LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[fatboys]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel

From what I understand the tribe of Levi were those picked out because they were not given an inheritance like the other tribes were. They were split up into twelve and each tribe were sent to each of the tribes to preside over the functions of the priesthood in each tribe. Those Levites who were not a direct descendant of Aaron served outside of the tabernacle. Those that were direct descendants served inside the tabernacle. These direct descendants were called priests. There was one direct descendant that was called to be over the priests. He was called a high priest. This high priest is different than the high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

 

[withwonderingawe]

So can you show me where the mormon church teaches this?

We simply have to look at the two different situations.

Giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost is called a conformation. The Priesthood holder will lay these hands upon the head of the person who has been baptized and calls them by name and then say;

"In the name of Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the holy Melchizedek Priesthood, I confirm you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and say unto you, 'receive the Holy Ghost.'"

They will then give further blessings as the Holy Spirit moves them.

The priesthood ordination is similar and is only given to men, I got these instructions from the “official” Handbook 2: Administering the Church

“To perform a priesthood ordination, one or more authorized priesthood holders place their hands lightly on the person’s head. Then the priesthood holder who performs the ordination”

1. Calls the person by his full name.
2. States the authority by which the ordination is performed (Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood).
3. Confers the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood, unless it has already been conferred.
4. Ordains the person to an office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood and bestows the rights, powers, and authority of that office.
5. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.
6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

One is giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the other the Priesthood.

*Now I’m going to give you more than you asked for.

On April 28th 1842 Eliza R. Snow recorded in her min. of the RS;

"he (Joseph) spoke of delivering the keys of the priesthood to the church, and said that faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands…"


Woodruff a close friend of the prophet said;
"Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connections with their husbands a wife has certain blessings and powers and rights and is a partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband"

Brigham Young
"[they] never can hold the Priesthood apart from their husbands"

Mary Kimball asked her husband Heber Kimball about women giving blessings to the sick, (which Joseph said was done through faith)

"..not by authority of the priesthood invested in them for that authority is not given to woman they might administer by the authority given to their husbands in as much as they were one with their husband."

John Taylor
"…it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands."

This is in line with Peter saying;
1Peter 3: 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, …..and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

At one time years ago and late at night we were driving over Donner Pass which is at 7,056 ft. My baby daughter was screaming and pulling on her ear. We pulled over and with my husband we both laid our hands on her and with the power of the priesthood which he held we blessed her. Almost immediately she stopped screaming and then went to sleep. The next morning we found a doctor, her ear drum had popped, we got her some medicine. We were acting as one in this blessing.

Now that is not often done, we general follow the guidelines set down by James
James 5:14
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

 

[tickingclocker]

The MP was the priesthood that Jesus held. When he ordained the 12 apostles, this is the authority he gave them was the authority that he held, the MP. So now all 12 apostles held the MP and Peter had the keys of this MP.

Melchisedec's death is not known. He was a man, not a God. So there is an educated guess that he died, like most men do. He could have been translated. There are some that believe he was taken into heaven along with the city he was the king of righteousness over. Like Enoch. But we can debate whether he died or not, forever, but the bible is silent, so it is all conjecture. Enough conjecture that I would not build my whole theory around him being only 1 of 2 people that was qualified to hold the MP, because he did not die. We just don't know.

You are right. There is no known record or Melchi's death. And? Does that mean in any way he was "translated"? He died. We know he did, being a man. When? Does it really matter? God knows. Leave it at that. Why make up fables because something isn't conveniently answered?

As far as everyone knows, Jerusalem was still there last time we ALL watched the news. That is the city Melchizedek was king over, after all. Some people need to get over themselves if they think Jerusalem was "taken to heaven with Melchizedek". Neither was. The "mystery" enhances the "type". That is what is key, not the "mystery".

Nowhere does the bible ever say that Melchizedek was the "king of righteousness". Now that is pure conjecture!

 

[tickingclocker]

Yes we can all access God directly, Jesus taught us to pray

Matt 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

In Hebrews 10 he is referring to the temple where before only the High Priest could enter the Holiest of Holy now that has changed
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh


I think you are equating the gift of the Holy Spirit with the priesthood.

In 1Peter he address five different populations of the Church.

1, The first the priesthood members;
1Peter 1: 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1Peter 2: 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ……Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

2, Then he address those who are in bondage;

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

3, Then he address the women or wives

1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;

4, Then husbands and how they should treat wives

1Peter 3: 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

5, Lastly he addresses the church as a whole;

1Peter3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

He makes a distinction between these groups, the priesthood is a brotherhood and wives are not part of it.

It appears that those in bondage could also not be part of it.

Yet I believe they all had the Holy Spirit dwelling with them. I receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by someone holding the priesthood and representing God but that doesn’t mean he gave me the priesthood.

No, I'm not "equating the gift of the HS with the priesthood". In no way, shape, or form. Where did you ever get that thought from?

"Brethren" is a term that includes ALL believers, meaning brothers and sisters--all. Not just men. What? Women are not supposed to have compassion for everyone, to love as brothers and sisters in one family, or to be pitiful or courteous? I can't help it if mormonism takes the word and has to make it something else in order to justify some practice of theirs. That is what the word--and the context, i.e., the "church" Peter is addressing--is defined as. You cannot change it and neither can your church. You'll just have to live with the reality.

I received the Holy Spirit directly through Jesus Christ, my High Priest, upon salvation--because GOD says so. He doesn't require a "rep" to do what He can easily do. You believe you had to go through a human man who calls himself a priest? I feel for you. I take it that the human man who calls himself a priest told you that you had to go through him, too. I also take it that he doesn't consider you a priest either, being female? Well, God DOES. You should listen to God instead. Who is your Lord, anyway? Human men--or God?

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever"... (John 14:16)

By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. (1 John 4:13)

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God’s own] possession, to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:13, 14)

 

[tickingclocker]

If he is the final high priest then who were some of the high priest before him.

Melchizedek and Melchizedek alone. He is the only other KING OF JERUSALEM and HIGH PRIEST who fit the requirements. No other Jewish High Priest was ever King of Jerusalem, were they? You won't find one in the entire list of High Priests that Armenian John directed you to.

Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He still reigns.

Melchi-zedek's line died out when the last of the family of Zedek, Adoni-zedek, died by Joshua's hand during the battle over Salem when the sun stood still (Joshua 10:3; 12:7, 10). Old news. There was no one else to hand it to. Besides the Zedek family had stopped serving God Most High along the way. They hadn't deserved the office for a very long time previously.

Another point of reference is, why do you think King Herod had all those male babies killed when Jesus was born? He was... King... over Jerusalem at the time, and thought the Messiah was supposed to be a political king instead of a spiritual Savior-King. Herod assumed Jesus would take away his right to be king. He also had the Jewish Sanhedrin in his pocket, but didn't dare to declare himself High Priest. Even if he had, King Herod would still have never been able to be of the "order of Melchizedek", having not been divinely chosen by God Most High to be His High Priest.

 

[tickingclocker]

Oh my goodness are you steeped in anti-Mormonism or what.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

1Tim 6
"....until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords"

Rev 1
5 And from Jesus Christ, ....hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Jesus is King of Kings, if no one else is crowned king then how can he be King of kings ??

*There was some sort of ordinance preformed but what that was exactly we're not sure because it was misconstrued by Joseph's enemies and that has woven it's way into the fables about Joseph. So sorting that out is difficult.

There is a diary entry of George A. Smith in May 1844 which says “Joseph Smith has been ordained “King over the Immediate house of Israel” , in Mormon speak that means the Church.

Today we sustain our prophets this way;

"It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Then later in a private ceremony and ordination a new prophet would receive that ordination. I think the word president has replace king.

But there is a second concept in that Joseph Smith is the head or king of our dispensation as Moses is the head and King of his dispensation.

Stop with the insults, okay? Saying "anti-mormonism" is just another way of calling someone "anti-mormon". It's meant as a demeaning insult and you know it. Doing so is against the rules of this forum. You know that, too. Have I ever called a single Mormon on here an "anti-Christian" or inferred they were "anti-Christianity" simply because they held and/or suggested an opinion about something I didn't like? Never. So just stop.

Now that we have that out of the way....

Fact: JS was attempting to do something with this new title he crowned himself with, but died before he could go further with what... ever he intended with it.

Opinion: That is why there is so much speculation surrounding it. Not "because his enemies got a hold of it". That is quite un-provable, and pretty far-fetched. Fact is, JS did have himself crowned "King of Israel". What else would it have been doing besides preparing to make himself on the same level as Jesus Christ with this "order of Melchizedek" priesthood stuff? I believe he was on the power trip of all power trips there, and it did him in. Do you think you are the first Mormon who I have discussed this with? Almost all hinted that it was exactly as I suggested here. However, none would step out and say it was true, because it IS ALL CONJECTURE. I know that, too. I didn't say I believed it was "take it to the bank truth", did I? I was asking questions about it. Which never got answered, BTW. When people are left with a void in their knowledge, they invariably will piece together whatever they know and come to their own conclusions. Mormons say they have this trouble about mormonism all the time. Here is an instance where I was asking for info about the subject, and you infer its "anti-mormonism"? Huh? I keep telling you this isn't a 'besting' contest, so why are you always trying to make it out to be?


King of kings? That Jesus is to be King over.... "believers in Jesus Christ 'Kings'"? Do you honestly think that is what that verse implies? Have you thought it through? Sorry to disappoint your very loose connection here. King of kings and Lord of Lords implies "rightful ruler over all authority, both earthly and spiritual".

"...which He will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him [be] honor and eternal dominion! Amen." (1 Tim 6:15, 16)

Eternal dominion. Dominion means... "The divine honor and right of authority over all". (It helps if you quote the verse in full context.) See it now? If not, let's go to Daniel, where a similar phrasing is also used. Keep in mind the book of Daniel deals with earthly kings, rulers, lords.... as well as spiritual rule, i.e., dominion:

And responding the king said to Daniel, "In truth your God, he is God of gods, and lord of the kings, and uncovering mysteries, for you were able to uncover this mystery". (Dan 2:47)

See it now? I hope so. If not apply it in a more modern way: "Old Dominion" is the nickname for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ever wonder why? It was the first colonial possession established in mainland British America (1607). It had the "right" of dominion over all other states as being the first to rule the land through the British crown.

I've also heard of the "dispensation" theory. It's a stretch of a very different flavor. That's all I will say on the matter.

 

[fatboys]

Stop with the insults, okay? Saying "anti-mormonism" is just another way of calling someone "anti-mormon". It's meant as a demeaning insult and you know it. Doing so is against the rules of this forum. You know that, too. Have I ever called a single Mormon on here an "anti-Christian" or inferred they were "anti-Christianity" simply because they held and/or suggested an opinion about something I didn't like? Never. So just stop.

Now that we have that out of the way....

Fact: JS was attempting to do something with this new title he crowned himself with, but died before he could go further with what... ever he intended with it.

Opinion: That is why there is so much speculation surrounding it. Not "because his enemies got a hold of it". That is quite un-provable, and pretty far-fetched. Fact is, JS did have himself crowned "King of Israel". What else would it have been doing besides preparing to make himself on the same level as Jesus Christ with this "order of Melchizedek" priesthood stuff? I believe he was on the power trip of all power trips there, and it did him in. Do you think you are the first Mormon who I have discussed this with? Almost all hinted that it was exactly as I suggested here. However, none would step out and say it was true, because it IS ALL CONJECTURE. I know that, too. I didn't say I believed it was "take it to the bank truth", did I? I was asking questions about it. Which never got answered, BTW. When people are left with a void in their knowledge, they invariably will piece together whatever they know and come to their own conclusions. Mormons say they have this trouble about mormonism all the time. Here is an instance where I was asking for info about the subject, and you infer its "anti-mormonism"? Huh? I keep telling you this isn't a 'besting' contest, so why are you always trying to make it out to be?


King of kings? That Jesus is to be King over.... "believers in Jesus Christ 'Kings'"? Do you honestly think that is what that verse implies? Have you thought it through? Sorry to disappoint your very loose connection here. King of kings and Lord of Lords implies "rightful ruler over all authority, both earthly and spiritual".

"...which He will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him [be] honor and eternal dominion! Amen." (1 Tim 6:15, 16)

Eternal dominion. Dominion means... "The divine honor and right of authority over all". (It helps if you quote the verse in full context.) See it now? If not, let's go to Daniel, where a similar phrasing is also used. Keep in mind the book of Daniel deals with earthly kings, rulers, lords.... as well as spiritual rule, i.e., dominion:

And responding the king said to Daniel, "In truth your God, he is God of gods, and lord of the kings, and uncovering mysteries, for you were able to uncover this mystery". (Dan 2:47)

See it now? I hope so. If not apply it in a more modern way: "Old Dominion" is the nickname for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ever wonder why? It was the first colonial possession established in mainland British America (1607). It had the "right" of dominion over all other states as being the first to rule the land through the British crown.

I've also heard of the "dispensation" theory. It's a stretch of a very different flavor. That's all I will say on the matter.

The problem is that it is all your opinion. It is not base on any facts. I have my opinions as well but that doesn't mean I'm right. I always put a disclaimer hat my opinion could change.

 

[tickingclocker]

The problem is that it is all your opinion. It is not base on any facts. I have my opinions as well but that doesn't mean I'm right. I always put a disclaimer hat my opinion could change.

'What' is my opinion? That calling people anti-mormonism is is opinion? That Melchizedek is still alive? That JS had himself crowned king of Israel? Disclaimers? Where?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Stop with the insults, okay? Saying "anti-mormonism" is just another way of calling someone "anti-mormon".

I meant you have read so much anti-Mormonism material no wonder you have such a lopsided and distorted view of Mormonism.

 

[fatboys]

I meant you have read so much anti-Mormonism material no wonder you have such a lopsided and distorted view of Mormonism.

I have to agree with you

 

[Ironhold]

I have to agree with you

Same here.

My personal experience bears out the Mosser-Owen Report's findings that most critics of the church just look at one or two critical resources and call it a day in regards to doing research.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

We simply have to look at the two different situations.

Giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost is called a conformation. The Priesthood holder will lay these hands upon the head of the person who has been baptized and calls them by name and then say;

"In the name of Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the holy Melchizedek Priesthood, I confirm you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and say unto you, 'receive the Holy Ghost.'"

They will then give further blessings as the Holy Spirit moves them.

The priesthood ordination is similar and is only given to men, I got these instructions from the “official” Handbook 2: Administering the Church

“To perform a priesthood ordination, one or more authorized priesthood holders place their hands lightly on the person’s head. Then the priesthood holder who performs the ordination”

1. Calls the person by his full name.
2. States the authority by which the ordination is performed (Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood).
3. Confers the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood, unless it has already been conferred.
4. Ordains the person to an office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood and bestows the rights, powers, and authority of that office.
5. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.
6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

One is giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the other the Priesthood.

*Now I’m going to give you more than you asked for.

On April 28th 1842 Eliza R. Snow recorded in her min. of the RS;

"he (Joseph) spoke of delivering the keys of the priesthood to the church, and said that faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands…"


Woodruff a close friend of the prophet said;
"Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connections with their husbands a wife has certain blessings and powers and rights and is a partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband"

Brigham Young
"[they] never can hold the Priesthood apart from their husbands"

Mary Kimball asked her husband Heber Kimball about women giving blessings to the sick, (which Joseph said was done through faith)

"..not by authority of the priesthood invested in them for that authority is not given to woman they might administer by the authority given to their husbands in as much as they were one with their husband."

John Taylor
"…it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands."

This is in line with Peter saying;
1Peter 3: 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, …..and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

At one time years ago and late at night we were driving over Donner Pass which is at 7,056 ft. My baby daughter was screaming and pulling on her ear. We pulled over and with my husband we both laid our hands on her and with the power of the priesthood which he held we blessed her. Almost immediately she stopped screaming and then went to sleep. The next morning we found a doctor, her ear drum had popped, we got her some medicine. We were acting as one in this blessing.

Now that is not often done, we general follow the guidelines set down by James
James 5:14
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

So there's no official teaching by the church, then?

I don't see anything in your reply from lds.org or from the mormon scriptures - it looks like this is your conclusion but that it's not taught in the mormon religion by the official church.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Same here.

My personal experience bears out the Mosser-Owen Report's findings that most critics of the church just look at one or two critical resources and call it a day in regards to doing research.

Well, from a Christian perspective it's pretty easy to convincingly criticize the mormon religion on their own doctrines since they are so starkly different from Christianity. I'd imagine most people who see just one or two of mormonism's very different beliefs would quickly see that it is not Christian and would dismiss it right away.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I meant you have read so much anti-Mormonism material no wonder you have such a lopsided and distorted view of Mormonism.

Christianity is by definition anti-mormonism so it shouldn't surprise you that our view of mormonism is to be against it.

 

[fatboys]

So there's no official teaching by the church, then?

I don't see anything in your reply from lds.org or from the mormon scriptures - it looks like this is your conclusion but that it's not taught in the mormon religion by the official church.

It's official

 

[fatboys]

Christianity is by definition anti-mormonism so it shouldn't surprise you that our view of mormonism is to be against it.

Many critics who are active in posting against the church find it offensive to be called anti Mormon. I don't know why. It is what they are

 

[withwonderingawe]

Stop with the insults, okay? Saying "anti-mormonism" is just another way of calling someone "anti-mormon". It's meant as a demeaning insult and you know it. Doing so is against the rules of this forum. You know that, too. Have I ever called a single Mormon on here an "anti-Christian" or inferred they were "anti-Christianity" simply because they held and/or suggested an opinion about something I didn't like? Never. So just stop.

Now that we have that out of the way....

Fact: JS was attempting to do something with this new title he crowned himself with, but died before he could go further with what... ever he intended with it.

Opinion: That is why there is so much speculation surrounding it. Not "because his enemies got a hold of it". That is quite un-provable, and pretty far-fetched. Fact is, JS did have himself crowned "King of Israel". What else would it have been doing besides preparing to make himself on the same level as Jesus Christ with this "order of Melchizedek" priesthood stuff? I believe he was on the power trip of all power trips there, and it did him in. Do you think you are the first Mormon who I have discussed this with? Almost all hinted that it was exactly as I suggested here. However, none would step out and say it was true, because it IS ALL CONJECTURE. I know that, too. I didn't say I believed it was "take it to the bank truth", did I? I was asking questions about it. Which never got answered, BTW. When people are left with a void in their knowledge, they invariably will piece together whatever they know and come to their own conclusions. Mormons say they have this trouble about mormonism all the time. Here is an instance where I was asking for info about the subject, and you infer its "anti-mormonism"? Huh? I keep telling you this isn't a 'besting' contest, so why are you always trying to make it out to be?


King of kings? That Jesus is to be King over.... "believers in Jesus Christ 'Kings'"? Do you honestly think that is what that verse implies? Have you thought it through? Sorry to disappoint your very loose connection here. King of kings and Lord of Lords implies "rightful ruler over all authority, both earthly and spiritual".

"...which He will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him [be] honor and eternal dominion! Amen." (1 Tim 6:15, 16)

Eternal dominion. Dominion means... "The divine honor and right of authority over all". (It helps if you quote the verse in full context.) See it now? If not, let's go to Daniel, where a similar phrasing is also used. Keep in mind the book of Daniel deals with earthly kings, rulers, lords.... as well as spiritual rule, i.e., dominion:

And responding the king said to Daniel, "In truth your God, he is God of gods, and lord of the kings, and uncovering mysteries, for you were able to uncover this mystery". (Dan 2:47)

See it now? I hope so. If not apply it in a more modern way: "Old Dominion" is the nickname for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ever wonder why? It was the first colonial possession established in mainland British America (1607). It had the "right" of dominion over all other states as being the first to rule the land through the British crown.

I've also heard of the "dispensation" theory. It's a stretch of a very different flavor. That's all I will say on the matter.

See you have a completely distorted view of Joseph Smith. He was not setting himself up to be dictator. He set up a system where no one man had complete rule. Let's say the prophet had a stroke in the night and got up to announce we all must stand on our heads to be saved. He could not implement this new doctrine without 14 other men agreeing with him. If he wanted to be king he would not have set the church up this way.

Joseph as president of the Church had a councilor he didn't trust anymore and wanted to remove him from office but he couldn't because he couldn't get the others to agree. His own councilor and he couldn't get rid of him! It's said there were times he would leave a meeting to go outside and kick rocks around, he didn't always get his way. In the long run he was right about the man, he was instrumental in causing Joseph's death.

I'll go back to the diary entry of George A. Smith in May 1844 which says “Joseph Smith has been ordained “King over the Immediate house of Israel” , So not "King of Israel" as in Yahweh but again in Mormon speak that means the Church and we see the church as the gathering of Israel in this dispensation!

As I understand it this ordination took place during a Council of Fifty meeting, my husband's great great grandfather was a member. They like Paul and Peter in the New Testament felt the second coming was near, this council was set up to prepare for the King of kings coming. (because of sin the Church lost Zion) He was not ordained ruler of the world but only as presiding authority over that council to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The council was made up of members and non members. To pass any a motion the vote had to be unanimous in the affirmative, gees it's a wonder they got anything done. Once again Joseph did not set himself up as a dictator.

*And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion...over all the earth.

You said; Dominion means... "The divine honor and right of authority over all".

mmmmm?

*There is a much deeper meaning to this whole concept of Kingship which goes right over your head and the heads of many of the those who were plotting a rebellion within the Church at the time of Joseph, they were actually plotting his murder. All contention is of the devil and Jesus had his Judas too. What I mean is some of what you read about Joseph Smith is written by men who were driven by a spirit of contention and by the father of lies.

Jesus told his apostle;
Matthew 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Rev 1
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Rev 3
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev 21
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Rev 22
"....but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads..... for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

The name written on their foreheads is a reference to the temple where the High Priest would have Yahweh's name written on his forehead so to represent Yahweh. Those who over come will it in the throne with Yahweh and as heirs of God joint heirs with Christ. But at the same time we are his servants.

 

[withwonderingawe]

So there's no official teaching by the church, then?

I don't see anything in your reply from lds.org or from the mormon scriptures - it looks like this is your conclusion but that it's not taught in the mormon religion by the official church.

I took it right out of the church's “official” Handbook 2: Administering the Church. What more do you want?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I took it right out of the church's “official” Handbook 2: Administering the Church. What more do you want?

Thank you, withwonderingawe - I see now what you are saying that the official mormon belief is that women have the Holy Spirit but do NOT have priesthood. Does mormonism teach that women must go through the men of the church who are the priests in order to go to God for anything such as official sacraments and rituals?

 

[tickingclocker]

I meant you have read so much anti-Mormonism material no wonder you have such a lopsided and distorted view of Mormonism.

Whatever your opinions are of my opinions, beliefs and experiences, cease and desist from the "anti-mormon" connotations. It is always meant as a negative, demeaning personal comment by active Mormons, and you know it. From this post on I will report every single instance I see from Mormons. You all know its against the rules of this forum. Stop.

And you know I've "read an abundance of such material... How? What do you know what I have read and what I haven't? I didn't even know this stuff existed until a few years ago. In the meantime, I didn't exactly have any spare time to go looking for it either, believe me. I just started reading "some" last year, while still not having much free time to spend plopped in front of a computer to troll literature which hasn't been relevant to my life for a very long time. In fact I didn't even know there were "ex-Mormon forums" (let alone so many) until someone on this forum mentioned them. Last year it was suggested by someone that I explore and confront my transition from mormonism to Christianity, for my own personal benefit. I did occasionally read comments on other religious forums on various subjects, including Mormon opinion. Most of those forums inevitably turned into little more than attacks and counter-attacks. Very little was constructive for either party. Very tiresome to read, too, even as a lurker. At least this one is much more personally moderated than they are. Now that I finally have much more free time, here I am, exploring. So, now that you know the truth about me, instead of continuing to fall back upon personal feelings, it would certainly help if you ALL apologized for your negative attitudes.

Do you honestly think EVERY ex-Mormon has to read such literature in order to come to logical conclusions? Anyone would find that possible assumption self-serving at best. We are not all led along by our noses, you know. By anyone. In fact, we lean more toward avoiding all controlling, manipulating people like the plague! Just like yours does, our intellect continues to fully function long after mormonism has been purged from our thinking. I can testify that mine has. I don't consider you intellectually "stupid" because you choose to believe in mormonism, but that fact doesn't automatically make me intellectually "stupid" because I rejected it as a false system.

I think if everyone here would take a regulating breath, then asked, "What did you mean by that?", or, "Could you elaborate on that point?" before going into "attack-at-all-costs!" mode, it would go a long, long way toward more cordial interactions. If you have noticed over time, I do point out in posts--to Christians and Mormons--that someone may not have meant what they hastily assumed. Not all the time, no. Yes, Mormons and Christians, have often been attacked for assumptions and comments, whether innocent, ignorant, or deliberate. But don't actively bring it upon yourselves. It's a bad habit to get into. You have nothing to lose in trying. God honors love, never strife. (And yes, I'm talking to myself here just as much.)