The Priesthood is separate from the church. For example, when someone is excommunicated they are told to stop using their priestly authority. When they are re-baptized they are never re-ordained. They are simply given authorization to now begin using their authority again.
We do not re-ordain someone when they are re-baptized because re-ordination is unnecessary. They held priestly authority even while they were not a member of the church.
Priesthood preceded the church and is the basis upon which it was organized. It will last beyond the church, at least in the final, Patriarchal form. That priesthood will endure into eternity, for it is the basis upon which the eternal family is predicated. The eternal family is the government of God, not the church. After this life, the church will come to an end. But the family, as a form of government, and priesthood of a Patriarch and Matriarch, presiding as a king and queen, priest and priestess, will endure.
I’ve figured out part of the problem I have in discussing Mormon issues with others. Oftentimes there is a disconnect between how important the two parties view the subject being discussed. To illustrate the point, I’m proposing a completely arbitrary method of ranking an issue on a 10 point scale of ascending importance as follows:
1. Completely meaningless
4. Somewhat significant
6. Very significant
8. Very important
10. Essential to salvation
When I think a subject is “1” and someone else thinks it is “10” then naturally I don’t care about the point. They think I must be convinced of the point or I am going to forfeit salvation itself. When that is the case, we don’t connect very well. If we do reach an agreement, I don’t think the agreement amounts to much. They on the other hand, think they’ve won a major point, or provided a valuable service. I would likely be bored with the discussion, and since I didn’t value the subject’s importance would probably offend the other party by my disinterest.
On the other hand, views change. At one point I am convinced that some behavior or conduct is either 9 or 10, only to later realize that it is more likely a 3 or 4. That change in attitude may be due to nothing more than living longer, getting more experience and developing a little humility about life and its challenges.
I think that a lot of discussions, disagreements and strong arguments are rooted in an assignment of different levels of importance to the subject.
For example, when I was an Elder’s Quorum President, Home Teaching by Quorum members was something between an 8 and 10. I’m not an Elder’s Quorum President any longer, and I go home teach my families because I really care about them. I like them. I want to be with them. I find them interesting. I’ve been 100% for many months and, if I miss at all, it is due to either their absence during the month or mine. But I try to keep in close touch, not because of some “assignment” but because I like them. If I were to assign a level of importance to home teaching now, based on the scale above, I would candidly give it a 5 or 6.
There are people who believe the center piece of the relief society room during a lesson is a 10. I don’t relate well to that. And there are those who think President Monson’s General Conference Addresses are a 1. I don’t relate well to that, either.
Before a discussion begins about gospel subjects, I think it is always helpful to first find out how important the subject is to the person with whom you are speaking.
In the last game she hit a single and RBI’d 2 runs.
I noticed that the moms for the opposing teams all rooted for her when she was up to bat. The dads, however, were horrified that a girl was competing with their sons. I think she’s doing a public service.
It’s the equinox. I’m going to do something memorable.
I have been struck by how much of the message which Samuel the Lamanite and Abinadi both deliver have previously been the subject of Nephi’s prophecies. Almost every bit of Samuel the Lamanite and Abinadi’s messages are first included within Nephi’s message. It is possible that both of these later Book of Mormon prophets were “restoring” to new generations the message originally taught by Nephi which had fallen into neglect.
The entire message of Joseph Smith was to restore what had been here before and become lost. The work of scholar Margaret Barker suggests that Jesus Christ was restoring First Temple theology and earlier lost traditions.
If the gospel was originally preached to Adam (and I think it was) then every prophet from that day until now has simply been restoring what was once here. Prophets fight the law of entropy. Mankind keep losing truths and prophets keep bringing them back.
One of the great “signs” that there is a true prophet on the earth is the restoration by them of truths which have fallen into disuse or neglect. True prophets are at war with entropy and decay.
After Christ’s resurrection, when He had ministered to His disciples, and proven that it was He who had been crucified, Luke makes this interesting observation: “And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.” (Luke 24:52-53)
First, it is interesting because Christ had fulfilled the Law of Moses. Therefore, the rites of the temple of Herod were no longer necessary. Yet Christ’s disciples returned to the temple “continually” to worship Him. Second, the temple was under the control of those who conspired to kill the Lord. Despite this, Christ’s disciples were “continually” in the temple.
True worship by a true disciple is never impaired by the circumstances. We should not allow anything to distract us from our own “praising and blessing God.” If it can be done in the temple of Herod after the crucifixion of Christ, it can be done today.
C.S. Lewis wrote a science fiction trilogy in which the first volume titled “Out of the Silent Planet” made this earth isolated from the heavenly chorus because of its wickedness.
“Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea: for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Revelation 12:12)
I watched a new DVD we bought from Deseret Book titled “One Good Man.”
If it was satire or intended as irony then it was quite good. If it was just a straight up drama then I hated it. Since it was an LDS product, and sold at Deseret Book, I assume it wasn’t meant as irony or satire.
It offended me because the lead character was called to be a Bishop. This makes the hero a church leader. The hero treats one of his ward members as disposable, but goes out of his way for non-members and widows. It resulted in the inactivity of an entire family whose sole outreach by the bishop was to go Christmas caroling with his family on their porch. While there, he tells the wife that he, “hadn’t seen them in church lately.”
It was depressing. As irony it shows how a “good” man can’t always do good. Life is riddled with conflicts and unintended harm. So I like it as irony.
First, I spent over 20 years teaching Gospel Doctrine weekly. To prepare for a class I would read the assigned scriptures on Sunday evening. Beginning Monday I would research in commentaries what others had said about the passages in the assigned lesson. Then before going to bed I would re-read the scriptures for the next lesson.
I would continue this process daily until Thursday. Beginning Thursday I would start to outline what I intended to cover in the lesson on Sunday.
Throughout the week I would listen to the relevant scriptures for the next lesson on tape/CD whenever I was in my car. So on the way to and from work I would listen and re-listen to the scriptures.
In all the time I taught I never repeated a lesson. I tried to go deeper and deeper into the meaning of the material every time I taught it.
Today with that background I read books and scriptures daily. However, I take what I learn back into my scriptures and add cross-references or margin notes to make scriptural passages more meaningful for me. My scriptures have very little underlining and no coloring, but there are many notes and cross-references in them.
I try to tie any new concept I learn, no matter the source, back into the scriptures. Lately I have also taken to using an electronic version of the scriptures to help locate material or passages which relate to a topic.
The Temple of Solomon had a “sea” for washings of the priests. The description of that “sea” is found in 1 Kings 7: 23-26. Significantly the “sea” sat upon the backs of twelve oxen. (verse 25.) Three were facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east.
In the time of the First Temple, these twelve oxen foreshadowed the scattering of Israel to the four corners of the earth. The destruction of the First Temple completed the scattering, which began at the death of Solomon, who was responsible the construction of the First Temple. When he died, the kingdom was divided north and south. The northern kingdom contained ten tribes, which would be taken into Assyrian captivity at about 725 b.c., and then be lost to history as they scattered northward. The remaining two tribes of the south were taken captive by Babylon at 600 b.c., and then a “remnant” returned. They were finally dispossessed of their land at 70 a.d. by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, and scattered throughout the Roman Empire.
We also build fonts in Temples with twelve oxen bearing the font of water used for baptisms for the dead. These twelve oxen are also divided into groups of three facing north, west, south and east. Now, however, the oxen signify the gathering of scattered Israel. They also signify by their number, three, the concept of presidency or organization under restored priestly authority. The circle of twelve also are a symbol of restored, reorganized Israel in the latter-days to once again exist as a united people upon the earth.
Nicodemus responded: “How can a man be born again when he is old? Can he enter the second time into the mother’s womb, and be born? ” (John 3: 4.)
Christ responded: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3: 5-8.)
Flesh is just flesh. What is required to be able to go where God is will require every person to receive a new Spirit, new life, and become connected with heaven.
Heaven is unruly, unpredictable and blows without predictability. The Spirit is unruly, requiring things which men do not anticipate. It takes you places you have not been before. You cannot just sit within the councils of the Sanhedrin and reason with men’s understanding. You must become inspired by a higher source. You must accept that new direction from above, or you will never enter into God’s kingdom.
Brilliant. Christ taught the teacher. Now the matter is put to him: Will he receive a new life, and leave the old one? Will he become born again.
How hard it must have been for a man in Nicodemus’ position to approach Christ. The fact he came at night testifies to the discomfort of his circumstances. Yet Christ, in patience, told him how to receive eternal life.
What a revealing encounter. We are the richer in our understanding for it having occurred.