Apostasy And Loss Of Saving Ordinances

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks. I listen to sermons on the radio and usually it's all about the love Jesus has for us. I was thinking that it's all so repetitious and not alot of substance and maybe the LDS way is right because they atleast give us a list of things to do and then I went back to the thought that my relationship with God may just be all I need and the repetitions are okay. I'm torn between the EV and the LDS religious thought. I've never been anything but LDS so it's all new stuff. You have had the best of both worlds. But thanks for the scriptures, I'll check them out.

I hear more that Jesus and our Heavenly Father love us...in fact what is lacking in the EV world is "Heavenly Father". Too me most have killed the Father, because "Fatherhood" implies accountability, which people don't want to think about. But Christ and us are accountable to our Father. Though I have heard great sermons form EV Pastors (including my father while alive), Christ came to glorify the Father...to many EV's (IMHO) only seek to glorify Christ and seek to lift him above the Father...all that I know of Christ, I know this would be displeasing to him. I will do what he wishes worship and pray to the Father in his name, and worship and thank him for my salvation.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Do you personally know anybody who turns away from the truth as they know it? I have never met anyone like that.

I am 56 in a few days, sadly I know a number of people who have rejected the truth for many reasons.

[JarMan]

I'd be glad to listen or discuss. What kind of help do you need? I'm coming from a place of having a trial of faith. This board and the TBM's help so much, and keep me in check. I've yet to fully recover what I had before but do sometimes feel freer to explore a faith that is much richer than ever before in my Saviour. I guess when you almost lose it, you appreciate it so much more. You're welcome to PM and vent all you want.

I guess you could say I'm in the midst of a faith crisis. But not because I've discovered things about church history or about the fallibility of our leaders. And I'm not angry at the church or anything like that. But I have realized that I need to accept the church on much different terms then I used to. The church will never be what it was for me when I grew up or when I attended BYU. My challenge is trying to define the terms under which I can accept the church. And God, for that matter. I'm finding that the traditional answers to some of the questions don't always work for me anymore. And so I need new answers and new ways of seeing things. I think this is probably true of a lot of people on this board which is why I have decided to discuss some of the issues here.

[JarMan]

Yes, death happens, in all its forms.

Yes, in all its forms (not just of His body but of all things He died for / stands for, which were lost -- us, for starters).

Yes, the Great Apostasy was a necessary part of Christ descending below all things and submitting to the worst that could be done to Him and with His blessings.

Of course these things are “far-fetched” (to some; I see them as wonderful and marvelous) -- how else would they be the target of so much opposition?

CV75, I haven't forgotten about you and I hope you're still following this thread. I plan on engaging you again more fully when I get a chance to do some more thinking and research. (I've been very busy this week getting my son through the temple and having his mission farewell. Basically my house has been in chaos for several days.)

[Tacenda]

I hear more that Jesus and our Heavenly Father love us...in fact what is lacking in the EV world is "Heavenly Father". Too me most have killed the Father, because "Fatherhood" implies accountability, which people don't want to think about. But Christ and us are accountable to our Father. Though I have heard great sermons form EV Pastors (including my father while alive), Christ came to glorify the Father...to many EV's (IMHO) only seek to glorify Christ and seek to lift him above the Father...all that I know of Christ, I know this would be displeasing to him. I will do what he wishes worship and pray to the Father in his name, and worship and thank him for my salvation.

Am I wrong?....I thought they believe God is spirit until he comes down and picks up a body of flesh and bones, therefore they believe he is three in one.

[Tacenda]

I guess you could say I'm in the midst of a faith crisis. But not because I've discovered things about church history or about the fallibility of our leaders. And I'm not angry at the church or anything like that. But I have realized that I need to accept the church on much different terms then I used to. The church will never be what it was for me when I grew up or when I attended BYU. My challenge is trying to define the terms under which I can accept the church. And God, for that matter. I'm finding that the traditional answers to some of the questions don't always work for me anymore. And so I need new answers and new ways of seeing things. I think this is probably true of a lot of people on this board which is why I have decided to discuss some of the issues here.

This is a good place to discuss, as long as we, members, respect each others differences. You seem to do just that! I wish you well, and hope to hear more from you. Edited May 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[MormonMason]

Am I wrong?....I thought they believe God is spirit until he comes down and picks up a body of flesh and bones, therefore they believe he is three in one.

I have heard that from some Evangelicals but that is not the standard doctrine of the Trinity. Only the Son, via the mystery of the hypostatic union, was incarnate. Though Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one substance" only the Son incarnated into flesh with the Father and Holy Spirit remaining forever Spirit and unincarnate. It is a great mystery, as many say, man forever being incapable of comprehending God.

Of course, the Bible does not actually support that belief but the scriptures are pressed into service by back interpreting the New Testament through the lens of the Old Testament. The New Testament is the new revelation that interprets the "Old Testament" in theory, but in practice the New Testament is interpreted through various proof texts taken from the "Old" and the Trinity must be back-interpreted and back-read into the Bible. Texts that are as plain as day must be allegorized into alternate interpretations to harmonize the doctrine of the Trinity with what we have remaining of the Bible.

[JarMan]

Yes, death happens, in all its forms.

Yes, in all its forms (not just of His body but of all things He died for / stands for, which were lost -- us, for starters).

Yes, the Great Apostasy was a necessary part of Christ descending below all things and submitting to the worst that could be done to Him and with His blessings.

With apologies to George Costanza: I'm back, baby, I'm back. (I didn't do any additional research as I suggested I would do earlier, but I do have some time now to re-engage.)

You mentioned that you had scriptural reference(s) for your claim that the apostasy was purposeful. Don't leave me hanging here. . .

Of course these things are “far-fetched” (to some; I see them as wonderful and marvelous) -- how else would they be the target of so much opposition?

Hmmmm. . . There are many things that are the target of much opposition that are not wonderful or marvelous. So I don't really see that opposition to something shows anything about the thing being opposed.

This discussion has been fairly narrowly focused so far. Let me expand it a little to get to more of the bigger picture problem I have. To me, the whole idea of a "saving ordinance" does not jibe with Christ's message. Christ wants us to have faith in him, repent of our sins, accept his atonement, and follow his example by living a life like his. If we do all these things I think Christ is perfectly capable of saving us. But by claiming that full exaltation can only come from the LDS Church through our priesthood and saving ordinances, we are saying that Christ cannot save us on his own. And I really don't see in the Bible or the Book of Mormon where it says that ordinances are necessary for exaltation. Of course if you have Bible or Book of Mormon references that you think contradicts this view I would like to discuss them.

Also, even though this post is a direct response to cv75, I would invite anyone else to chime in and discuss the issues.

[Storm Rider]

With apologies to George Costanza: I'm back, baby, I'm back. (I didn't do any additional research as I suggested I would do earlier, but I do have some time now to re-engage.)

You mentioned that you had scriptural reference(s) for your claim that the apostasy was purposeful. Don't leave me hanging here. . .

Hmmmm. . . There are many things that are the target of much opposition that are not wonderful or marvelous. So I don't really see that opposition to something shows anything about the thing being opposed.

This discussion has been fairly narrowly focused so far. Let me expand it a little to get to more of the bigger picture problem I have. To me, the whole idea of a "saving ordinance" does not jibe with Christ's message. Christ wants us to have faith in him, repent of our sins, accept his atonement, and follow his example by living a life like his. If we do all these things I think Christ is perfectly capable of saving us. But by claiming that full exaltation can only come from the LDS Church through our priesthood and saving ordinances, we are saying that Christ cannot save us on his own. And I really don't see in the Bible or the Book of Mormon where it says that ordinances are necessary for exaltation. Of course if you have Bible or Book of Mormon references that you think contradicts this view I would like to discuss them.

Also, even though this post is a direct response to cv75, I would invite anyone else to chime in and discuss the issues.

I think that Christ contradicts your position and there may be some confusion on what are saving ordinances and their purpose. In my Father's house are many mansions....which one do you want to live in and does your actions, your obedience to Jesus' teachings have any impact on which mansion you are in? Without doubt there is a difference between the mansions and, using the allegory, God lives in one of them. It is absolutely sure that those who believe in Jesus, but do not follow his teachings, will be saved; they will attain a glory that they will be happy with, but they will not live in God's presence. You speak of being saved as a single event and a single outcome, but this is not supported by scripture. It is clear that there are different degrees of glory and different mansions. Those who are obedient, who seek out Jesus' teachings and submit their will in exchange for Jesus' own, will be exalted. Some have a problem that there is this exclusivity required by this teaching, "How possibly can the Church of Jesus Christ actually be the only way to obtain these saving ordinances?" I would respond to that question with another, "Why would God send his Son to the Jews and not to all people everywhere?" Why don't all people have a record of Christ appearing to them instead of the miniscule little group among all the inhabitants of the earth? If it was acceptable to God to have this narrow, small group be the only people he interacted with directly, why would it be a problem to do the same thing today?

[JarMan]

I think that Christ contradicts your position

I would appreciate a scriptural reference from the Bible or Book of Mormon that contradicts my view.

and there may be some confusion on what are saving ordinances and their purpose.

Possibly. But which one of us is confused? What is it you think I don't understand?

In my Father's house are many mansions....which one do you want to live in and does your actions, your obedience to Jesus' teachings have any impact on which mansion you are in? Without doubt there is a difference between the mansions and, using the allegory, God lives in one of them. It is absolutely sure that those who believe in Jesus, but do not follow his teachings, will be saved; they will attain a glory that they will be happy with, but they will not live in God's presence. You speak of being saved as a single event and a single outcome, but this is not supported by scripture.

Then I haven't explained myself well enough. I don't consider being saved to be a single event. (I'm a Mormon not an EV.)

It is clear that there are different degrees of glory and different mansions. Those who are obedient, who seek out Jesus' teachings and submit their will in exchange for Jesus' own, will be exalted.

No argument here. But baptism is required for the Celestial Kingdom. The endowment and eternal marriage are required for the highest degree of the CK. These both require the priesthood which only we hold. Why can't Christ exalt us to the CK on his own?

Some have a problem that there is this exclusivity required by this teaching, "How possibly can the Church of Jesus Christ actually be the only way to obtain these saving ordinances?" I would respond to that question with another, "Why would God send his Son to the Jews and not to all people everywhere?" Why don't all people have a record of Christ appearing to them instead of the miniscule little group among all the inhabitants of the earth? If it was acceptable to God to have this narrow, small group be the only people he interacted with directly, why would it be a problem to do the same thing today?

As you have correctly stated, Mormonism and Christianity suffer from the same "exclusivity problem." This problem also exists with practically every other religion in the world but, frankly, I'm not ready to give up on religion.

[Questing Beast]

So, Questing, in your view, when Jesus says certain things he was only kidding or making up religion?

He was interpolated, misquoted and misrepresented. The honest gospel truth is contained in all that he supposedly said. Perhaps a comparison of the BoM "sayings of Jesus" renders what is emphasized by repetition, and the rest can be safely relegated to secondary status or discarded altogether? This would include a bunch of Pauline teachings, of course, which is probably a good thing....

[Questing Beast]

I am 56 in a few days, sadly I know a number of people who have rejected the truth for many reasons.

Rejected a path they no longer believe in? Or rejected the morality of that path? Only the second could be defined as rejecting the truth they know. I don't know anyone who does that. But like you, I know quite a number of people who no longer associate as Mormons, or who were once "religious" and now are casual to the point of being irreligious, or in other words, having nothing to do with formal association with any organized religion. They now play on the Sabbath and are less strict in their drinking and eating habits, etc. But do they turn into different people morally? Again, I don't see that happening just because they decide that the LDS faith is not what they once assumed it to be....

[CV75]

You mentioned that you had scriptural reference(s) for your claim that the apostasy was purposeful. Don't leave me hanging here. . .

I gave you the key reference and explained it in #50.

I referred to D&C 88:6 in #60 [verses 1-14 tie into the verses about the resurrection and redemption (15-20) and similarly into the restoration of the Church (103; D&C 77:9) as part of the progression of laws as revealed through serial and/or advancing dispensations (42-61)].

2 Nephi 2:11-15 talks about opposition in all things. This principle applies to the failure of the Church in opposition to its establishment in the meridian of time, and then to the restoration of the Church in opposition to its apostasy in the fulnes of times. From Alma 41 verses 2 and 4, we see that “all things should be restored to their proper order” indicating that all things in this fallen world are subject to being broken out of their proper order, and as I explained earlier, this includes Christ and His Church.

Hmmmm. . . There are many things that are the target of much opposition that are not wonderful or marvelous. So I don't really see that opposition to something shows anything about the thing being opposed.

I only said it was wonderful in opposition to your saying it was far-fetched, which you used to describe an assertion you are evidently opposed to.

But by claiming that full exaltation can only come from the LDS Church through our priesthood and saving ordinances, we are saying that Christ cannot save us on his own.

Christ cannot save us on His own (see the lesson taught in Alma 11; note the crux of the matter in verse 34-37). In the resurrection we are judged by our sins and by our works, but with the ordinances, we are judged as if we are perfect in Christ (the rest of 11 and then chapters 12 and 13 talk about this).

I really don't think Christ wants to save us on is own--this would violate agency.

And I really don't see in the Bible or the Book of Mormon where it says that ordinances are necessary for exaltation.

This seems to have more to do with what you think these books mean by exaltation—what do you mean by exaltation?

[JarMan]

I gave you the key reference and explained it in #50.

I referred to D&C 88:6 in #60 [verses 1-14 tie into the verses about the resurrection and redemption (15-20) and similarly into the restoration of the Church (103; D&C 77:9) as part of the progression of laws as revealed through serial and/or advancing dispensations (42-61)].

2 Nephi 2:11-15 talks about opposition in all things. This principle applies to the failure of the Church in opposition to its establishment in the meridian of time, and then to the restoration of the Church in opposition to its apostasy in the fulnes of times. From Alma 41 verses 2 and 4, we see that “all things should be restored to their proper order” indicating that all things in this fallen world are subject to being broken out of their proper order, and as I explained earlier, this includes Christ and His Church.

I don't read any of those scriptures in the same way that you do. I understand the point you are making with the sources you have cited but, with all due respect, it looks like confirmation bias to me.

Christ cannot save us on His own (see the lesson taught in Alma 11; note the crux of the matter in verse 34-37). In the resurrection we are judged by our sins and by our works, but with the ordinances, we are judged as if we are perfect in Christ (the rest of 11 and then chapters 12 and 13 talk about this).

I really don't think Christ wants to save us on is own--this would violate agency.

I need to explain my concern better. To me, it seems like our exaltation is a matter exclusively between us and God. I don't see the necessity of introducing a third party - a priesthood holder - into the equation. And I don't find scriptural support (from the Book of Mormon or Bible) for this position, either.

This seems to have more to do with what you think these books mean by exaltation—what do you mean by exaltation?

Celestial Glory.

[CV75]

I don't read any of those scriptures in the same way that you do. I understand the point you are making with the sources you have cited but, with all due respect, it looks like confirmation bias to me.

Of course discussions like these allow for confirmation bias – I haven’t commented on yours as a matter of course.

I need to explain my concern better. To me, it seems like our exaltation is a matter exclusively between us and God. I don't see the necessity of introducing a third party - a priesthood holder - into the equation. And I don't find scriptural support (from the Book of Mormon or Bible) for this position, either.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are priesthood holders. All individuals are saved (in any degree of glory they wish), but only couples and families are exalted. Exaltation requires priesthood not only in the Godhead, but in the immediate family and generations and in an unbroken chain back to Adam. Keeping D&C out of your evaluation is a barrier to understanding the necessity of God's children being given the priesthood.

Celestial Glory.

If you believe that exaltation is only Celestial Glory (and especially if that is described as something other than what D&C teaches), then perhaps you have found your underlying bias.

[JarMan]

The definition of exaltation is merely a sidebar to what I am trying to understand. Celestial Glory (whether it equals exaltation or not) requires priesthood ordinances. The Bible seems to have left this out. But I could justify that based on the "plain and precious things" that have been lost from the Bible. However, the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us that ordinances are necessary for Celestial Glory, either. (The Book of Mormon leaves out a lot of important details about the gospel.) But I'm focusing on the saving ordinances because without them we cannot make it to the Celestial Kingdom. The explicit purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring us to Christ. So why doesn't it tell us about the saving ordinances? For example, Alma's words in Alma 5 give us a good road map for returning to God. That road map consists of repentance, a change of heart, acceptance of Christ's atonement, humility, and good works. It does mention baptism unto repentance. But it talks about baptism in terms very similar to the NT. Not as a "saving ordinance" but as a symbol of our repentance and acceptance of Christ's atonement. The Book of Mormon dovetails with the Bible very nicely. But the D&C seems to be a radical departure from both.

[Tacenda]

The definition of exaltation is merely a sidebar to what I am trying to understand. Celestial Glory (whether it equals exaltation or not) requires priesthood ordinances. The Bible seems to have left this out. But I could justify that based on the "plain and precious things" that have been lost from the Bible. However, the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us that ordinances are necessary for Celestial Glory, either. (The Book of Mormon leaves out a lot of important details about the gospel.) But I'm focusing on the saving ordinances because without them we cannot make it to the Celestial Kingdom. The explicit purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring us to Christ. So why doesn't it tell us about the saving ordinances? For example, Alma's words in Alma 5 give us a good road map for returning to God. That road map consists of repentance, a change of heart, acceptance of Christ's atonement, humility, and good works. It does mention baptism unto repentance. But it talks about baptism in terms very similar to the NT. Not as a "saving ordinance" but as a symbol of our repentance and acceptance of Christ's atonement. The Book of Mormon dovetails with the Bible very nicely. But the D&C seems to be a radical departure from both.

Hear hear to everything you've said!

[CV75]

The definition of exaltation is merely a sidebar to what I am trying to understand. Celestial Glory (whether it equals exaltation or not) requires priesthood ordinances. The Bible seems to have left this out. But I could justify that based on the "plain and precious things" that have been lost from the Bible. However, the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us that ordinances are necessary for Celestial Glory, either. (The Book of Mormon leaves out a lot of important details about the gospel.) But I'm focusing on the saving ordinances because without them we cannot make it to the Celestial Kingdom. The explicit purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring us to Christ. So why doesn't it tell us about the saving ordinances? For example, Alma's words in Alma 5 give us a good road map for returning to God. That road map consists of repentance, a change of heart, acceptance of Christ's atonement, humility, and good works. It does mention baptism unto repentance. But it talks about baptism in terms very similar to the NT. Not as a "saving ordinance" but as a symbol of our repentance and acceptance of Christ's atonement. The Book of Mormon dovetails with the Bible very nicely. But the D&C seems to be a radical departure from both.

Alma 11-13 tells us that the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for entering into the rest of the Lord (whether you want to call it celestial glory, exaltation, etc.).

But perhaps more to your point, the Book of Mormon points us to the Restoration and all things that are entailed by that (including the saving ordinances, priesthood and exaltation).

“And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.”

“And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries [ http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/mysteries-of-god?lang=eng ] of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.”

“… I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. …And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest— This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things— Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end— Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen. Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish; Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God. And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest. Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever. And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. …Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.”

The Bible and Book of Mormon prophesy of the Restoration, which we have in the form of doctrines, covenants, ordinances, etc. See this link for them: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/restoration-of-the-gospel?lang=eng&letter=r

In addition, the Book of Mormon prophesies of Joseph Smith specifically and how we should treat what has been restored through him (2 Nephi 6: 3-15).

I’m not sure how the Book of Mormon can be read to a) exclude the necessity of saving ordinances; b) not point us to the restoration of ordinances.

[CV75]

Hear hear to everything you've said!

Hopefully you can see in post #93 that the Book of Mormon explains that receiving the priesthood is one of the required saving ordinances, and also that the Book of Mormon foretells the mission of Joseph Smith and all that he restored (which is attested to in the D&C, making the Book or Mormon a witness of the truths --doctrines, covenants, ordinances -- in the D&C, which, according to D&C 1 is the mind and will of the Lord. Note verses 34-39 especially).

[JarMan]

Alma 11-13 tells us that the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for entering into the rest of the Lord (whether you want to call it celestial glory, exaltation, etc.).

I don't see how these chapters say this at all. Chapters 11 and 12 don't say anything about the priesthood or ordinances. Chapter 13 only mentions one ordinance: the ordination of priests to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The job of these priests, according to Alma 13, is to call the people to repentance and to testify of Christ and his atonement. There is no mention of saving ordinances.

Chapter 12 talks mainly about the resurrection, judgment and atonement. Alma is doing exactly the things Chapter 13 tells us a priest should be doing: calling the people to repentance and testifying of Christ.

And Amulek's teachings in Chapter 11 are consistent with what Alma has been saying all along. Essentially, that we need to repent, accept Christ, perform good works and then we will have salvation through Christ's atonement.

Alma 12:15 makes the point I have been trying to make: ". . . [Christ] has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance." Christ's power is sufficient to save us. He has all power to save us. No mention of the need for a third party to administer a saving ordinance.

I intend to respond to the rest of your post when I have some more time.

[CV75]

I don't see how these chapters say this at all. Chapters 11 and 12 don't say anything about the priesthood or ordinances. Chapter 13 only mentions one ordinance: the ordination of priests to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The job of these priests, according to Alma 13, is to call the people to repentance and to testify of Christ and his atonement. There is no mention of saving ordinances.

Chapter 12 talks mainly about the resurrection, judgment and atonement. Alma is doing exactly the things Chapter 13 tells us a priest should be doing: calling the people to repentance and testifying of Christ.

And Amulek's teachings in Chapter 11 are consistent with what Alma has been saying all along. Essentially, that we need to repent, accept Christ, perform good works and then we will have salvation through Christ's atonement.

Alma 12:15 makes the point I have been trying to make: ". . . [Christ] has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance." Christ's power is sufficient to save us. He has all power to save us. No mention of the need for a third party to administer a saving ordinance.

I intend to respond to the rest of your post when I have some more time.

Since the Book of Mormon points to Joseph Smith and the restoration as providing the fullness of the Gospel, Alma 13 does indeed point to the fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood and its various saving ordinances as revealed to Joseph Smith. Take note of what it means when Alma refers to “mysteries” – you can learn about it in most Church manuals. The preparatory redemption gets linked to the actual redemption with the ordinances of the priesthood.

That said, even the one ordinance of becoming a Melchizedek priest (verse 8 ) is required for entering into the rest of the Lord, so that in itself is at least one saving ordinance. Tithing is another ordinance mentioned (verse 15). “These ordinances” (verse 16) are not just the priesthood “ordinations” spoken of, but whatever other ordinance was revealed for inclusion with the "mysteries" of each dispensation, which may have changed from time to time under God's direction. Verses 20 and 31 explain why more details and examples are not given.

Your OP asserts your struggle to understand how the priesthood (and along with it, the saving ordinances) were lost from the earth, and you later clarified that this refers to struggling with the need for saving ordinances in the first place, especially if “exaltation” is nothing more than “celestial glory.” Your posts indicate an insistence to assert your understanding of how the priesthood operates rather than to reconcile the messages of the Bible, Book or Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

If you have questions about how I reconcile the various scriptural messages, I am happy to oblige, and hopefully that will help you in your struggle (take and use what I have to say for what you think it's worth). But I’m not interested in debating your point of view as I am already familiar with it and have decided against it for myself. If you need to hold onto it, no one is going to take it from you.

Edited June 6, 2013 by CV75

[JarMan]

But I’m not interested in debating your point of view as I am already familiar with it and have decided against it for myself. If you need to hold onto it, no one is going to take it from you.

I am confident that you don't know what my "point of view" is so I find it curious (not to mention presumptuous) that you dismiss it out of hand. And the only thing I am trying to hold on to are the truths contained in the Book of Mormon and Bible. (I'm still working on my testimony of some parts of the D&C.)

I am finding your explanation of Alma 11-13 to be difficult to understand. You are starting with an assumption and then reading these chapters in a way that supports what you already believe. (What good is it to study the scriptures if you are just going to shoe-horn their words into an existing belief system?) Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon emphasize ordinances, priesthood or temples as a means for exaltation. They emphasize Christ and his atonement. They emphasize repentance, faith and good works.

I’m not sure how the Book of Mormon can be read to a) exclude the necessity of saving ordinances; b) not point us to the restoration of ordinances.

Try to imagine reading the Book of Mormon from the point of view of a non-member, meaning that you know nothing of the temple or priesthood, you've never been to seminary, gospel doctrine, or even heard a missionary discussion. What does the Book of Mormon tell you is necessary for your salvation? Does it give you adequate information and instructions necessary for your salvation?

[CV75]

I am confident that you don't know what my "point of view" is so I find it curious (not to mention presumptuous) that you dismiss it out of hand. And the only thing I am trying to hold on to are the truths contained in the Book of Mormon and Bible. (I'm still working on my testimony of some parts of the D&C.)

I am finding your explanation of Alma 11-13 to be difficult to understand. You are starting with an assumption and then reading these chapters in a way that supports what you already believe. (What good is it to study the scriptures if you are just going to shoe-horn their words into an existing belief system?) Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon emphasize ordinances, priesthood or temples as a means for exaltation. They emphasize Christ and his atonement. They emphasize repentance, faith and good works.

Try to imagine reading the Book of Mormon from the point of view of a non-member, meaning that you know nothing of the temple or priesthood, you've never been to seminary, gospel doctrine, or even heard a missionary discussion. What does the Book of Mormon tell you is necessary for your salvation? Does it give you adequate information and instructions necessary for your salvation?

You once called me biased, and now presumptuous, and you evidently are also. That does not bother me, and I invite you not to be bothered by it either – it doesn’t change what either of us has to say materially. And you are posting a "point of view" to counter the one you invited me to share.

I did read the Book or Mormon as a non-member, and as I read Alma 11-13 (even though I was 13 years old), I was impressed that God had agents with proper authority to teach God’s will and perform the related ordinances. Of course I didn’t know about temple ordinances at the time, but I was familiar with the various Biblical ordinances that came and went, having read the Bible at least once all the way through, and also taking confirmation classes for the church my family attended at the time. That is how I read the Book of Mormon at the time, so I can easily envision a non-member getting the same understanding.

You indicated you are confused by my saying: "I’m not sure how the Book of Mormon can be read to a) exclude the necessity of saving ordinances; b) not point us to the restoration of ordinances" when it testifies of both Joseph Smith and of the Restoration, and they both give us a) an understanding of the necessity of saving ordinances; b) the restoration of those ordinances.

[3DOP]

Hi JarMan,

I am Catholic. I have no interest in helping Mormons remain LDS, except inasmuch as I think it will take one further from Catholic ways of thinking to depart. That is why I, for whatever it may be worth, would offer a critical evaluation of apparent underlying principles of biblical discernment on your part, which appear to me to be mistaken. You wrote:

Try to imagine reading the Book of Mormon from the point of view of a non-member, meaning that you know nothing of the temple or priesthood, you've never been to seminary, gospel doctrine, or even heard a missionary discussion. What does the Book of Mormon tell you is necessary for your salvation? Does it give you adequate information and instructions necessary for your salvation?

You could be a Catholic offering this legitimate problem as a reason to doubt some of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I give the solution to the problem to you the same way I would if you were Catholic.

I propose that we can see from Scripture that it is not God's plan for souls to find the fulness of faith by reading the Scriptures on their own apart from human guidance.

1) The Road to Emmaus

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures?

---Luke 24:27-32

After His Resurrection, Jesus joined some mournful disciples who had departed from Jerusalem, not knowing more than that their Lord had been crucified. We learn that though they were familiar with these same Scriptures, they could not understand on their own. They need a human teacher to make their hearts burn and to have the Scriptures opened. One might argue that Jesus was also God, and that God can open the Scriptures to anyone. Agreed. But the question is about whether He does it that way or not? I am suggesting that the Scriptures deny the idea that the truths of God are best learned by giving uninstructed souls a Bible to read, without human guidance. The disciples on the road to Emmaus received such instruction, through the medium of oral communication with another human being, our Lord Jesus Christ. The written Word is not enough. The next example is even more forceful.

2) The Road from Ethiopia

Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert. And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

---Acts 8:26-35

This is a classic case of someone trying their best to understand Scripture alone, but being so confused as to not even know of who it is that the prophet is speaking. It is a very reasonable problem. Our Scriptures have come to us after a fashion and in a way that make it plain that whatever the true church is, the Scriptures belong to that church to interpret. This man was desirous of learning of God. He had a good heart and was journeying from a far country to worship God at Jerusalem. Such good will is not enough. He couldn't make heads or tails out of the Scripture. What God did not do for this needy man seems as instructive what He did do. God did not send His Holy Spirit to satisfy this man's spiritual hunger through a reading of the Bible. Instead he sent the Holy Ghost to a chosen, the deacon Philip, to whom the man replied that he couldn't understand the book, and that he couldn't unless "some man shew me". God uses human intermediaries not just with priesthood ordinances/sacraments but even with our learning of the truths God wants us to learn. If the story here in Acts 8 had explained how a vioice from heaven or impulse of the heart opened up the man's understanding after begging God for light, we might have a different approach to Scripture. Instead, we see the necessity of human instruction as part of God's instrument of salvation.

3) The Road to Berea

But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

---Acts 17:10, 11

The point I would make about this passage, which is sometimes used falsely as a proof text to show that independent study will lead to truth, is that the Jews of the Berean Synagogue searched the same Scriptures that they already had. They didn't make correct sense to them until they "received the word with all eagerness". What "word"? The teachings of God as taught by Paul and Silas. They received the teaching of these human instructors readily, and then consulted the Scriptures to see if they matched. I would never discourage the value of individual Bible study. But not apart from the teaching of the Church which promulgates, guards, or maintains the written revelation of God. The Bereans did not find the truth by reading alone. God did not send Paul and Silas to give them Scripture. They had Scripture they didn't understand and God sent them human intermediaries to teach them what their Scriptures meant.

------------------------------

It is a dark and dismal road to that soul who will not submit to any human intermediary in a quest to understand the Christian revelation. I submit that it is God's plan that the soul who is searching for Him must determine which of the churches that claim to speak for God, are true. I am not in the least hesitant to affirm that I would never have believed what I do now unless "some man shew me". I am convinced that this is God's way. The Catholic Church teaches that I need human teaching with the Scripture, and like the Bereans, I have been "searching the Scriptures, whether these things were so." God approves of our Scripture studies in conjunction with the teachings of His representatives. But I know I cannot and am not expected to understand the Bible apart from proper human authority.

Obviously, I am not going so far as to endorse the human teachers that you are doubting that represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But I will say that by adopting a position that is critical of a church teaching because it cannot be arrived at without help exterior from the canonical books, runs contrary to the Scriptures I accept as a Catholic and you accept as a Mormon. I hope you are not offended JarMan, by this lengthy intrusion into a discussion where you had little idea that a Catholic might take an interest. A faith crisis isn't a pleasant time and I do not want to add to your difficulties with something out of left field. I will not for that reason press my case for the Catholic Church. Instead, I would urge you to consider the folly of expecting yourself or anyone else to be able to arrive at the fulness of God's truth, wherever it may be found, apart from human intermediaries, testifying of the teachings of the one true church.

3DOP

Edited June 9, 2013 by 3DOP

[JarMan]

You once called me biased, and now presumptuous, and you evidently are also. That does not bother me, and I invite you not to be bothered by it either – it doesn’t change what either of us has to say materially. And you are posting a "point of view" to counter the one you invited me to share.

Actually, I identified your argument as containing confirmation bias, which is a logical fallacy. IOW I am trying to address the merits of your arguments, not call you names. As far as being presumptuous, well, I haven't really presented my point of view. But to you, what I have said sounds like something you've heard before, so you presume to know what I really think. Now I'm the one being presumptuous. So what? Saying you were being presumptuous was meant as an observation about your argument, not as a personal invective.

I did read the Book or Mormon as a non-member, and as I read Alma 11-13 (even though I was 13 years old), I was impressed that God had agents with proper authority to teach God’s will and perform the related ordinances. Of course I didn’t know about temple ordinances at the time, but I was familiar with the various Biblical ordinances that came and went, having read the Bible at least once all the way through, and also taking confirmation classes for the church my family attended at the time. That is how I read the Book of Mormon at the time, so I can easily envision a non-member getting the same understanding.

Impressive that you can remember that so well after (I presume) many years. But you've really just evaded the question, which is: Does the Book of Mormon give adequate information and instruction necessary for salvation?

You indicated you are confused by my saying: "I’m not sure how the Book of Mormon can be read to a) exclude the necessity of saving ordinances; b) not point us to the restoration of ordinances" when it testifies of both Joseph Smith and of the Restoration, and they both give us a) an understanding of the necessity of saving ordinances; b) the restoration of those ordinances.

I'm confused by the sources you've cited to support your argument that the Book of Mormon points us to saving ordinances. To me, those scriptures don't mean what you say they mean. I haven't yet addressed your arguments concerning how the Book of Mormon testifies of Joseph Smith and the restoration, but I intend to later.