[Deleted]

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt,

I don't know if you've hit a busy patch in your life, you've decided that you're done with this conversation, or you thought my question was rhetorical. But I think it's important to continue with the discussion, since we still haven't circled back to Denver Snuffer yet. Please feel free to add any insights or questions along the way.
What happens when these binding/administrative keys are lost to a church, or to the world as a whole?
The simple answer to the question is: guaranteed apostasy. How would I define apostasy? It would be the opposite of having active binding keys. In other words, no ordinances or ordinations done on earth would be binding in heaven. God would not recognize them as valid in this life, or in the life to come. This is why baptisms for the dead are so important. Even though many individuals were baptized, and their baptisms recorded, their churches didn't have keys. That's why they must be re-done, this time with keys.

It's pretty easy to see how apostasy would happen for an individual. If someone is excommunicated from a church with keys, it would be done through the key's "loosening" power. Again from Matthew 16:
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Thus, that person would have their ordinances blotted from the heavenly record, no longer to be recognized as valid by God.

But what about a general apostasy? Before I go there, I need to mention something very important. It is that keys aren't given sideways. What does that mean? It means that when a bishop is released (for example), he doesn't give his keys to the new bishop. They are given to him from the First Presidency (although usually delegated through another, since they can't do everything in person.) From D&C 68:
15 Wherefore they [bishops] shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.
That helps to explain why it's so easy for a dispensation to apostatize. Only a few wicked men are needed to kill (or exile) the apostles who hold the keys of the dispensation. They are the ones who need to pass down keys so the church can function at all levels. After they are gone (and the keys with them), the church will slowly begin to die. All of those who held portions of the keys under them would eventually die or be released from their callings. The keys would not be active for the replacements. The ordinances going forward would no longer be done with the keys. Eventually, the apostasy would be complete.

Contemplating the Great Apostasy in that light fills me with great sadness. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in a ward where baptisms were valid one week, but not the next because the keys were lost? Where people have valid priesthood ordinations, but they can't give it to anyone else? I don't know what I would do. In fact, I would probably do as they did -- just carry on as if the keys were still there.

Cookies
captain of 100
Posts: 618

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Cookies »

Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects
Denver is a god, everyone who doesn't belong to his particular sect will burn for eternity. Boom! You can quote me on that.

...I am a really good guesser.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

All of this talk about keys reminded me of a story shared by Denver Snuffer in "The Second Comforter". Although I don't think it was his intention, it beautifully highlights the importance of priesthood keys binding on both sides of the veil.
Chapter Twelve IN THE ORDINANCES THEREOF

I took the first 11 names of my male ancestors to the South Jordan Temple on August 30, 2000. No one other than myself, in all prior generations of my family, had been a member of the Church. This was the day on which the work for my ancestors began. The restoration to my kindred dead commenced!

I took 11 names with me that day. I did the baptisms and confirmations, and then went to my truck to put my towel and extra garments away. Since I had never done the ordinances before, I hadn’t known the Temple supplied these things for you.

As I left the Temple, I was accompanied by the spirits of these 11 brothers who had been permitted to come on the occasion of their baptism to witness their work being done. One of them spoke to me saying: “But we have not yet been clothed.” I replied: “Don’t worry, I’m just putting my things in the truck. I intend to return to take care of that.” They then said: “We form a quorum.”

I thought about it for a moment and replied: “What do you mean you form a ‘quorum’? There are only 11 of you.” Came the reply: “But with you we are twelve.”

The smallest and first priesthood quorum you join in the Church is the Deacon’s quorum, which consists of 12 members. If these brothers regarded me as one of them, then we were 12. I was touched by their rejoinder.

I returned and completed the washings and anointings for these 11 ancestors. As I was preparing to leave the Temple they confronted me and petitioned again: “But we have not yet received the robes of righteousness.” I replied: “I’ve been here all day, and can’t stay longer. I’ll take care of it, but can’t do so now.” They were unhappy, but I could not remain longer that day.
There are a few things that stand out to me from this account.

-- There had to be keys involved. Otherwise, none of the ordinances would have been able to impact them in the spirit world. And it's clear from the account that these men knew they were having an effect.
-- It wasn't just baptism that they wanted -- they wanted ALL of their ordinances done. And they understood that in the temple that was possible.
-- In other words, Denver Snuffer's ancestors were testifying that in the year 2000, both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood ordinances were valid for them. That means that the church had both sets of priesthood keys at that time.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I read later that Denver Snuffer denied that the ordinances could have been effectual. His claim was that they were just demonstrating their worthiness, or something to that effect. However, that doesn't make any sense to me. Which seems more logical?

11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because they knew it would have an impact on them.
11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because it would make absolutely no difference to them.

Keys are so important! Before my research, I had never knelt down and thanked God for allowing us to have them. But since I started, I have said numerous prayers to that effect.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

silk wrote: November 14th, 2017, 4:44 pm All of this talk about keys reminded me of a story shared by Denver Snuffer in "The Second Comforter". Although I don't think it was his intention, it beautifully highlights the importance of priesthood keys binding on both sides of the veil.
Chapter Twelve IN THE ORDINANCES THEREOF

I took the first 11 names of my male ancestors to the South Jordan Temple on August 30, 2000. No one other than myself, in all prior generations of my family, had been a member of the Church. This was the day on which the work for my ancestors began. The restoration to my kindred dead commenced!

I took 11 names with me that day. I did the baptisms and confirmations, and then went to my truck to put my towel and extra garments away. Since I had never done the ordinances before, I hadn’t known the Temple supplied these things for you.

As I left the Temple, I was accompanied by the spirits of these 11 brothers who had been permitted to come on the occasion of their baptism to witness their work being done. One of them spoke to me saying: “But we have not yet been clothed.” I replied: “Don’t worry, I’m just putting my things in the truck. I intend to return to take care of that.” They then said: “We form a quorum.”

I thought about it for a moment and replied: “What do you mean you form a ‘quorum’? There are only 11 of you.” Came the reply: “But with you we are twelve.”

The smallest and first priesthood quorum you join in the Church is the Deacon’s quorum, which consists of 12 members. If these brothers regarded me as one of them, then we were 12. I was touched by their rejoinder.

I returned and completed the washings and anointings for these 11 ancestors. As I was preparing to leave the Temple they confronted me and petitioned again: “But we have not yet received the robes of righteousness.” I replied: “I’ve been here all day, and can’t stay longer. I’ll take care of it, but can’t do so now.” They were unhappy, but I could not remain longer that day.
There are a few things that stand out to me from this account.

-- There had to be keys involved. Otherwise, none of the ordinances would have been able to impact them in the spirit world. And it's clear from the account that these men knew they were having an effect.
-- It wasn't just baptism that they wanted -- they wanted ALL of their ordinances done. And they understood that in the temple that was possible.
-- In other words, Denver Snuffer's ancestors were testifying that in the year 2000, both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood ordinances were valid for them. That means that the church had both sets of priesthood keys at that time.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I read later that Denver Snuffer denied that the ordinances could have been effectual. His claim was that they were just demonstrating their worthiness, or something to that effect. However, that doesn't make any sense to me. Which seems more logical?

11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because they knew it would have an impact on them.
11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because it would make absolutely no difference to them.

Keys are so important! Before my research, I had never knelt down and thanked God for allowing us to have them. But since I started, I have said numerous prayers to that effect.
It does not get much more blatant than this. Either the priesthood authority exists as evidences by valid temple ordinances or he lied about the experiences he had. Of course he would have some type rebuttle to justify why he said this, but what is written is written. Crystal clear.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

LDS Anarchist wrote: November 14th, 2017, 9:41 pm The keys are still with the church. But that doesn't mean that he lied about his experiences. It may be that Denver Snuffer is simply suffering from psychological delusions. A deluded man may still be an honest man. In other words, he honestly believes that he had the experiences he says he had, even though he didn't. He just imagined them. And those who listen to him, think, "Well, he doesn't strike me as a dishonest man..." So, because they feel he is not intentionally deceiving, and because they think the restoration is not progressing as it should, they grasp at his delusions as if they were the real thing.
I suppose that could be a possibility but based on the mentioned attempt to justify the experience to fit his new narrative I think it is pretty clear what happened.

moving2zion
captain of 100
Posts: 550

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by moving2zion »

They will become a side comment like the other splinter groups.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 13th, 2017, 5:44 pm jdt,

I don't know if you've hit a busy patch in your life, you've decided that you're done with this conversation, or you thought my question was rhetorical. But I think it's important to continue with the discussion, since we still haven't circled back to Denver Snuffer yet. Please feel free to add any insights or questions along the way.
What happens when these binding/administrative keys are lost to a church, or to the world as a whole?
The simple answer to the question is: guaranteed apostasy. How would I define apostasy? It would be the opposite of having active binding keys. In other words, no ordinances or ordinations done on earth would be binding in heaven. God would not recognize them as valid in this life, or in the life to come. This is why baptisms for the dead are so important. Even though many individuals were baptized, and their baptisms recorded, their churches didn't have keys. That's why they must be re-done, this time with keys.

It's pretty easy to see how apostasy would happen for an individual. If someone is excommunicated from a church with keys, it would be done through the key's "loosening" power. Again from Matthew 16:
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Thus, that person would have their ordinances blotted from the heavenly record, no longer to be recognized as valid by God.

But what about a general apostasy? Before I go there, I need to mention something very important. It is that keys aren't given sideways. What does that mean? It means that when a bishop is released (for example), he doesn't give his keys to the new bishop. They are given to him from the First Presidency (although usually delegated through another, since they can't do everything in person.) From D&C 68:
15 Wherefore they [bishops] shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.
That helps to explain why it's so easy for a dispensation to apostatize. Only a few wicked men are needed to kill (or exile) the apostles who hold the keys of the dispensation. They are the ones who need to pass down keys so the church can function at all levels. After they are gone (and the keys with them), the church will slowly begin to die. All of those who held portions of the keys under them would eventually die or be released from their callings. The keys would not be active for the replacements. The ordinances going forward would no longer be done with the keys. Eventually, the apostasy would be complete.

Contemplating the Great Apostasy in that light fills me with great sadness. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in a ward where baptisms were valid one week, but not the next because the keys were lost? Where people have valid priesthood ordinations, but they can't give it to anyone else? I don't know what I would do. In fact, I would probably do as they did -- just carry on as if the keys were still there.
Yes, this has been a fairly busy week and I thought it was somewhat rhetorical. But I am still interested in the conversation.
I think your post was pretty good. It does beg a couple of questions to my mind:
How are keys transmitted?
Can a man give another man keys?
Is there such a thing as keys to be Bishop? Can they be transmitted/transferred? (More expansively, what keys do exist?)
Is there a way to falsifiably determine if a person holds keys or not? If so what is it?
Assuming the answer is that man can give keys to another man, how extensively can this be done? For example, did Alma the Elder offer an authoritative baptism in the wilderness? Did he have keys, where did he get them? Was he able to give them to the priests and teachers he ordained in the wilderness?

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 14th, 2017, 4:44 pm All of this talk about keys reminded me of a story shared by Denver Snuffer in "The Second Comforter". Although I don't think it was his intention, it beautifully highlights the importance of priesthood keys binding on both sides of the veil.
Chapter Twelve IN THE ORDINANCES THEREOF

I took the first 11 names of my male ancestors to the South Jordan Temple on August 30, 2000. No one other than myself, in all prior generations of my family, had been a member of the Church. This was the day on which the work for my ancestors began. The restoration to my kindred dead commenced!

I took 11 names with me that day. I did the baptisms and confirmations, and then went to my truck to put my towel and extra garments away. Since I had never done the ordinances before, I hadn’t known the Temple supplied these things for you.

As I left the Temple, I was accompanied by the spirits of these 11 brothers who had been permitted to come on the occasion of their baptism to witness their work being done. One of them spoke to me saying: “But we have not yet been clothed.” I replied: “Don’t worry, I’m just putting my things in the truck. I intend to return to take care of that.” They then said: “We form a quorum.”

I thought about it for a moment and replied: “What do you mean you form a ‘quorum’? There are only 11 of you.” Came the reply: “But with you we are twelve.”

The smallest and first priesthood quorum you join in the Church is the Deacon’s quorum, which consists of 12 members. If these brothers regarded me as one of them, then we were 12. I was touched by their rejoinder.

I returned and completed the washings and anointings for these 11 ancestors. As I was preparing to leave the Temple they confronted me and petitioned again: “But we have not yet received the robes of righteousness.” I replied: “I’ve been here all day, and can’t stay longer. I’ll take care of it, but can’t do so now.” They were unhappy, but I could not remain longer that day.
There are a few things that stand out to me from this account.

-- There had to be keys involved. Otherwise, none of the ordinances would have been able to impact them in the spirit world. And it's clear from the account that these men knew they were having an effect.
-- It wasn't just baptism that they wanted -- they wanted ALL of their ordinances done. And they understood that in the temple that was possible.
-- In other words, Denver Snuffer's ancestors were testifying that in the year 2000, both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood ordinances were valid for them. That means that the church had both sets of priesthood keys at that time.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I read later that Denver Snuffer denied that the ordinances could have been effectual. His claim was that they were just demonstrating their worthiness, or something to that effect. However, that doesn't make any sense to me. Which seems more logical?

11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because they knew it would have an impact on them.
11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because it would make absolutely no difference to them.

Keys are so important! Before my research, I had never knelt down and thanked God for allowing us to have them. But since I started, I have said numerous prayers to that effect.
For context here are some more quotes on the matter from his blog:
To the one asking how to reconcile my ancestors contacting me while I did ordinances in the Jordan River Temple for them and the possibility we were rejected, I would respond as follows: Rejection of the church is not rejection of the individual. IF (and I have always left that tentative and for each person to decide for themselves) there has been a rejection, that does not mean anything other than the organized efforts were unacceptable. Each individual is accountable for their own conduct. There was a Temple rebuilt by Herod, presided over by wicked men who would kill the Lord, and yet He called it His “Father’s house.” In that Temple a publican came in and offered a great offering, and was rejected. A widow, however, entered and gave but a farthing, and she was accepted. The difference was not the building, nor the act of paying, but the intent of the individual. In the same Temple there can be acceptable work and unacceptable work proceeding simultaneously.
Well, righteous Hannah went up to the Tabernacle, and Hannah in faith was praying at the Tabernacle. And to give you an idea of the lowly state of the Tabernacle in that day, drunkenness was so common place there that when Eli saw her praying, her lips were moving but there were
no words coming out, he assumed she was like the rest of them. She was just another drunk. He was a little upset at the drunken woman at the Tabernacle and so he complained to her. Eli in verse 14 of 1 Samuel said: "And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy
wine from thee." And Hannah says, No I'm not. I've come here to pray. In verse 17, Eli answered and said, "Go in peace and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him."
A faithless, wicked, insubordinate priest who will be slain by the hand of God with his sons and his grandson, on this day is enabled by the worthiness of Hannah, to give to Hannah through her faith a blessing from God. This is a true principal. It is the worthiness of the recipient that drives blessings. Nothing is withheld from those with faith. Even a wicked High Priest can confer a blessing upon the worthy.
This is because in the ordinances the power of God is manifest. Not because of some white shirt wearing, dark suit clad, institutional chap with a certificate given to him by the institution and common consent allowing him to perform an ordinance. It is not that at all. But it will be in every case because you come in faith to God believing, and you wrestle a blessing from God, through the means He has allowed for it to be bestowed: by your faith. You can have God take note of your diligence, and your faith.
I want to suggest that, if you go to a patriarch in the Church, in faith believing, that God is able through any inspired man giving a blessing, by the power of the Holy Ghost without regard to priesthood. Remember priesthood is animated by the power of the Holy Ghost. Bring that with you. Anything done by the power of the Holy Ghost comes from God.
In large measure your faith matters far more than you think it does. I know a great deal more than I knew at the time I went to the Jordan River temple to perform vicarious work for deceased ancestors for the first time. However I have related an incident in one of the little vignettes in
The Second Comforter. I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to
act in their behalf.
Keep in mind John wrested the keys from the Jews, who would within a generation kill both John and Jesus. Holding keys does not seem to be do be an endorsement of the holder.
And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am
silk wrote: November 14th, 2017, 4:44 pm All of this talk about keys reminded me of a story shared by Denver Snuffer in "The Second Comforter". Although I don't think it was his intention, it beautifully highlights the importance of priesthood keys binding on both sides of the veil.
Chapter Twelve IN THE ORDINANCES THEREOF

I took the first 11 names of my male ancestors to the South Jordan Temple on August 30, 2000. No one other than myself, in all prior generations of my family, had been a member of the Church. This was the day on which the work for my ancestors began. The restoration to my kindred dead commenced!

I took 11 names with me that day. I did the baptisms and confirmations, and then went to my truck to put my towel and extra garments away. Since I had never done the ordinances before, I hadn’t known the Temple supplied these things for you.

As I left the Temple, I was accompanied by the spirits of these 11 brothers who had been permitted to come on the occasion of their baptism to witness their work being done. One of them spoke to me saying: “But we have not yet been clothed.” I replied: “Don’t worry, I’m just putting my things in the truck. I intend to return to take care of that.” They then said: “We form a quorum.”

I thought about it for a moment and replied: “What do you mean you form a ‘quorum’? There are only 11 of you.” Came the reply: “But with you we are twelve.”

The smallest and first priesthood quorum you join in the Church is the Deacon’s quorum, which consists of 12 members. If these brothers regarded me as one of them, then we were 12. I was touched by their rejoinder.

I returned and completed the washings and anointings for these 11 ancestors. As I was preparing to leave the Temple they confronted me and petitioned again: “But we have not yet received the robes of righteousness.” I replied: “I’ve been here all day, and can’t stay longer. I’ll take care of it, but can’t do so now.” They were unhappy, but I could not remain longer that day.
There are a few things that stand out to me from this account.

-- There had to be keys involved. Otherwise, none of the ordinances would have been able to impact them in the spirit world. And it's clear from the account that these men knew they were having an effect.
-- It wasn't just baptism that they wanted -- they wanted ALL of their ordinances done. And they understood that in the temple that was possible.
-- In other words, Denver Snuffer's ancestors were testifying that in the year 2000, both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood ordinances were valid for them. That means that the church had both sets of priesthood keys at that time.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I read later that Denver Snuffer denied that the ordinances could have been effectual. His claim was that they were just demonstrating their worthiness, or something to that effect. However, that doesn't make any sense to me. Which seems more logical?

11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because they knew it would have an impact on them.
11 men were begging and pleading for immediate ordinances (that very day!) because it would make absolutely no difference to them.

Keys are so important! Before my research, I had never knelt down and thanked God for allowing us to have them. But since I started, I have said numerous prayers to that effect.
For context here are some more quotes on the matter from his blog:
To the one asking how to reconcile my ancestors contacting me while I did ordinances in the Jordan River Temple for them and the possibility we were rejected, I would respond as follows: Rejection of the church is not rejection of the individual. IF (and I have always left that tentative and for each person to decide for themselves) there has been a rejection, that does not mean anything other than the organized efforts were unacceptable. Each individual is accountable for their own conduct. There was a Temple rebuilt by Herod, presided over by wicked men who would kill the Lord, and yet He called it His “Father’s house.” In that Temple a publican came in and offered a great offering, and was rejected. A widow, however, entered and gave but a farthing, and she was accepted. The difference was not the building, nor the act of paying, but the intent of the individual. In the same Temple there can be acceptable work and unacceptable work proceeding simultaneously.
Well, righteous Hannah went up to the Tabernacle, and Hannah in faith was praying at the Tabernacle. And to give you an idea of the lowly state of the Tabernacle in that day, drunkenness was so common place there that when Eli saw her praying, her lips were moving but there were
no words coming out, he assumed she was like the rest of them. She was just another drunk. He was a little upset at the drunken woman at the Tabernacle and so he complained to her. Eli in verse 14 of 1 Samuel said: "And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy
wine from thee." And Hannah says, No I'm not. I've come here to pray. In verse 17, Eli answered and said, "Go in peace and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him."
A faithless, wicked, insubordinate priest who will be slain by the hand of God with his sons and his grandson, on this day is enabled by the worthiness of Hannah, to give to Hannah through her faith a blessing from God. This is a true principal. It is the worthiness of the recipient that drives blessings. Nothing is withheld from those with faith. Even a wicked High Priest can confer a blessing upon the worthy.
This is because in the ordinances the power of God is manifest. Not because of some white shirt wearing, dark suit clad, institutional chap with a certificate given to him by the institution and common consent allowing him to perform an ordinance. It is not that at all. But it will be in every case because you come in faith to God believing, and you wrestle a blessing from God, through the means He has allowed for it to be bestowed: by your faith. You can have God take note of your diligence, and your faith.
I want to suggest that, if you go to a patriarch in the Church, in faith believing, that God is able through any inspired man giving a blessing, by the power of the Holy Ghost without regard to priesthood. Remember priesthood is animated by the power of the Holy Ghost. Bring that with you. Anything done by the power of the Holy Ghost comes from God.
In large measure your faith matters far more than you think it does. I know a great deal more than I knew at the time I went to the Jordan River temple to perform vicarious work for deceased ancestors for the first time. However I have related an incident in one of the little vignettes in
The Second Comforter. I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to
act in their behalf.
Keep in mind John wrested the keys from the Jews, who would within a generation kill both John and Jesus. Holding keys does not seem to be do be an endorsement of the holder.
And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?

Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?

e-eye2.0
captain of 100
Posts: 454

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by e-eye2.0 »

moving2zion wrote: November 14th, 2017, 10:45 pm They will become a side comment like the other splinter groups.
I think they already have. Other than here who has really heard of this movement. You have a handful of members that know of them and then when it comes to the mission to preach the gospel to all the world not going so well, even with all the media outlets.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.
How about seeing an angel who says your son, born to your post-menopausal wife, will be the one to prepare the way for the Lord?

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.
The heart of the problem is this: many LDS like to make leaps in logic. On my mission, I was taught by my mission president (and have heard it taught many times since), to have investigators gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon, that then proves the Priesthood was restored through Joseph, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today is the true and only church. Is that a logical progression? Does it work when a Catholic says the New Testament is God's word, therefore Peter was the first Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church is the true and only church today?
President Hinckley taught a similar false dichotomy with the idea that the Church is either all true or the greatest scam ever perpetuated (paraphrased). Does this mean that if you feel the Spirit directing in you in your calling that President Monson is the Lord's true prophet on the earth today? To me, it does not. It just means that the Lord is helping you serve.
This situation is a microcosm of it. In your own mind, does Denver seeing his ancestors and their desire for ordinances effectively prove the President Monson is the Prophet (assuming Denver's account is true)? This is why we are having this conversation. I don't think it should prove anything one way or the other with regards to President Monson, any more than Gabriel's visit to Zacharias validated the Sanhedrin of the time, and so on.
I also think this accounts for much of anxiety Latter-Day Saints feel towards the Remnant. Many interpret (perhaps not consciously) a position that President Monson is not the Lord's Prophet as by extension a claim that everything, every member of the Church does is vile wickedness, or a great scam. I do not interpret it that way at all. Latter-Day Saints do many great things and continue to enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost. I do not doubt that people still have good and meaningful experiences in the Temple to this day.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:47 pm
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.
How about seeing an angel who says your son, born to your post-menopausal wife, will be the one to prepare the way for the Lord?
I would never use that experience to illustrate that I had ancestors request ordinances in the temple but yet all the leadeship was in apostasy and expect people to take me seriously.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am
For context here are some more quotes on the matter from his blog:
To the one asking how to reconcile my ancestors contacting me while I did ordinances in the Jordan River Temple for them and the possibility we were rejected, I would respond as follows: Rejection of the church is not rejection of the individual. IF (and I have always left that tentative and for each person to decide for themselves) there has been a rejection, that does not mean anything other than the organized efforts were unacceptable. Each individual is accountable for their own conduct. There was a Temple rebuilt by Herod, presided over by wicked men who would kill the Lord, and yet He called it His “Father’s house.” In that Temple a publican came in and offered a great offering, and was rejected. A widow, however, entered and gave but a farthing, and she was accepted. The difference was not the building, nor the act of paying, but the intent of the individual. In the same Temple there can be acceptable work and unacceptable work proceeding simultaneously.
Well, righteous Hannah went up to the Tabernacle, and Hannah in faith was praying at the Tabernacle. And to give you an idea of the lowly state of the Tabernacle in that day, drunkenness was so common place there that when Eli saw her praying, her lips were moving but there were
no words coming out, he assumed she was like the rest of them. She was just another drunk. He was a little upset at the drunken woman at the Tabernacle and so he complained to her. Eli in verse 14 of 1 Samuel said: "And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy
wine from thee." And Hannah says, No I'm not. I've come here to pray. In verse 17, Eli answered and said, "Go in peace and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him."
A faithless, wicked, insubordinate priest who will be slain by the hand of God with his sons and his grandson, on this day is enabled by the worthiness of Hannah, to give to Hannah through her faith a blessing from God. This is a true principal. It is the worthiness of the recipient that drives blessings. Nothing is withheld from those with faith. Even a wicked High Priest can confer a blessing upon the worthy.
This is because in the ordinances the power of God is manifest. Not because of some white shirt wearing, dark suit clad, institutional chap with a certificate given to him by the institution and common consent allowing him to perform an ordinance. It is not that at all. But it will be in every case because you come in faith to God believing, and you wrestle a blessing from God, through the means He has allowed for it to be bestowed: by your faith. You can have God take note of your diligence, and your faith.
I want to suggest that, if you go to a patriarch in the Church, in faith believing, that God is able through any inspired man giving a blessing, by the power of the Holy Ghost without regard to priesthood. Remember priesthood is animated by the power of the Holy Ghost. Bring that with you. Anything done by the power of the Holy Ghost comes from God.
In large measure your faith matters far more than you think it does. I know a great deal more than I knew at the time I went to the Jordan River temple to perform vicarious work for deceased ancestors for the first time. However I have related an incident in one of the little vignettes in
The Second Comforter. I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to
act in their behalf.
Keep in mind John wrested the keys from the Jews, who would within a generation kill both John and Jesus. Holding keys does not seem to be do be an endorsement of the holder.
And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
There are a couple of big difference I see between Denver Snuffer's experience with his ancestors and the stories he cited later. In his first example he was doing work for the dead. The other two were for the living. Does it make a difference? Absolutely. If you go to the temple in faith, seeking a blessing for yourself, then you need faith. And, if you have that, it can be granted to you.

With his ancestors, though, the work was for the dead. We know the keys were active because his ancestors basically told him so from beyond the grave. In fact, I don't see what the other two cases have to do with keys at all. The first case was about making an offering, and the other about seeking a blessing. I didn't see any ordinances taking place at all. Did I miss something?

Also, I don't know how else to put it except that this following quote is full of false doctrine.
I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to act in their behalf.
Denver Snuffer's faith did not redeem his ancestors. That's false doctrine. Your faith cannot redeem anyone else. Those ancestors were redeemed through their own faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. He may have done the work, he may have provided the body, but those men chose to be worthy of it. It was their own faith and repentance that allowed the baptism and other work to be efficacious.

Now compare the other quote about tattered rites with Joseph Smith's own words from D&C 128.
9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority [with the keys], in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?
Keys are what allow the ordinances to bind on earth and in heaven. His ancestors had to have faith and repent to be redeemed, but the ordinances would not have worked for them without the keys.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
I'm glad that you brought up section 137. It gave me a chance to deepen my understanding of that section. In there, he sees several people in the celestial kingdom, including his mother, father, and Alvin.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
That means that he wasn't seeing a current vision, because in 1836 the resurrection hadn't happened yet. His father, mother, and Alvin would be in the spirit world. So it must be a vision of the future. And we believe that before the work is finished, everyone will have all of their ordinances completed. They might choose not to accept them, but the temple work all needs to be completed. So authoritative ordinances are required for the dead every time. Note that he says "shall" be heirs, not "are" heirs already. The only exception I can think of are children who die before accountability. In the scripture it simply says they "are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven". So the only temple work we do for them is sealing to parents.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 15th, 2017, 2:22 pm There are a couple of big difference I see between Denver Snuffer's experience with his ancestors and the stories he cited later. In his first example he was doing work for the dead. The other two were for the living. Does it make a difference? Absolutely. If you go to the temple in faith, seeking a blessing for yourself, then you need faith. And, if you have that, it can be granted to you.

With his ancestors, though, the work was for the dead. We know the keys were active because his ancestors basically told him so from beyond the grave. In fact, I don't see what the other two cases have to do with keys at all. The first case was about making an offering, and the other about seeking a blessing. I didn't see any ordinances taking place at all. Did I miss something?

Also, I don't know how else to put it except that this following quote is full of false doctrine.
I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to act in their behalf.
Denver Snuffer's faith did not redeem his ancestors. That's false doctrine. Your faith cannot redeem anyone else. Those ancestors were redeemed through their own faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. He may have done the work, he may have provided the body, but those men chose to be worthy of it. It was their own faith and repentance that allowed the baptism and other work to be efficacious.

Now compare the other quote about tattered rites with Joseph Smith's own words from D&C 128.
9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority [with the keys], in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?
Keys are what allow the ordinances to bind on earth and in heaven. His ancestors had to have faith and repent to be redeemed, but the ordinances would not have worked for them without the keys.
Another interesting question came to my mind, as I thought about it more: It seems implicit that we are trusting Denver's ancestors that they are asking for the right thing. If these were mortals asking for baptism, we probably would not read to much into the request (mortals make mistakes about was is needed for salvation all the time). Do the dead have a better understanding? How different is their experience from ours? Honestly I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thought. So to answer your question does the fact that they were dead vs living make a difference, well only if the dead are more knowledgeable or trustworthy than the living.

As for false doctrine, how would you classify this statement:
D&C128:22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.
This statement seems to intimate that the Lord does enable people to redeem the dead from their prison (though it does not say whether this is by faith or some other means). Denver's statement seems similar to this one to me. True, it is likely not a phrase I would use personally. But it does seem validated from scripture.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 15th, 2017, 3:58 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
I'm glad that you brought up section 137. It gave me a chance to deepen my understanding of that section. In there, he sees several people in the celestial kingdom, including his mother, father, and Alvin.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
That means that he wasn't seeing a current vision, because in 1836 the resurrection hadn't happened yet. His father, mother, and Alvin would be in the spirit world. So it must be a vision of the future. And we believe that before the work is finished, everyone will have all of their ordinances completed. They might choose not to accept them, but the temple work all needs to be completed. So authoritative ordinances are required for the dead every time. Note that he says "shall" be heirs, not "are" heirs already. The only exception I can think of are children who die before accountability. In the scripture it simply says they "are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven". So the only temple work we do for them is sealing to parents.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
He also saw his father and mother who were both still alive at the time. So yes, I think it must have been a vision of the future (unless the transcript should really be his "Father and Mother", but then again he sees the "Father and Son" in verse 3). But it is odd that Joseph used the past tense in verse 6:
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

e-eye2.0
captain of 100
Posts: 454

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by e-eye2.0 »

jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 10:18 am
silk wrote: November 15th, 2017, 3:58 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
I'm glad that you brought up section 137. It gave me a chance to deepen my understanding of that section. In there, he sees several people in the celestial kingdom, including his mother, father, and Alvin.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
That means that he wasn't seeing a current vision, because in 1836 the resurrection hadn't happened yet. His father, mother, and Alvin would be in the spirit world. So it must be a vision of the future. And we believe that before the work is finished, everyone will have all of their ordinances completed. They might choose not to accept them, but the temple work all needs to be completed. So authoritative ordinances are required for the dead every time. Note that he says "shall" be heirs, not "are" heirs already. The only exception I can think of are children who die before accountability. In the scripture it simply says they "are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven". So the only temple work we do for them is sealing to parents.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
He also saw his father and mother who were both still alive at the time. So yes, I think it must have been a vision of the future (unless the transcript should really be his "Father and Mother", but then again he sees the "Father and Son" in verse 3). But it is odd that Joseph used the past tense in verse 6:
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
Every time I see you post and I read your name jdt, I yell out in my mind jtp! - Sorry, you would only get that if you watched The Goldberg's.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:06 am Yes, this has been a fairly busy week and I thought it was somewhat rhetorical. But I am still interested in the conversation.
I think your post was pretty good. It does beg a couple of questions to my mind:
How are keys transmitted?
Can a man give another man keys?
Is there such a thing as keys to be Bishop? Can they be transmitted/transferred? (More expansively, what keys do exist?)
Is there a way to falsifiably determine if a person holds keys or not? If so what is it?
Assuming the answer is that man can give keys to another man, how extensively can this be done? For example, did Alma the Elder offer an authoritative baptism in the wilderness? Did he have keys, where did he get them? Was he able to give them to the priests and teachers he ordained in the wilderness?
I've been working on answers to these questions, but some of them are not as easy as I thought they would be. Since you've also done studied keys, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them as well. I think having someone else to discuss the answers with would be very helpful. I'll be starting on them in a day or so, but it might take me a while to get through them.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring them, and I haven't forgotten them.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 9:52 am
Another interesting question came to my mind, as I thought about it more: It seems implicit that we are trusting Denver's ancestors that they are asking for the right thing. If these were mortals asking for baptism, we probably would not read to much into the request (mortals make mistakes about was is needed for salvation all the time). Do the dead have a better understanding? How different is their experience from ours? Honestly I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thought. So to answer your question does the fact that they were dead vs living make a difference, well only if the dead are more knowledgeable or trustworthy than the living.

As for false doctrine, how would you classify this statement:
D&C128:22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.
This statement seems to intimate that the Lord does enable people to redeem the dead from their prison (though it does not say whether this is by faith or some other means). Denver's statement seems similar to this one to me. True, it is likely not a phrase I would use personally. But it does seem validated from scripture.
I'll be the first to admit that I over-reacted to Denver's statement. After reading the scripture you provided, I see that I was thinking of this definition: "to atone for", and he was likely using this one: "to free from what distresses or harms". So while another human could not atone for an ancestor (that, of course, requires the Savior), he could free the ancestors from prison by taking their names to the temple and performing ordinances that use keys. So my apologies. That was badly done on my part.

As to your question/thought about the spirit world, I think that takes us into supposition. I enjoy going there, actually, because it means I don't have to do a lot of research. So here are my thoughts. We know that the gospel is preached in the spirit world, and my guess is that they talk about keys a lot more than we do. Why is that? Well, they can't offer baptism to a convert; only vicarious baptism by someone on earth. So the convert is going to be very concerned as to how someone getting baptized on earth could have any effect on them at all. That brings them to keys, and the fact that the ordinances can bind beyond death. I assume that the Holy Ghost would still testify of truth there as well.

Then, of course, don't forget that they have people there like Joseph Smith Jr. After the investigator is ready to get baptized, maybe the missionaries take him/her to a big conference where Joseph Smith Jr. talks about his experience with keys -- how he got them, how he passed them on, and what they mean for people in the spirit world. Then he might talk about the path of the keys from his time to the present -- with people like Brigham Young and even Gordon B. Hinckley to add their testimonies. They would all testify that the keys are active and that ordinances in the temple are binding. At that point, the people would probably get really excited, kind of like Denver Snuffer's ancestors were.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt,

While looking for answers to your questions, I happened upon the story of Hiram Page. Could you please help me to understand how you reconcile this to the Remnant beliefs?

From 1:109-110 in History of the Church
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain "revelations" concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which was entirely at variance with the order of God's house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as in our late revelations.
Since the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing what was said, Joseph inquired of the Lord and received D&C 28.
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

Just to clarify, the church covenants are found in D&C 20.

So, one way that Satan tried to attack the church was by sending false revelations that the church should be ordered differently than in D&C 20. Why would he do that? I think it's because two of D&C 20's concerns are priesthood organization and ordinances, both of which require keys.

Using D&C 20 as a standard, let's look at just two things that priests in the Aaronic Priesthood are authorized to do:
46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,
Now let's look at the Remnant's ordination policy:
There are people coming from different faiths to associate with fellowships, including RLDS or Community of Christ, fundamentalist groups, and other splinter “Mormon” denominations. Some of these have been previously ordained within their affiliations. These, like men who are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or other Christian faiths will need to be sustained and ordained. They should understand something about priesthood before being sustained. Once sustained, when ordaining someone to serve in these fellowships ordain no one to an office, only confer priesthood. Let everyone be equal. Keep lines of authority. It will reckon through the one who confers the priesthood. But power can only come from Christ. First time ordinations (after April 2014) should be done within a fellowship. All who are ordained in these communities should keep a record of the line of authority and pass it down. Be prepared to defend those lines of authority using the records kept.” (Preserving the Restoration, pgs. 512 – 513)
Do you see the problem? No one is ordained to any office in the priesthood. I don't understand it. If equality was the intention, why not just ordain everyone to the office of a priest?

The problem is that without the office of a priest, how can anyone baptize or administer the sacrament?

Please help me to understand this. I'm really confused.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 16th, 2017, 4:27 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:06 am Yes, this has been a fairly busy week and I thought it was somewhat rhetorical. But I am still interested in the conversation.
I think your post was pretty good. It does beg a couple of questions to my mind:
How are keys transmitted?
Can a man give another man keys?
Is there such a thing as keys to be Bishop? Can they be transmitted/transferred? (More expansively, what keys do exist?)
Is there a way to falsifiably determine if a person holds keys or not? If so what is it?
Assuming the answer is that man can give keys to another man, how extensively can this be done? For example, did Alma the Elder offer an authoritative baptism in the wilderness? Did he have keys, where did he get them? Was he able to give them to the priests and teachers he ordained in the wilderness?
I've been working on answers to these questions, but some of them are not as easy as I thought they would be. Since you've also done studied keys, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them as well. I think having someone else to discuss the answers with would be very helpful. I'll be starting on them in a day or so, but it might take me a while to get through them.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring them, and I haven't forgotten them.
These are not trivial questions (as you know).
Let me speak in generalities first: there are times when it is mentioned that keys are given, like the Mount of Transfiguration and Kirtland Temple (these instances it is usually from an angel to a person). Then there is the wording of D&C 13 that seems to imply that the keys merely belong to the priesthood itself and not something that is held by a select few. In turn in D&C 107 says the Bishopric holds the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood. But then this begs the question, were Joseph and Oliver ever a Bishop? If not did they hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? Continuing on, there are many references to people simply holding them and with no mention of when or where they got them (this is probably the most common). So where does that leaves us?
As for transmission from man to man, at least in regards to administering a Church, we see a good example in the Book of Mormon with Alma Sr handing over the reigns to Alma the younger. But Alma the Elder is an interesting case. He formed a Church of believers in the wilderness and performed baptisms (valid ones I believe) there. But then when he gets to Zarahemla, King Mosiah basically gives him permission to create Churches there. I really do not quite know what to make of this dynamic. If Alma held keys to ordain priests in the wilderness, why get the power from Mosiah?
It was no accident I picked Bishop as the office to discuss. It is interesting because it seems that a lineal descendant of Aaron simply hold those keys by virtue of his lineage. He apparently does not need to obtain them or hold the office via ordination.
Part of the problem is that the scriptural accounts don't use the same terminology that Joseph used (he used keys and legal administrator), whereas these terms are entirely missing from the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, in general each dispensation seems to use its own organizational structure. This makes things really difficult to see clear patterns. Take Nephi of 3rd Nephi, he was a prophet before Christ's visit right? He led the church right? Surely he baptized people as part of that right? Why did Christ then re-ordain and instruct them to be baptized as part of his visit?
The falsifiability is a important point to me. I don't think this is something anyone can just claim. There has to be some sort evidence or fruit. But what is it? Take the descendant of Aaron and the Bishopric. How do we know? Just revelation? That does not sit right to me. I think there was a quote in the Teachings where Joseph basically said that by publishing the revelations that they show that the keys are again on the earth. I kind of like that. But this changes the nature of the search from looking for a person who claims keys to instead someone through whom revelation is given.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 16th, 2017, 5:20 pm jdt,

While looking for answers to your questions, I happened upon the story of Hiram Page. Could you please help me to understand how you reconcile this to the Remnant beliefs?

From 1:109-110 in History of the Church
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain "revelations" concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which was entirely at variance with the order of God's house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as in our late revelations.
Since the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing what was said, Joseph inquired of the Lord and received D&C 28.
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

Just to clarify, the church covenants are found in D&C 20.

So, one way that Satan tried to attack the church was by sending false revelations that the church should be ordered differently than in D&C 20. Why would he do that? I think it's because two of D&C 20's concerns are priesthood organization and ordinances, both of which require keys.

Using D&C 20 as a standard, let's look at just two things that priests in the Aaronic Priesthood are authorized to do:
46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,
Now let's look at the Remnant's ordination policy:
There are people coming from different faiths to associate with fellowships, including RLDS or Community of Christ, fundamentalist groups, and other splinter “Mormon” denominations. Some of these have been previously ordained within their affiliations. These, like men who are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or other Christian faiths will need to be sustained and ordained. They should understand something about priesthood before being sustained. Once sustained, when ordaining someone to serve in these fellowships ordain no one to an office, only confer priesthood. Let everyone be equal. Keep lines of authority. It will reckon through the one who confers the priesthood. But power can only come from Christ. First time ordinations (after April 2014) should be done within a fellowship. All who are ordained in these communities should keep a record of the line of authority and pass it down. Be prepared to defend those lines of authority using the records kept.” (Preserving the Restoration, pgs. 512 – 513)
Do you see the problem? No one is ordained to any office in the priesthood. I don't understand it. If equality was the intention, why not just ordain everyone to the office of a priest?

The problem is that without the office of a priest, how can anyone baptize or administer the sacrament?

Please help me to understand this. I'm really confused.
I see the model of ordaining to the priesthood and not an office ratified in Church History:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.
This is also curious because they performed the baptism first before the ordination. Perhaps since they were ordaining each other, they needed to be baptized so they could be filled with the Holy Ghost first?
And keep in mind section 20 was not the be-all end-all in Joseph's day. They added the offices of High Priest and Apostle (in 1830 an Apostle was a person who was a witness of Christ, hence the bit about Apostle being an elder) afterwards. Section 20 was largely based on the Book of Mormon office model, but that omitted deacons. I agree wholeheartedly that changing the organization is not something to be done lightly. But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.

Post Reply