THIS IS ALL MY OPINION. I AM NOT ESPOUSING THIS AS DOCTRINE. On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:57:28PM -0600, Daniel Crookston wrote: > If I understand correctly, Satan is allowed to have whatever influence > he has over us so that we can be tempted and go through trials and so forth. > This hinges on the assumption that humans are basically good (which I think > is a conversation we had on this list a few months ago,) and would not sin > if we weren't tempted by Satan. In other words, and I'm totally speculating > here, Satan is given the ability to tempt us by God because temptation is a > necessary part of the mortality experience. If I further understand > correctly, during the millenium after the second coming of Christ, Satan > will be bound and unable to tempt us. If that's true, how would it fit in > with the priesthood being a tool that anyone can use? Also, why would we be > unable to use the priesthood if we've been unrighteous and haven't repented > yet?
I disagree with the global 'humans are basically good' assumption. I think LDS people are thinking that, whether they've analyzed it or not, because "only those who sided with Jesus were allowed to come here." Who decided? If we assume that Father did the same thing then that he does now (that is, give the orders and how we apply them is up to us) then *we* were the ones who decided who came and who stayed. Probably a similar structure as the church is now, possibly a little more militarized. Exactly how is unimportant. Additionally, there have been far too many people willing to do evil things and other people to follow along with them and even more people to sit back and allow them the power for me to accept the 'humans are basically good' ideology. Further, we "would not sin if weren't tempted" asks the same question I did earlier, though it leaves it unsaid. Did the Son of the Morning sin on his own? or was he tempted? If he was tempted, then by whom? If he wasn't, then we are all capable of sinning without being tempted. Are you sure about being unable to use the priesthood when unrighteous and unworthy? Someone (I believe it was Carl Youngblood) asked, "What about D&C 121?" I believe they are referring to verse 41: No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood?, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; ( http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/121#41 ) The word "maintained" is important here. It says nothing about being unable to use the priesthood incorrectly, only being unable to continue using incorrectly. And we need to remember what God's sense of time is. He's been saying he's knocking at the door for the last 175 years or so. Additionally, what about those in position of authority who transgress and continue to perform the duties of the office they hold? Bishops, Stake Presidents, Patriarchs, GAs, even Priests blessing the sacrament. I'm sure we've all heard of stories, or even known personally someone in these positions who have performed their duties unworthily. Do the recipients of those functions need to do them again? I don't think so. I don't remember where I heard this and can't quote anything but I'm pretty sure the church has stated that those functions are treated as acceptable from the recipients perspective. Anyway. I apologize for the long email. Alan ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
