I have not come across anything (that I understood at least as) saying that baptism for the dead was only revealed ever through Joseph. Please explain, thanks!

[mrmarklin]

21 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

How come?

How come Catholic?

Roman Catholic  

Because Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and had the authority to pass them on to others presumably.  He died in Rome and I believe that he would have given the keys to Linus. This was acknowledged by many contemporaries. So where else to go?

Changes in practices are easily explained by guidance of the Holy Ghost over the centuries. The Catholic Church believes fundamentally same as us   

[SouthernMo]

Just now, mrmarklin said:

How come Catholic?

Roman Catholic  

Because Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and had the authority to pass them on to others presumably.  He died in Rome and I believe that he would have given the keys to Linus. This was acknowledged by many contemporaries. So where else to go?

Changes in practices are easily explained by guidance of the Holy Ghost over the centuries. The Catholic Church believes fundamentally same as us   

Take a closer look at the actual history of church leadership. The keys Peter received  were more akin to how Joseph Smith organized the church leadership than how Brigham young modified it to what we see today. James was the head of the Jerusalem church. 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Other faiths believe Jesus is all that is needed. Why do you need saving ordinances and covenants?

Because Jesus said so.

Can't have Jesus AND ignore his words.

But it's true.  All we need to be redeemed from the grave into an eternal existence is to accept Jesus.

[Avatar4321]

On 5/26/2019 at 11:58 AM, SouthernMo said:

So just to confirm: in this weird hypothetical situation in which the first presidency, 12, and the seventy (just for good measure) all dropped dead tomorrow, and the authority and with it God’s church were gone from the earth, you would chose not to participate in any congregation?

How would I lose my own authority in this situation?

[changed]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

If they are right about receiving their priesthood authority from the Apostle Peter then they are the only ones that can rightfully claim authority from God to lead His kingdom on earth.

What about the Levites?

[changed]

13 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

How would I lose my own authority in this situation?

The point of fallen leaders - like Judas - is I think to help everyone find their own personal testimony, their own authority, their own light.  

In the end, it is between each individual and God - the only middle-man being Jesus.  

 

Communities and organizations are wonderful so long as they do not trample the freedoms of individuals.  "By the people, for the people" - God-inspired words that should be applied to religious, as well as secular organizations.  

Edited May 28, 2019 by changed

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, changed said:

The point of fallen leaders - like Judas - is I think to help everyone find their own personal testimony, their own authority, their own light.  

In the end, it is between each individual and God - the only middle-man being Jesus.  

 

Communities and organizations are wonderful so long as they do not trample the freedoms of individuals.  "By the people, for the people" - God-inspired words that should be applied to religious, as well as secular organizations.  

I meant the fact that I've been ordained to the melchesidek priesthood. I'm not sure how that factors into this scenario

Edited May 28, 2019 by Avatar4321

[SouthernMo]

33 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

How would I lose my own authority in this situation?

Ok, so just like when Christ’s original apostles died, many kept their authority, and the church went on?

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, changed said:

What about the Levites?

A temporal priesthood, no eternal reach.

[Avatar4321]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Ok, so just like when Christ’s original apostles died, many kept their authority, and the church went on?

Losing the keys was the problem then.

It seems that if all the general authorities died we could turn to revelation. God woukd have to intervene of course and restore the lead counsels. But it seems like the Church could continue.

[SouthernMo]

48 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Losing the keys was the problem then.

It seems that if all the general authorities died we could turn to revelation. God woukd have to intervene of course and restore the lead counsels. But it seems like the Church could continue.

Not following how losing the keys back then was a problem, but that today it wouldn’t be a problem to lose them. 

[changed]

54 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Not following how losing the keys back then was a problem, but that today it wouldn’t be a problem to lose them. 

 

Through most of history, for most of the people on earth, there were no keys, no leaders, no true church (excluding those who lived with Jesus).  God loves everyone, provides what is best for everyone - so I guess that is what is best - what the majority have experienced is what is best (or God would not be loving and just).  We all have the light of Christ - that is what is best, that is what has, and is, and will be.

Edited May 28, 2019 by changed

[changed]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

A temporal priesthood, no eternal reach.

 

Everything is eternal.  All have the same potential.