silvermoon383
Well-Known Member
Sorry to butt in again...Isn't the priesthood a divinely-appointed office?
Yes, the priesthood is a divinely-appointed office, but so is motherhood, sisterhood, and Relief Society-hood.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sorry to butt in again...Isn't the priesthood a divinely-appointed office?
Yes, of course it is. God is divine and He appoints certain individuals to do certain things for Him and other individuals to do other things for Him. All of us were spoken of by a former prophet as being "gods in embryo." He wasn't speaking strictly of priesthold holders or even of just men.Isn't the priesthood a divinely-appointed office?
There is nothing logical or consistent about your argument. When you speak of a "reason imposed on God," you make your ignorance on the subject clear. Nobody imposes reasons on God. I can't figure out why that's so beyond your ability to understand.No, I'm assuming that out of logical consistency, there is no reason. A reason imposed on God to act one way instead of another would represent a limitation on what God could do; but apparently God can do anything.
Yes, "except to whatever extent God makes it so." That's the extent with which we concern ourselves.If God does not need anything, then God does not need to make salvation or exaltation contingent on baptism... hence baptism is unnecessary, except to whatever extent God makes it so.
Now your questions don't even make sense.And based on my limited understanding of Mormon theology, I think it's a fair statement to say that God could not be compelled to do anything... correct? If so, then how could any reason God had to make exaltation contingent upon baptism been a compelling one?
Arrgh. I understand that, and it's precisely my point: if God cannot have reasons for His action imposed on him and cannot be compelled to choose one alternative over another, then all that's left as the basis for His decision on both the form of baptism and the necessity of it would be His own whims.There is nothing logical or consistent about your argument. When you speak of a "reason imposed on God," you make your ignorance on the subject clear. Nobody imposes reasons on God. I can't figure out why that's so beyond your ability to understand.
In deciding how to conduct ourselves, perhaps. It doesn't stop us from wondering about God's motivations, though.Yes, "except to whatever extent God makes it so." That's the extent with which we concern ourselves.
Sure it does: God must not have had a compelling reason to choose baptism as a necessary element of salvation, because nothing can be compelling to God.Now your questions don't even make sense.
Arrgh. I understand that, and it's precisely my point: if God cannot have reasons for His action imposed on him and cannot be compelled to choose one alternative over another, then all that's left as the basis for His decision on both the form of baptism and the necessity of it would be His own whims.
In deciding how to conduct ourselves, perhaps. It doesn't stop us from wondering about God's motivations, though.
Sure it does: God must not have had a compelling reason to choose baptism as a necessary element of salvation, because nothing can be compelling to God.
So you want me to quit being LDS?
You're opposed to self-defense?
You don't think the Lord will win in the end?
I want fewer LDS who blithely encourage others to fight against the work of God, and/or encourage LDS to take violent action in the name of thier faith.
As long as we're making this disagreement public.
So the bottom-line is this: Does God have a reason for choosing baptism as a necessary ordinance or was it just his whim?
Is that right, Penguin?
So you didn't answer any of my questions.
That's fine.
You really can't tell?! It's no on all three. Nothing I said suggested I wanted you to stop being LDS, or that I was opposed to self-defense, or that I thought the Lord would lose.
Does that make it clearer?
Basically.
And my argument is that the nature of God inherent in Mormon theology implies that there was no reason other than God's whim.
So - no, you don't think the Lord will win in the end?
Dannite is a term that gets thrown around without people actually knowing who or what the dannites stood for.
The dannites were a fraternity group made up of primarily LDS men who formed a militia group in missoury to protect the members of the church from the attacking Mobs.
As for "unleashing the danites" it makes them sound like a bloodthirsty mod when in reality they were protectors, Sentinels if you will.
but i have to completely agee with Watchmen/Disneyman that the Lords work will not stop and will trample under it's feet those who attempt to stop it.
Acts 5 said:38. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
I've already been through this several times now. If you're interested to know why I think that, you can go back and read my previous posts in the thread.Why do you believe Mormon theology implies that there was no reason other than God's whim?
Sitting in a cave for three days would be symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection, too, but the LDS Church doesn't demand that people do that. So would carrying around a stone or a vial of soil in your pocket. There's more to making baptism a divine requirement than just symbolism.God gives us ordinances in the similitude of the Only Begotten of the Father. Baptism is symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection and represents us lowering ourselves before rising up again. Hence, we are "born again."
Here is what the LDS Bible Dictionary says about "baptism."
...you forgot about the part where they were terrorists led by Sampson Avard, who pretended to have authority from the prophet when he didn't.
Avard said the Danites were formed to fulfil the prophecies about the riches of the Gentiles falling into the hands of believers. That's his euphemism for KILLING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEIR STUFF. Hardly sentinels or protectors!
As do I, but there's a big difference between saying that people won't be able to stop the work and blithely inviting them to fight against God.
So was Gamaliel wrong to discourage people from fighting against God? He should have said, "Go ahead and fight! I'm gonna laugh my head off when you get crushed under the stone cut without hands! Somebody get me some popcorn!"?
I've already been through this several times now. If you're interested to know why I think that, you can go back and read my previous posts in the thread.
Sitting in a cave for three days would be symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection, too, but the LDS Church doesn't demand that people do that. So would carrying around a stone or a vial of soil in your pocket. There's more to making baptism a divine requirement than just symbolism.
I've already been through this several times now. If you're interested to know why I think that, you can go back and read my previous posts in the thread.
Perhaps, but I think they're related.It looks to me like your argument is really with baptism itself, which belongs in a new thread. This one is about whether the LDS church needs to do more by the Jewish groups that have been offended here.