Priesthood Authority of John the Baptist

[bbbbbbb]

Here is a new thread to chew on, folks. It has nothing to do with any other thread here that I know of and would appreciate it if someone could link me to other threads that may have discussed this topic in the past, lest it seem redundant.

First off, I confess utter and complete ignorance of this topic which is why I am raising it. As many of my LDS and former LDS friends here know this board has been a rich learning experience for me and I hope to expand upon it with this thread.

My question relates to the priesthood authority of John the Baptist. It was sparked by the following passage from Matthew 21:

24 When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?"
24 Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 "The baptism of John was from what {source,} from heaven or from men?" And they {began} reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?'
26 "But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet."
27 And answering Jesus, they said, "We do not know." He also said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

As I understand LDS theology, one must possess the proper priesthood authority in order to baptize. Because John the Baptist did baptize I assume that LDS believe that he held the proper priesthood authority. Jesus raised the question which, of course, the Pharisees would not answer. Jesus Himself did not answer the question either, for that matter. The source of John's priesthood authority could be one of the following:

1. The Levitical priesthood.
2. The LDS Aaronic priesthood.
3. The LDS Melchizedek priesthood.
4. Jesus Christ,
5. Heavenly Father.

Now, I will address a few comments concerning the possibilities and open it up for discussion.

1. The Levitical priesthood. Although John was hereditarily a Levitical priest he did not perform any Levitical priestly functions in the Temple as far as we know. In addition, baptism was not an ordinance of the Levitical priesthood and was not possible to perform in the Temple, hence he baptized in the Jordan River.

2. The LDS Aaronic priesthood. I assume at this point that there are few differences between the Levitical priesthood described above and the LDS Aaronic priesthood. Therefore, it is impossible that John's priesthood authority was derived from that source in regard to performing baptism.

3. The LDS Melchizedek priesthood. This is a very fuzzy area of thought for me. If Jesus Christ bestowed the LDS Melchizedek priesthood on the Apostles, that would exclude John because he preceded not only the Apostles but Jesus Christ Himself.

4. Jesus Christ, Again, we see John the Baptist performing baptisms before he even met Jesus Christ, so it would be absurd to think that he received priesthoood authority from a person he had not met before beginning his baptismal ministry.

5. Heavenly Father. This seems to be the most likely source of his authority IMO. However, it is highly problematic. If Heavenly Father bestowed priesthood authority apart from the LDS Aaronic or LDS Melchizedek priesthood authority, then we have a third form of priesthood authority established directly by Heavenly Father. Who is to say, then, that any person cannot hold the JB (short for John the Baptist) priesthood authority or that Heavenly Father cannot or will not bestow priesthood authority apart from the two forms of LDS priesthood authority?

 

[Zechariah]

Whether speaking of ancient or modern times, there are but two priesthoods. The greater or Melchizedek Priesthood, and the lesser, being the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood. The greater priesthood administers the higher ordinances of the gospel, with the lesser administering the preparatory gospel, which includes baptism by water for the remission of sins. John held the keys to the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, which is why he had authority to baptize. John received his priesthood authority from God when he was ordained to that power by an angel of God when eight days old.

D&C 84: 23-28

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;
24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.
28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

 

[RufustheRed]

Whether speaking of ancient or modern times, there are but two priesthoods. The greater or Melchizedek Priesthood, and the lesser, being the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood. The greater priesthood administers the higher ordinances of the gospel, with the lesser administering the preparatory gospel, which includes baptism by water for the remission of sins. John held the keys to the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, which is why he had authority to baptize. John received his priesthood authority from God when he was ordained to that power by an angel of God when eight days old.

D&C 84: 23-28

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;
24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.
28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

Does that mean that now that the church has been "restored" that eight day old males are ordained with the Aaronic priesthood? Was he baptized at that age, also? Who baptized him?

Rufus

 

[BarryK]

Here is a side note; When John The Baptist baptised Smith and Crowdry in 1829, did he have his head intact? I ask this because it is obvious that first the FIRST resserection of the dead has not happened yet,so there is no glorified body to be had at this point

Revelation 20:4-6 (KJV)
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

and it is moot to speculate weather J.T.B. is in the second resserection

Revelation 20:7-15 (KJV)
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

as I said, J.T.B has no part in this second resserection

So which of these resserections happend so that J.T.B. recieved his 'glorified body" with head intact?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here is a side note; When John The Baptist baptised Smith and Crowdry in 1829, did he have his head intact? I ask this because it is obvious that first the FIRST resserection of the dead has not happened yet,so there is no glorified body to be had at this point

Revelation 20:4-6 (KJV)
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

and it is moot to speculate weather J.T.B. is in the second resserection

Revelation 20:7-15 (KJV)
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

as I said, J.T.B has no part in this second resserection

So which of these resserections happend so that J.T.B. recieved his 'glorified body" with head intact?

Although I am looking forward to a response to RufustheRed's questions, I will add my own comments to your post. By the early nineteenth century no less than seven skulls of John the Baptist survived (as they do to this day) which were authenticated by various denominations. The Catholic Church has no less than three which they have consecrated. None of the seven skulls (full or partial) were restored to John the Baptist yet, so, if any of them were actually his during his life on earth, he would have had to been headless to baptize Messrs. Smith and Chowdry.

 

[spamlds]

Like member "Zechariah" mentioned, Doctrine and Covenants 84 is a latter-day saint scripture that deals with the priesthood and its authority. In verse 28 of that section, we read a passage regarding John the Baptist, son of Zacharias.

"For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power."

John obtained right to the priesthood by his being the firstborn son of a Levite priest. He was ordained to his prophetic mission and authority when he was only eight days old by an angel of God.

Just because the Bible doesn't say something doesn't mean that certain events never occurred. We don't read that Jesus was circumcised, although that would have been a part of his mortal life being raised among observant Jews. Just because the Bible itself doesn't say when John was baptized, how, or by whom, doesn't mean that it didn't occur.

Latter-day saints believe that baptism is essential to salvation. Some sectarian Christians agree with us, others don't. The Bible doesn't give us a full description of how to baptize, how old one must be to be baptized, and who can perform a baptism. There is wide disagreement among Christian sects on these things because the Bible is silent on them.

From a latter-day saint perspective, John would have had to have been baptized by someone having authority when had reached an age where he was accountable for sin and capable of understanding the significance of the covenant of baptism. We don't know the details, but that's no sweat to us. Salvation isn't in John the Baptist. Salvation is in Christ, so we focus on him in faith, being baptized in his name for a remission of sins.

We understand that others disagree, but disagreement can be civil and cordial.

 

[Zechariah]

Does that mean that now that the church has been "restored" that eight day old males are ordained with the Aaronic priesthood?

If that's what it meant, then ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood would take place at eight days of age, rather than at twelve years. Why John was ordained at eight days of age is not answered in scripture, though no doubt one could think of a number of reasonable possibilities as to why if he wished to speculate.

Was he baptized at that age, also? Who baptized him?

Rufus

The scriptures do not tell us who baptized John, or how old he was at the time, only that he was baptized in his childhood. See the quoted passage.

 

[Zechariah]

and it is moot to speculate weather J.T.B. is in the second resserection

as I said, J.T.B has no part in this second resserection

So which of these resserections happend so that J.T.B. recieved his 'glorified body" with head intact?

The first resurrection, of course, which began with Christ. The second resurrection is not yet, and will not begin until after the first resurrection is completed.

 

[spamlds]

If that's what it meant, then ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood would take place at eight days of age, rather than at twelve years. Why John was ordained at eight days of age is not answered in scripture, though no doubt one could think of a number of reasonable possibilities as to why if he wished to speculate.


The scriptures do not tell us who baptized John, or how old he was at the time, only that he was baptized in his childhood. See the quoted passage.

The 8th day is the day that the parents were to take the child and present him to the Lord. Traditionally this includes naming the child. A "bris" may also be conducted, which is the Jewish ceremony that includes cirumcision.

In Luke, we learn that John was given his name on the eighth day, when the circumcision was to be performed. Zachariah's mute tongue was loosed and he prophesied concerning the child. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon the participants. In this holy, celebratory event, we could speculate that this is when the angel appeared and performed the ordination.

People seem to want to lock LDS believers into our rituals the same way the Pharisees did to Jesus. We understand that God follows patterns for our benefit, but we also know that he is Sovereign and can do what he wants.

Example: when we bless the sick, we follow the pattern given in James to anoint them with oil and lay hands on them, praying in the Lord's name. On one occasion, Jesus spat on some dirt, made a ball of clay and put it on a mans eyes and told him to go wash. I don't see other churches spitting on dirt and anointing them with clay, though Jesus did that on one occasion.

The attempts to distract with details is a diversion away from the truth regarding the need for authority. We possess restored authority to baptize. That authority was transmitted by a resurrected John the Baptist. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored by Peter, James, and John. The keys of the kingdom that Peter held reside in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If others reject that, then it is up to them to determine and declare who holds those keys.

 

[gort]

The 8th day is the day that the parents were to take the child and present him to the Lord. Traditionally this includes naming the child. A "bris" may also be conducted, which is the Jewish ceremony that includes cirumcision.

In Luke, we learn that John was given his name on the eighth day, when the circumcision was to be performed. Zachariah's mute tongue was loosed and he prophesied concerning the child. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon the participants. In this holy, celebratory event, we could speculate that this is when the angel appeared and performed the ordination.

The bible tells us that the HS was not given until the ascension of Christ Jesus. IOW, the HS was not poured out on anyone until Jesus ascended to the Father.

People seem to want to lock LDS believers into our rituals the same way the Pharisees did to Jesus. We understand that God follows patterns for our benefit, but we also know that he is Sovereign and can do what he wants.

There are simply things that were not in effect at certain times in the history of Christianity. Baptizm by the HS is one of them. Ressurrection of the dead into glorified bodies is another that is yet to come. We view what God says as immutable. That being so, John could not have been baptized with the HS and thereby authorized to baptize.

Example: when we bless the sick, we follow the pattern given in James to anoint them with oil and lay hands on them, praying in the Lord's name. On one occasion, Jesus spat on some dirt, made a ball of clay and put it on a mans eyes and told him to go wash. I don't see other churches spitting on dirt and anointing them with clay, though Jesus did that on one occasion.

And does the lds church authorites spit on dirt and put it on eyes to heal the blind?

The attempts to distract with details is a diversion away from the truth regarding the need for authority. We possess restored authority to baptize. That authority was transmitted by a resurrected John the Baptist. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored by Peter, James, and John. The keys of the kingdom that Peter held reside in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Details do matter and do no more than determine what is what. For instance, the scriptures denote that all believers are a Royal Priesthood and all believers having the authority. As all believers are of the priesthood then it is not a diversion from a so-called restored authority that the lds church claims to hold.


I'm also curious about the other disciples of Jesus besides Peter, James and John. Did they not have a part in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood?


btw, welcome to the forum

 

[Ran77]

The first resurrection, of course, which began with Christ. The second resurrection is not yet, and will not begin until after the first resurrection is completed.

That is correct. The mistake is in thinking that the First Ressurrection is one specific time for this event as opposed to a period of time. In other words, people are mistaken if they think they can name a day, an hour, a minute and define that as the First Ressurrection. It is the Ressurrection of the Just and covers all the days, hours, and minutes until the Ressurrection of the Unjust comes about.

 

[Zechariah]

The bible tells us that the HS was not given until the ascension of Christ Jesus. IOW, the HS was not poured out on anyone until Jesus ascended to the Father.

Since details matter, you may wish to look closer at Luke chapter 1. Verse 67 in particular.

 

[gort]

Since details matter, you may wish to look closer at Luke chapter 1. Verse 67 in particular.

Not only in Luke 1.67 but also in this verse:

Luk 1:41 And it happened as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,

But, your compadre used the term , poured out, which is a reference to the pouring out of the HOly Spirit on the redeemed of Christ Jesus after His ascension to the Father. Example of such is found here:

Tit 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tit 3:7 that being justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Another example:


Act 10:45 And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also.


Also note the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. That, is the real baptizm.

Details do make a difference

 

[spamlds]

I really have no interest in quibbling over sectarian interpretations of the Bible. The Evangelical "jargon" about when the Holy Ghost was poured out is irrelevant. There is more to be learned by inquiring of God than will ever be gained by arguing over tenets and the interpretations of arcane passages of the Bible.

Was there any prophet ever who prophesied truly who did so without the Holy Ghost being poured out upon him? Prophecy, visions, healings, miracles, come from the Holy Ghost. In the Old Testament, the wording "Spirit of God" or "voice of the Lord" is more commonly used.

I've seen Protestants try to twist these terms to make it seem like the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Comforter are all different things. The "details" you mention only have significance to Protestant-Evangelicals in a vain effort to make the scriptures mean what they want them to mean.

Again, this is an attempt to distract from the fact that they possess no authority whatsoever. They use the scriptures to fabricate a "priesthood of all believers" or that a person gets saved by "grace alone" despite dozens of scriptures that say that we're judged according to works.

In 1700 years of the Bible's existence, sectarian Christians have not yet arrived at a unified interpretation of what it teaches--which is why there are thousands of Christian denominations. This is the very reason the Restoration was necessary.

The power of the Holy Ghost, its gifts, and the manifestations thereof are present in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The authority and keys held by the ancient saints are in our possession. In particular, the Holy Ghost will bear witness of these things as one reads and ponders the Book of Mormon.

 

[RufustheRed]

I really have no interest in quibbling over sectarian interpretations of the Bible. The Evangelical "jargon" about when the Holy Ghost was poured out is irrelevant. There is more to be learned by inquiring of God than will ever be gained by arguing over tenets and the interpretations of arcane passages of the Bible.

Was there any prophet ever who prophesied truly who did so without the Holy Ghost being poured out upon him? Prophecy, visions, healings, miracles, come from the Holy Ghost. In the Old Testament, the wording "Spirit of God" or "voice of the Lord" is more commonly used.

I've seen Protestants try to twist these terms to make it seem like the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Comforter are all different things. The "details" you mention only have significance to Protestant-Evangelicals in a vain effort to make the scriptures mean what they want them to mean.

Again, this is an attempt to distract from the fact that they possess no authority whatsoever. They use the scriptures to fabricate a "priesthood of all believers" or that a person gets saved by "grace alone" despite dozens of scriptures that say that we're judged according to works.

In 1700 years of the Bible's existence, sectarian Christians have not yet arrived at a unified interpretation of what it teaches--which is why there are thousands of Christian denominations. This is the very reason the Restoration was necessary.

The power of the Holy Ghost, its gifts, and the manifestations thereof are present in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The authority and keys held by the ancient saints are in our possession. In particular, the Holy Ghost will bear witness of these things as one reads and ponders the Book of Mormon.

So you say.

How is it that you do not qualify as "sectarian?"

 

[Rescued One]

I really have no interest in quibbling over sectarian interpretations of the Bible. The Evangelical "jargon" about when the Holy Ghost was poured out is irrelevant. There is more to be learned by inquiring of God than will ever be gained by arguing over tenets and the interpretations of arcane passages of the Bible.

And you make yourself the judge of who has not inquired of God? Is it anyone who disagrees with your church's interpretation?

I've seen Protestants try to twist these terms to make it seem like the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Comforter are all different things.

If you see people do things, does that make every so-called Protestant wrong? Which denominations are Protestant?

Again, this is an attempt to distract from the fact that they possess no authority whatsoever.

That is an opinion not based on what the Bible teaches.

They use the scriptures to fabricate a "priesthood of all believers" or that a person gets saved by "grace alone" despite dozens of scriptures that say that we're judged according to works.

Only what's done in Christ will last. Salvation is free and Christ is the foundation that the works are built upon. If they are built on any other foundation, they will be burned and amount to nothing.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is."

In 1700 years of the Bible's existence, sectarian Christians have not yet arrived at a unified interpretation of what it teaches--which is why there are thousands of Christian denominations. This is the very reason the Restoration was necessary.

The world is full of men and religions. Mormonism is one more.

The power of the Holy Ghost, its gifts, and the manifestations thereof are present in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The authority and keys held by the ancient saints are in our possession.

Luke 18
11...stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

In particular, the Holy Ghost will bear witness of these things as one reads and ponders the Book of Mormon.

And, according to your church, God can not tell anyone that the Book of Mormon is a piece of fiction. Anyone who tells you that God told him it isn't His word, is either deceived or lying according to your church. Your church claims to speak for God.

 

[Zechariah]

Details do make a difference

Yes, they do, and it was you who said the Holy Spirit could not be poured out on anyone until after Christ's ascension. But if you want to make this an issue over wording, then have at it.

I will repeat here for you spamlds' question. "Was there any prophet ever who prophesied truly who did so without the Holy Ghost being poured out upon him?"

An outpouring is a flush, a sudden rapid flow, a pouring forth, a sudden flowing of a large amount.

So, here we have:

64 And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65 And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
66 And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
​

Clearly Zacharias had received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit here.

 

[gort]

Yes, they do, and it was you who said the Holy Spirit could not be poured out on anyone until after Christ's ascension. But if you want to make this an issue over wording, then have at it.

I will repeat here for you spamlds' question. "Was there any prophet ever who prophesied truly who did so without the Holy Ghost being poured out upon him?"

An outpouring is a flush, a sudden rapid flow, a pouring forth, a sudden flowing of a large amount.

So, here we have:

64 And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
65 And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
66 And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
​

Clearly Zacharias had received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit here.

Clearly, Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit. Even the scriptures say so.

Who can argue with the scriptures?

 

[gort]

I really have no interest in quibbling over sectarian interpretations of the Bible. The Evangelical "jargon" about when the Holy Ghost was poured out is irrelevant. There is more to be learned by inquiring of God than will ever be gained by arguing over tenets and the interpretations of arcane passages of the Bible.

Was there any prophet ever who prophesied truly who did so without the Holy Ghost being poured out upon him? Prophecy, visions, healings, miracles, come from the Holy Ghost. In the Old Testament, the wording "Spirit of God" or "voice of the Lord" is more commonly used.

I've seen Protestants try to twist these terms to make it seem like the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Comforter are all different things. The "details" you mention only have significance to Protestant-Evangelicals in a vain effort to make the scriptures mean what they want them to mean.

Again, this is an attempt to distract from the fact that they possess no authority whatsoever. They use the scriptures to fabricate a "priesthood of all believers" or that a person gets saved by "grace alone" despite dozens of scriptures that say that we're judged according to works.

In 1700 years of the Bible's existence, sectarian Christians have not yet arrived at a unified interpretation of what it teaches--which is why there are thousands of Christian denominations. This is the very reason the Restoration was necessary.

The power of the Holy Ghost, its gifts, and the manifestations thereof are present in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The authority and keys held by the ancient saints are in our possession. In particular, the Holy Ghost will bear witness of these things as one reads and ponders the Book of Mormon.

So, any answers to the questions I asked?

 

[spamlds]

And you make yourself the judge of who has not inquired of God? Is it anyone who disagrees with your church's interpretation?

If you see people do things, does that make every so-called Protestant wrong? Which denominations are Protestant?

That is an opinion not based on what the Bible teaches.

Only what's done in Christ will last. Salvation is free and Christ is the foundation that the works are built upon. If they are built on any other foundation, they will be burned and amount to nothing.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is."

The world is full of men and religions. Mormonism is one more.

Luke 18
11...stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

And, according to your church, God can not tell anyone that the Book of Mormon is a piece of fiction. Anyone who tells you that God told him it isn't His word, is either deceived or lying according to your church. Your church claims to speak for God.

Ok, let's address thiese plus one more. The first question was "how are we not sectarian?""

I use the term sectarian Christians to differentiate them from the original Christian church of the first century. These churches can trace their historical origins no earlier than the Nicene Council. They disagree on the interpretations of the Bible, whether baptism is essential, whether apostolic authority is necessary, or if it exists at all.

Latter-day saints are the restoration of the primitive church of the 1st century. The sectarians don't categorize us as "Christian" because we don't follow their 4th century creeds. In turn, that exclusion separates them from us and the primitive Church.

The next question was "And you make yourself the judge of who has not inquired of God? Is it anyone who disagrees with your church's interpretation?"

The same questions may be properly asked of sectarian religionists, who exclude Mormonism and call us a cult. Since there are hundreds of sectarian denominations, all of whom claim that their interpretation is correct, it's funny that they exclude Mormonism because we disagree on matters of Bible interpretation.

I'll answer the next cluster of questions together:

--That is an opinion not based on what the Bible teaches.
--Only what's done in Christ will last. Salvation is free and Christ is the foundation that the works are built upon. If they are built on any other foundation, they will be burned and amount to nothing.
--"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is."
--The world is full of men and religions. Mormonism is one more.

I agree on each of those points. II would also add that your stance is also an "opinion not based on what the Bible teaches." I can clearly show Bible passages to prove your doctrines are in error and that mine are correct. The question is whether you will believe the whole Bible and not "cherry-pick" from it cafeteria style. It is true that only that which is truly based in Christ will last. The sectarian creeds, the sinner's prayer, etc. cannot be shown to be Biblical. Thus the churches founded upon them won't last. They will be burned and amount to nothing. Their works will be made manifest and revealed by the fire.

Yes the world is full of religions and logic dictates that only one of them can be true. It takes personal revelation from the Holy Spirit to find which one is true. Before I became a latter-day saint many years ago, I studied other faiths in great detail. I am not ignorant of their tenets. I found them to be contradictory and erroneous. History showed that an apostasy or falling away occurred. There can't be two churches whose teachings disagree and both of them be true. Thus either one is true or they are all false.

Latter-day saints preach a positive gospel message. God appeared to man in ancient times and he appeared in modern times. He fulfilled ancient promises to restore that which was lost. The scriptures teach it and the Holy Ghost bears witness to it. It cannot lie.

In all my years of teaching the gospel, I have never yet found a sectarian who could tell me he knew by the Holy Ghost that the Bible was true. It is true, but everyone I met believed it out of tradition. No one ever had a witness from God that it was true.

Because the Bible is true, the Holy Spirit will testify of it. Likewise, the Holy Ghost bears witness that the Book of Mormon is true.

It's not about debating Bible passages. Ours is an invitation to receive a personal witness from God for yourself. In most cases, when a sectarian is challenged to ask of God, he responds, "I better ask my pastor what he thinks." Therein is revealed the lack of faith.

James 1:5 says to "ask of God" if we lack wisdom. It doesn't say, go ask your pastor. If your pastor was truly a man of God, he'd have no problem with you asking his God for an answer.

Who here would like to know for himself? That's what we're offering to every person--a chance to know. If you don't have that testimony within you, your faith is based on hearsay. I invite everyone who reads this to go to God with your questions.

No, we don't speak for God. You've got that backwards. He speaks for himself. For nearly 1800 years, the churches of men and their creeds have taught you that God doesn't do that anymore.

Show me a pastor who says that God can speak to you directly through the Holy Spirit and there's a man who's on the right track. That man will eventually come to a knowledge of the truth. If some pastor tells you that God can only speak through the Bible, that's a man who presumes to speak for God.

That's the difference. We listen to the Holy Ghost and the revelations that come to those who approach him in reverence, humility, and faith.