Deleted

[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.

[gclayjr]

CelestialAngel,

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

What is the point of being a Bishop, a seventy, a Patriarch, or an Apostle, if it is not necessary for our salvation?

God has different intentions and callings for each of us, The only thing that is important is that we follow the path he wishes for us, and we need not worry if it is different from some one else's. If we do that we will be saved in the Celestial kingdom, and it won't matter that we didn't receive something that someone else did.

Regards,

George Clay'

[Finrock]

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.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that you think it is heresy because you aren't being objective or fair minded. I appreciate that you have this opinion and I respect your right to hold this opinion. I understand that you really believe what you are saying is true. I get that you don't believe this doctrine found in the scriptures and I won't force you to believe it. Your charges of heresy, apostasy, etc. are meaningless.

I get up and teach what I'm teaching at church all of the time.

-Finrock

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

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. Never? Given that you were a member in good standing in the ATHG private forum, I'm positive you couldn't have avoided reading at least some of his quotes. Heck, I've read a number of his blog posts and lectures and I don't try to claim otherwise. 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. Well, since you claim you haven't read ANYTHING of his, let me enlighten you--you would sympathize a lot with the things he says.
He also has a contempt for the Church leaders and is also critical of the church members and church culture, to which you can relate, apparently.
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.But surely you know the church's position. The person will still need those ordinances completed by proxy--that's the whole purpose for the temple, you should know this! 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. I'm not disagreeing with this, the ordinances will not save an unrepentant, wicked person.

Have you inquired of the Lord on this?

I never said you were a follower of DS--as far as I've seen, you've never admitted you read or agreed with him, but I've read enough of your postings to know you share a 'likemindedness' with them) and you admitted that you are careful what you post on a 'public forum'.

But that's not important. What is important is what this disagreement is about.

Finrock doesn't believe an actual ordination is needed for a person to be a High Priest. He's free to believe whatever he wants, you are too, but both of you need to be careful of misrepresenting our church teachings. As a temple worker, I expect you know that the church does proxy temple ordinances because the church teaches that all saving ordinances, in order to be binding in heaven, MUST be done on earth--either for a living person or by proxy on behalf of a dead person. Then comes the holy spirit of promise which 'seals' the ordinance in heaven.

And, those who haven't had this work done, will still need it completed for them on earth, to enjoy the blessings in the eternities. This is LDS doctrine. That's why we have temples.

Suggesting that it is not necessary to have these ordinances, blessings, ordinations, through proper priesthood authority is out of harmony with the teachings of this church--and it's what Snuffer teaches and his followers believe. We've got a lot of closet Snufferites here and so this distinction must be made.

[AI2.0]

So, George asked you this question;


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.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that you think it is heresy because you aren't being objective or fair minded. I appreciate that you have this opinion and I respect your right to hold this opinion. I understand that you really believe what you are saying is true. I get that you don't believe this doctrine found in the scriptures and I won't force you to believe it. Your charges of heresy, apostasy, etc. are meaningless.

I get up and teach what I'm teaching at church all of the time.

-Finrock

It's not about being 'objective or fairminded', this is about stating gospel doctrines accurately and this is not simply my opinion vs. your opinion.

You are claiming that it is not necessary for a man to be set apart as a High Priest in order to be a high priest--you claim all he needs is God's approval by the holy spirit of promise. This is an incorrect understanding of gospel doctrine;

D&C 107 clearly explains that men must be 'called and set apart and ordained unto this power' by those having the proper priesthood authority to do so, in order to hold priesthood and to be ordained to certain offices within the priesthood. The Holy spirit of promise's purpose is to validate in heaven, what has been done on earth.

And I seriously doubt you get up in church and say that you don't need to be ordained a High Priest by church leaders, but can become one by personal revelation from the Holy Spirit of Promise.

[AI2.0]

Finrock, we've been through this before--you didn't think baptism was necessary either. Remember how we all went round and round on that in an earlier thread, "Polarizing question'?
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the LDS doctrinal teachings on the importance of saving ordinances and ordinations needing to be done on earth by those having proper priesthood authority. They must be done on earth for those living or completed in a temple by proxy, for those who have died. That's why we have temples and complete temple work.

The Holy spirit of promise works differently than what you are claiming:

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of Promise (Acts 2:33). He confirms as acceptable to God the righteous acts, ordinances, and covenants of men. The Holy Spirit of Promise witnesses to the Father that the saving ordinances have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept.

They who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise receive all that the Father has, D&C 76:51–60 (Eph. 1:13–14).

All covenants and performances must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to have force after this life, D&C 132:7, 18–19, 26.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/holy- ... e?lang=eng

The holy spirit of promise confirms ordinances which have been performed on earth and acknowledges that the covenants have been kept and the promises honored in the eternities.

[brlenox]

So, George asked you this question;


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.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that you think it is heresy because you aren't being objective or fair minded. I appreciate that you have this opinion and I respect your right to hold this opinion. I understand that you really believe what you are saying is true. I get that you don't believe this doctrine found in the scriptures and I won't force you to believe it. Your charges of heresy, apostasy, etc. are meaningless.

I get up and teach what I'm teaching at church all of the time.

-Finrock

Honest question...When you teach this, what sources do you use to validate the material?

[diligently seeking]

D&C 88

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you:
2 Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world.
3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;
5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son

[gclayjr]

JaredDBees,

D&C 88

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you:
2 Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world.
3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;
5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son

I must admit that I waas interested in what Finrock might post to answer Brinox. I was looking forward to any good arguements he (or you) might make for your position.

However, I must admit confusion. The above quote not only has nothing to do with the question posed, I don't even see how it applies to the discussion at hand. Did I miss something, or were you just practicing your cut and paste skills?

Regards,

George Clay

[diligently seeking]

JaredDBees,

D&C 88

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you:
2 Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world.
3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;
5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son

I must admit that I waas interested in what Finrock might post to answer Brinox. I was looking forward to any good arguements he (or you) might make for your position.

However, I must admit confusion. The above quote not only has nothing to do with the question posed, I don't even see how it applies to the discussion at hand. Did I miss something, or were you just practicing your cut and paste skills?

Regards,

George Clay

Mosiah 2

And these are the words which he spake and caused to be written, saying: My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day; for I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.

[Arenera]

Of recent times, both Elder Nelson and Elder Packer have suggested we don’t have power in the priesthood.

If there is no power, has the ordination been of value?

The power comes from accessing heaven. This is where the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Holy Ghost, Christ himself. This is also where the Church of the Firstborn is.

[gardener4life]

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.

Can you start your car without car keys? Can you get in your house without a key to the door? However important your keys are for those, the priesthood is a more important key than those. Hope that helps. This is also why society degrading the value of the Priesthood ( and also Motherhood being sacred ) is a big deal.

[Arenera]

Of recent times, both Elder Nelson and Elder Packer have suggested we don’t have power in the priesthood.

If there is no power, has the ordination been of value?

The power comes from accessing heaven. This is where the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Holy Ghost, Christ himself. This is also where the Church of the Firstborn is.

Joseph’s words come to mind, “You might as well baptize a bag of sand if they don’t receive the Holy Ghost”. You might as well ordain a bag of sand if they don’t have the Holy Ghost and the power of God.

Alma said:3 I, Alma, having been consecrated by my father, Alma, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things, behold, I say unto you that he began to establish a church in the land which was in the borders of Nephi; yea, the land which was called the land of Mormon; yea, and he did baptize his brethren in the waters of Mormon.

7 Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God. Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.

14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

We believe in God and Christ. Have we awoke unto God?

[brlenox]

Of recent times, both Elder Nelson and Elder Packer have suggested we don’t have power in the priesthood.

If there is no power, has the ordination been of value?

The power comes from accessing heaven. This is where the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Holy Ghost, Christ himself. This is also where the Church of the Firstborn is.

Having spent the past near couple of years working with and studying out Elder Nelson's instruction, I can assure you the ordination has been of absolute value. As well, having transitioned from a state of intermittent power in the priesthood to a state such as he has encouraged of consistent application in ways that I finally have a sense of understanding of and confidence of success that I have not known before I can witness to the fact that you need not question the ordinations. They are just fine. Individuals simply need to treat this as any other course where they need instruction and then seek it out.

As far as your last statement:

The power comes from accessing heaven. This is where the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Holy Ghost, Christ himself. This is also where the Church of the Firstborn is.

This is far to ambiguous for me to comment to as it relates to Elder Nelson instruction. Perhaps you might explain further.

[brlenox]

JaredDBees,

D&C 88

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you:
2 Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world.
3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;
5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son

I must admit that I waas interested in what Finrock might post to answer Brinox. I was looking forward to any good arguements he (or you) might make for your position.

However, I must admit confusion. The above quote not only has nothing to do with the question posed, I don't even see how it applies to the discussion at hand. Did I miss something, or were you just practicing your cut and paste skills?

Regards,

George Clay

Tragically George, Finrock seems to have ceased to respond to my posts about his material. OR perhaps I am simply on his ignore list. My last two posts where I detail out his errant thought patterns have gone unrebutted. In fact since the Alvin, nobody needs baptism debacle where he had to admit to a degree of corrective perception he seems to have shied away from engaging me at all except for one side swipe a few weeks back. It appears he no longer has the courage to defend his positions when someone will hold him to the standard of scriptures and apostles and prophetic comparison and that's okay by me. That is the standard that should win out and illustrate mistaken notions.

[brlenox]

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.

Lizzy if you do sustain this and believe it to be true perhaps you can do for us what Finrock has been unwilling to do. What sources have led you to accept this doctrine. Is there an article, a few verses, or commentary which will provide insight on this principle?