Posted by:
dydimus
(
)
Date: January 11, 2015 01:39PM
...that's because I was reading in Journal of Discourse his talk "The Holy Priesthood—Judgment—Separation of Spirit and Body" Vol 8:
He said that the Priesthood had nothing to do with administration or temporal needs. The 2nd paragraph is the true meat of his talk: "Now, if he really has spoken to us—if he really has given to us the holy Priesthood, which is the power that rules in heaven, and the prayers of all Christendom are, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven" —if these prayers be heard and answered, the same power that rules in the heavens must eventually rule on earth. Then, if the Priesthood has been given to us, as we claim it has, we are occupying a very important position in the world. What is this Priesthood? What is this power that is conferred upon us in the holy Priesthood? What particular power do you give when you send a man to some other land to transact business in your name? You give him a power of attorney, authorizing him to transact in your name the business that you wish to be performed; and in that letter of appointment would be conveyed all your power, your authority, and ability to transact that business, even as effectually as if you yourself were present to perform it with your own hand.
It is an agency, then, though it may be said that the Priesthood, which is authority from God to act in his name, differs from that authority which is given to man to transact business for his fellows. I am willing to admit that there is a difference so far as the business for which they are delegated is concerned; for one is temporal, the other is spiritual; the one is earthly, the other heavenly. But let me ask, Where is the man who is authorized to go forth and act in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? If I obey my own will—my inclination or burning desire to go and preach what I believe to be the Gospel, that does not authorize me to go in the name of the Lord. If I, by my own act and deed, have authorized my friend to go in my name, to give receipts and acquittances, to sign conveyances for me or in my behalf, and under my own signature he has received that authority, he then has authority in himself; that is, the authority in me is transferred to him to go and transact business in my name. Am I then bound by what he does? Yes, to all intents and purposes. Am I bound by the act of any individual authorized by another person, yet not authorized by me? No, I am not. Is the transaction of any other than my legally appointed attorney valid to me in law? No, it is not: it is worth nothing. "--
http://journalofdiscourses.com/8/4Yesterday, I posted this about Orson Hyde: the "almost" prophet and president of the church
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1481748,1481748#msg-1481748Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2015 01:44PM by dydimus.