What are we to infer from the fact that through baptism we take upon ourselves the name of the Son, but through the Priesthood we are authorized to act in the name of the Father? Are these complimentary? supplementary? etc.
by 
the Otter
ANSWERS: 3
-
Thinking about this some more, I am reminded of what I was told at my baptism: that through the ordinance of baptism, we become the children of Christ, but through the ordinances of the temple, we become the children of God. It would seem that this would somehow be related to my original question, as the ordinance of baptism is performed by the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood while the so-called “higher” ordinances of the temple are performed by the authority of the Melchizedek. (For that matter, men need to hold the Aaronic Priesthood before participating in proxy baptisms and the Melchizedek Priesthood before participating in the ordinance of endowment.) Interesting thought process, to say the least. Anyone else have a take on all this?
-
Authority comes from the Father. The salvation we proclaim comes more directly from the Son. I think that's probably all there is to it.
-
You answer your own question.........JESUS CHRIST IS THE FATHER. The Father hangs on the cross as the 'SON OF MAN' human sacrifice for sin. 'Son of God' phraseology is ancient paganism and should be rendered 'Son of Man'.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC