Comments for logicalsanity.com

Comment on A TRIBUTE TO COLORADO IN PHOTOGRAPHY AND SONG by Alex Gordon

Alex Gordon — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 05:54:12 +0000

???????? ? ?????!…

???????? I thought this was a nice way to express the beauty of the state where I choose to reside in a way that words alone cannot do…..

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:33:21 +0000

Thanks Eddie,

I have, also, enjoyed chatting with you! Please feel free to stop by anytime. God bless you and yours as well!

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by eddie

eddie — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:35:47 +0000

Agree Dennis with your 526 pm. So, I guess we are at an impasse. Maybe I will return sometime to see how you are doing. I will say you are the most reasonable and knowledgeable LDS I have run into. God bless you.

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:26:18 +0000

I guess what I am looking for, Eddie, is something out of the Bible that clearly shows that the number of Apostles ever numbered more then 12 at one time. I am just trying to understand the Catholic position here. At least I can, to some extent, understand your perspective as far as Apostlic succession is concerned. This is a doctrine completely foreign to the Protestants, which they deny and will fight about tooth and nail. Of course their very existence relies on this principle.

Our stance, as you are probably aware, is that the original church fell into apostasy and lost the Priesthood Authority and therefore had to be restored, which was done in the exact formula that Jesus prescribed. Your stance is that there was never an apostasy and the original keys are still held by the Pope. Either we are right and you are wrong or we are wrong and you are right. And in the words of one of your own clergymen, “the protestants haven’t a leg to stand on.” (The above was paraphrased from a conversation that Orson F. Whitney had with a Catholic dignitary visiting Salt Lake City many years ago and is quoted in LeGrand Richards, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”).

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by eddie

eddie — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:02:46 +0000

Further, if the perfection of the Church does not include being able to address the needs of the Church I would not call the Church perfect since it would be helpless to address its needs.

Also, my other comments come directly from my knowledge of the Bible. Christ gave Peter the authority and nowhere in the Bible does Christ limit Peter’s authority. What other sources are you looking for.

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by eddie

eddie — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:59:51 +0000

Dennis, I do not argue with what you said. However, Peter was given the authority to run Christ’s Church. Historically, we know that there is an unbroken line of successor’s to Peter. All had and have the same authority Peter had. Consequently, the historical fact that Peter’s and the other apostles chose many successors is enough evidence that twelve was not some kind of magical number imposed by Christ on the Church.

You must believe your version or you cannot be LDS. However, the fact remains that Peter had the authority to allow there to be more than 12 apostles. Unless you can show me something that specifically (not something based on someone’s interpretation) limited Peter’s authority in this area, I will continue to believe in the Church Jesus started.

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:51:38 +0000

Eddie, what is your source for the above statement or is this your opinion? I’ve asked you to please back up your rationale. There is no evidence of Peter breaking this formula. We do not know that there were ever more then 12 at one time in the New Testament. We do not know that their ordination came ahead of other vacancies in the 12 due to death or other factors. It is possible as Peter, James and John assumed the duties of the Presidency of the Church that Apostles were called into the vacancy in the quorum - but this is speculation since the New Testament or no extant writings outside of modern revelation point to this. There were also other Priesthood offices besides that of apostle to fulfill the needs of the Church as it grew. Just as there is today.

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by eddie

eddie — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:14:01 +0000

The perfection includes being able to address the needs of the Church as it grows. Jesus said whatever Peter bound on earth was bound in heaven. Therefore if Peter increased the number of apostles on earth, the increase was accepted in heaven. Jesus never said the number of apostles should be limited to twelve.

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by Dennis Olson

Dennis Olson — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:55:35 +0000

Eddie, with all due respect, I have cited the rationale behind the 12 as Jesus himself set it. I feel the burden is on you to prove that Peter had the authority to change the basic structure of the Church as was set up perfectly by Jesus Christ. If Christ’s church was perfect the way He set it up could Peter, then, add to perfection?

Comment on The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek by eddie

eddie — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:59:33 +0000

Thanks Dennis, but that still does not address by two points that: 1) Sacred Scripture does not limit the number of Apostles to twelve; and 2) Peter had the authority to call apostles by a different name and he had the authority to increase the number of apostles.

I agree Jesus selected 12 apostles originally, but I have never seen where having more than 12 apostles was prohibited by Jesus or anyone else in the Bible. Even if there were a place in the Bible where such a limitation might be implied (I am not saying there is such a place), Peter had the authority to override such a prohibition.