More than One Way to Know the Church is True

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

A member of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam (with the 'word' or 'seed' of their own religion) 
could try the experiment of Alma 32:28-39 and happily choose to remain a Buddhist, Hindu, 
or Muslim instead of following Christ.

Fine for them.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Fine for them.

The common Christian paradigm seems to make everything rigid: Heaven or hell for eternity.

We allow for nuances with 3 kingdoms and temporary hell for repentance. 

Brilliant!

No worries about the unbaptized, they will have all those choices too, even after death.  It is a 100% FAIR and just arrangement of sub-paradigms becoming a full and systematically unified assemblage into one world view about God and His children.

We need to step back and see how each sub- paradigm FUNCTIONS in a full panorama of the gospel paradigm.  We have to see it as a "Kuhn" would see it to value its brilliance.

Soon we are at a point of wondering how an uneducated farm boy in 1820 could come up with a philosophical position envisioning all of Christianity in such a paradigm, to be later replicated in the 20th century, while yet putting it in a magic context for his generation, and still including a postmodern lens, in Alma 32 and Moroni 10, while predicting that such a paradigm was for the "latter days", and not his own generation.

It could not happen without divine guidance.

Intellectually I surrendered.

Then came the spiritual surrender.

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The common Christian paradigm seems to make everything rigid: Heaven or hell for eternity.

We allow for nuances with 3 kingdoms and temporary hell for repentance. 

Brilliant!

No worries about the unbaptized, they will have all those choices too, even after death.  It is a 100% FAIR and just arrangement of sub-paradigms becoming a full and systematically unified assemblage into one world view about God and His children.

We need to step back and see how each sub- paradigm FUNCTIONS in a full panorama of the gospel paradigm.  We have to see it as a "Kuhn" would see it to value its brilliance.

Soon we are at a point of wondering how an uneducated farm boy in 1820 could come up with a philosophical position envisioning all of Christianity in such a paradigm, to be later replicated in the 20th century, while yet putting it in a magic context for his generation, and still including a postmodern lens, in Alma 32 and Moroni 10, while predicting that such a paradigm was for the "latter days", and not his own generation.

It could not happen without divine guidance.

Intellectually I surrendered.

Then came the spiritual surrender.

 

 

 

I'm not a philosopher, but I'm impressed by how Joseph Smith concluded the Bible wasn't monotheistic before everyone else.

Next person to do so was Wellhausen, who was five when Joseph Smith died.

[Emily]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:33 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

I'm not a philosopher, but I'm impressed by how Joseph Smith concluded the Bible wasn't monotheistic before everyone else.

You should probably add something like "everyone else alive at the time" "in America" "in modern times" or wherever you want to draw the line for when Judeo-Christians decided the Bible was monotheistic. 

The biblical writers weren't thinking along those lines, so Joseph Smith couldn't have been "before everyone else." 😝

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Emily said:

You should probably add something like "everyone else alive at the time" "in America" "in modern times" or wherever you want to draw the line for when Judeo-Christians decided the Bible was monotheistic. 

The biblical writers weren't thinking along those lines, so Joseph Smith couldn't have been "before everyone else." 😝

OK fine. Before everyone after Nicaea.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/14/2023 at 12:58 PM, Navidad said:

Thanks! But do you really really really have to then insist that I and my church, or every other established Christian church and all their members are FALSE and dead? Can an equally EXTREMELY nice guy like you understand that a logical conclusion based on your premise as insisted, is that all other churches, together with their members are FALSE and dead? In order to get out of that logical fallacy (a claim for which you cannot produce evidence), don't you have to insist on a strongly nuanced definition of that "TRUE and living church" term? Without a nuanced understanding of D&C 1:30, doesn't the very statement require all other churches and members of other churches to be FALSE and dead? You are the philosopher . . . I am simply the EXTREMELY nice garlic grower who keeps asking about it because I can't get my head around 🙃 the implications of that claim. 😀 My experience is that I am not spiritually FALSE and dead! So where does that leave us as TRUE and living philosopher and FALSE and dead campesino?

Ha! I knew Jerry Falwell Sr. pretty well. I attended many of his debates with more "liberal" or mainlines critics of his in the late 70s. Much, but not all of that criticism was warranted. His favorite thing however, was to start out a debate by saying "I'm just an old country Southern boy . . . I don't understand all the big words you smart people use!" "Be kind to this simple ol' preacher!" Beware to those who fell for that! Of course he was extremely well-prepared for anything he heard from them. He had heard it 100 times before!

So, beware of the one who grows garlic! Something may not smell right! He is probably just gonna keep on askin' them thar questions that his simple country mind and his 3rd grade eddicacion don't understand! Ha! Really, I did go to third grade! Three times in fact! 🙄

The answer….which has been repeated many times now…is the loss of the keys of Priesthood at the deaths of the original apostles, and their restoration to Joseph Smith and others by John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, Elijah, and Moroni. The Church that possesses the keys of the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God is the True and Living Church of God.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[theplains]

On 3/16/2023 at 11:49 AM, mfbukowski said:

Good. You're starting to understand.

That's where they need to be for now.  I used to be a Buddhist because I really needed to follow my own meditative spirit.

It was the best thing I could have done in my progression toward God.

It is still a part of me.

Do you believe in the Bible?

How do you know it is more than the stories an philosophies of men?

Why are you NOT an atheist?

Because of an Alma or Moroni 10 experience?

Or perhaps you have just accepted what you were taught without questions?

I believe the Bible, but I base it on faith + external evidences (archaeology for one thing, plus the
church would not exist without the resurrection of Christ). There is too much in creation and intelligent
design for me to become an atheist. I have also studied other religions too and questioned them and
also compared them with the teachings of Christ.  I still did this even though being raised in a Catholic
home.  While the Book of Mormon has copied some parts of the Bible into it, I view it more of a story
and not anywhere comparable to the Bible.  

The LDS Church even felt the need to add "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" to the Book of Mormon
circa 1981. 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the Bible, but I base it on faith + external evidences (archaeology for one thing, plus the
church would not exist without the resurrection of Christ). There is too much in creation and intelligent
design for me to become an atheist.

Yeah, same here, I find fine-tuning and the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics to be compelling (especially having a math degree myself), although the actual "intelligent design" movement is misguided (or at worst fraudulent).

I've also seen archaeology contextualize the Bible very much in Mormonism's favor. The discovery of the Ugaritic tablets revealing Canaanite religion to be matching parts of the Bible almost word-for-word, has made the Bible fit Mormonism's henotheistic system snugly. Now we know Yahweh had a body, had a wife, had a council of deities, didn't create ex nihilo, etc.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
add "almost"

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The answer….which has been repeated many times now…is the loss of the keys of Priesthood at the deaths of the original apostles, and their restoration to Joseph Smith and others by John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, Elijah, and Moroni. The Church that posses the keys of the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God is the True and Living Church of God.

Thank you for your response. I would simply suggest that repeating the same thing over and over neither makes it true nor understandable to the inquiring mind. Having said that, I really do appreciate your response.

The Greek word translated "key" in the NT is the word kleis. It is used six times in the NT. Four of those times it used in the singular;  two times in the plural. Four of the six times it is used metaphorically in the Book of Revelation (an apocalyptic book in which most word images are metaphorical) - three times used singularly and one time in the plural. That leaves one use in Luke 11:52 (singular) and one time in Matt. 16:19 (plural). Luke 11:52 is certainly used metaphorically as well - to refer to a house of knowledge that the Jewish leaders have locked and more or less thrown away the key! Who are these folks? They are hypocrites - "experts" in religious knowledge. Certainly not folks to emulate!

That leaves us with one verse - Matt 16:19 where the word is used in the plural (keys). "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven." It is fairly clear that the tense implies that whatever the "you" binds on earth will already have been bound in heaven and whatever the "you" loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven (before you even say it). It is a sister verse to Matt 18:18 which is clearly, given the context, a communal concept related to the two or three or all those referred to in the context of Matt. 18.

So my question is this (oh no! Not another one!)  - How did the keys in Matt 16:19 become linked to a one-of-a-kind priesthood that is only available in a one-of-a-kind church on earth? Is there a Biblical connection that can clearly be made?

If I were to accurately preach the gospel here on earth using the keys of the Scripture - prayers, faith, wisdom, love, etc. (all of which have the power to open hearts to the gospel) would not what I am saying already have been loosed or bound in heaven before I even said it? If I preach,  " Let the one who desires take the water of life freely" would that not already have been declared truth in heaven since I am preaching what is already recorded in Revelation 22:17? If I preach, "Don't let your heart be troubled" wouldn't that truth already have been sealed in heaven, not because I or any member of any one particular church said it, but because it is already authoritatively sealed in heaven, having been written in John 14:1? We preach the truth already bound and loosed in heaven when we preach the gospel - the grace which is already promised through the atonement of Christ. Methinks many pastors lose the authority of the keys when they preach (bind or loosen) cultural, instead of scriptural truths.

I see no connection between the keys of the gospel and something uniquely or solely given to male priesthood holders in the LDS church. That is a connection that has not been made yet in a way that I can understand it. Certainly they can preach the gospel as I can. In that sense they have the same access to the same keys as we all do.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

So my question is this (oh no! Not another one!)  - How did the keys in Matt 16:19 become linked to a one-of-a-kind priesthood that is only available in a one-of-a-kind church on earth? Is there a Biblical connection that can clearly be made?

We also have the BOM and D&C and Pearl of GP.

Our priesthood keys have the power to exalt mankind and make humanity as God is.

Presently, other churches do not even claim to have that power, yet of course their members may achieve that as they are converted to the church of Christ, after death.

Those ordinances are not available elsewhere, and sets us apart from others; a higher authority is required.

Simple.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

How did the keys in Matt 16:19 become linked to a one-of-a-kind priesthood that is only available in a one-of-a-kind church on earth? Is there a Biblical connection that can clearly be made?

God told us they were linked as part of revealing the ordinances. (That is our belief, whether it is truth….I believe it is, I understand if others don’t).

Edited March 20, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I see no connection between the keys of the gospel and something uniquely or solely given to male priesthood holders in the LDS church. That is a connection that has not been made yet in a way that I can understand it. Certainly they can preach the gospel as I can. In that sense they have the same access to the same keys as we all do.

See above.

We require a higher Priesthood.

It is my belief this will be clear to all in Paradise, and all will accept it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would simply suggest that repeating the same thing over and over neither makes it true nor understandable to the inquiring mind.

Indeed, as asking the same question repeatedly and not understanding the answer, does not make it false.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

So my question is this (oh no! Not another one!)  - How did the keys in Matt 16:19 become linked to a one-of-a-kind priesthood that is only available in a one-of-a-kind church on earth? Is there a Biblical connection that can clearly be made?

Clear as glass.

Ordinance of sealing for time and eternity, available to only one church.  Not til death, but families can be together forever, thru Heavenly Father's Plan.

THIS IS THE BIBLICAL CONNECTION.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thank you for your response. I would simply suggest that repeating the same thing over and over neither makes it true nor understandable to the inquiring mind. Having said that, I really do appreciate your response.

And repeating the question over and over does not mean it hasn’t been answered.

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

The Greek word translated "key" in the NT is the word kleis. It is used six times in the NT. Four of those times it used in the singular;  two times in the plural. Four of the six times it is used metaphorically in the Book of Revelation (an apocalyptic book in which most word images are metaphorical) - three times used singularly and one time in the plural. That leaves one use in Luke 11:52 (singular) and one time in Matt. 16:19 (plural). Luke 11:52 is certainly used metaphorically as well - to refer to a house of knowledge that the Jewish leaders have locked and more or less thrown away the key! Who are these folks? They are hypocrites - "experts" in religious knowledge. Certainly not folks to emulate!

That leaves us with one verse - Matt 16:19 where the word is used in the plural (keys). "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven." It is a sister verse to Matt 18:18 which is clearly, given the context, a communal concept related to the two or three or all those referred to in the context of Matt. 18.

What “keys of the Priesthood” means in this discussion is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 117…

Quote

18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—
19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.
20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

Section 127…

Quote

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;
6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;
8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;
9 And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse;
10 And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain;
11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;
13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
14 And also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world.

And Section 132 (among others)…

Quote

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

So my question is this (oh no! Not another one!)  - How did the keys in Matt 16:19 become linked to a one-of-a-kind priesthood that is only available in a one-of-a-kind church on earth? Is there a Biblical connection that can clearly be made?

If I were to accurately preach the gospel here on earth using the keys of the Scripture - prayers, faith, wisdom, love, etc. (all of which have the power to open hearts to the gospel) would not what I am saying already have been loosed or bound in heaven before I even said it? If I preach,  " Let the one who desires take the water of life freely" would that not already have been declared truth in heaven since I am preaching what is already recorded in Revelation 22:17? If I preach, "Don't let your heart be troubled" wouldn't that truth already have been sealed in heaven, not because I or any member of any one particular church said it, but because it is already authoritatively sealed in heaven, having been written in John 14:1? We preach the truth already bound and loosed in heaven when we preach the gospel - the grace which is already promised through the atonement of Christ. Methinks many pastors lose the authority of the keys when they preach (bind or loosen) cultural, instead of scriptural truths.

I see no connection between the keys of the gospel and something uniquely or solely given to male priesthood holders in the LDS church. That is a connection that has not been made yet in a way that I can understand it. Certainly they can preach the gospel as I can. In that sense they have the same access to the same keys as we all do.

I don’t agree with the premise, “It is fairly clear that the tense implies that whatever the ‘you’ binds on earth will already have been bound in heaven and whatever the ‘you’ loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven (before you even say it),” nor with the assertion that there is no biblical connection with the LDS doctrine of keys. The connection is made clear in modern revelation. The answer to your question is found in the scripture quoted above, D&C 132:7.

Perhaps this will help clarify what we mean by keys. It ties keys to biblical precedents, explains why they are important, how they function in the Church, and how they are passed from God to man and man to man. I believe this talk by Elder Bruce McConkie is the best exposition on the keys of the priesthood. If you are interested, I would suggest you read the whole talk. 

Quote

They receive the keys of the kingdom by virtue of which they are empowered to organize, preside over, govern, and regulate the kingdom of God on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…But since keys are the right of presidency, they can only be exercised in their fulness by one man on earth at a time. He is always the senior Apostle, the presiding Apostle, the presiding high priest, the presiding elder. He alone can give direction to all others, direction from which none is exempt.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1983/04/the-keys-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng

I hope this helps.
Best wishes,

BG

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

And repeating the question over and over does not mean it hasn’t been answered.

What “keys of the Priesthood” means in this discussion is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 117…

Section 127…

And Section 132 (among others)…

I don’t agree with the premise, “It is fairly clear that the tense implies that whatever the ‘you’ binds on earth will already have been bound in heaven and whatever the ‘you’ loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven (before you even say it),” nor with the assertion that there is no biblical connection with the LDS doctrine of keys. The connection is made clear in modern revelation. The answer to your question is found in the scripture quoted above, D&C 132:7.

Perhaps this will help clarify what we mean by keys. It ties keys to biblical precedents, explains why they are important, how they function in the Church, and how they are passed from God to man and man to man. I believe this talk by Elder Bruce McConkie is the best exposition on the keys of the priesthood. If you are interested, I would suggest you read the whole talk. 

I hope this helps.
Best wishes,

BG

 

 

All the answers are out there if you just look for them, if you refuse to read LDS scripture, as some are, you will have repeated misconceptions.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Indeed, as asking the same question repeatedly and not understanding the answer, does not make it false.

I am not interested in true and false questions. I am not a binary-solution type of person. I am not interested in either certainty or uncertainty. I like provisional certainty. I am interested in understanding whatever answer you proffer. I understand my belief; I don't understand yours. How could I migrate (not convert) to your position if I don't understand it? I am not interested in demonstrating or suggesting anyone is wrong. I am interested in understanding why you believe what you do. For example you still haven't given me an answer as to how your faith connects the concept of the key(s) to a priesthood. I guess your answer was "our three scriptures say they are connected so they are connected." Is that fair? I certainly can accept that; but I simply don't see the connection outside of the LDS gospels. I read all the gospel doctrine manuals and they all pretty much do the same thing. They are connected because we say they are connected! Simple, isn't it, clear as glass! I can't seriously consider what I don't seriously understand. I have spent countless hours seriously considering the claims of the LDS church. There are some I haven't gotten my head around yet! 🙃 This priesthood key(s) is one of them. I have already done a lot of migrating. I have no need to do more or to stop. I just love to understand.

I read the other day that the New York Giants are the finest football franchise in the history of professional football. Where did I read that? In the public relations guide put out by the New York Giants! I wrote them an email asking them why they think the New York Giants are the finest football franchise in the history of professional football. They wrote me back asking, "Didn't you read our guide we put out? I wrote them back, asking "what are your data, your evidence? How many other non-NY Giants-related experts believe that? They wrote me back asking, "Didn't you read our guide we put out? As so on and on and on. I don't fit your paradigm. I really want to understand.
 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And repeating the question over and over does not mean it hasn’t been answered.

What “keys of the Priesthood” means in this discussion is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 117…

Section 127…

And Section 132 (among others)…

I don’t agree with the premise, “It is fairly clear that the tense implies that whatever the ‘you’ binds on earth will already have been bound in heaven and whatever the ‘you’ loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven (before you even say it),” nor with the assertion that there is no biblical connection with the LDS doctrine of keys. The connection is made clear in modern revelation. The answer to your question is found in the scripture quoted above, D&C 132:7.

Perhaps this will help clarify what we mean by keys. It ties keys to biblical precedents, explains why they are important, how they function in the Church, and how they are passed from God to man and man to man. I believe this talk by Elder Bruce McConkie is the best exposition on the keys of the priesthood. If you are interested, I would suggest you read the whole talk. 

I hope this helps.
Best wishes,

BG

 

 

Thanks. Lots to unpack in that. I will listen to the talk you have provided. I don't usually read Elder McConkie anymore since so many LDS folks have told me not to use his book as a guide to LDS doctrine. I would enjoy an exposition on the keys of the priesthood. It seems like you are saying that it is not something that is connected to Biblical concept of keys. Perhaps that is my incorrect assumption. It seems like my LDS friends are fairly committed to tying LDS doctrine to a basis in the Bible. Therefore, that is what I pretty much always try and do, at least in my own mind. I pretty much try and filter LDS doctrine through the Bible. It seems like, at least in that case, that might not be possible. I don't have time or energy tonight to read McConkie, but will do so tomorrow. Thanks for you kind reply. I really do appreciate it.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All the answers are out there if you just look for them, if you refuse to read LDS scripture, as some are, you will have repeated misconceptions.

I am not sure why you think I refuse to read LDS scripture. My repeated misconceptions are certainly not from a failure to read LDS scriptures, books, articles, monographs, and the like. If I have repeated misconceptions it is because I don't understand. I can neither accept nor reject what I don't understand. For example I heartily accept that many of my LDS friends are Christians because I understand that and in that case I then accept that. I don't understand this priesthood key connection so I can neither accept nor reject it. Having said that, my main goal is not really based on a desire to accept or reject your beliefs. I want to receive them in a way I can understand and then move on to learning more about something else!

If I can draw a non-spiritual comparison, as I have studied modern Mexican history I have never understood the concept of La Segunda Cristiada or the Second Cristero War in the 1930s. So what did I do? I decided to write my PhD dissertation on it at 74 years of age. Oh and guess what I found out? The Third Convention revolt in the Mexican LDS church in the 1930s was directly tied into the larger movement that some call La Segunda. In some ways so was the whole LeBaron spinoff. I now understand that! Wow! So what is my conclusion? I don't agree or disagree with the construct called "La Segunda." I am suggesting a better term for this decade long series of events is "La Madrugada" - neither the midnight of the revolution, nor the dawn of a different Mexico in the 1940s. I gained an understanding through three long years of research. Now I am shaping a new concept out of that understanding.

In the same way, I am shaping a new concept of the LDS church from an outsider's perspective that fits my understanding. I won't convert anyone to anything - not my intent. My intent is to own my own unique understanding and interpretation of all things LDS. That is what I do! That is what I enjoy! That is what drives you nuts! 😄

Edited March 21, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not interested in true and false questions. I am not a binary-solution type of person. I am not interested in either certainty or uncertainty. I like provisional certainty. I am interested in understanding whatever answer you proffer. I understand my belief; I don't understand yours. How could I migrate (not convert) to your position if I don't understand it? I am not interested in demonstrating or suggesting anyone is wrong. I am interested in understanding why you believe what you do. For example you still haven't given me an answer as to how your faith connects the concept of the key(s) to a priesthood. I guess your answer was "our three scriptures say they are connected so they are connected." Is that fair? I certainly can accept that; but I simply don't see the connection outside of the LDS gospels. I read all the gospel doctrine manuals and they all pretty much do the same thing. They are connected because we say they are connected! Simple, isn't it, clear as glass! I can't seriously consider what I don't seriously understand. I have spent countless hours seriously considering the claims of the LDS church. There are some I haven't gotten my head around yet! 🙃 This priesthood key(s) is one of them. I have already done a lot of migrating. I have no need to do more or to stop. I just love to understand.

I read the other day that the New York Giants are the finest football franchise in the history of professional football. Where did I read that? In the public relations guide put out by the New York Giants! I wrote them an email asking them why they think the New York Giants are the finest football franchise in the history of professional football. They wrote me back asking, "Didn't you read our guide we put out? I wrote them back, asking "what are your data, your evidence? How many other non-NY Giants-related experts believe that? They wrote me back asking, "Didn't you read our guide we put out? As so on and on and on. I don't fit your paradigm. I really want to understand.
 

Pretend for one moment that Matthew was a Mormon and writing FOR Mormons, and said  when they sealed on earth, was sealed in heaven.

Sealing.

That's clear Mormon doctrine.

We believe that we "Mormons" ARE the restoration of ancient Christianity.  Ancient Christianity, we believe had sealings like ours.

So Matthew is speaking to US, in our interpretation.

Make sense?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't understand this priesthood key connection so I can neither accept nor reject it. 

I have no clue what connection you are talking about.  Please explain 

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no clue what connection you are talking about.  Please explain 

Ok, I am willing to pretend that Matthew was writing for Mormons because he probably was – he was writing to His followers – Christians. He was quoting Christ’s teachings aimed at his followers – so I don’t need to pretend. Whether to Baptist, Catholic, or Mormon – Christ was teaching in Matthew 16. Chapter 16’s context is all about teaching. Christ teaches in it, He talks about Jews’ teachings and about His own previous teaching to them via the miracles He did. Matthew is quoting Christ and using very specific words and tenses to do so.

In verse 19, Christ teaches about binding and loosing. The word used for binding is a derivative of the word “deo.” It means to tie up or to compel. How did Matthew use the word in other passages? He used it in Matthew 13 in the parable of the tares. He talked about tying up tares in bales to be burned. It reminds me of what we do here with alfalfa and other types of hay.

The root word luo is used for loosing or untying – it is quite a literal word. So when you loosen the bale to feed the cows or in the case of the tares, to burn you are doing whatever Christ is talking about – a very understandable concept to an agrarian society. Matthew uses the same word in Matt. 21:2 to refer to Christ’s instructions to untie a donkey and colt to bring to Him.

In the case of Matthew 16:19, the important thing is the verb tense and structure used. When Christ speaks of what the followers will do in tying up and untying He uses the aorist tense (in both cases) – a point-in-time action. When Christ speaks of what is done in heaven in tying and untying (in both cases), He uses not a simple verb per se, but a perfect participle. Huge difference. In English I might say “I sat in the chair” – an aorist action done at a point in time. I might also say “I have been sitting in the chair for two hours” a completely different meaning. This last usage means I sat down (an action in the past) and have continued sitting down (a continued action in the present). These differences have meaning.

So, referring to the text, I don’t see anything that refers to some type of sealing in a permanent sense. There are words for sealing that could have been used here, but were not. So where does the idea of Matt 16:19 talking about some type of “sealing” come from? Joseph Smith taught about the need to correctly translate the Bible. . . that is what I am trying to do.

Christ, through Matthew’s writing is trying to teach in a context about teaching. The keys (I wrote about that word yesterday) He is referring to are His teaching examples in performing miracles (feeding of the 5000) and His teachings as in the difference between bread and leaven.

Teachings are keys that open (untie) the doors to learning. Lack of teaching or incorrect teaching are keys that close (tie) the doors to learning. So Christ is saying when you, at a point in time use the keys of teaching I am giving you, you are in fact teaching what has already in a perfect participle sense been tied and untied and remains tied and untied in heaven. The followers' actions (correct teachings) are examples of truths (teachings -keys) that have already been tied in heaven beginning with the plan of redemption in the incarnation. The keys are the teachings, not something within or about those doing the teaching. 

Somewhere, the Saints began teaching that keys are special authority given to specific individuals to "seal" something in heaven because of their individual action at some point in time. It seems clear that in this passage something is being tied and untied via their correct teaching that had already been tied or untied in heaven. Their teaching is correct because it reflects the already tied or untied teaching from heaven - something like the truth of eternal life with the Father and the Savior.

So, my question is where did this idea of sealing come from as an action performed by someone holding the unique priesthood of the LDS church? What does sealing even mean? It certainly does not imply permanence, because it can apparently be lost by one previously sealed. Is that not correct? That which was tied, could and often was, untied - right? How did it happen that keys became some authority that someone has to seal something because of the priesthood. That is a connecting of three things (keys as authority, sealing, and priesthood) that I do not understand either individually, or especially inter-connected.

Back to the beginning. No need to pretend Christ and Matthew were speaking to Mormons. Of course they were, but not just or only to Mormons. Neither Peter nor Matthew knew anything about Mormons, Baptists, or Mennonites to come. There is no priesthood context in the passage. There really at this point in Christ's ministry is no clear concept of a church or thee church. I believe He had not yet revealed Himself as the Son of God or Son of Man.
 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Ok, I am willing to pretend that Matthew was writing for Mormons because he probably was – he was writing to His followers – Christians. He was quoting Christ’s teachings aimed at his followers – so I don’t need to pretend. Whether to Baptist, Catholic, or Mormon – Christ was teaching in Matthew 16. Chapter 16’s context is all about teaching. Christ teaches in it, He talks about Jews’ teachings and about His own previous teaching to them via the miracles He did. Matthew is quoting Christ and using very specific words and tenses to do so.

In verse 19, Christ teaches about binding and loosing. The word used for binding is a derivative of the word “deo.” It means to tie up or to compel. How did Matthew use the word in other passages? He used it in Matthew 13 in the parable of the tares. He talked about tying up tares in bales to be burned. It reminds me of what we do here with alfalfa and other types of hay.

The root word luo is used for loosing or untying – it is quite a literal word. So when you loosen the bale to feed the cows or in the case of the tares, to burn you are doing whatever Christ is talking about – a very understandable concept to an agrarian society. Matthew uses the same word in Matt. 21:2 to refer to Christ’s instructions to untie a donkey and colt to bring to Him.

In the case of Matthew 16:19, the important thing is the verb tense and structure used. When Christ speaks of what the followers will do in tying up and untying He uses the aorist tense (in both cases) – a point-in-time action. When Christ speaks of what is done in heaven in tying and untying (in both cases), He uses not a simple verb per se, but a perfect participle. Huge difference. In English I might say “I sat in the chair” – an aorist action done at a point in time. I might also say “I have been sitting in the chair for two hours” a completely different meaning. This last usage means I sat down (an action in the past) and have continued sitting down (a continued action in the present). These differences have meaning.

So, referring to the text, I don’t see anything that refers to some type of sealing in a permanent sense. There are words for sealing that could have been used here, but were not. So where does the idea of Matt 16:19 talking about some type of “sealing” come from? Joseph Smith taught about the need to correctly translate the Bible. . . that is what I am trying to do.

Christ, through Matthew’s writing is trying to teach in a context about teaching. The keys (I wrote about that word yesterday) He is referring to are His teaching examples in performing miracles (feeding of the 5000) and His teachings as in the difference between bread and leaven.

Teachings are keys that open (untie) the doors to learning. Lack of teaching or incorrect teaching are keys that close (tie) the doors to learning. So Christ is saying when you, at a point in time use the keys of teaching I am giving you, you are in fact teaching what has already in a perfect participle sense been tied and untied and remains tied and untied in heaven. The followers' actions (correct teachings) are examples of truths (teachings -keys) that have already been tied in heaven beginning with the plan of redemption in the incarnation. The keys are the teachings, not something within or about those doing the teaching. 

Somewhere, the Saints began teaching that keys are special authority given to specific individuals to "seal" something in heaven because of their individual action at some point in time. It seems clear that in this passage something is being tied and untied via their correct teaching that had already been tied or untied in heaven. Their teaching is correct because it reflects the already tied or untied teaching from heaven - something like the truth of eternal life with the Father and the Savior.

So, my question is where did this idea of sealing come from as an action performed by someone holding the unique priesthood of the LDS church? What does sealing even mean? It certainly does not imply permanence, because it can apparently be lost by one previously sealed. Is that not correct? That which was tied, could and often was, untied - right? How did it happen that keys became some authority that someone has to seal something because of the priesthood. That is a connecting of three things (keys as authority, sealing, and priesthood) that I do not understand either individually, or especially inter-connected.

Back to the beginning. No need to pretend Christ and Matthew were speaking to Mormons. Of course they were, but not just or only to Mormons. Neither Peter nor Matthew knew anything about Mormons, Baptists, or Mennonites to come. There is no priesthood context in the passage. There really at this point in Christ's ministry is no clear concept of a church or thee church. I believe He had not yet revealed Himself as the Son of God or Son of Man.
 

 

Seriously?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_of_Heaven

[mfbukowski]

@Navidad

Early in the Anabaptist movement, even if one had been baptized as a baby, one had to be re-baptized to become an Anabaptist.

Exclusive authority?

Why the change, and who had the authority to make the change in Doctrine?

Incidentally here is an interesting article from a Mennonite preacher

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thirdwaychristians/2021/09/the-third-way-christian/

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

@Navidad

Early in the Anabaptist movement, even if one had been baptized as a baby, one had to be re-baptized to become an Anabaptist.

Exclusive authority?

Why the change, and who had the authority to make the change in Doctrine?

 

Not sure I understand your question? To this day if one wants to join the Mennonite church one has to have been (there is that perfect participle again) baptized in some form by some group as a person old enough (in a Piaget sense) to understand what they are doing. One does not have to be baptized by a Mennonite minister, in a Mennonite church, nor by a specific method. It has nothing to do with authority - it has to do with the person being baptized understanding what they are doing and the commitments they are making or have made. Certainly there are those within a specific church (local) who have authority to baptize in a ministerial priesthood sense.

I am unaware of any change or change in baptismal doctrine over the years in the Mennonite church. If a person is baptized by a minister/pastor/priest of another group as an adult or youth, they would not have to be rebaptized to join the Mennonite church. Perhaps some Old Colony churches, but none I know of. Neither my wife nor I were ever baptized by a Mennonite minister or in a Mennonite church, yet we were both members, and I was the chairman of the church council in a Mennonite church and was licensed as a Mennonite minister. My son was baptized by pouring from a pitcher by a Mennonite bishop after he demonstrated to the elders' satisfaction that he knew what he was doing. If we had asked, they would have immersed him as well. With him, that would not have worked, so he was baptized by pouring. He was about 14 years old or so. He had never previously been baptized.

If you are asking who has authority in a Mennonite church, it is either the local elders or the bishop (if there is one). There are not as many bishops today as there used to be. There is no other higher or presiding authority in a Mennonite church. There is no world-wide Mennonite church organization in existence. In that sense each church is autonomous, today usually within a conference structure where conference leadership provides support to the local church. A Mennonite conference may or may not have a bishop. Nothing higher than a bishop in a spiritual sense. There is a world conference of Mennonites to which some Mennonite groups belong, but not all. They can make suggested changes in policies, but their decisions are not authoritative. If I haven't covered your comment or question, please let me know.