Deleted

[gclayjr]

AI2.0

***Once again you are not relating the LDS doctrinal position on this, you are relating your own interpretation--which is actually the same view as Denver Snuffer, (which may be why Jared agrees with you).

Thanks for picking up on this. You are much more clear and eloquent than I am. So if Finrock continues to pursue this line without actually acknowledging it, I'm sure that you will be clearer an more eloquent in your responses than me , and not only would Finrock learn more , but I would be edified by it.

When I respond, to a post. More often than not, I am more interested in informing those who may be reading the post than in the futile effort of actually changing the mind of the person I am responding to. I always find your posts enlightening even when I am not participating in whatever you are responding to.

Regards,

George Clay

[Finrock]

JaredDBees,

Phillipians 3:

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.

2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I might win Christ..

It looks like you also suffer from an inability to respond clearly to the point also... including vomiting scripture that doesn't really relate the point Finrock wrote:

True High Priest, not just ones on the Church records and who have a title given to them by the Church, are called by God, only. It has nothing to do with age or being a part of some club. Sure, such a thing does exist in the Church, but what makes a High Priest is one who has been ordained by God Himself to be such and this ordination has been sealed by the Holy Ghost.

Which certainly appears to contradict the accepted Gospel, and to be an insult to those who try and follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, But you or nobody cares if people like Finrcok insults either the Church or those who follow its teachings. You just want them to have no contest to their sniping.

I then posed my situation which fits his demeaning insult.

So according to you my Church leaders have lied to me. I am not a High Priest, even though I was so ordained! and Peter James and John restored NOTHING to Joseph Smith.

Regards,

George Clay

PS: you consistently get your panties in a twist, when someone suggests that you are not a TBM, and that you say things heretical to the established doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. How do you square that circle with your recent comments?

PPS: I make no claim and have no testimony that Jesus Christ , God the Father or anybody else directly ordained me other than the HP in my quorum who laid his hands upon my head and ordained me a HP.

And asked him if my being ordained but not receiving some evidence of Christ, God the father or any other heavenly being ordaining me means that I am not really a HP. Finrock, babels and quotes irrelevant stuff but never answers the question, just insinuates that people like me are not really HP, despite what the Gospel of Jesus Christ says.

You don't have a problem with either his implications that the teachings and ordinations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints are false and those ordained have no priesthood. You don't even have a problem with his dodging answers to a simple direct question which, when answered, would show that he is truly preaching a terrible heresy.

You are only concerned that his delicate feelings might be hurt if someone clearly points things out to him.

Don't worry, I am not going to go boo hooing because you took a shot at me.

I will still stand up and shed light on lying bull crap, because truth and honesty is much more important to me than the feelings of those who don't even have the integrity to honestly say what they mean.


Regards,

George Clay

I understand now why you've responded the way that you have. You have been offended and so you are lashing out in response, which is historically typical for you. You feel like I'm belittling your status as an ordained High Priest in the Church. I need to remember when addressing you that you have this tough, outer shell that's all spiky, but you're really fragile on the inside.

Well, I can assure you that I am not intending to offend you. If something that I've said is offensive to you then I can't take responsibility for that. Here is some sage advice from Brigham Young: "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”

At the end, I'm just relating to you the truth as I know it. Truth is what truth is. If something I say convicts you that doesn't then mean that I'm intentionally going after you. Sometimes things that are true are hard to hear, not to say this is one of those cases, but that is certainly true.

All I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. That means that there will sometimes be men who are called and ordained on earth and they are recognized as a High Priest by the Church and other mortals, but because God doesn't or hasn't called them and sanctioned them and their ordination hasn't been sealed by the Spirit, the ordination is incomplete and it doesn't hold sway in the eternities or after this life. I've explained this idea on several occasions including in this thread.

George, only you can know if the Holy Spirit has confirmed your ordination as a High Priest. I know that a true High Priest is a peaceable follower of Jesus Christ and a true High Priest lives in harmony with the Holy Spirit. A true High Priest will also be an ensample to others of what it means to have received Christ. There is more to being a High Priest than just being old and being a member of the old men's club. Because this is how its often treated then I guess I can understand people who treat this ordination this way to become offended when I point this out. But, as I've said, truth is what truth is. Its good to point out traditions, mentalities, and understandings pertaining to the gospel that are in error, even when doing so may lead to someone being offended. There are many people who read these posts and we never know who has a receptive ear and who might be willing to consider that their traditions are in error, etc.

-Finrock

***Once again you are not relating the LDS doctrinal position on this, you are relating your own interpretation--which is actually the same view as Denver Snuffer, (which may be why Jared agrees with you).

As far as the church is concerned, you are a High Priest if you've been set apart to that office within the Melchizedek priesthood. George is a High Priest. Now, maybe if you are a member of another church, such as the Remnant, then because of their particular beliefs, there may be some question as to whether or not someone is a High Priest and in that religion, maybe men can claim to be High priests when they haven't been set apart to that office--but not in the LDS church.

It is not necessary to hold the office of High Priest unless it is required for a calling for which you are called and set apart to serve in. But, it is the practice of the church (and they are within their right to do so) to ordain some men (usually older) to this office.

I understand that you believe that I'm not teaching Church doctrine and I respect your opinion. All are free to believe or not to believe. We can all search out the scriptures, pray and ask God and get answers for ourselves.

As an aside: Denver and what he teaches is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this conversation.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Finrock,

ll I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. That means that there will sometimes be men who are called and ordained on earth and they are recognized as a High Priest by the Church and other mortals, but because God doesn't or hasn't called them and sanctioned them and their ordination hasn't been sealed by the Spirit, the ordination is incomplete and it doesn't hold sway in the eternities or after this life. I've explained this idea on several occasions including in this thread.

It's been like pulling teeth, but we are getting closer. If you spent less time trying to accuse me of that thin skinned concern for whether people admire me or not that dominates you, there would be less whining and more substance.

OK, you have answered part one. A person ordained as a HP in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints who has not had God also visit him, nor felt the burning of the sealing of the spirit, such as I have confessed to, is not really a HP.

Before I respond to this, would you be so kind as to answer the 2nd part of the question. Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?


Regards,

George Clay

The answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

I understand that you believe that I'm not teaching Church doctrine and I respect your opinion. All are free to believe or not to believe. We can all search out the scriptures, pray and ask God and get answers for ourselves.

As an aside: Denver and what he teaches is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this conversation.

he answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

AI2.0 is right, you are not only not teaching church doctrine, you are teaching things very heretical to church doctrine. and you do this regularly. My big problem with you is your dishonesty. There is no requirement for this board that one be a TBM. In fact, it can add interest when those who believe that the church has fallen or strayed voice their opinions, but they should be honest about it.

In your efforts to have it both ways, you often write inconsistent, incoherent thought. If you were willing to honestly admit that you interpret the scriptures different from LDS beliefs, and then opine clearly about that, you would not seem so devious and illogical.

Although you spend too much time implying and inferring, I am going to assume (by inference), that you DO know what LDS theology is on the priesthood is and just disagree. If so, then it would be pointless for me to explain and document it. If I am wrong, then I will be willing to lay it out for you and explain it to you. I do owe you that.

Regards,

George Clay

[AI2.0]

Finrock,

ll I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. That means that there will sometimes be men who are called and ordained on earth and they are recognized as a High Priest by the Church and other mortals, but because God doesn't or hasn't called them and sanctioned them and their ordination hasn't been sealed by the Spirit, the ordination is incomplete and it doesn't hold sway in the eternities or after this life. I've explained this idea on several occasions including in this thread.

It's been like pulling teeth, but we are getting closer. If you spent less time trying to accuse me of that thin skinned concern for whether people admire me or not that dominates you, there would be less whining and more substance.

OK, you have answered part one. A person ordained as a HP in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints who has not had God also visit him, nor felt the burning of the sealing of the spirit, such as I have confessed to, is not really a HP.

Before I respond to this, would you be so kind as to answer the 2nd part of the question. Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?


Regards,

George Clay

The answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

-Finrock

So, George asked you this question;

Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?

And you answered 'The answer is of course.'

So, you know that this is false as far as LDS doctrine, principles, practices and teachings go--it's a 'false doctrine'.

This is what I mean, Finrock. I'm pretty sure you know this is not LDS doctrine, in fact it's a heresy--one that Denver Snuffer has built his religious movement on and other men have left the church and started their own churches because they believed this.

I'm not saying you can't believe heresies, but I'd appreciate it if you'd not pass them off as LDS doctrine. Some posters come here with less knowledge of the church's doctrines and you steer them down the wrong path with some of the things you share without explaining that what you are sharing is not LDS doctrine.

And this particular false doctrine has been instrumental in taking good LDS members out of the church and into apostate break off sects.

[Finrock]

Finrock,

ll I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. That means that there will sometimes be men who are called and ordained on earth and they are recognized as a High Priest by the Church and other mortals, but because God doesn't or hasn't called them and sanctioned them and their ordination hasn't been sealed by the Spirit, the ordination is incomplete and it doesn't hold sway in the eternities or after this life. I've explained this idea on several occasions including in this thread.

It's been like pulling teeth, but we are getting closer. If you spent less time trying to accuse me of that thin skinned concern for whether people admire me or not that dominates you, there would be less whining and more substance.

OK, you have answered part one. A person ordained as a HP in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints who has not had God also visit him, nor felt the burning of the sealing of the spirit, such as I have confessed to, is not really a HP.

Before I respond to this, would you be so kind as to answer the 2nd part of the question. Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?


Regards,

George Clay

The answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

-Finrock

So, George asked you this question;

Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?

And you answered 'The answer is of course.'

So, you know that this is false as far as LDS doctrine, principles, practices and teachings go--it's a 'false doctrine'.

This is what I mean, Finrock. I'm pretty sure you know this is not LDS doctrine, in fact it's a heresy--one that Denver Snuffer has built his religious movement on and other men have left the church and started their own churches because they believed this.

I'm not saying you can't believe heresies, but I'd appreciate it if you'd not pass them off as LDS doctrine. Some posters come here with less knowledge of the church's doctrines and you steer them down the wrong path with some of the things you share without explaining that what you are sharing is not LDS doctrine.

And this particular false doctrine has been instrumental in taking good LDS members out of the church and into apostate break off sects.

I understand that you believe these are heresies and I respect your opinion on this. Our religion allows us to believe and worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't believe in dogma or creeds. I know there are members that do and who try to insist that we all conform to their particular creed, but, Church doctrine doesn't require this.

The source of our doctrine are the Standard Works. Everything I've stated can be found in the scriptures.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

I understand that you believe these are heresies and I respect your opinion on this. Our religion allows us to believe and worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't believe in dogma or creeds. I know there are members that do and who try to insist that we all conform to their particular creed, but, Church doctrine doesn't require this.

The source of our doctrine are the Standard Works. Everything I've stated can be found in the scriptures.

You misunderstand the concept of Dogmas and Creeds. These are non scriptural statements like the Nicene creed, which many believe define Christianity. By the way, the Nicene Creed is often used as a measuring stick to determine if someone is a true Christian. Our leaders have handled this deftly by acknowledging that we are not TRADITIONAL Christians. (Since we believe in 3 distinct beings as the Godhead). THis is what Joseph SMith was referring to.

It Does NOT mean

Our religion allows us to believe and worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.

.... and remain in the Mormon Church

That part of the Articles of Faith means that no coercion by government or society should be used to limit freedom of religion. There are things that one must believe to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In fact there are 3 published reasons that one can be excommunicated.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/07/qa- ... g=eng&_r=1

There are very few reasons for excommunication in this Church. I can only think of three.
Church members can become candidates for excommunication as they involve themselves in gross iniquity.
Church members become candidates for excommunication as they become involved in or advocate plural marriage.
Church members become candidates for excommunication as they apostatize from the teachings of the Church.

and further

On the subject of apostasy, I should clarify that an apostate is not an indifferent or an inactive member of the Church, but rather one who flatly denies the divine nature of the Church or who is antagonistic against or unresponsive to his priesthood authority. We do not excommunicate people from this Church for indifference or for inactivity. Some of the unhappiest people that I know are members of the Church who are attempting to live with a habit that is contrary to their basic belief. They love the Lord and feel that they are betraying him. This is an untenable situation. Left unsolved, the conflict causes rationalization to set in. Satan lulls us into a sense of false security. We lie to ourselves as we attempt to justify rather than to change, and thus the adversary leads us quietly down to a life of unhappiness and regret.

The Church is pretty clear in its doctrine related to the Restoration of the Priesthood, and ordination in the Priesthood


D&C 42:11

11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

and Articles of faith 5 & 6

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

I am not advocating that you should be excommunicated, I am stating that there are core beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day_Saints, and I am saying that restoration of the priesthood, and the need to be Ordained by one who holds the priesthood to receive the priesthood is one of these core beliefs. A strong enough proselytizing against this principle would be grounds for excommunication.

When I discuss gospel topics with evangelicals, I make it clear that I am not an evangelical, and we have very interesting discussions. When I discuss scripture with Catholics, I make it clear that I am not a Catholic, and we have very interesting discussions. However, when I discuss gospel principles, with a fellow TBM,. we are both taking the position that the Chuch of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints is the true chuch, and we may differ over our understanding as to what is true within that boundary and we have a good discussion.

My problem with you is that you never admit that your arguments are not accepted as gospel doctrine by the LDS church, so you pretend that you are a TBM who is simply clarifying LDS gospel.

This is inherently dishonest, and also I believe leads you to write tangential, incoherent, and inconsistent posts, because you are trying to hide your opposition to the Church.

Regards,

George Clay

[Mark]

Finrock,



It's been like pulling teeth, but we are getting closer. If you spent less time trying to accuse me of that thin skinned concern for whether people admire me or not that dominates you, there would be less whining and more substance.

OK, you have answered part one. A person ordained as a HP in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints who has not had God also visit him, nor felt the burning of the sealing of the spirit, such as I have confessed to, is not really a HP.

Before I respond to this, would you be so kind as to answer the 2nd part of the question. Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?


Regards,

George Clay

The answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

-Finrock

So, George asked you this question;

Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?

And you answered 'The answer is of course.'

So, you know that this is false as far as LDS doctrine, principles, practices and teachings go--it's a 'false doctrine'.

This is what I mean, Finrock. I'm pretty sure you know this is not LDS doctrine, in fact it's a heresy--one that Denver Snuffer has built his religious movement on and other men have left the church and started their own churches because they believed this.

I'm not saying you can't believe heresies, but I'd appreciate it if you'd not pass them off as LDS doctrine. Some posters come here with less knowledge of the church's doctrines and you steer them down the wrong path with some of the things you share without explaining that what you are sharing is not LDS doctrine.

And this particular false doctrine has been instrumental in taking good LDS members out of the church and into apostate break off sects.

I understand that you believe these are heresies and I respect your opinion on this. Our religion allows us to believe and worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't believe in dogma or creeds. I know there are members that do and who try to insist that we all conform to their particular creed, but, Church doctrine doesn't require this.

The source of our doctrine are the Standard Works. Everything I've stated can be found in the scriptures.

-Finrock

Who's interpretation of scripture? That is where you are taking immense liberties Finrock. Every offshoot of the LDS faith believes their own doctrinal interpretation of scripture is the correct one. Go talk to some of them. Every Fundamentalist can show you where their lifestyles and beliefs are all scriptural. Before long every Saint will be teaching multiple different doctrines based upon some scripture somewhere. This is why we have a First Presidency. Gods kingdom has order. You can BELIEVE anything you want. However When you start TEACHING contrary doctrine than what is acceptable according to the current church approved by the First Presidency then you are openly rebelling against their Priesthood stewardship roles. That is when you will need correction from proper Priesthood authorities. If you persist you will then deal with proper church discipline. The sheep must be protected from any potential wolves. Even if they don't think they are wolves. If someone doesn't like it they can start their own church like Snuffer has done. That is their right.

[Zathura]

glcay, A12, in regards to this topic you are simply wrong. He's only said what your own prophets have said and continue to say on the topic of the Holy Spirit of Promise.

All I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

you are teaching things very heretical to church doctrine

George Clay

***Once again you are not relating the LDS doctrinal position on this, you are relating your own interpretation

Harold B Lee, PROPHET

"In other words, baptism is only efficacious, and the initiary ordinance is applicable, when it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. We have that same phrase repeated in section 132, verse 19, for the Lord is speaking now of celestial marriage." (Stand Ye in Holy Places p.53)


Joseph Fielding Smith, PROPHET

Sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise." This does not have reference to marriage for time and all eternity only, but to every ordinance and blessing of the gospel. Baptism into the Church is sealed by this Spirit, likewise confirmation, ordination, and all ordinances as well as marriage for time and all eternity. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:94-95)

Melvin J. Ballard, APOSTLE(prophet)

our blessings will not be eternal until they are also sealed by the holy spirit of promise, the Holy Ghost, one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, and of full force, (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, 1949, p.237)

You're so fixated on proving others wrong that you do not realize when they actually teach word for word the things your own prophets teach, prophets that you claim to sustain.

[gclayjr]

Stahura,

Maybe you should read past posts more carefully before you pontificate. I carefully asked Finrock

Before I respond to this, would you be so kind as to answer the 2nd part of the question. Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?


Regards,

George Clay

The answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

-Finrock

This has NOTHING to do with the holy spirit of promise sealing or confirming an Ordination!

Regards,

George Clay

[Zathura]

I understand it's difficult to admit fault, so I'll make this crystal clear.

AI2.0

***Once again you are not relating the LDS doctrinal position on this, you are relating your own interpretation--which is actually the same view as Denver Snuffer, (which may be why Jared agrees with you).

Thanks for picking up on this. You are much more clear and eloquent than I am. So if Finrock continues to pursue this line without actually acknowledging it, I'm sure that you will be clearer an more eloquent in your responses than me , and not only would Finrock learn more , but I would be edified by it.

The above post ^^^^ of A12.0 that you praised A12.0 for was a direct response to the following

...

All I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise

...

-Finrock

What Finrock said about the Holy Spirit of Promise matches up with what LDS General Authorities have taught for decades, and you praised A12.0 for saying Finrock was not teaching LDS doctrine.

I know you want to misdirect and point towards the post that doesn't mention the Holy Spirit of Promise, but I've read and re-read your posts over and over and it amazes me that you are incapable of seeing past your desire to prove Finrock wrong that you cannot see truth when it's presented to you.

As far as the quote you want me to look at, you need only look at any canonized scripture to see that High Priests existed somehow without being ordained by another man. You need not think too hard to realize that God could do this today if he could do this yesterday.

I know you're not stupid, you just choose to disregard these things. As Finrock stated above, everything is found in LDS CANONIZED SCRIPTURE, scripture that LDS PROPHETS have said are the "measuring stick" by which we compare any and all claims. As Finrock stated, we believe that we can worship God according to our own conscience and respects your ability and privilege to do the same. Leave it at that. There's no need to go down this same old road where you grab all your righteous buddies on the forum and gang up on someone who you seem to think to be infected with apostate teachings.

As Elsa says, LET IT GOO

[brlenox]

You know in terms of technical specifics, I'm not sure i still understand the difference between a high priest and an elder.

My understanding is that the primary difference is that Elders look after the physical needs of the ward (i.e. helping with moving, other more physical demands) and that High Priests are primarily responsible to watch over the spiritual needs of the ward.

There is certainly more involved. I believe I have read that the High Priesthood is required at some point in our eternal progress. I have read a story of a pioneer family whose son died crossing the plains and he was posthumously ordained a high priest. I figure if it's important, it will get taken care of.

OI do you remember the source of this story about the pioneer family. I would be very interested in finding it.

[brlenox]

My father passed away several years ago. While he was a High Priest, since I was not made a High Priest while he was alive, if I ever become one my line of authority would no longer go thru dad. Such things I suppose aren't terribly important, but for me, it is another reason not to be bothered about not being called as a High Priest.

Unless of course you have a brother who was a High Priest ordained by your Father. I was recently able to ordain my younger brother and though our Father has long passed we now share the same line of authority - well except that I got inserted in there.

[brlenox]

My father passed away several years ago. While he was a High Priest, since I was not made a High Priest while he was alive, if I ever become one my line of authority would no longer go thru dad. Such things I suppose aren't terribly important, but for me, it is another reason not to be bothered about not being called as a High Priest.

Although a commonly held view, it is my understanding this incorrect.
Your line of authority follows ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood, not to the office within the priesthood.
Elder, High Priest etc are simply offices in the priesthood, not the priesthood itself.
I was ordained a High Priest at age 26 by a member of the stake presidency. However, he did not confer the Melchizedek Priesthood upon me because I already had it. He simply ordained me to an office.
Therefore, my line of authority follows my receiving the MP from my father at age 18.
It is a line of authority, not a line of office.

Actually if you have the church send you your line of authority at the bottom of the sheet will be the explanation that your line of authority is that line of the individual of the highest ordination you have received.

Edit for additional information:

Priesthood holders in wards and stakes throughout the world perform priesthood ordinances every week. When a man ordains another to an office in the priesthood, the person ordained will determine his line of authority by the priesthood office held by the one performing the ordination at the time the ordination was performed. For example, if a high priest ordains his son to be an elder, his son would trace his line of authority through the high priest line of authority of his father.

Though a priesthood holder with the office of Seventy may be included in a member’s personal line of authority, no separate line of authority is maintained for the office of Seventy. Also, priesthood line of authority for ordained bishops and patriarchs is traced through their high priest ordination. A priesthood line of authority is not recorded for Aaronic Priesthood offices by Church headquarters, although individuals and families are welcome to record it on their own.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/members ... g=eng&_r=1

[True]

I don’t think God is going to ask you if you became a high priest or not but he will ask you one question for sure.

[Original_Intent]

What's the point of being a high priest then if it's not necessary to our salvation?

Can you imagine being a god who was not also a High Priest? (or Priestess for women). Not saying if you aren't made a High Priest in this life you are barred from Godhood. But I do believe if Eternal progression is your destiny, at some point you will be ordained a High Priest. That's the gospel according to OI, though, I don't know if that's canon.

[AI2.0]

Finrock,



It's been like pulling teeth, but we are getting closer. If you spent less time trying to accuse me of that thin skinned concern for whether people admire me or not that dominates you, there would be less whining and more substance.

OK, you have answered part one. A person ordained as a HP in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints who has not had God also visit him, nor felt the burning of the sealing of the spirit, such as I have confessed to, is not really a HP.

Before I respond to this, would you be so kind as to answer the 2nd part of the question. Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?


Regards,

George Clay

The answer is of course. It will be meaningless as far as the Church is concerned and doesn't give anyone any authority or privileges in the Church, but those things are just symbolic of something real and greater anyways. In other words, such a one would have no honors of men by virtue of his office or title, only by virtue of his works of righteousness.

-Finrock

So, George asked you this question;

Can a man in the year 2017, be Ordained a HP by God or the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being ordained by a man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a HP?

And you answered 'The answer is of course.'

So, you know that this is false as far as LDS doctrine, principles, practices and teachings go--it's a 'false doctrine'.

This is what I mean, Finrock. I'm pretty sure you know this is not LDS doctrine, in fact it's a heresy--one that Denver Snuffer has built his religious movement on and other men have left the church and started their own churches because they believed this.

I'm not saying you can't believe heresies, but I'd appreciate it if you'd not pass them off as LDS doctrine. Some posters come here with less knowledge of the church's doctrines and you steer them down the wrong path with some of the things you share without explaining that what you are sharing is not LDS doctrine.

And this particular false doctrine has been instrumental in taking good LDS members out of the church and into apostate break off sects.

I understand that you believe these are heresies and I respect your opinion on this. Our religion allows us to believe and worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't believe in dogma or creeds. I know there are members that do and who try to insist that we all conform to their particular creed, but, Church doctrine doesn't require this.

The source of our doctrine are the Standard Works. Everything I've stated can be found in the scriptures.

-Finrock

You are allowed to believe whatever you choose, but if you get up in church and try to teach what you've been claiming on this thread, you'll get told it is false doctrine. If you persist in trying to teach it or share it with others at church, and you refuse to stop, that could cause you to be brought in on charges of apostasy.

You are not teaching something that is in the scriptures, it is a heresy.

[Lizzy60]

Finrock is not teaching false doctrine.

This argument is similar to the church's dual definition of apostasy. If you go to the LDS.org definition, it says that apostasy is turning away from Christ and His gospel. When you go to the Hamdbook, it says that apostasy is turning away from the church. These may seem to be the same thing to you, but there is a difference. If the church sincerely believes that a man may only become one of God's High Priests by having another man ordain him as such, and by no other way, then I would have to say that 2 Nephi 28:5 has been fulfilled, sadly.

[Lizzy60]

If the church sincerely believes that a man may only become one of God's High Priests by having another man ordain him as such, and by no other way, then I would have to say that 2 Nephi 28:5 has been fulfilled, sadly.

Jeez-Louise! Now I gotta go look up that scripture!

I tried to copy it onto the post, but my tablet didn't cooperate, and I was too lazy to write it all out myself. So sorry. I know it's hard to type that verse reference into your search engine / sarc

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

quote=Stahura post_id=815669 time=1508444055 user_id=6937]
glcay, A12, in regards to this topic you are simply wrong. He's only said what your own prophets have said and continue to say on the topic of the Holy Spirit of Promise. No, I'm sorry, he's not. He's making incorrect assumptions that do not apply.

All I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

First, 'Ordinance' and 'Ordination' are not the same thing. The ordinance must take place on earth before it can be eventually sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. I've never heard of an ordination or an ordinance being recognized as valid and binding in heaven if it is not first completed on earth, but was only through some kind of individual spiritual thing. That is why we do proxy baptisms, sealings and ordinations.

you are teaching things very heretical to church doctrine

George Clay

***Once again you are not relating the LDS doctrinal position on this, you are relating your own interpretation

Harold B Lee, PROPHET

"In other words, baptism is only efficacious, and the initiary ordinance is applicable, when it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. We have that same phrase repeated in section 132, verse 19, for the Lord is speaking now of celestial marriage." (Stand Ye in Holy Places p.53)


Joseph Fielding Smith, PROPHET

Sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise." This does not have reference to marriage for time and all eternity only, but to every ordinance and blessing of the gospel. Baptism into the Church is sealed by this Spirit, likewise confirmation, ordination, and all ordinances as well as marriage for time and all eternity. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:94-95)

Melvin J. Ballard, APOSTLE(prophet)

our blessings will not be eternal until they are also sealed by the holy spirit of promise, the Holy Ghost, one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, and of full force, (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, 1949, p.237)Note that all of these are pertaining to an earthly ordinance or blessing have been bestowed first. Then, they must eventually be sealed by the holy spirit of promise, to be efficasious in the eternities. No one is disagreeing with this, so none of us are disputing what these prophets have said. Finrock is not saying this.
Finrock is claiming that no ordination is necessary--he thinks all that is needed is the holy spirit of promise--but he's ignoring the fact, per LDS doctrine that the holy spirit of promise only validates blessings, ordinances, baptisms etc, which have been completed by proper authority.

You're so fixated on proving others wrong that you do not realize when they actually teach word for word the things your own prophets teach, prophets that you claim to sustain.
[/quote]

Sorry, but that is not what's going on. No one is fixated on proving others wrong, we simply are trying to prevent other readers--less informed or non-members, from being misinformed about what Mormons believe and teach. It may be that you did not read the posts as carefully,
it is a long thread, and you misunderstood what Finrock was saying.

[AI2.0]

Finrock is not teaching false doctrine.

This argument is similar to the church's dual definition of apostasy. If you go to the LDS.org definition, it says that apostasy is turning away from Christ and His gospel. When you go to the Hamdbook, it says that apostasy is turning away from the church. These may seem to be the same thing to you, but there is a difference. If the church sincerely believes that a man may only become one of God's High Priests by having another man ordain him as such, and by no other way, then I would have to say that 2 Nephi 28:5 has been fulfilled, sadly.

As someone who claims to have spent a lot of time in the temple, I'm surprised you don't understand this simple basic teaching of the church. No one's baptism, sealing, ordinations, etc. are recognized unless they are done ON EARTH and by one having the proper authority. The same goes for being set apart to the office of a High Priest. You can't simply claim that God told you that you are a High Priest and the holy spirit of promise won't ratify an ordinance which has NOT actually taken place on earth. Do you get that? Finrock believes the HSofP will tell him he's a high priest--but in the LDS church, that's not how it works.

That's why we do temple work. It's necessary to have it done the ordinances on earth, so that it can be ratified by the HSofP and be efficacious in the eternities.

That's LDS doctrine, LIzzy. Finrock IS teaching false doctrine. He's teaching what Denver Snuffer teaches. Maybe that's why you are confused, --maybe you've been reading Denver's writings too much and you are getting them confused with actual LDS doctrines.

[AI2.0]

I'm an elder, not a high priest. I've never desired to be a high priest. The Lord won't give me anything I don't want, so, unless I change my mind, I ain't gonna be a high priest. If the leadership wants to ordain me a high priest, I'll just say, "No thank you." It would take God Himself opening the heavens, lifting me up to His throne and commanding me to be ordained a high priest. If and when that happens, then I'll say to Him, "Fine, but You be the one who ordains me, otherwise no deal!" So, if I ever say I am now a high priest, you all already know how it went down.

If you say you are a high priest but you've never actually been ordained to that office by someone having authority, it isn't recognized in the LDS church.

It's up to you, but if you believe that your leaders are inspired, then I'd hope that if they wanted to ordain you to be a high priest you'd think carefully before rejecting it out of hand.

[Lizzy60]

Finrock is not teaching false doctrine.

This argument is similar to the church's dual definition of apostasy. If you go to the LDS.org definition, it says that apostasy is turning away from Christ and His gospel. When you go to the Hamdbook, it says that apostasy is turning away from the church. These may seem to be the same thing to you, but there is a difference. If the church sincerely believes that a man may only become one of God's High Priests by having another man ordain him as such, and by no other way, then I would have to say that 2 Nephi 28:5 has been fulfilled, sadly.

As someone who claims to have spent a lot of time in the temple, I'm surprised you don't understand this simple basic teaching of the church. No one's baptism, sealing, ordinations, etc. are recognized unless they are done ON EARTH and by one having the proper authority. The same goes for being set apart to the office of a High Priest. You can't simply claim that God told you that you are a High Priest and the holy spirit of promise won't ratify an ordinance which has NOT actually taken place on earth. Do you get that? Finrock believes the HSofP will tell him he's a high priest--but in the LDS church, that's not how it works.

That's why we do temple work. It's necessary to have it done the ordinances on earth, so that it can be ratified by the HSofP and be efficacious in the eternities.

That's LDS doctrine, LIzzy. Finrock IS teaching false doctrine. He's teaching what Denver Snuffer teaches. Maybe that's why you are confused, --maybe you've been reading Denver's writings too much and you are getting them confused with actual LDS doctrines.

I have NEVER read anything written by Snuffer, nor listened to his speeches. What I know has been taught to me through personal revelation, a lot of it while reading scripture in the temple when there were only a few patrons. My revelation also predated Snuffer's books by a couple years, as far as I can tell.
Jesus Christ knows who are His sheep, they are numbered unto Him, and He will not lose a single one. Therefore, if a person's path places him in a situation where his ordinances are not done in the LDS Church, he will still receive all that the Lord knows is his to inherit. Conversely, a man may receive every single ordinance and honor and calling the LDS Church can bestow, but if he is not one of the Lord's sheep, he will not recognize Christ's voice, and none of those ordinances and callings will have any efficacy.

Have you inquired of the Lord on this?

[Original_Intent]

You know in terms of technical specifics, I'm not sure i still understand the difference between a high priest and an elder.

My understanding is that the primary difference is that Elders look after the physical needs of the ward (i.e. helping with moving, other more physical demands) and that High Priests are primarily responsible to watch over the spiritual needs of the ward.

There is certainly more involved. I believe I have read that the High Priesthood is required at some point in our eternal progress. I have read a story of a pioneer family whose son died crossing the plains and he was posthumously ordained a high priest. I figure if it's important, it will get taken care of.

OI do you remember the source of this story about the pioneer family. I would be very interested in finding it.

If I find the source I will let you know. So far, no luck, and I don;t even know if it was one of the "faith promoting myths" or if it really happened.

[Zathura]

My responses in blue;

quote=Stahura post_id=815669 time=1508444055 user_id=6937]
glcay, A12, in regards to this topic you are simply wrong. He's only said what your own prophets have said and continue to say on the topic of the Holy Spirit of Promise. No, I'm sorry, he's not. He's making incorrect assumptions that do not apply.

All I know is the general principle which is that a High Priest is one who is called and ordained by God and this is done through the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is also true that no ordinance, covenant, or contract is valid in the eternities unless it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

First, 'Ordinance' and 'Ordination' are not the same thing. The ordinance must take place on earth before it can be eventually sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. I've never heard of an ordination or an ordinance being recognized as valid and binding in heaven if it is not first completed on earth, but was only through some kind of individual spiritual thing. That is why we do proxy baptisms, sealings and ordinations.

you are teaching things very heretical to church doctrine

George Clay

***Once again you are not relating the LDS doctrinal position on this, you are relating your own interpretation

Harold B Lee, PROPHET

"In other words, baptism is only efficacious, and the initiary ordinance is applicable, when it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. We have that same phrase repeated in section 132, verse 19, for the Lord is speaking now of celestial marriage." (Stand Ye in Holy Places p.53)


Joseph Fielding Smith, PROPHET

Sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise." This does not have reference to marriage for time and all eternity only, but to every ordinance and blessing of the gospel. Baptism into the Church is sealed by this Spirit, likewise confirmation, ordination, and all ordinances as well as marriage for time and all eternity. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:94-95)

Melvin J. Ballard, APOSTLE(prophet)

our blessings will not be eternal until they are also sealed by the holy spirit of promise, the Holy Ghost, one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, and of full force, (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, 1949, p.237)Note that all of these are pertaining to an earthly ordinance or blessing have been bestowed first. Then, they must eventually be sealed by the holy spirit of promise, to be efficasious in the eternities. No one is disagreeing with this, so none of us are disputing what these prophets have said. Finrock is not saying this.
Finrock is claiming that no ordination is necessary--he thinks all that is needed is the holy spirit of promise--but he's ignoring the fact, per LDS doctrine that the holy spirit of promise only validates blessings, ordinances, baptisms etc, which have been completed by proper authority.

You're so fixated on proving others wrong that you do not realize when they actually teach word for word the things your own prophets teach, prophets that you claim to sustain.

Sorry, but that is not what's going on. No one is fixated on proving others wrong, we simply are trying to prevent other readers--less informed or non-members, from being misinformed about what Mormons believe and teach. It may be that you did not read the posts as carefully,
it is a long thread, and you misunderstood what Finrock was saying.
[/quote]

I didn't misunderstand a thing.
Also fyi the quotation got messed up when you posted it.