A discussion with Mr. Scratch

[_harmony]

Your ignoreing what you read.

JSH 1:72 stated:

"....and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us...."

And as repoted, they did so.

Whats the problem?

Gaz

Where does it say that Peter, James, and John conferred the Melch priesthood onto Joseph? All your verse says is that they would get around to it, "in due time." Which could be tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year. Or 200 years after they were dead. We know the place, the time, the date... everything for the Aaronic priesthood restoration. Show me in the canonwhere any of that is reported for the Melch priesthood.

[_Yoda]

To Plutarch: There are at least two understandings of the term "intellectual" that should be taken into consideration when throwing the term about. The first is the sense in which anybody who is involved with or makes a living within the world of or in the manipulation of the signs, symbols, and symbology of culture: that is, language (and/or imagery mixed with the use of language). In this sense, Madonna, Bill Maher, or Katie Couric are "intellectuals"; there world is the world of culture, media, language, words, and images combined with words. The other sense of the term is that describing serious thinkers, which is another thing altogether. There are many people who are not serious thinkers who are yet very articulate and well versed in the manipulation of the language. They are not experts in anything or "deep" thinkers on any subject but excellent verbalizers and can, if they have quick, agile minds, flummox others who are far more knowledgable than they in any of several ways.

In other words, "intellectual" doesn't necessarily mean smart, learned, or educated. A drug addled rock star writing vulgar lyrics with some social or political message is as much an intellectual as Hugh Nibley in the sense of working in the world of language and ideas. He is not an intellectual in the other sense.

We seem to have an abundance of the prior kind here, over the latter.

You are correct, Cog! :)

Plutarch - "There are many people who are not serious thinkers who are yet very articulate and well versed in the manipulation of the language. They are not experts in anything or "deep" thinkers on any subject but excellent verbalizers and can, if they have quick, agile minds, flummox others who are far more knowledgable than they in any of several ways."

Cog - "A rock star writing vulgar lyrics with some social or political message."

Sorry, Cog....couldn't resist...Had to poke fun at your song lyrics writing. LOL

[_Gazelam]

I already answered your question. You just wont accept it. We know what happened. No the details arent there as they are with John the Baptist, you are right in that, but does it matter? Joseph at one point or another received the keys of all the past dispensations. These included a messenger from the time of Abraham, as well as Moses and Elijah. There were others also. We do not have all of the details to all of these encounters. What is important is that the keys of the priesthood to all of these dispensations were restored to Joseph in this dispensation of the fullness of times.

"He ( Joseph Smith ) lived until he received every key, ordinance and law ever given to any man on the earth, from Father Adam down, touching this dispensation. He received powers and keys from under the hands of Moses for gathering the House of Israel in the last days; he received under the hands of Elijah the keys of sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers; he received under the hands of Peter, James and John, the apostleship, and everything belonging thereto; he received under the hands of Moroni all the keys and powers required of the stick of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim; he received under the hands of John the Baptist the Aeronic Priesthood, with all the keys and powers, and every other key and power belonging to this dispensation, and I am not ashamed to say that he was a Prophet of God, and he laid the foundation of the greatest work and dispensation that has ever been established on the earth. - Wilford Woodruff, John Dehlin 16:267, October 8, 1873


Now you have it from the mouth of a Prophet of God. Please print it off and post it in a place where you may review it till you fully understand and accept it, so that you may stop with the sillyness and get on with the work of the gospel.

[_harmony]

I already answered your question. You just wont accept it. We know what happened. No the details arent there as they are with John the Baptist, you are right in that, but does it matter? Joseph at one point or another received the keys of all the past dispensations. These included a messenger from the time of Abraham, as well as Moses and Elijah. There were others also. We do not have all of the details to all of these encounters. What is important is that the keys of the priesthood to all of these dispensations were restored to Joseph in this dispensation of the fullness of times.

"He ( Joseph Smith ) lived until he received every key, ordinance and law ever given to any man on the earth, from Father Adam down, touching this dispensation. He received powers and keys from under the hands of Moses for gathering the House of Israel in the last days; he received under the hands of Elijah the keys of sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers; he received under the hands of Peter, James and John, the apostleship, and everything belonging thereto; he received under the hands of Moroni all the keys and powers required of the stick of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim; he received under the hands of John the Baptist the Aeronic Priesthood, with all the keys and powers, and every other key and power belonging to this dispensation, and I am not ashamed to say that he was a Prophet of God, and he laid the foundation of the greatest work and dispensation that has ever been established on the earth. - Wilford Woodruff, John Dehlin 16:267, October 8, 1873


Now you have it from the mouth of a Prophet of God. Please print it off and post it in a place where you may review it till you fully understand and accept it, so that you may stop with the sillyness and get on with the work of the gospel.

What I'm getting it is very simple, Gaz. You have nothing that says that Joseph received the Melch priesthood, except his say-so. And guess what? His say-so doesn't make it so. If I accepted his say-so, I'd be among those who believed him when he said he only had one wife. He lied whenever it was convenient, and you expect me to take him at his word that he received the Melch priesthood? Why should I believe him? Why should I believe Pres Woodruff, 40 some odd years later? Pres Woodruff didn't witness angels, resurrected men, or God himself bestowing the Melch priesthood on Joseph. Had he been there, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd have a revelation, witnessed and voted on. We don't have that. So essentially what we've got is the word of man who repeatedly showed his word wasn't worth diddly squat, that's what we've got.

Now produce the revelation, signed, witnessed, and canonized that shows the Melch priesthood was restored or admit it doesn't exist.

[_Gazelam]

One thing your forgetting is that Joseph shared his angels with others. it wasn't just his saying so, It was him and others. that's the point of the gospel, Theres nothing the prophets do that others can't as well.

" To have communion with the heavens, to see both angels and spirits. Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants says that the Melchizedek Priesthood, in holding the keys of the spiritual blessings of the Church, is to have the privilege of holding communion with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn. Who are they? Apparently they are the most righteous, who have filled their missions on earth and are now serving worthily in the spirit world or have inherited celestial glory. Did Joseph have communion with them while he was on the Earth? Yes. The only other man in LDS history who enjoyed a comparable richness of communion was Wilford Woodruff, who seemed to have had that gift from birth, and who seemed to live as if with one foot in the spirit world and one foot in this one. Only Wilford Woodruff could say to a brother as he went down the street in Salt Lake City, "Brother John, it's good to see you," and then could add as an afterthought, "You know, I don't think I've seen your Father since he died." - Truman Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet, pp. 48-49

Gaz

[_harmony]

One thing your forgetting is that Joseph shared his angels with others. it wasn't just his saying so, It was him and others. that's the point of the gospel, Theres nothing the prophets do that others can't as well.

" To have communion with the heavens, to see both angels and spirits. Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants says that the Melchizedek Priesthood, in holding the keys of the spiritual blessings of the Church, is to have the privilege of holding communion with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn. Who are they? Apparently they are the most righteous, who have filled their missions on earth and are now serving worthily in the spirit world or have inherited celestial glory. Did Joseph have communion with them while he was on the Earth? Yes. The only other man in LDS history who enjoyed a comparable richness of communion was Wilford Woodruff, who seemed to have had that gift from birth, and who seemed to live as if with one foot in the spirit world and one foot in this one. Only Wilford Woodruff could say to a brother as he went down the street in Salt Lake City, "Brother John, it's good to see you," and then could add as an afterthought, "You know, I don't think I've seen your Father since he died." - Truman Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet, pp. 48-49

Gaz

No revelation, witnessed, recorded, and canonized yet, I see.

[_Runtu]

No revelation, witnessed, recorded, and canonized yet, I see.

I find it odd that there's no mention of such a visitation until 1834 or so, if I remember right. David Whitmer believed that the vision was invented to shore up Joseph's authority during a time when he was being challenged.

[_harmony]

No revelation, witnessed, recorded, and canonized yet, I see.

I find it odd that there's no mention of such a visitation until 1834 or so, if I remember right. David Whitmer believed that the vision was invented to shore up Joseph's authority during a time when he was being challenged.

I have some questions pertinent to the discussion:

1. Under what authority did Joseph start the church, since we have no recorded revelation restoring the Melch priesthood?

2. We are a church that supports and is supported by the canon. Yet there is no revelation in the canon that supports the restoration of the supposed authority of God. Why is this the case?

3. Lesser revelations carry the weight of canonization. Some revelations have been elevated to commandment status, yet started out as only advisories. Yet the single most important revelation restoring the authority to act in God's name has no part in the canon. Why do the members allow this to stand?

[_rcrocket]

I have some questions pertinent to the discussion:

1. Under what authority did Joseph start the church, since we have no recorded revelation restoring the Melch priesthood?

2. We are a church that supports and is supported by the canon. Yet there is no revelation in the canon that supports the restoration of the supposed authority of God. Why is this the case?

3. Lesser revelations carry the weight of canonization. Some revelations have been elevated to commandment status, yet started out as only advisories. Yet the single most important revelation restoring the authority to act in God's name has no part in the canon. Why do the members allow this to stand?

1. The authority of God.

2. The Doctrine & Covenants.

3. The D&C refers obliquely to the appearance of Peter James & John. There is no established "requirement" that the comings and goings of God be reported in a newspaper called the "canon." If so, cite me. One of the most significance appearance of the Savior is the 40-day appearance to the apostles after His resurrection, yet nothing of it was reported in your canonical newspaper. The details of temple worship are not reported in your canonical newspaper.

So, cite me the scriptural basis for the requirement that the comings and goings of God be reported in a canonical newspaper.

P

[_harmony]

I have some questions pertinent to the discussion:

1. Under what authority did Joseph start the church, since we have no recorded revelation restoring the Melch priesthood?

2. We are a church that supports and is supported by the canon. Yet there is no revelation in the canon that supports the restoration of the supposed authority of God. Why is this the case?

3. Lesser revelations carry the weight of canonization. Some revelations have been elevated to commandment status, yet started out as only advisories. Yet the single most important revelation restoring the authority to act in God's name has no part in the canon. Why do the members allow this to stand?

1. The authority of God.

And where is this in the canon? Because the "authority of God" means nothing if the body of the church has not voted that they will abide by it. And from what I've seen, there is no revelation, thus no "authority of God."

2. The Doctrine & Covenants.

Where in the D & C?

3. The D&C refers obliquely to the appearance of Peter James & John. There is no established "requirement" that the comings and goings of God be reported in a newspaper called the "canon." If so, cite me. One of the most significance appearance of the Savior is the 40-day appearance to the apostles after His resurrection, yet nothing of it was reported in your canonical newspaper. The details of temple worship are not reported in your canonical newspaper.

Which are also problems. The canon is the foundation for our church. If the canon is incomplete or simply wrong, then we have no foundation. There is no "authority of God" if the people do not vote to accept that authority as binding on them.

So, cite me the scriptural basis for the requirement that the comings and goings of God be reported in a canonical newspaper.

P

Sec 26:2: All things shall be done by common consent. Sec 28:13: All things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church.

If it's not voted on and accepted, it's not binding. If we don't agree to accept something because it is not brought in front of the members for a vote, then it's not valid. And since there is no revelation regarding the Melch priesthood being restored, I guess you know what that means about your precious "authority". (You have none).

This is a major problem that is studiously ignored and has been ignored for generations. Joseph started the church without authority. It doesn't matter if he was given authority afterwards; there is no revelation that shows he had the authority in the beginning.

And people wonder why I balk at and question this authority?