Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[3DOP]

Catholics do not see the office of Apostle distinctly from the office of bishop. All Apostles were bishops, not all bishops were Apostles. The qualification for being an apostle wasn't some different form of ordination but rather to have seen Christ, and been designated to be sent out on a special mission. There was an obvious need for Apostles in this sense in the early church, so that the faith would be founded on eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Christ. But the best explanation for why there weren't apostles later, is that the apostles themselves never tried to perpetuate their office except inasmuch as the bishops were their successors:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

---I Clement 44

That Judas was replaced is significant in Acts 1. When St. Peter makes his appeal to Scripture for the reason why Judas should be replaced we read:

For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

---Ac. 1:20

But this passage from the Psalms doesn't require that every apostle be replaced by another apostle. This is distinctively prophetic in regards to Judas alone. Secondly, it indicates that all the candidate needs to inherit Judas' office, is to become a bishop. It doesn't say anything about being ordained as an apostle, but as a bishop! There are three qualifications: 1) To have seen the Lord Jesus bodily, 2) To go out on a mission and establish new churches, 3) To have been ordained a bishop

Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

---I Cor 9:1, 2

In both of his epistles to the Corinthians, St. Paul finds it necessary to affirm his apostolic authority:

I am become foolish: you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you: for I have no way come short of them that are above measure apostles, although I be nothing. Yet the signs of my apostleship have been wrought on you, in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

---II Cor 11:11, 12

What is interesting in its absence is any mention of the ceremony whereby he was made an apostle. He refers to his ministry (the Corinthians are the seal of his apostleship). He gives the signs that characterize the apostle. He has seen Christ. He patiently gives signs, wonders, and mighty deeds. In short, miracles. No where does he remind the Corinthians of his ordination ceremony. Perhaps there was no special ceremony? An apostle is any bishop who meets the qualifications that were required for Mathias and St. Paul. If a ceremony for replacing apostles was necessary for the maintenance of the government of the church, we have only the apostles to blame for ordaining bishops.

Apostasy is always associated with great and near universal sin and departure from the faith. But the first and second century Christians were at least very good according to any account. They gave their lives in huge numbers for refusing to swear to the gods and for maintaining their faith in God's Son. The Former-day Church which was allegedly apostate was so good that they eventually succeeded in converting a hostile empire! How is that for apostate fruit?

It just doesn't add up. Why was the Former-day Church so successful? If lack of apostles is the reason that the Former-day Church lost authority, a more appropriate label than apostasy would be sabotage. And irony of ironies, who would be responsible for the sabotage? The Apostles. But rather than condemn either the Apostles or their successors, it seems like we might consider the possibility that biblical Apostleship is an episcopal office gained through prerequisites, but not a special ceremonial rite.

The new apostle, Mathias, who received Judas' bishopric was an Apostle in the same sense as St. Paul. He had seen Christ, he had taken a bishop's office, and the seal of his apostleship was not found in any separate ceremony but rather in accomplishing a work of establishing the Gospel. Another reason that apostles could not ordain anything except bishops is that the generation who had seen Jesus after the Resurrection had died. If seeing Jesus was a prerequisite to the apostolic office, and no one worthy of the episcopate was left who could claim to have seen Him, they could not possibly perpetuate the office. In the two biblical cases (Paul and Mathias) where new apostles are made, it is in connection with having seen Jesus. What happened according to St. Clement of Rome is for that reason entirely predictable, the apostles ordained many successors. The bishoprics of all of the apostles were filled again. As time went on, the apostles themselves understood that the worthiest candidates were too young to have seen Jesus, and so, the Church which is founded and established upon the Apostles is perpetuated by the highest office that the apostles could bestow, the bishop, as St. Clement explains.

Edited March 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

As always, the LDS cannot demonstrate where or when we lost our authority. They assert it with no evidence just as they assert the Book of Mormon to be true with no evidence.

If you ever had any authority from God, it was only to do what he gave you his authority to do. For you to know when you lost it, if you had it, you'd have to know when you did something contrary to what he authorized you to do. That's what you're having trouble seeing, because you don't seem to see when you did something contrary to what he approved. I can see the difference because I can see the contrast. To you that's just the way it should be.

[Ahab]

Catholics do not see the office of Apostle distinctly from the office of bishop.

That's a big part of the problem.

[saemo]

As always, the LDS cannot demonstrate where or when we lost our authority. They assert it with no evidence just as they assert the Book of Mormon to be true with no evidence.

Yes, it is always assertions and never addressing anything of substance with rational dialogue.

Pointless.

[Ahab]

Yes, it is always assertions and never addressing anything of substance with rational dialogue.

Pointless.

Heh, I'm sure some of the first members of your church said the same thing about what the apostles were teaching. It went in one of their ears and out the other, even though they taught and explained things as clearly as they could be taught and explained.

[williamsmith]

Of course, that is the point. LDS *must* believe that the Holy Spirit is not present in the Church that Jesus Christ established during his ministry. No Catholic (east or west) shares this belief. This, I believe, is a matter of faith. We have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it has been, and ever shall be. You have faith in failure.

That is not true whatsoever about Mormons..... You shouldn't misrepresent Mormonism and Mormon's in such a blatantly obviously false way.

Mormons entirely believe that all who live have access to the Holy Spirit, especially other Christians who have access to the written word of God.

However, we do believe that we are the only ones who have and can give the Gift of the Holy Ghost, because after all, we are the only ones who still bestoe it as also the Bible even records being done, by those who had the authority to give it, when those who baptized (having that authority) some new saints but didn't have the authority to give the Holy Ghost.

Tell me, when does the Catholic Church lay hands and bestow the "gift"? They don't. We are the only ones left that I can remember who does. Further, it's not only the Authorized Priesthood which makes the True Church of Christ, but the authority and the giving of the Gift which makes it. That gift serves a key function in preventing apostasy.

Edited March 16, 2013 by williamsmith

[Bart Burk]

That is not true whatsoever about Mormons..... You shouldn't misrepresent Mormonism and Mormon's in such a blatantly obviously false way.

Mormons entirely believe that all who live have access to the Holy Spirit, especially other Christians who have access to the written word of God.

However, we do believe that we are the only ones who have and can give the Gift of the Holy Ghost, because after all, we are the only ones who still bestoe it as also the Bible even records being done, by those who had the authority to give it, when those who baptized (having that authority) some new saints but didn't have the authority to give the Holy Ghost.

Tell me, when does the Catholic Church lay hands and bestow the "gift"? They don't. We are the only ones left that I can remember who does. Further, it's not only the Authorized Priesthood which makes the True Church of Christ, but the authority and the giving of the Gift which makes it. That gift serves a key function in preventing apostasy.

At confirmation Father Bill anointed my head with oil touching my head while telling me to receive the Holy Spirit. Bestowing the Holy Spirit is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church.

[rodheadlee]

So um. where was the Holy Spirit during the Inquisition? How long did that go on? 500 years, give or take a year.

Sorry Christ Knight.

[3DOP]

Hi William Smith.

Of course, our claim that we have apostolic authority remains debatable here, but you should be aware that in both Eastern and Western rites, Catholics have always maintained the obligatory confirmation rite whereby the gift of the Holy Ghost is imparted unto the baptized:

In the Western Church the sacrament is usually administered by the bishop. At the beginning of the ceremony there is a general imposition of hands, the bishop meantime praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those who have already been regenerated: "send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit the Holy Paraclete." He then anoints the forehead of each with chrism saying: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Finally, he gives each a slight blow on the cheek saying: "peace be with thee". A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the bishop's blessing.

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words: "the sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost." These several actions symbolize the nature and purpose of the sacrament: the anointing signifies the strength given for the spiritual conflict; the balsam contained in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ; the sign of the cross on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ, before all men; the imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrollment in the service of Christ which brings true peace to the soul. (Cf. Summa Theologiæ III.72.4).

---Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, entry on the Sacrament of Confirmation

[volgadon]

Ezekial 36

23:But I will show the holiness of my great name, desecrated among the nations, in whose midst you desecrated it. Then the nations shall know that I am the LORD—oracle of the Lord GOD—when through you I show my holiness before their very eyes.

24 I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you back to your own soil.

25

I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean

; from all your impurities and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

26

I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

We see in this a prefiguring of baptism.

(eta: can't seem to get the odd formatting to go away)

This alludes to a different ritual than the mikveh.

[3DOP]

So um. where was the Holy Spirit during the Inquisition? How long did that go on? 500 years, give or take a year.

Sorry Christ Knight.

"The Inquisition"? Which one rodheadlee? You are against every Inquisition without exception?

The Holy Office of the Inquisition remains to this day under a different name, but the function remains the same.

In a way rodhead, I welcome it when this stuff comes up because it shows that however LDS apologists valiantly argue for an early apostasy, in the popular mind it is still the old black legends propagated by the anti-Catholic "Reformers" that really supports the thinking of the people when it comes to apostasy theory. I know it doesn't seem politically correct to bring these things up, but it is important to have them out in the open, where the refreshing winds of time and neutral historians can research whether crimes/sins were committed and if so, who was to blame. It takes a bit of effort to clear away all the lies and misrepresentations, while presenting a case that would exonerate the accused. The task is made doubly difficult when the "jury" has a vested interest in maintaining guilt.

Have you read a book on "The Inqusition"? Don't feel bad. Few who talk about it have. The problem though is that without understanding the politics or the religious environments, they become certain that the Catholic Church was filled with haters. "The Inquisition" is mostly used as two words that are seldom studied. But the benefit, from an anti-Catholic viewpoint, is how it is powerfully effective in conjuring up all kinds of horrible images of vicious and hateful Catholic priests with a creepy, vile pope in Rome greedily enjoying every report about the pain and anguish inflicted by his henchmen. It is so sad. Thank God it isn't accurate at all.

Did you know that in Spain for instance, no one faced the Inquisition unless they claimed to be Catholic? Professing Jews and Muslims were not harassed by the inquisition in Spain. Further, having clear consciences, the Inquisitors took meticulous and detailed records to preserve their work for posterity. A casual look at these records reveal that however misguided non-Catholics today might believe them to have been, the Inquisitors truly cared about those who were convicted of being false Catholics. Whatever you may think about it today, it was honorable ministry then. Among other misrepresentations, these records reveal that the actual numbers of those given back to the state for execution has been grossly exaggerated for the express purpose of attacking the Catholic Church by her religious enemies.

So of course, we don't acknowledge that the Catholic Church lost the Holy Ghost because she cooperated with the states of Europe to use capital punishment against obstinate enemies of the church and state. The Catholic Church has an unmistakable Tradition which affirms an Old Testament model of church/state relations. The Jews had laws for dealing with those who would undermine the faith of Israelites and Moses himself ran a spear through the belly of a woman who was an idolater.

Americans and most westerners assume that modern republican models of church/state relations are true. They certainly aren't revealed by God. Constantine's mother, St. Helen granted many endowments to the Church. What in Former-day Scripture, or Latter-day for that matter, was given to guide the leaders of the Church to reject these gifts? They had not the slightest notions of your Jeffersonian worldview. I personally believe that an ideal state recognizes the one true church. Complete separation of church and state is not merely folly, it is not possible. But to say we believe in it gives the enemy of God a hammer that even Jefferson would never have imagined. The West is reaping the fruits of violating the principle which guided the Church for some of her history. Ultimately, condemnations that revolve around Crusades and Inquisitions are resolved by a dispassionate recognition that separation of church and state are modern day assumptions, not universal principles.

3DOP

Edited March 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[kenporay]

As always, the LDS cannot demonstrate where or when we lost our authority. They assert it with no evidence just as they assert the Book of Mormon to bWhat makes you think you didnt loose it when you broke away from the eastern church, the leaders of both churches excommed each othrt...perhaps it was when you broke away from the christian coptic church.

To believe that there is no other church alive today that claims unbroken links to the apostles is ethnocenric at best.e true with no evidence.

[kenporay]

You really can't see how baptism, the thing that regenerates us and reconciles us to God, is not prefigured in the Israelites who were regenerated and reconciled to God by the sign of God sprinkling water on them?

Honestly, truly, you're not just being obtuse to make some kind of point?

Of course i see and appreciate the baptism ritual. Moreover i point to where god instituted ir among his chosen people. You dismiss it out of hand.

Honestly dont you believe ezekial was speaking of another jewish rite when he spoke of sprinkling?

Kinda sounds like someone just mzkes stuff up to suit themselves. The Jews wrote the OT...I'm pretty sure they know what it means. And since the jews baptised by john apparently didnt need an explanation of baptism/tevelah that they knew its meaning and performance.

[Bart Burk]

The Catholic Church says the Eastern Orthodox Church's sacraments are valid so we are not ethnocentric at all. Catholics are allowed to take the Eucharist in an Eastern Orthodox Church, but generally the Eastern Orthodox don't allow it. It is the Eastern Orthodox who reject Catholic sacraments at this point if I understand it correctly. Catholics believe that Eastern Orthodox authority does go back to the apostles.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Bart Burk

[kenporay]

This has not always been the case. During the time the two schisms came about, there was no respect for each other. Today the factions still dont follow one unified leader nor a single unified apostlic group.

The respect shown today is more of a modern contrievance.

Historical fact shows a changed church with changed rituals.

The Catholic Church says the Eastern Orthodox Church's sacraments are valid so we are not ethnocentric at all.

[williamsmith]

Hi William Smith.

Of course, our claim that we have apostolic authority remains debatable here, but you should be aware that in both Eastern and Western rites, Catholics have always maintained the obligatory confirmation rite whereby the gift of the Holy Ghost is imparted unto the baptized:

---Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, entry on the Sacrament of Confirmation

I do apologize, I had forgotten this (been out of the loop for awhile).

However, I would note that it's not a wonder why I forgot this in relation to the Catholic Church because of how they do it. The Orthodox Church however seems to retain more of the original practice in stating the gift thereof.

But, I still maintain, that if you aren't Catholic, Orthodox or Mormon you haven't a leg doctrinally or authoritatively to stand on. No one else can rightly claim the truth and be accurate according to the Bible.

[kenporay]

So then which of the two, if either, is the original chistian church? Your post makes it sound like the two are not in accord today.

The Catholic Church says the Eastern Orthodox Church's sacraments are valid so we are not ethnocentric at all. Catholics are allowed to take the Eucharist in an Eastern Orthodox Church, but generally the Eastern Orthodox don't allow it. It is the Eastern Orthodox who reject Catholic sacraments at this point if I understand it correctly. Catholics believe that Eastern Orthodox authority does go back to the apostles.

[3DOP]

Earlier in the thread it was posited that the didache (sp) allowed baptism to acceptably performed by either of full body immersion or a pouring/sprinkling of water...that the didache was older than the NT, and the didache cotained instructions from apostles.

Tevilah is a full body immersion that was performed upon conversion to Judaism. Baptism is a greek word describing the same practice. John the baptist didnt invent it, it's not a christian invention..

Now, whether the Jewish men who were called by Jesus to be special witnesses would change the ceremonial immersion to another washing...that's a huge question.

If a person is damned without baptism, then it becomes very important to be able to quickly and efficiently able to baptize. Those who are near death, infants, etc would benefit from a pouring. If infants who died without baptism werent damned by a loving deity and if proxy babtism was available then the baptism could remain as it was in the OT.

Hi kenporay.

That was me who mentioned the Didache.

Great point about proxy baptism. I had not considered that. I concede that this LDS practice removes the urgency of logistical difficulties that exist for those of us who do not understand I Cor. 15:29 as Mormons do.

But the passage from Ezekiel is reasonably understood by many Christians as referring to the regeneration of baptism, and it seems to recognize that a sprinkling of water can accomplish the same results as we desire from immersion. We are aware that Jewish commentators might take a different view of the passage, but we don't consider them to be authoritative interpreters in the post-Christian era for guidance in this area. As for the original meaning of baptism in the Greek, we know it means "to immerse". Immersion is undoubtedly a most vivid symbol, and we would say that even if the person's entire body does not become wet, the entire soul is immersed in God's healing love and we are happy to consider that even if pouring or aspersion is the mode as prophesied by Ezekiel, that a spiritual immersion, a rising from the dead, is the result. On the other hand, when the body is immersed, the soul enjoys the benefits of the spiritual sprinkling spoken of in Ezekiel.

So I am not criticizing your position on baptism. It is especially plausible for LDS who can later be assured of proxy baptism. But it is more difficult to demonstrate implausibility than it is to demonstrate plausibility. Yours is by far the more difficult task if you are trying to say that on the basis of how we understand baptism, it is clear that Catholics are apostate.

Thanks for your insights about proxy baptism for you guys. I will not forget it.

3DOP

[3DOP]

WilliamSmith

I do apologize, I had forgotten this (been out of the loop for awhile).

3DOP

No worries.

WilliamSmith

However, I would note that it's not a wonder why I forgot this in relation to the Catholic Church because of how they do it. The Orthodox Church however seems to retain more of the original practice in stating the gift thereof.

3DOP

I don't know about Orthodoxy. They probably mirror the Eastern Catholics. I guess you are saying you don't like the way Latin Rite Catholics do it? I guess it seems nitpicking to me William. You are free to have a preference. Are you sure your name is Smith and not ___________ovich? Heh.

Let us pray. Almighty, everlasting God, You have been pleased to regenerate these Your servants by water and the Holy Spirit, and have given them remission of all their sins; send forth upon them from Heaven Your sevenfold Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.

R. Amen.

V. The Spirit of Wisdom and understanding.

R. Amen.

The Spirit of Counsel and fortitude.

R. Amen.

The Spirit of knowledge and piety.

R. Amen.

Fill them with the spirit of Your holy fear, and sign them with the sign of the cross + of Christ in mercy for eternal life. Through the same Jesus Christ... in the unity of the same Holy Spirit, God, world without end.

R. Amen.

Oremus. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui regenerare dignatus es hos, famulos tuos ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, quique dedisti eis remissionem omnium peccatorum: emitte in eos septiformem Spiritum tuum sanctum Paraclitum de caelis.

R. Amen.

V. Spiritum sapientiae et intellectus.

R. Amen.

V. Spiritum consilii et fortitudinis.

R. Amen.

V. Spiritum scientiea et pietatis.

R. Amen.

Adimple eos Spiritu timoris tui, et consigna eos signo crucis + Christi, in vitam propitiatus aeternam. Per eumdem Dominum... in unitate ejusdem Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum.

R. Amen.

WilliamSmith

But, I still maintain, that if you aren't Catholic, Orthodox or Mormon you haven't a leg doctrinally or authoritatively to stand on. No one else can rightly claim the truth and be accurate according to the Bible.

3DOP

I agree that those are the major competitors for those of us who have been reconciled to a continuous visible church. But I think you are a little too optimistic about the weakness of most Protestant bodies. They can argue that we have exaggerated the necessity of a visible church.

Edited March 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Hey guys nothing is accomplished by bashing in this way. The Catholics believe they have authority by Apostolic succession, we, Mormons , believe that they lost it sometime around Constantine's actions making Christianity the established religion of Rome if not before then and that it was later restored from on high to us. We both have at least one thing right there needs to be a line of authority. Let's just try to respect each others beliefs and try to discuss them without misstating them and we may all learn something.

[kenporay]

Thank you for the kind words. I so love to debate and its not always easy to see in writing thats its something of a mental exercise to sharpen the wits as opposed to verbally flogging someone.

I cant accept the supposition that later christians would have better understood an earlier hebrew prophet who is speaking about a clearly and concisely understood rite...which was not a conversion rite at all.

For me the thread helps me to understand my own unwillingness to review assumed beliefs that may not be true...since I somewhat see my self in the manner in which you frame your evidences.

Hi kenporay.

That was me who mentioned the Didache.

Great point about proxy baptism. I had not considered that. I concede that this LDS practice removes the urgency of logistical difficulties that exist for those of us who do not understand I Cor. 15:29 as Mormons do.

But the passage from Ezekiel is reasonably understood by many Christians as referring to the regeneration of baptism, and it seems to recognize that a sprinkling of water can accomplish the same results as we desire from immersion. We are aware that Jewish commentators might take a different view of the passage, but we don't consider them to be authoritative interpreters in the post-Christian era for guidance in this area. As for the original meaning of baptism in the Greek, we know it means "to immerse". Immersion is undoubtedly a most vivid symbol, and we would say that even if the person's entire body does not become wet, the entire soul is immersed in God's healing love and we are happy to consider that even if pouring or aspersion is the mode as prophesied by Ezekiel, that a spiritual immersion, a rising from the dead, is the result. On the other hand, when the body is immersed, the soul enjoys the benefits of the spiritual sprinkling spoken of in Ezekiel.

So I am not criticizing your position on baptism. It is especially plausible for LDS who can later be assured of proxy baptism. But it is more difficult to demonstrate implausibility than it is to demonstrate plausibility. Yours is by far the more difficult task if you are trying to say that on the basis of how we understand baptism, it is clear that Catholics are apostate.

Thanks for your insights about proxy baptism for you guys. I will not forget it.

3DOP

[3DOP]

ChristKnight

I'd be interested in seeing how the Catholics understand the role of Vatican II. Do they understand it to be about getting "back to that authentic early Christian Church"?

3DOP

That is an advanced course. Hehe. I was a little surprised to see Robert F. Smith's opinion that Vatican II was restorationist in nature. I am trying to think of where he got that idea. I think that even the most ardent supporters of the Council, which I am not, would agree that Vatican II was more forward looking than backward.

Edited March 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think that is entirely correct. Yes, Anglican priests that convert to Catholicism would be allowed to remain married as Catholic priests (noting that Eastern Catholicism also allows for married priests, mirroring the Orthodox practice). However, the Catholic Church does not regard the Anglican Communion as having valid sacraments, including Holy Orders. The Anglican priest that converts to Catholicism and serves as a Catholic priest would have to be "re"-ordained.

Such re-ordinations are pro-forma and are not available to any other communion -- except by formal conversion and study at a Roman Catholic seminary, etc., as for any other Roman Catholic wanting to be a priest. The Anglican Communion has special status.

I'd be interested in seeing how the Catholics understand the role of Vatican II. Do they understand it to be about getting "back to that authentic early Christian Church"?

Yes, as I have pointed out twice now. The changes were immense, including requiring most liturgy to be in the vernacular rather than Latin, reducing the complexity and number of sacraments, reducing the number of recognized saints, increased ecumenism, a canceling of the rift between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, etc., always with an eye on early Christianity.

And YES, I am most certainly asking "just what are the characteristics of that primitive church"! That's what I'm seeking to understand, especially in light of LDS apologetics, as I describe in the OP.

Read the Nibley article, the angry response of Hans Hillerbrand, and the defense of Nibley by Robert M. Grant.

Thanks, I'll read that. Does this article talk about the characteristics of the primitive Church, or about how the early Christians believed that the Church wouldn't survive and a total apostasy was imminent (at least that's what I get from a cursory glance, though I do need to actually read it)?

The Nibley article is required reading.

Thanks, I'll look into Vajda's article/thesis (I believe I've seen it on the MI website, but haven't read it in a long time). Am I to understand that Vajda is now LDS?

I said that he is a Dominican priest -- that is Roman Catholic. Why would he be LDS?

And yes, the belief in divinization is definitely important in one's soteriology. I am always interested in reading about the similarities and differences between the LDS exaltation and Catholic/Orthodox theosis.

It isn't only Vajda, other non-Mormon scholars actually understand the subject very similarly: Cf. Ernst Benz on apotheosis:

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.

*

* “Der Mensch als Imago Dei,” in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.

English version in Benz, “Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219; cf. Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Pickwick Publ./Wipf & Stock, 2006).

[saemo]

Of course i see and appreciate the baptism ritual. Moreover i point to where god instituted ir among his chosen people. You dismiss it out of hand.

Honestly dont you believe ezekial was speaking of another jewish rite when he spoke of sprinkling?

Kinda sounds like someone just mzkes stuff up to suit themselves. The Jews wrote the OT...I'm pretty sure they know what it means. And since the jews baptised by john apparently didnt need an explanation of baptism/tevelah that they knew its meaning and performance.

Dismiss what? I'm not the one who claims God isn't prefiguring Salvation in Christ in his work among the Israelites. It is one God who saves, both the Israelites and then all of humanity. I'm not the one who dismisses two millennia of Christ's Church, fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus Christ to make believers of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, I don't know what your point is.

Edited March 16, 2013 by saemo

[canard78]

You can look at all the sources and ancient works you can get your hands on, but until you receive a personal witness from and by the power of the Holy Spirit, those things will always just be things you have a difficult time reconciling.

It's the same way with any member of the Church who struggles with faith in certain principles or doctrines of the Restored Gospel, not just the Great Apostasy. Studying the logic and parameters and prophecies and whatever else won't mean anything without a personal testimony of the truth of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A well-nourished testimony is essential to our survival in the times in which we live, where the Enemy of our souls has more power now than he ever had in the past (imo).

Once you ask, seek, and knock for yourself, in faith believing, nothing wavering, with real intent: then you (or anyone else) will know for themselves that it is true, and then you have a way of determining what is true by that same method applied to other things (such as how all the pieces fit together to necessitate the Restoration). Additionally, with that God-given personal testimony of what is true, the whats, whens, wheres, whys, and hows become less significant when God Himself sends you, His child, a witness that regardless of your mortal understanding, that it is true.

Then the difficulty you or others are experiencing will cease to trouble your mind as it does, because you will have the testimony of truth, and it (the personal witness) is meant to be the foundation of all other pursuits in your life.

Just my musings...

I wish this was still good enough. The problem is, I'm getting to the point that I can't trust my feelings when so much is making no sense when all lined up.

Today it's Elder McConkie. We're supposed to have confidence in our Prophet and Apostles. We're even taught that they will never lead us astray. And yet I've been reading back through my 1992 edition of Mormon Doctrine and it simply makes no sense. It's a combination of some reasonable teachings based on the scriptures. Some laughable speculation not based on the scriptures (e.g. the continents were all joined until after Noah and the flood or that God commanded Adam to start celebrating birthdays... I've no idea where that comes from in the scriptures). Some that are irresponsible (teaching that birth control is a sin or evil practice). And some downright offensive content that is bordering on racism (suggestion that Caste systems are in line with the gospel and that inter-racial marrying is a bad thing).

One would presume that Elder McConkie trusted his feelings when writing this book and maybe even prayed for inspiration/confirmation. How did he manage to get so wrong when following the feelings of the spirit? I accept fallibility. But on that scale it's unnerving.