i believe my view only is when we sin the priesthood goes with the spirit. they lost the spirit and the priesthood. probalily not church teaching but iam simple so when a person regains the spirit he can recieve the priesthood. just my view and its probably wrong
yes i tried but his work had been done for him.
yes it does thank you
very intresting story. he basicly lost his temper with the judge and told him to do his worst. he did. he seems to have a family trate of saying what he felt even at the wrong moment. i know i have that fault to.
Paul, I think that just about the worst sin one can commit is to deny Christ when they KNOW he is the Son of God, would you agree? How bad would it be if he didn’t just do it once, but did it over and over again? I would think pretty bad.
Let me know if there’s other info you may want. I’m no Church history expert, but I’ll do what I can.
don’t you think he may have repented i think he would have had to.
I wouls say he DEFINITELY repented. Otherwise he wouldn’t have gone on to be the head of The Church.
Actually there is a UK law about the preservation of bones in “sacred places”, too - I know that just from watching “Time Team”! It’s OK to dig up the bones of Romans and those who have fallen in battle but you CAN’T just go about digging up or removing bones from consecrated ground or sacred places. (I recall some controversy about those who claim to be Druids trying to halt excavation of some site that was supposed to contain remains of Druidic practitioners but don’t recall what the outcome was).
Certainly, but my point is that committing sin, even grave sin, does not necessarily take away one’s priesthood authority. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom before he denied Christ. I’m saying he never lost those keys even though he sinned grieviously.
This was part of the Donatist heresy of the early Church. The outcome was the declaration that the unworthiness of the Priest does not detract from the Sacraments he confects. Brief description here: carm.org/heresy/donatism.htm
then explain aarons sons
In the LDS Church, if someone commits a sin, it would not deprive him of his priesthood, but he would not be permitted to exercise his priesthood until he had repented and been forgiven. Even a relatively minor sin such as breaking the word of wisdom would deprive him of the privilege of exercising his priesthood (even of passing the sacrament) until he had repented. Now let us suppose that someone had committed a serious sin, but was duplicitous enough not tell anybody, and then he was asked to perform a sacred ordinance such as baptizing someone into the Church. Two weeks later he confesses to his bishop that he had committed such a sin. Would that make his ordinance invalid? I have no personal experience of such a thing ever happening; but my understanding is that it would not, although it would put the person responsible for it in very serious trouble with the Church. The only thing that would actually deprive a person of his priesthood would be excommunication form the Church. Interestingly, however, even after excommunication, when he repents and is eventually readmitted into the Church, he will not need to be “reordained” into the priesthood. What happens then is that he is first “rebaptised” into the Church; but when the time comes for him to receive his priesthood back (which can takes a long time after his rebaptism, and must be approved by the First Presidency), then his priesthood (and his entire membership records in fact) are “restored” to him as though he had never lost it! Everything is put back, including the date of his original baptism and church membership, as though nothing had ever happened! It is performed as a priesthood ordinance, usually by a General Authority. The ordinance is called the “restoration of blessings”. Everything is effectively put back to its original place, as though the person had never been excommunicated.
Huh? Nadab and Abihu’s catastrophe was caused by the fact that they offered somthing that the Lord had not been commanded. That was why their fire was called “profane” – even though the incense and the censer and everything else was in order. This incident goes to tohe offering not to the moral rectitude of the priests. Actually, much of the best commentary on this passage is from Protestant sources.
I strongly disagree with you on this. Priests who encounter difficulties in their lives are OFTEN relieved of their priestly duties for such time as it takes them to resolve those problems. There may be some laxity in some dioceses.
You could be right, as I do not have direct personal experience of the RCC; but my impression was somewhat different.
Moral worthiness very much IS an issue (at least in the LDS Church). If you have ever watched an LDS ordinance (sacrament) being performed, you will notice that in many of the ordinances the person officiating then pronounces a blessing on the person receiving the ordinance. These blessings must be inspired by the Holy Ghost. It requires faith and worthiness. If the person is in transgression, he cannot have the Holy Spirit with him to enable him to perform the ordinance in holiness and in purity of heart. There is something wrong there when that happens.
amgid,
ben_dy said:
I don’t think that Amgid was a particularly righteous king. I chose it simply because it is short and cute and unique, and easy to pronounce and remember, and comes from the Book of Mormon. At first I thought of choosing Gadianton; but I decided against it because it has too many syllables and not so easy to pronounce.
I admit that I do not know a lot about the practice of the “extreme unction” in the RCC; but from what little I know, it would appear that in the RCC it is effectively a person’s “last rites”. You perform “extreme unction” on someone when they are almost at the point of death. You don’t do it when they catch a cold. It is a way of preparing someone to die, rather than helping them to live! In the LDS Church, any person no matter how serious or minor their illnesses might be, may request such a blessing; and its purpose is to help them recover, not help them to die!
“perfect state of grace” and “imperfect state of grace” are meaningless terminologies in the LDS world. Everyone knows what sin is and what repentance is; and everyone knows if they have done something wrong that would render them unworthy of officiating in the office of the priesthood.
I did not say anything about “perfect faith” or “imperfect faith,” and “perfect grace” or “imperfect grace”. Those terminologies are generally meaningless to me. What I said was that if a person is in transgression, he cannot act as channel or conduit through whom the Holy Spirit can operate; for the Spirit of God does not dwell in unholy temples.