tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5994778299323281554.post1632946214920464853..comments2018-04-02T06:15:31.013-07:00Comments on in Mount Zion: A Question About High PriestsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5994778299323281554.post-91647263280034791242012-08-31T10:58:33.915-07:002012-08-31T10:58:33.915-07:00Thanks for that post. This is a subject I came to ...Thanks for that post. This is a subject I came to while back.<br /><br />To clarify, the telestial/church-given priesthoods are in fact recognized by God for certain purposes. Even Caiaphas, who was clearly wicked, was given a revelation "not of himself: but being high priest that year..." (John 11:51). Similarly, the ordinances of baptism and confirmation are recognized on high. The notion that the sealing power is monolithic is false. Joseph Smith said that God never grants priesthood without sealing power. You could interpret that as meaning that when one receives the "real" (to continue with the distinction made here) high priesthood, they are also given the full sealing power, but I prefer to read it as a portion of the sealing power is received whenever God authorizes anyone to do something in his name. Thus baptism is valid eternally for one who keeps the baptismal covenant, whether they are sealed up to exaltation or not. But, this (baptism and confirmation) are the limits of the priesthood power distributed in the church. Everything else is an invitation to receive the "real" thing from the Lord himself. If our church was run by a prophet after the order of Joseph Smith that would not be the case, but as it is not (this is not an anti-comment, Brigham said so himself), that is all there is to obtain from men here on earth.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876761145806406244noreply@blogger.com