Comments on: Need Doctrinal Help!

By: Jared

Jared — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:47:33 +0000

I don’t know the answer to the question concerning how the Savior was resurrected. I don’t know for sure if it was accomplished by priesthood power; maybe it is a matter of “faith”.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:37:11 +0000

Thanks MCQ

By: Antihero

Antihero — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:28:37 +0000

First time commenting, long time lurker.
With regards to #’s 13 and 14, and whether the priesthood power is either channeled or used with the possessor’s discretion, I was struck the other day by our lesson in Sunday School. We were talking about Elijah, and in 1 Kings 17:1 he says, “…there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to MY word.” (emphasis added.) I read that as saying that once he had been given the power, it was his actions and decisions that were the deciding force.

By: MCQ

MCQ — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:48:12 +0000

I agree with that, Mark D. Well said.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:28:47 +0000

All claim to the contrary notwithstanding, there is something doctrinally perverse about the idea of anyone resurrecting themselves. It goes against the whole tenor of the gospel, and the idea that Jesus is in any way a real example for us.

Jesus Christ is significant precisely because he _needs_ the Father. If Jesus didn’t need the Father, his godhood would be theologically superfluous. Why in the world would there be three independent beings, each with absolute power, who had no actual need for each other? Isn’t one God good enough?

In fact, I would say that if Jesus didn’t need the Father in some fundamental way (and the Father the Son), and the Holy Ghost, then we would have no claim to monotheism whatsoever, but rather to a perverse form of tritheism.

It is not an accident in my opinion that the scripture says, “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end” (D&C 20:28).

If Jesus Christ really could resurrect himself in his own right, that scripture isn’t quite true. It would have to read something more like: “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, separate and independent, and only one of them is relevant to your salvation”.

By: MCQ

MCQ — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:22:35 +0000

I’m not sure any of these distinctions matter, but I always understood that the priesthood conferred authority on the bearer to act in God’s name, not God’s power directly. As I understand it, this is why we are supposed to say, “By the authority of the _______ priesthood,” not, “By the power…” when performing ordinances.

Checking sources confirms no such distinction, however. Power and authority appear to be used pretty much interchangeably to me.

By: Thaddeus

Thaddeus — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:40:10 +0000

I had a similar question come up in my EQ lesson yesterday. When we receive the priesthood are we actually provided with God’s power, or are we given permission to call down power from heaven?

Or does the distinction matter?

Either way, Jesus’ resurrective powers derived from the Father. Whether Father granted Him the ability at birth or at the time of resurrection, I don’t think you’ll find Jesus claiming full credit.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:57:14 +0000

oops, don’t know why I thought Acts was written by Paul. My bad.

By: Larry

Larry — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:55:11 +0000

Paul isn’t the only one who asserts that God raised Jesus…see Acts (written by Luke) 2:32;4:10 and 10:40 as well as I Peter 1:21.

By: Niklas

Niklas — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:19:45 +0000

I have wondered this too. If resurrection is an ordinance, it sounded logical that Father was raising His Son, for how could Son perform the ordinance for himself. But then again, whatabout the whole “Jesus had life in himself, being the Son of God (kind of half-god)” -thing. I guess Father could resurrect whoever He want’s, so why was it important for Christ to be a son of God? Had it to do more with atonement than resurrection?