At the baptism of Jesus the heavens were opened (Matt 3:16-17). As a part of that experience the foreordained sign of the dove was given, and the voice of the Father out of the heavens was heard bearing record of His beloved Son.
Nephi corroborates the account given in Matthew of Christ's baptism (1 Ne. 11:27). He learned these things when he himself beheld "the heavens open" (1 Ne. 11:14). In fact, the Book of Mormon begins with Lehi's experience in beholding "the heavens open," wherein he saw God sitting upon His throne surrounded by numberless concourses of angels (1 Ne. 1:8). This is a key, given in the first chapter of the book.
Each account in scripture in which we read about the heavens opening gives to us only a small part of the experience that actually unfolded. The words in scripture do not fully capture the experience. The uninitiated are invited to come and partake, without having the mysteries unfolded to them in the words of a book. We are to seek further light and knowledge.
Were the sign of the dove and the Father's voice only seen and heard by Christ? Was John also a privileged witness of these things? Did he behold the heavens open? If so, what does that mean? What does it mean to behold the heavens open?
Showing posts with label John the Baptist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John the Baptist. Show all posts
Monday, January 14, 2013
Friday, September 7, 2012
Regularly Ordained
A good question was asked that would be helpful to answer with a post. The question was about the previous post and how D&C 42:11 fits in. Here is the scripture and question:
"11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church" (D&C 42:11).
"How do you reconcile that verse with Abinadi, the unnamed prophet who called Eli the high priest to repentance, Samuel the Lamanite, John the Baptist, Lehi, and most of the Old Testament prophets, who were neither ordained by the heads of the church nor did the church know they had authority besides what they claimed God gave them."
To simplify, I don't think there is a need to 'reconcile that verse' with prophets the Lord chooses independent of men's input. This may appear contradictory at first glance, but is not. Read the entire section and ask when, why, and under what circumstances the revelation was given.
These were instructions to the church. Specifically, they were instructions given to the church while Joseph was alive. It duly established a precedent and order by which our missionary work is carried out. There were to be no secret ordinations performed to offices within the church. Those who were extending the call to serve and ordaining others to "go forth to preach" were to be "known to the church" to have authority to do so. We still follow this instruction.
Section 42 contains instructions for the church in sending forth missionaries and in preaching the gospel, and was revelation given while a particular group of elders was present. Beginning with verse 1 it is clear the Lord has in mind "ye elders of my church, who have assembled yourselves together" (D&C 42:1). Specific instructions were given for the elders present, and exception is even made for Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to some of the instructions that were given (D&C 42:4-5). The revelation is instructions for "building up" Christ's church (D&C 42:8). When you get into verses 11, 12, 13 and so on, it remains clear this is instruction for "this church."
There is an order in the Lord's church. Joseph followed these instructions and called and sent missionaries to preach the gospel. Missionary work was to be organized and authorized by the "heads of the church." It was not to be a free-for-all. There was order established by the Lord, and the church has done a good job following that order.
The revelation does not bind God, however. In fact, God's commandments to his children have never been binding on him. God and his holy prophets do things at times that appear contrary to what is right and holy (I think of Nephi killing his uncle, Abraham sacrificing his son, Elijah slaying hundreds of priests, God killing, etc.). Those examples are never license for others to break the commandments of God.
God is not bound to accomplish his work by our standards or expectations, even if they are standards he has established for the conduct of his church. God has called prophets independent of churches since the beginning. It makes you wonder if he would choose to do the same in our day as he has in the past.
God has also established his church, or a covenant people, throughout history. His covenant people, other than in rare cases that achieved Zion, have generally been slothful, proud, religious and unbelieving. It seems that when Zion has been established, it was because a people chose to accept what God offered through a true prophet while he was living (i.e. Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, etc.). Most often though, the prophets have been killed and the fulness lost.
When Joseph Smith was killed a grand opportunity was lost. He had come with the fulness and offered to establish Zion. Generations have passed since then and God is beginning to extend that opportunity again. There is more to all of this. This is the beginning of the end.
"11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church" (D&C 42:11).
"How do you reconcile that verse with Abinadi, the unnamed prophet who called Eli the high priest to repentance, Samuel the Lamanite, John the Baptist, Lehi, and most of the Old Testament prophets, who were neither ordained by the heads of the church nor did the church know they had authority besides what they claimed God gave them."
To simplify, I don't think there is a need to 'reconcile that verse' with prophets the Lord chooses independent of men's input. This may appear contradictory at first glance, but is not. Read the entire section and ask when, why, and under what circumstances the revelation was given.
These were instructions to the church. Specifically, they were instructions given to the church while Joseph was alive. It duly established a precedent and order by which our missionary work is carried out. There were to be no secret ordinations performed to offices within the church. Those who were extending the call to serve and ordaining others to "go forth to preach" were to be "known to the church" to have authority to do so. We still follow this instruction.
Section 42 contains instructions for the church in sending forth missionaries and in preaching the gospel, and was revelation given while a particular group of elders was present. Beginning with verse 1 it is clear the Lord has in mind "ye elders of my church, who have assembled yourselves together" (D&C 42:1). Specific instructions were given for the elders present, and exception is even made for Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to some of the instructions that were given (D&C 42:4-5). The revelation is instructions for "building up" Christ's church (D&C 42:8). When you get into verses 11, 12, 13 and so on, it remains clear this is instruction for "this church."
There is an order in the Lord's church. Joseph followed these instructions and called and sent missionaries to preach the gospel. Missionary work was to be organized and authorized by the "heads of the church." It was not to be a free-for-all. There was order established by the Lord, and the church has done a good job following that order.
The revelation does not bind God, however. In fact, God's commandments to his children have never been binding on him. God and his holy prophets do things at times that appear contrary to what is right and holy (I think of Nephi killing his uncle, Abraham sacrificing his son, Elijah slaying hundreds of priests, God killing, etc.). Those examples are never license for others to break the commandments of God.
God is not bound to accomplish his work by our standards or expectations, even if they are standards he has established for the conduct of his church. God has called prophets independent of churches since the beginning. It makes you wonder if he would choose to do the same in our day as he has in the past.
God has also established his church, or a covenant people, throughout history. His covenant people, other than in rare cases that achieved Zion, have generally been slothful, proud, religious and unbelieving. It seems that when Zion has been established, it was because a people chose to accept what God offered through a true prophet while he was living (i.e. Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, etc.). Most often though, the prophets have been killed and the fulness lost.
When Joseph Smith was killed a grand opportunity was lost. He had come with the fulness and offered to establish Zion. Generations have passed since then and God is beginning to extend that opportunity again. There is more to all of this. This is the beginning of the end.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
John the Baptist's Authority
"And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
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" (D&C 84:26-27).
God raised up John the Baptist for a specific mission. He was Elias (JST Matt. 17:10-14). He made straight the way of the Lord (Mark 1:3). He preached repentance, and baptized in the river Jordan (Mark 1:4-5). He baptized the Lord (Mark 1:9). He was present on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses, the full account of which we have not yet received (Mark 9:4; D&C 63:21). Christ said that, except for himself, there was no greater prophet born among women than John (Luke 7:28).
"The lesser priesthood" was to continue with the children of Israel "until John." This the Lord did in his wrath. The church in the meridian of time made claims to priesthood, but John, independent of the church had authority. The lesser priesthood continued with the church, was bestowed upon men by the church, and was the authority by which they administered the ordinances and the temple rites.
When Christ questioned the chief priests and elders about John's authority, they didn't know how to answer (Matt. 21:23-27). They hadn't given him his authority. They falsely believed priesthood could not exist independent of their church, independent of their hands, and independent of their consent. But God had given authority to John. He held the priesthood independent of the church.
How is it that the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom then upon the earth, received not his authority from those presiding in the church? God is not confined to work within an order we presume to subject him to. The Lord accomplishes his work in spite of men's efforts to bind him. He established the kingdom of God through John. The Jews of the church, including those in the chief seats, had to obey John's instructions or be damned. Joseph Smith taught:
"Whenever there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed His word and gave power and authority to administer in His name, and where there is a priest of God - a minister who has power and authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel and officiate in the priesthood of God, there is the kingdom of God" (HC 5:256).
Also,
"What constitutes the kingdom of God? Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives His oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not" (ibid, p. 257).
"All the prophets had the Melchizedek priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (TPJS, p. 180-81). Do you suppose Joseph Smith would include John, the greatest prophet in this statement? Was John the only prophet for whom this was not true?
The reason John declined to give the Holy Ghost was because it was not his mission as Elias. His mission was to prepare the way before the Lord. He understood that he must decrease, but the Lord must increase (John 3:30). The Lord brought more, but John prepared the way. John was a mighty prophet, and had the holy priesthood by "anointing" and the "decree of heaven" (HC 5:261). He chose to work within the bounds the Lord had set, never stepping in front of the Lord.
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" (D&C 84:26-27).
God raised up John the Baptist for a specific mission. He was Elias (JST Matt. 17:10-14). He made straight the way of the Lord (Mark 1:3). He preached repentance, and baptized in the river Jordan (Mark 1:4-5). He baptized the Lord (Mark 1:9). He was present on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses, the full account of which we have not yet received (Mark 9:4; D&C 63:21). Christ said that, except for himself, there was no greater prophet born among women than John (Luke 7:28).
"The lesser priesthood" was to continue with the children of Israel "until John." This the Lord did in his wrath. The church in the meridian of time made claims to priesthood, but John, independent of the church had authority. The lesser priesthood continued with the church, was bestowed upon men by the church, and was the authority by which they administered the ordinances and the temple rites.
When Christ questioned the chief priests and elders about John's authority, they didn't know how to answer (Matt. 21:23-27). They hadn't given him his authority. They falsely believed priesthood could not exist independent of their church, independent of their hands, and independent of their consent. But God had given authority to John. He held the priesthood independent of the church.
How is it that the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom then upon the earth, received not his authority from those presiding in the church? God is not confined to work within an order we presume to subject him to. The Lord accomplishes his work in spite of men's efforts to bind him. He established the kingdom of God through John. The Jews of the church, including those in the chief seats, had to obey John's instructions or be damned. Joseph Smith taught:
"Whenever there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed His word and gave power and authority to administer in His name, and where there is a priest of God - a minister who has power and authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel and officiate in the priesthood of God, there is the kingdom of God" (HC 5:256).
Also,
"What constitutes the kingdom of God? Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives His oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not" (ibid, p. 257).
"All the prophets had the Melchizedek priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (TPJS, p. 180-81). Do you suppose Joseph Smith would include John, the greatest prophet in this statement? Was John the only prophet for whom this was not true?
The reason John declined to give the Holy Ghost was because it was not his mission as Elias. His mission was to prepare the way before the Lord. He understood that he must decrease, but the Lord must increase (John 3:30). The Lord brought more, but John prepared the way. John was a mighty prophet, and had the holy priesthood by "anointing" and the "decree of heaven" (HC 5:261). He chose to work within the bounds the Lord had set, never stepping in front of the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)