What is the Purpose of Life?

[_Gazelam]

I have never looked for them. Why, does your faith rest on a 3 year window?

Matt. 17:9

Gaz

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Gaz, you quote Joseph Smith:

In speaking of John the Baptist Joseph Smith said: "John, at that time, was the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom there was then on the earth, and holding the keys of power. The jews had to obey his instructions or be damned, by their own law; and Christ himself fulfilled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the law which he had given to Moses on the mount, and thereby magnified it and made it honerable, instead of destroying it. The son of Zacharias wrested the keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory from the jews, by the holy anointing and decree of heaven."

Thanks for the above. It bears well on the big-picture question of "authority". Who/what "authorized" JB to take upon himself the task of calling Jews to repentance? Certainly not the Sanhedrian (spelling?) or admin Jews claiming to act for "God".

Interesting that Joseph Smith addresses JB's "authority". Not sure if other 'theologians' have??? Yes or no, Joseph Smith was obliged to, for purposeful reasons, to substantiate his "authority".

The question, was the above delivered by revelation or expediency, is in the hands of each who ponders it. I think we both know how each of us will see it :-) Right??

AS the story goes, JB called himself into the wilderness to survive on honey and locusts while crying repentance to his people.

That JB took the initiatve to do so , AND was recognized by Jesus for so doing, seems to indicate Jesus was less "authoitarian" than some Christian institutions would have us believe.

Jesus demonstrated that more than once. On the occassion of "others doing works who are not of us..." Jesus answered, "...if they are not against us, they are for us..." No comment about "authority". Jesus continually crossed those claiming "authority" to the extreme of saying they didn't even know "God".

Does one need "authority" to go about doing the will/work of "God"? That is as stewards of the universe and servants of the needy? I think not. Warm regards, Roger

[_Jersey Girl]

Roger asks, "Does one need "authority" to go about doing the will/work of "God"? That is as stewards of the universe and servants of the needy?"

Absolutely not. One need only a wise and charitable heart.

Jersey Girl
:-)

[_Gazelam]

There is no question that a person does not need to be a member of Gods church to do good deeds. Romans chp. 2 deals with that very subject.

The question is realy about who has the authority to seal the name of Christ upon us. That is what John was doing. Setting people apart through ordinances. Luke 1:6 states that Johns Father was perfect in the ordinances of the time of the Law of Moses. Under this same authority John set out to prepare the way for Christ, who was to restore the higher Laws of the fulness of the gospel. While John could perform the temporal ordinance of the Aeronic priesthood, Christ would seal men up to the Higher spiritual Laws that were enjoyed previous to the time of Moses.

As Romans chapter 2 states, you do not have to be under the Laws and ordinances to do good works, but if we wish to grow up in God and receive the blessings of the Holy Ghost, and enjoy his sanctifying effects, we need to apply the covenants and ordinances in our lives.

Gaz

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Gaz, you say well:

The question is realy about who has the authority to seal the name of Christ upon us. That is what John was doing. Setting people apart through ordinances. Luke 1:6 states that Johns Father was perfect in the ordinances of the time of the Law of Moses. Under this same authority John set out to prepare the way for Christ, who was to restore the higher Laws of the fulness of the gospel. While John could perform the temporal ordinance of the Aeronic priesthood, Christ would seal men up to the Higher spiritual Laws that were enjoyed previous to the time of Moses.

That is the question: "Who has the authority..."? Do you assume John had it? If so, why do you? IF you present the idea "because his father had it", what do you substantiate that opinion with? Seems John had stepped outside of his father's religious tradition? Were others doing what John did? "Crying repentance in the wilderness!" IF not, why not? IF so where do we have record of that?

While you use the term "ordinance" to describe John's activity. I think it more correct to understand baptism as a sign, a physical ritual, rather than as a rule, that demonstrates willingness to conform to group requirement??? Symbolic cleansing as it is seen today to be.

Gaz, i have no doubt in your sincere efforts to promolgate the idea of Exclusive-Authority. However such a belief has no justification in reality. It is a human construct assumed without evidence of any manifestation of spirituality beyond that of any other person's display who strives towards Charity, as that which surpasses all else--prophets included.

It is unfortunate IMSCO that the magnanimnity, compassion, justice and grace of Jesus is constricted by LDSism. That such a gift-of-grace can only to be administered by self-appointed usurpers of power meant to be shared by all, and opportuned to all, does not add credibility to the LDS claim of Divine Authorization.

I guess it is on this point of "authority" that we have little choice but agree to disagree. Warm regards, Roger

[_desert_vulture]

Some folks think our earthly life is a test. Some think it is to progress to another more evolved life until we achieve Moksha. Others think it is to learn a particular lesson. Still others think there is no purpose whatsoever. :-)

Whatever positive thing you want it to be.

[_Gazelam]

John was of priestly descent on the side of both his parents. His Father, Zacharias, was a priest of the course of Abija *, while his Mother, Elizabeth, belonged to the family of Aaron. They are described as being "righteous before God, walking in all the commandments of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6)

It is obvious from the scriptures that John was seen as a man of authority:Matthew 21

23 ¶ And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Gaz


* Abijah: A descendant of Aaron. The ancestral head of the eighth of the 24 groups into which David had divided the priests (1 Chron. 24:10).

[_Roger Morrison]

Good AM, Gaz, trust ya had a good Thanksgiving! Back with a permanent southern, Bright House connection. Maybe i'll be brighter, eh? You posted from Mt,21:

23 ¶ And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

This is one that i've been thinking about too. Especially v27, why do You think Jesus left their question unanswered? Might it be, because Jesus knew the question of "authority" to be irrelevant in "God's" world/work. That he knew "authority" to be a human concept to maintain order, office and influence; that it is corrutible as he witnessed it the Jewish hiearchy. A state he was in constant conflict with and critical of... "...you guys don't even know "God"!!..."

To the "chief priests and elders" "authority" was important! Who was this new-guy, who made sense AND disputed them? Where were HIS credentials?

AND, John? What about HIM? They wondered. Where did HIS "authority" come from? They all knew his parents. But John was a maverick preaching against THEIR establishment! Nepotism is only affective with conformity, and "Authority" is withdrawn by the same "Authority" that granted it "MORTAL Authority".

Here we have two cousins counselling outside of nepotistic authority!!?? They obviously had little respect for it. Possibly being so close to it, they could, and did, honestly see the weakness in such a system. Lessor persons conform to, and acquiesce traditions that are less than honourable, but tend to order. Like, who wants disorder, and can those in "Authority" ever be wrong? As it remains today.

Nepotism was the way Joseph Smith saw LDsism evolve. But obviously it didn't for a number of reasons that were as valid in biblical times as now, but were non-the-less abided and are still promolgated for Corporate continuity by monarchial thinking wherever it is found.

It is interesting that Jesus has little concern for, or makes positive mention of, "Authority". On the other hand those following the crucifiction of Jesus, remaining conditioned by their nurturing to expect, and accept "authority" are quick to formulate an administrative structure and cloak it with trappings of office that Jesus made light of, and tried to reform.
Paul the Pharsee can little help doing so. In Eth. 2:20, he refers to the foundation of Apostles and Prophets in allegory. And to Timothy he speaks of ordination. All articualation of others years after Jesus' death.

"Authority" in "man's-world" i understand. When practiced with compassion and fairness it constructively serves humanity. When practiced with fear, insecurity and for purposes of suppression it disserves humanity and brings about destructions of both individuals, communities, and societies.

In "God's world" there is no such thing as "God's Authority" granted to humankind in the general understanding of the term, its application and implications. To apply sectarian/religious "Authority" in denominaltional admin affairs is Institutional "Authority". To act for such an institution under their auspices, and in their service, specified "authority" is required.

"God's Authority" is granted to everyone to pro-create, think, aspire, invent, create and apply their skills, talents and intelligence to humanity's service. In so doing "God's" work is advanced, and humanity moves closer to a unity of faith.
Warm regards, Roger

[_Jason Bourne]

I have to sign off, so I'll give you the short answer.

To believe in Christ means being baptised and having his name sealed upon you, makeing you a Child of Christ and heir to his blessing through obedience to his teachings.

To be baptised requires authority.

The only ones with claim to authority are Catholics, Jews, or Mormons.

Take your pick.

Gaz

No. Protestants claim authority through the concept of The Priesthood of all believers. They argue, based on I believe Hebrew 7 or there abouts, that Jesus was the last great High Priest and that there is no need for an earthly High Priest. If you believe and have saving faith you are authorized to Baptise.

[_Gazelam]

Roger,

At what point in any of the scriptures is there not a recognized authority figure present?

Jason,

That claim is laughable. Authority comes by the laying on of hands, with a clear line traceing back to Christ himself. 1 Tim 4:14


Gaz