Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SouthernMo

If not LDS, then what...

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I meant the fact that I've been ordained to the melchesidek priesthood. I'm not sure how that factors into thid scenario

I am a female - I'm not ordained.  

The greatest among you are your servants, many who are first will be last.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

he Catholic Church believes fundamentally same as us   

Their understanding of God is sufficient different they reject out baptism though the words are almost identical. 

I think you see more similarities than I do, though we share much. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Tacenda can certainly respond, and has, for herself, but because you said:

I will respond further:

She says nothing about ¨no works¨ (as she responded to you) and she specifically brings up ¨SAVING ordinances and covenants¨ so far from no works as your following comment focuses on, she is specifically referencing works for salvation.
As you say later, this comment is more on point because you are dealing with baptism as it relates to baptisms for the dead as Tacenda brought up (just as you say she did), however you were doubling down on this narrow view when you bring up an idea of baptism as ¨invalid work¨.

I think that is what she is saying. It is an invalid or unnecessary work. I don't believe baptism is a work at all. I believe it is a covenant. I read works as being good deeds done for others. Getting baptized doesn't qualify as a work for me. 

Quote

Your next statement...... indicates that you have met some very interesting people. But to refer to these people as ¨Pauline Christians¨ (as you did previously) as if they fully represent this classification is unlikely to be appropriate for the very arguments you make in this comment. Here you do refer to ¨a very narrow Pauline interpretation¨ so that was a helpful qualifier that was missing in your previous mention of Pauline Christians that you associated with no works.

Look, they consider themselves to be Pauline Christians. Just because they interpret Paul more narrowly than you doesn't make them not Pauline. They get their doctrine from reading Paul's writings. I concede that does not necessarily represent all Pauline Christians if that makes you happy. I happen to disagree with all Christians who call themselves Pauline Christians, so I do tend to lump them all together. Sorry. 

Quote

Your comments on baptism were relevant, sorta. But the ¨no works¨ was certainly off base, both not brought up by and confirmed not brought up by Tacenda, and seemed to be a stretch just to bring up some very narrow, inconsistent, and I suspect small group of non-LDS Christians. Then, although Tacenda did bring up baptism - she brought up baptism for the dead (again implying a work necessary for salvation) - but also all works performed in the LDS temple along with the works required to get to do the works in the LDS temple (TR), you go on to continue only treating baptism in general and not showing anything concrete for baptism as necessary for salvation. I also think that Tacenda is not arguing against baptism at all, but specifically temple ordinances (for the salvation of self and others) and the works required to gain access to the temple. But, unless I missed it, you didn´t treat these issues directly with any of your comments on no works, covenants, baptism for the dead, works without faith, etc.

And then, instead of a reply with general clarification or a concern for a general misunderstanding (as I did with you in my first comment), you go with: 

I confirm that I am not sure what Tacenda was specifically referring to in the DnC and baptism for the dead, simply because I find her sentence here vague. But I think Tacenda and I have shown enough to indicate that while she was talking about saving works (not no works) and saving works of the LDS temple (not just baptism in general) that, indeed, your replies to her comments have expanded too far out of the topics she has brought up and, at the same time as I pointed out, you use a very narrow, inconsistent, and relatively small group (I hope) to represent non-LDS Christians and Pauline Christians specifically. This uncalled for expanding out from the issue of saving works seems to serve little more than to bring up these extreme views of some non-LDS Christians. I could be overreacting out of a sensitivity, but I think the quotes and my comments here indicate otherwise.

Again Tacenda said "Other faiths believe Jesus is all that is needed. Why do you need saving ordinances and covenants? That sounds like works." I interpreted that to mean works are not required, because "Jesus is all that is needed." Sorry if I got your sensibilities all tied up in a wad. If Tacenda did not mean that she is certainly free to clarify. I am not a mind reader, but later she did say that she did not mean all works. I am OK with that. I am just trying to draw a distinction because I have heard some say "I cannot sin because I am in Christ." Wowa. Perhaps you do not share that extreme view, but I certainly don't, and wish to express that.

Quote

I did appreciate your second to last comment and its defense of Pauline teaching and thus more fair description of Pauline Christians. And I appreciated your last comment about your personal/LDS beliefs. But, again, none of this seemed to get as far as justifying works for salvation or ¨saving ordinances¨.

I am not trying to misrepresent Pauline Christianity, but I am giving my experience with it. I am glad you do not interpret Paul so narrowly. I believe that is unwise. 

Personally, I do not use the term saving ordinances. With the possible exception of baptism, I consider the ordinances of the temple to be exalting ordinances - those which are necessary to become exalted. It is just a pet peeve of mine, in which I seem to differ a tad from the Church leadership. I should probably add that I don't use the term salvation the same way as you. I use it to refer being saved from hell.  Period. I do not use it to refer to being "saved" from physical death or being resurrected. Nor do I use it in the sense of a reward. I believe rewards are based upon works. Exaltation is based upon works. Salvation - not so much. No matter what we do, Yeshua's grace has to make up our shortcomings in order to be saved. This is what I get from Paul when he says works don't save us. But to read this as to believing one can repent and then intentionally sin, and still be saved through Christ's grace is a grievous error. That is what I am trying to express. If you agree with that, great. But I don't wish to debate it anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Not following how losing the keys back then was a problem, but that today it wouldn’t be a problem to lose them. 

Because we are aware of the issue and petition the Lord for redress

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Just point of info: do you know the group that the article is referring to here and that they indeed had other unique parts of the LDS Gospel that shows that they were the orthodox from which the Catholics apostasized or are you just giving the LDS assumption/view in contrast to the Catholic assumption/view?

This is a long post and I don't have much time- I will break it into small units and take a few posts to answer your post

Yes there were groups of Christians who are known to have practiced baptism for the dead in ancient times. https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/baptism-for-the-dead-the-coptic-rationale

In general, Coptic Orthodox rituals and liturgies especially baptism and confirmation parallel Mormon ordinances as given in the temple with similar spiritual functions.   I have posted about these a few times.  So here we have Coptic Orthodox practices paralleling known ancient practices, Paul mentioning such ancient practices, and then Roman Catholicism rejecting such practices.

Yes I believe it was an "apostasy" from ancient practices for Catholics to eschew baptism for the dead.

9 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

If you are referring to point 4 where they bring up the possibility of a heretical group, is that your strongest defense? When I have read other Christians deal with LDS baptism for the dead (which basically always includes the use of Paul´s statement) the Christians always bring up the same idea in point #4. I may have seen only one other source that brings up anything like the other 3 points. So I think it is inaccurate to claim they want to minimize this point (again if #4 is the one you are talking about), it is both too directly apparent/appropriate because of the verse and too widespread as the common response of so many other non-LDS Christian groups.

OK well everyone uses the "heretical group defense" and due to the evidence above, I personally regard it as the weakest.  Paul did not condemn the practice, he used it as an example and argument FOR the resurrection- would he take a doctrine from a heretical group to prove TRUE doctrine (the Resurrection) ?   That would be odd.  It would be like using stories about alien invaders to prove we have an immigration problem.  ;) (j/k)

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 12:42 AM, SouthernMo said:

If for whatever reason there were no COJCOLDS, but you knew what you know today, would you join another faith?

Knowing what I know today, I would be patiently praying -- probably pleading, to be honest -- for the Lord to restore a Church that matches what He's given me to know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

The article did not say that the LDS Church teaches (nor that ¨we do not believe¨ - watch who of your brethren you are telling what they believe, mfbukowski!) that non-Mormons go to hell. I thought the following paragraph was pretty accurate:

Quote

No but Tacenda, who presented the article, did refer to that- and that comment was not about the article but to her other argument in HER post, not in yours

Quote

Why would the Nephites not know about baptism for the dead? I have not come across anything (that I understood at least as) saying that baptism for the dead was only revealed ever through Joseph. Please explain, thanks!

Well you did partially catch me in a contradiction here- clearly if it was an ancient practice, then it must have been revealed earlier than through Joseph Smith!   Got me on that one!  But I MEANT something different than what I actually said.

It seems that the ordinance was not revealed until AFTER Christ's resurrection, which makes total sense since Christ's visit to the spirits in prison opened the door to preaching to the dead.  His "descent into hell" was his visit to the spirits in prison, and the beginning of work for the dead.

Though it is not directly mentioned in the BOM and this article has some good answers https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Why_is_baptism_for_the_dead_not_mentioned_in_the_Book_of_Mormon%3F

I personally have given several talks about the fact that the whole restoration is arguably ABOUT the restoration of temple blessings unifying mankind.  Think about Malachi 4, the last verse of the Old Testament.

Quote

 

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

 

What the heck is the importance of turning hearts of Fathers and children?  What's the curse??  What is this all about?

Yet this is the verse spoken to Joseph 3 times on the night Moroni announced the Restoration - yet Moroni tweaked the statement a little bit.  Instead of just quoting Malachi, he said this:

Joseph Smith History 1

Quote

 

38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the aPriesthood, by the hand of bElijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the cLord.

39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the achildren the bpromises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

 

Note that here the curse becomes phrased as " the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming."

What the heck does that mean?

It is of course crucial to the gospel- what is the purpose of the Restoration and of the Gospel of Jesus Christ LDS?

For man to fill the measure of his creation and have joy therein, and be with their families forever.  THAT is the purpose of the Earth as taught by our church.

How is that to be accomplished?  Through temple work- wherein all of mankind has the opportunity to reach exaltation!

If it were not for temple work, in the LDS scheme, the PURPOSE of the earth would not be fulfilled if it were not for the restoration of the temple. 

The Creation itself would be a waste IF mankind could not find their purpose- to become like our Father and Mother!

So yes, even though these teachings are not found directly in the BOM i(yet see above article link) it is clear in the overall explanation of the LDS gospel that if these doctrines had not been restored, the purpose of the earth would be a WASTE.

And that was the main teaching of Moroni which opened up the restoration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So here we have Coptic Orthodox practices paralleling known ancient practices, Paul mentioning such ancient practices, and then Roman Catholicism rejecting such practices.

Not sure what you mean here. The theology, purpose, intent, basic form, and effect of baptism (washing) and confirmation (anointing) are the same in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Coptic Orthodoxy.

Did you know there are Coptic Christians in Egypt in communion with Rome whose rituals and liturgies, including baptism and confirmation, are identical with those of the Coptic Orthodox? The only difference between the two is the former accepts Chalcedonian Christology and the authority of the Bishop of Rome. They practice the exact same Coptic baptism and confirmation rites that you’ve posted about before. They are Catholics, just not Roman (Latin) Catholics. They use the Coptic Rite, the same as the Coptic Orthodox, which is one of the seven rites used by the 23 churches in the Roman Catholic Communion. The vast majority of Catholics use the Latin Rite, but the Latin Church is only one of the 23. 

Maybe you can clarify what you think Roman Catholicism rejected, since it’s neither the baptism and confirmation rituals of the Coptic Orthodox, nor the theology behind it (apart from the latter’s Miaphysitism).

 

 

Edited by Spammer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Because we are aware of the issue and petition the Lord for redress

And you’re certain that the people 2000 (ish) years ago did not petition the lord?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

And you’re certain that the people 2000 (ish) years ago did not petition the lord?

I'm not sure they realized what they lost with the Apostles death or if they did they just assumed that since the Apostles ordained bishops and priests they hadnt lost anything.

It's difficult to know how they reacted if or when they acted differently than the bishops succeeded apostles thought because of shoddy records and lack of communication.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, changed said:

I am a female - I'm not ordained.  

The greatest among you are your servants, many who are first will be last.  

Have you noticed the first thing they teach boys when they reach the magical age of twelve, now nearly twelve? It ain't with words, mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Easy, Catholic. Not any Protestant sect. Possibly a Messianic Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I'm not sure they realized what they lost with the Apostles death or if they did they just assumed that since the Apostles ordained bishops and priests they hadnt lost anything.

It's difficult to know how they reacted if or when they acted differently than the bishops succeeded apostles thought because of shoddy records and lack of communication.

In not knowing how early priesthood holders reacted, it seems like you are basing your understanding on what you hope they felt and did.

This subject of what happened with the 12 and Christ’s followers is interesting. Most Mormons I know claim with such certainty that some kind of apostasy happened. Yet, few have studied the time and the records of the time to explain what that means and how that jives with our ideas of priesthood and keys today.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Spammer said:

Not sure what you mean here. The theology, purpose, intent, basic form, and effect of baptism (washing) and confirmation (anointing) are the same in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Coptic Orthodoxy.

Did you know there are Coptic Christians in Egypt in communion with Rome whose rituals and liturgies, including baptism and confirmation, are identical with those of the Coptic Orthodox? The only difference between the two is the former accepts Chalcedonian Christology and the authority of the Bishop of Rome. They practice the exact same Coptic baptism and confirmation rites that you’ve posted about before. They are Catholics, just not Roman (Latin) Catholics. They use the Coptic Rite, the same as the Coptic Orthodox, which is one of the seven rites used by the 23 churches in the Roman Catholic Communion. The vast majority of Catholics use the Latin Rite, but the Latin Church is only one of the 23. 

Maybe you can clarify what you think Roman Catholicism rejected, since it’s neither the baptism and confirmation rituals of the Coptic Orthodox, nor the theology behind it (apart from the latter’s Miaphysitism).

 

 

Baptism for the dead. Read the link provided. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/baptism-for-the-dead-the-coptic-rationale

 I think you were never endowed as an LDS?

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If not Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints then probably Messianic Judaism.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Spammer said:

Maybe you can clarify what you think Roman Catholicism rejected, since it’s neither the baptism and confirmation rituals of the Coptic Orthodox, nor the theology behind it (apart from the latter’s Miaphysitism).

There's another one

We are Miaphysites. Never realized that.

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2019 at 10:42 AM, SouthernMo said:

If for whatever reason there were no COJCOLDS, but you knew what you know today, would you join another faith?  If so which one?  Why?

Probably some form of Messianic Buddhism but thats just me

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be a neo-mystic awaiting a restoration. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would have to find something I have not yet encountered that fed me more spiritually and intellectually than the gospel as taught by The Latter-day Saints.  

 

I think I would be pretty agnostic if my faith as an active Latter-day Saint crumbles - bordering on atheistic and slightly depressed.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2019 at 8:42 AM, SouthernMo said:

If for whatever reason there were no COJCOLDS, but you knew what you know today, would you join another faith?  If so which one?  Why?

What do you mean by "knew what you know today?" 

Presumably if there wasn't any authority I'd just work from home with what I knew. Since without the church there wouldn't be authority. I wouldn't go to some other church just to go to church. (And most Christians, including many devout ones, don't regularly go to church) There are of course good practical reasons to have a community church that go beyond religion. You get to know your neighbors. Neighbors are able to call upon each other in times of need. I think a huge problem of the contemporary age is that lack of community engagement and structures. Would that exist without the Church thought? I suspect not. In most places even where there are religious people it's just not the same as our church with home teaching - I mean ministering - and so forth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Baptism for the dead. Read the link provided. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/baptism-for-the-dead-the-coptic-rationale

 I think you were never endowed as an LDS?

Ok, you meant baptism for the dead. Thanks.

Yes, I was endowed. Pre-1990. Baptism for the dead as a teen, then was endowed in 1985, the same year I left for my mission. Married my wife in the SLC temple post-mission. I did occasional work for the dead in four different temples starting while in the MTC from 1985-1992 (all ordinances).

 

Edited by Spammer

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There's another one

We are Miaphysites. Never realized that.

Thanks 

I don’t think the Miaphysitism of the Copts is your brand of Miaphysitism. They start with God=pure spirit and ex nihilo creation, the same as all orthodox Creedal churches.

Edited by Spammer

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Because we are aware of the issue and petition the Lord for redress

Unlike those bumpkin fishermen that Christ personally chose and taught, right? Especially that Peter... totally unaware of keys ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

would he take a doctrine from a heretical group to prove TRUE doctrine (the Resurrection) ?

There’s precedent— he did it with the idol of the unknown god. I’m not saying I buy the heretical group defense, but there’s precedent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/27/2019 at 4:00 PM, SouthernMo said:

Take a closer look at the actual history of church leadership. The keys Peter received  were more akin to how Joseph Smith organized the church leadership than how Brigham young modified it to what we see today. James was the head of the Jerusalem church. 

Every picture of Peter in every Catholic Church I have been in, and I’ve been in a lot, has Peter holding the keys to the Kingdom. 

That church is certainly convinced that the keys were held by Peter. This is also backed up by scripture. I don’t know what the position of other apostles has to do with this. 

You also must realize that had not Hyrum Smith died beside his brother, he, as First Elder, would have succeeded to the head of the LDS Church. 

Edited by mrmarklin

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...