Great apostasy

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Like many of Paul's letters he is correcting a group that apparently was doing proxy baptism. He is asking them why are they doing it, Nowhere is it encouraged or taught as something to be done in the NT church. Christ never taught to do it, Paul is clearly not teaching to do it either.

You are not being honest to the text my friend. I am sorry, that is just not an honest interpretation.

1 Co 15: 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

[so where does Paul switch from talking about the "they" who are followers who will be resurrected to pagans that believe in baptism? That is just "orthodox" baloney! No one has ever shown any pagan group that baptized their dead.]

 30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

[now Paul is speaking to new church members who are having trouble with understanding the resurrection, and is telling them that the attitude that "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die" is the wrong party attitude. He continues to try to teach them that this life matters and they will be resurrected, and is using as many examples as he can to teach them that this was Jesus' teaching including baptism for the dead. Nowhere is he teaching them not to do it. That is just not honest.] 

Early non-state Church members did practice it which is why as the state church slowly gained control after Nicea, they denounced the practice in several councils - the first being around 450 AD. The state church continued to depart from scripture. It only got worse with time although the Western Roman branch was worse than the Eastern Orthodox branch.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

From standing and sitting down, repeated certain prayer words, to having an alter, priestly robes, and others, to covenant -making, I find lots of parallels between the LDS endowment and a Catholic Mass.

Yeah, those early Christians and Catholics had no idea about the temple. ;)

Nor the Chinese

Nor the Zoroastrians

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Read it years ago.
But you are missing the point.  An appeal to historical records that show differences in form do not prove differences in substance.

Ummm...if something claimed to have happen didn't happen...I'm going to guess that might have an impact.

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

For example, in the OT God commanded animal sacrifice.  In the NT God put an end to that (for now) with the sacrifice of his Son.
The principle of sacrifice and shedding of blood as payment for sin remains constant, even if the form has changed.

These are all post-Christ interpretations made by the Christian Faith to put meaning to the death of Jesus.  That's pretty much widely accepted by biblical scholars...although I don't expect you to

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So the early Christians didn't build temples and we do and our temples differ greatly from the OT temples in form.
The doctrinal underpinnings of the temple ceremonies are seen all through the OT, NT and today.
 

I know that temple talk is banned here...so I'll try to try to be careful.  But there is no indication there ever was or has been a temple ceremony similar to the one practiced by the LDS Church...ever...other than the one practiced at the lodge. 

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the word you are looking for is "revelation".

Very apt........some of us excel in revelation department for sure. 

[Johnnie Cake]

I just want to add...that I applaud Joseph Smith on the originality of his idea to call his movement a "Restoration"  It gave his church immediate appeal and credibility despite its small size at that time.  IMHO It goes down as one of the greatest, most original religious ideas in history and put distance from the problems associated with the Protestant and Catholic branches of Christianity. 

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I'm not following you at all on the Isaiah 61 fulfillment of prophecy. How does this have anything to do with temple sealings. You do realize that unless you are Jewish you would be considered a gentile right?

No, that is incorrect - not by God. The Jews do speak of most other people as Gentiles, but it is not proper. The Torah is clear who the Gentiles are. They do not include the descendants of Ham or Shem except to the extent that they are intermarried. Now the Tanakh also tells us that Ephraim would go into the Gentiles. I am a descendant of Ephraim, Jacob, and many, many Gentiles.

Temple sealings in the restored Church are a fulfillment of the Lord's promise to make a covenant with the Gentiles in their land - so much so that all others would recognize that the Gentiles are who the Lord has blessed.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

What He is saying is they are not keeping their covenant to their first wife - they are adulterizing this covenant - not that having two wives is committing adultery. There is a difference. He is speaking against divorce - not polygamy per se.

If taking on a second concurrent wife is adultery, how is that not also a condemnation of polygamy? 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Exactly.  That's what Christ is saying.
He says it in D&C 132 as well.

•  41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
  42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
  43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

And yet

• 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Two different authors with two very different world views. 

[RevTestament]

Could I ask you where you got this picture from JLHPROF? I mean what time period is it from? What geographic location is it from, and where can I find it? TY

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I just want to add...that I applaud Joseph Smith on the originality of his idea to call his movement a "Restoration"  It gave his church immediate appeal and credibility despite its small size at that time.  IMHO It goes down as one of the greatest, most original religious ideas in history and put distance from the problems associated with the Protestant and Catholic branches of Christianity. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

If taking on a second concurrent wife is adultery, how is that not also a condemnation of polygamy? 

But it wasn't in his example because the husband put away his first wife ie divorced her. If the divorce was legal, there was no one to commit adultery with. Jesus is merely addressing what they are doing as wrong. It's a sin against the first wife who was loyal and faithful to divorce her. Any further relationships are adulterous against her since SHE did not authorize them.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I just want to add...that I applaud Joseph Smith on the originality of his idea to call his movement a "Restoration"  It gave his church immediate appeal and credibility despite its small size at that time.  IMHO It goes down as one of the greatest, most original religious ideas in history and put distance from the problems associated with the Protestant and Catholic branches of Christianity. 

Only problem here is that Joseph Smith wasn't the originator of restoration movements. Sidney and many in the early Kirtland converts were followers of Alexander Campbell his version of a restoration movement.  Many other converts in England and other areas that had similar beliefs gravitated to Mormonism largely because they already believed in a restoration movement.  John Wesley and the Methodist movement had a lot of people clamoring for the gifts of the spirit to be exercised again, and some of Mormonisms early converts came from this denomination as well.  Lots of things happening, I don't think this is original to Joseph Smith.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

Ha, great minds think alike!  :-)  I had no idea you were posting this while I was working on my post.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But it wasn't in his example because the husband put away his first wife ie divorced her. If the divorce was legal, there was no one to commit adultery with. Jesus is merely addressing what they are doing as wrong. It's a sin against the first wife who was loyal and faithful to divorce her. Any further relationships are adulterous against her since SHE did not authorize them.

And how does that gel with Joseph taking additional wives behind his loyal wife's (Emma's) back that she did not authorize?  Why is that not a sin?

[Johnnie Cake]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Only problem here is that Joseph Smith wasn't the originator of restoration movements. Sidney and many in the early Kirtland converts were followers of Alexander Campbell his version of a restoration movement.  Many other converts in England and other areas that had similar beliefs gravitated to Mormonism largely because they already believed in a restoration movement.  John Wesley and the Methodist movement had a lot of people clamoring for the gifts of the spirit to be exercised again, and some of Mormonisms early converts came from this denomination as well.  Lots of things happening, I don't think this is original to Joseph Smith.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

Ummmm...I'm disappointed...so the restoration idea was coopted from his environment just as so many of his other ideas were...oh well I guess you can't change a leopard's spots

Edited February 17, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Could I ask you where you got this picture from JLHPROF? I mean what time period is it from? What geographic location is it from, and where can I find it? TY

A quick google had tons of examples like this.
This particular one came from http://thejoeandjill.blogspot.com/2011/12/gammadia-historic-use-of-square.html and is a picture of a Byzantine tapestry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Sant'Apollinare_in_Classe.
Just picked it out of the many others.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I know that temple talk is banned here...so I'll try to try to be careful.  But there is no indication there ever was or has been a temple ceremony similar to the one practiced by the LDS Church...ever...other than the one practiced at the lodge.

I disagree completely.
If you mean a complete and intact temple endowment ceremony is not on record anywhere other than the LDS Church I would agree.
If you mean there never was one despite all the scattered references I cannot agree with you.

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And how does that gel with Joseph taking additional wives behind his loyal wife's (Emma's) back that she did not authorize?  Why is that not a sin?

I think history is too confused as to what actually happened to be able to judge Joseph ad hoc. Some versions of history say she did give permission for him to marry other(s). I do not know exactly what she said. Clearly at some point she felt that he had abused her permission.

Whether Joseph committed sin is not for me to judge - I don't have all the facts. If he did sin against her, I imagine He will have to address that with her and the Lord. It certainly would not be the first time he sinned in his life.

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A quick google had tons of examples like this.
This particular one came from http://thejoeandjill.blogspot.com/2011/12/gammadia-historic-use-of-square.html and is a picture of a Byzantine tapestry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Sant'Apollinare_in_Classe.
Just picked it out of the many others.

Yeah, I was going to say - it certainly is not very Roman... Thanks again.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think history is too confused as to what actually happened to be able to judge Joseph ad hoc. Some versions of history say she did give permission for him to marry other(s). I do not know exactly what she said. Clearly at some point she felt that he had abused her permission.

We definitely have good records showing she absolutely did not give her permission for all his marriages.  Come on...that's not even disputed.

And even a couple she did briefly approve of had already taken place behind her back.  They were performed again in a mock ceremony.

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But it wasn't in his example because the husband put away his first wife ie divorced her. If the divorce was legal, there was no one to commit adultery with. Jesus is merely addressing what they are doing as wrong. It's a sin against the first wife who was loyal and faithful to divorce her. Any further relationships are adulterous against her since SHE did not authorize them.

Jesus didn't say anything about the wife authorizing or not authorizing anyone. You're adding things into the text that aren't there. 

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We definitely have good records showing she absolutely did not give her permission for all his marriages.  Come on...that's not even disputed.

And even a couple she did briefly approve of had already taken place behind her back.  They were performed again in a mock ceremony.

 

Yeah...this is old news.

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We definitely have good records showing she absolutely did not give her permission for all his marriages.  Come on...that's not even disputed.

And even a couple she did briefly approve of had already taken place behind her back.  They were performed again in a mock ceremony.

 

Julie I am just not going to get into a debate with a bunch of hearsay evidence of who said what, when, etc. We also need to recognize that essentially all of these marriages were before Joseph received section 132, which made it clear that a man needed the woman's permission to enter another marital covenant. I am not Joseph's judge, and Jesus commanded us not to judge our fellows. It is not proper for me to judge whether Joseph sinned in these relationships or not, and if he did that does not necessarily invalidate his prophethood since all the prophets before him were sinners some of whom denied Jesus at some point. It is the old, I will not believe in the Church because whozeewhatsit is a sinner. It really is not determinative. 

I believe God sends us all here knowing we will sin so that we will learn our nakedness. It is just a part of the plan. Joseph had numerous lapses of judgment about a good number of things. I'm sure in the future, people may go over my life with a fine-toothed comb. I am the first to admit, I am quite imperfect, and am a sinner. I will probably resist God until the day I die in some shape or form.

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Jesus didn't say anything about the wife authorizing or not authorizing anyone. You're adding things into the text that aren't there. 

It's implied since He said the man put her away, that it was without her permission that he "remarried." Usually, in these cases that is why the man put his wife away - he wanted to marry someone else that she didn't want him to. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 We also need to recognize that essentially all of these marriages were before Joseph received section 132, which made it clear that a man needed the woman's permission to enter another marital covenant.

Well that's not necessarily true.  We have no idea when Joseph received D&C 132.  Even the header says he had known about aspects of it since as early as 1831 and D&C 132:1 places it contemporary with his translation of the bible in the early 1830s.