Sanhedrin and Apostasy?

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both Jews and Christians only baptize once for initiation into the religion.  Only Christians use either a priest or a non-priest pastor to officiate in the name of the Triune God.

Water immersion is symbolic of death-rebirth and of coming forth again from the womb ("born again"), while the Holy Spirit purifies with fire (Acts 2:3).  John the Baptizer himself emphasized the difference (Matt 3:11).

Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense to me. I meet monthly with a local Jewish group, and they insist that baptism is not part of the conversion process in Judaism.

Who should I trust as authoritative?

Still would love your input on how and when this washing rite turned from a ritual that one could do multiple times on one’s own to one that is now just part of a one time conversion ordinance that needs someone with special power and authority.

Help!

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If prophets receive their authority in heaven, why do they need to be ordained today?  Russell Nelson must have already had this authority and been born with it?

............................

I wasn't present at that Council Meeting in Heaven when Russell Nelson was chosen as the next prophet in an LDS context, so cannot report on the precise terms of that action.  It may have been decided long ago, for all I know.  Not sure why you assume he was born with that authority.

Being an ordinary prophet on a single assignment, such as Nathan being sent to rail against King David, is not the same as being selected as part of an organized group (like Jesus and his Twelve Apostles) which heads a large church -- the Kingdom of God the Earth -- in which the Prophet is also the President of that Church.

Indeed, even in the case of the Levites, there had to be formal ordination by laying on of hands (Numbers 8:10-19).

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  No scholar agrees with you, and no one asked John what he was doing at the Jordan.  Baptism was entirely normal within Judaism and had been long before the appearance of John the Baptizer.  Jews know it under the heading mikveh, and it entails full immersion.  It is used even today among Jews as a purification rite, but also as a rite of initiation into Judaism.  That is how Christians use it.

The Essenes of Qumran spoke constantly of baptism:  1QS (Rule of the Community/Manual of Discipline)  3:1-12, 5:13-14, those who “turn from wickedness” and take the oath of allegiance may be baptized and “partake of the pure meal of the Saints.”[1]  1QS 4:18-23 "...God...will purify...him with the holy spirit...will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purifica­tion from all abominations..."  CD 10:10-13, 11:22  purification by water.  And this continues in the Gospel of Phillip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3) 115:27-30,[2] as the first rite in a five-stage initiation process surprisingly similar to the LDS temple sequence.  Cf. Alma 5:62, 7:14 ∥Matthew 3:11, "baptize...unto repen­tance."

Jeremiah 4:14   Wash your heart of wickedness, O Jerusalem, That you might be saved

Psalm 51:2       Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, Purify me from my sin.

Isaiah 1:16, 18       Wash you, Make you clean, .....  Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red as crimson, They shall be like wool.

---

[1] S. J. Pfann, “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance,” online at http://www.uhl.ac/Baptism%20article/Baptism.pdf , citing at 1 n. 2, Levitical immersion in Judith 12:7, and Ecclus 31(34):30; M. A. Daise, “The Temporal Relationship between the Covenant Renewal Rite and the Initiation Process in 1QS,” 150-160, in M. T. Davis & & B. A. Strawn, eds., Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007).

[2] James Robinson, ed., Nag Hammadi Literature in English³ pp. 144,151,153,155.

The Jews and Israelites also washed or baptized when coming to Jerusalem for appointed feasts, sacrifices, etc, as part of an idea of making themselves clean before the Lord. The temple had mikvehs just outside its walls to the north which were fed by a constant stream from Bethlehem. My guess is the outflow from these was used to water the garden of Gethsemane, and probably the garden where the tomb was.

[Wade Englund]

17 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m sorry, but I’m still missing something.

Maybe @Wade Englund can answer?  What heavenly power did both Jesus and John the Baptist have that these other Jews did not?  Weren’t their many Levites and Kohen?

And - What is the “earthly” power that the other Jews had?

This seems like such a non-specific discussion with terms that are ambiguous in their application, yet stated with such cocksurety.

The difference is quite simple. the Jews didn't have heavenly authority, whereas Jesus and John did.  And, the difference between heavenly and earthly authority, is the one is authority that comes from God, whereas the other is authority that comes from man.  The one binds in heaven that which is bound on earth, whereas the other binds only on earth.  The authority of the Jews was little different than the secular authority of Herod--both were of man, and carried little or no weight in heaven.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure why you assume he was born with that authority.

If Jesus and John were born with that authority (which I assumed you meant because they were given this authority at the divine counsel in heaven), then why not Russell Nelson?

If the authority “appeared” later in their lives, when did it happen?  When were John and Jesus ordained?  And wouldn’t that go against the idea that you proposed that they got authority in heaven?  Or is the prophet authority dormant until a certain age.

I know I’m probably asking questions that all good Mormons know the answers to, but I’m just unclear about all this.

[Robert F. Smith]

31 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense to me. I meet monthly with a local Jewish group, and they insist that baptism is not part of the conversion process in Judaism.

Who should I trust as authoritative?

Maybe you need to speak with a rabbi, since your friends know nothing about Judaism.  Wikipedia sums conversion to Judaism as follows:

Quote

The Amoraim who produced the Talmud set out three requirements for a conversion to Judaism (Keritot 8b), which must be witnessed and affirmed by a beth din hedyot rabbinical court composed of three Jewish males above the age of thirteen (they do not need to be rabbis):^{[original research?]}

• Circumcision (Brit milah or hatafat dam brit) for men^[2]
• Immersion (tevilah) in a ritual bath (mikveh) for both men and women^[2]
• Offering a certain sacrifice (korban) in the Temple (the Beit Hamikdash) – this requirement is deferred while the Temple does not exist until such time as it may be rebuilt.

The consensus of halakhic authorities also requires a convert to understand and accept the duties of the classical Jewish law. This is not stated explicitly in the Talmud, but was inferred by subsequent commentators.^[22]

After confirming that all these requirements have been met, the beth din issues a "Certificate of Conversion" (Shtar Giur), certifying that the person is now a Jew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism#Requirements .

Tevilah is Hebrew for "baptism, immersion."

Quote

Still would love your input on how and when this washing rite turned from a ritual that one could do multiple times on one’s own to one that is now just part of a one time conversion ordinance that needs someone with special power and authority................

Membership at Qumran required a one-time baptism, and membership in Judaism at that same time required one-time baptism, just as it does today.  Where do you imagine that Jewish Christianity got the rite?  They were all Jews.  Jesus and the Twelve were all Jews.  The New Testament was written by Jews.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If Jesus and John were born with that authority (which I assumed you meant because they were given this authority at the divine counsel in heaven), then why not Russell Nelson?

If the authority “appeared” later in their lives, when did it happen?  When were John and Jesus ordained?  And wouldn’t that go against the idea that you proposed that they got authority in heaven?  Or is the prophet authority dormant until a certain age.

I know I’m probably asking questions that all good Mormons know the answers to, but I’m just unclear about all this.

The Divine Council (not Counsel) sits continuously.  It is not a one-time thing.   It is a working body.  There can be foreordination, but not predestination.

Most LDS know nothing of these matters, and are not affected by them in their daily lives.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the traditional LDS view of 'authority' is very different from that of the priests/Levites of that time period.

Do we need to view 'authority' differently than the lens through which we do today?

Levitical priesthood just doesn't operate in the same way as our conception of priesthood. Even our Aaronic priesthood, if I understand things correctly, are technically working through the Melchezedek Priesthood to allow non-Levites to function in those roles. Now if you look at the other groups within Judaism - the 1st century Christians particularly in Palestine and other groups like the Essenes - things are a bit more complicated. From what I can tell they didn't really object to the Levitical Priesthood in any strong way even if they might object to particular political appointments as High Priest. It's really after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and then more fully at the destruction of Jerusalem and transformation into Aelia Capitolina that you get more rapid evolution - partially due to the large population of gentiles in Christianity and partially due to the beginning of the rise of Rabbinical Judaism in the new exile for Jews.

I think a case can be made, as I alluded, to an alternative conception of Priesthood in the pre-exilic period. But of course that's mostly irrelevant for the 1st century. I say mostly as the role of Melchizedek is still a bit controversial - both in the Book of Hebrews as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls (11Q13). So I'd say one can't point to unambiguous textual evidence in the New Testament for a Mormon conception. That said if we just look at structural elements in the early Christian community many elements are similar. Here it's perhaps noting a distinction between ecclesiastical priesthood and what Jonathan Stapley has called the cosmological priesthood. Both are called Mezchizedek but they function somewhat differently with the latter being associated with the temple, heavenly ascents and applies to both men and women equally (in Stapley's view). Here I'll leave alone considerations of the cosmological priesthood although that's amply discussed in pseudopigrapha and elsewhere particularly in the Enochian tradition.

The ecclesiastical priesthood within Mormon practice requires one be set apart and then more particularly set apart for particular roles. There's a notion of keys as permissions which allows one person to give permissions to others and in some cases permissions over giving permissions. We know in the early Christian Church there was laying on of hands (Heb 6:2) in a fashion that seems independent from healing rites. We see this in the history, such as we have it (Acts 6:6) and in later traditions. (Here by later referring to the 2cd century onwards yet still in antiquity)  There are arguments some make against Acts 6:6 being ecclesiastical office rather than a blessing. So there's a certain degree of ambiguity. The second place typically appealed to is Acts 13:3 but again the phrasing isn't clear if it's a blessing or an ordination. The stronger text (IMO) is 1 Tim 5:22 where relative to Timothy Paul warns him about laying on of hands. That most definitely sounds like it's organizational & authoritative in function. Certainly these can be read as ordinations though even if the text itself is ambiguous. I'd say that in connection with the typology of priests in the Torah that one should read these as ordinations independent of Levitical organization. There's a tradition, particularly in the Protestant tradition with its focus on a theology of an universal priesthood that there is no such organization. I think though the text just doesn't indicate that even if it also doesn't unambiguously point towards Mormon structures. 

Within the early Church the role of Levites isn't really clear. It's hardly mentioned at all except to point to Christ typologically. Even in the battles over gentiles, the temple duties really aren't focused on much. Of course at this point Christianity really is just an other Jewish apocalyptic group but not fully distinguished from them. 

The main challenge to a Mormon conception is over whether leaders were appointed by higher leaders (like apostles) or whether they were elected democratically. Here the arguments are extra-canonical. The Didiche (typically seen as first century) talks of "elect[ing] for yourselves bishops and deacons..." (15:1) 1 Clement at the end of the 1st century talks about a church where the congregation apparently kicked out their bishop. Clement is writing to convince them to reinstate him. However he also notes that after the time of apostles they were appointed by other "reputable men with the entire church giving its approval." (42:4) This could easily be read as the Mormon practice of appointment by someone with authority which then is confirmed by common consent - perhaps a way to read the Didiche as well. 

In the second century you have bishops who appear equal in authority. Sometime after 70 AD the place that the elders in Jerusalem had seems to be gone. (From a Mormon perspective they were the main authority but perhaps with no one replacing James nor continuing on that cosmological priesthood)

That means the main arguments from a Mormon perspective rest on Peter and James, the brother of Jesus and the place of the Jerusalem elders - particularly as it parallels the Sanhedrin or earlier organizations.

Edited May 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[SouthernMo]

33 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

The difference is quite simple. the Jews didn't have heavenly authority, whereas Jesus and John did.  And, the difference between heavenly and earthly authority, is the one is authority that comes from God, whereas the other is authority that comes from man.  The one binds in heaven that which is bound on earth, whereas the other binds only on earth.  The authority of the Jews was little different than the secular authority of Herod--both were of man, and carried little or no weight in heaven.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nope. It doesn’t help.

You have again separated “Jews” from Jesus and John. At the time, they were one and the same!

When did “the Jews” (as you say) lose the authority?  The Books of Moses teach that the sons of Levi did have the authority.  Did this just go away?

Also, I totally get what you’re saying in terms of earthly and heavenly authoritative theology, but you aren’t being specific about how they got that authority.  Show me why you believe that.

Help me understand.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Still would love your input on how and when this washing rite turned from a ritual that one could do multiple times on one’s own to one that is now just part of a one time conversion ordinance that needs someone with special power and authority.

Sometime at the end of the 19th century. You did know that in the 19th century Mormons did rebaptism of people in a fashion pretty similar to Mikvahs, right? It was particularly popular in the 1850's and 1860's.

Worth also noting that Alma clearly is following the Jewish practice of mikvah and baptizes himself in Mosiah 18.

Edited May 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[SouthernMo]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Divine Council (not Counsel) sits continuously.  It is not a one-time thing.   It is a working body.  There can be foreordination, but not predestination.

Most LDS know nothing of these matters, and are not affected by them in their daily lives.

Would love answers to the other questions I posed about when prophets who are foreordained get their authority.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Sometime at the end of the 19th century. You did know that in the 19th century Mormons did rebaptism of people in a fashion pretty similar to Mikvahs, right? It was particularly popular in the 1850's and 1860's.

Worth also noting that Alma clearly is following the Jewish practice of mikvah and baptizes himself in Mosiah 18.

I know about Alma, but his baptisms are considered invalid because he didn’t use the correct words as revealed in doctrine and covenants when performing the ordinance.

Right?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Would love answers to the other questions I posed about when prophets who are foreordained get their authority.

One could have been chosen ten minutes ago, or ten thousand years ago.  I'm not privy to the minutes of those meetings.  Even with the Noble and Great Ones mentioned in the BofAbraham, free agency means that some will and some will not abide their calling.  Thus, there is no certainty as to who will keep his obligations. Most likely receive their callings relatively recently, but that is only my opinion.  Free thinkers may differ.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I know about Alma, but his baptisms are considered invalid because he didn’t use the correct words as revealed in doctrine and covenants when performing the ordinance.

Right?

The form and exacting wording of rites will differ over time.  Even LDS temple rites have changed over time.  Such concerns are of little importance.

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

The form and exacting wording of rites will differ over time.  Even LDS temple rites have changed over time.  Such concerns are of little importance.

If the ordinances change over time then why do leaders today insist that they are revealed by god, and cannot be deviated from?

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

A number of New Testament scholars agree that baptism was an invention of John the Baptist.  I know Christians like to look at Old Testament references to washing rituals inside and outside the temple and count this as evidence of baptism, but this is a big leap without historical or theological evidence.  Men and women would wash themselves.  No priestly oversight was needed for those washings.

I'm not sure to whom you're referring, but I suspect they mean some of the overtones of John. Mikvah's for conversion were pretty typical in Judaism even if most of Judaism at the time of Christ wasn't particularly focused on conversions. The later Christian baptizing of gentiles was fairly unique for the time. John's baptisms probably were only of other Jews.  Certainly Jesus takes John's followers and is only preaching to Jews according to the gospels. As such they weren't really conversions in the way we might think of them. So what's unique about John's baptism is that he's taken the ritual cleansing of a mikvah and given it more overtones. Whether those were ideas well within normative Judaism at the time or John was restoring earlier practices isn't clear. Certainly no one seems to object to John's or Christ's baptisms as heretical. 

The relationship of mikvah within the Torah as had in the 1st century and Christian baptism is still a bit controversial. Interesting the word "baptism" comes from the translation of the Hebrew word "tevilah" or total immersion. The Greek word then gets reified to become the standard Christian use. Although the Jewish immersion aspect gets lost along the way (perhaps due to limited water supplies in the desert as outlined in the Didiche) The mikvah technically is where the baptism takes place. But people call it mikvah in discussions so I'll follow that practice. The Jewish mikvah changes a person from tamay (Heb: ritually unclean unfit for God's presence) to tahor (Heb: ritually pure). What makes someone unclean includes a lot of things we wouldn't consider sinful in the least - especially emitting bodily fluids such as mensural blood or semen. 

What makes John and Jesus' baptism somewhat unique is in entering into a community that is a subgroup of Judaism. In that they weren't particularly unique. It appears other groups did this such as Qumran, although they held to very strict purity rules and had a lot of mikvah required for many practices. Entering into that subgroup has many of the trappings of conversion towards Judaism including being born again, which the Talmud later talks about as tied to conversion mikvah. (Yevamot 47b-48b) The idea of Jesus and apparently John is a mikvah to signify conversion to God, becoming a new person, and likely is symbolically tied to the High Priest having mikvah before entering into the temple. Where Christians then become more novel is in seeing the mikvah as symbolic of Jesus' life as well. That also echoes some elements of the Deuteronomy tradition in the Torah where people are set apart as a new people. That is Deuteronomy 18, particularly verses 15-19. I suspect the idea of being set apart in Deuteronomy 14:1-2 also plays a part. The idea is being purified in the mikvah to be the chosen people of Deuteronomy.

Edited May 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If the ordinances change over time then why do leaders today insist that they are revealed by god, and cannot be deviated from?

The two aren't in contradiction, are they? See for instance this old post on ordinances and the ship of theseus. To even do them in a different language is a change. The question is how much change is enough to make it different. Somewhat understandably the Church is very conservative on that point but will make changes when directed by revelation. (The temple being the most obvious example)

27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I know about Alma, but his baptisms are considered invalid because he didn’t use the correct words as revealed in doctrine and covenants when performing the ordinance.

Right?

Where did you get that idea? The words in the D&C develop later - likely out of Alma's baptism and King Benjamin's address. They appear to become permanent sometime after the time of Christ in Bountiful. The D&C is just quoting the translation of Moroni's record of the prayers. Although they don't match what was likely used in Palestine if the Didiche is to be trusted. But that's hardly surprising given the different evolution. 

We use Moroni's terms because it appears that's what Joseph was told. If God wants us to change the words he certainly can. It's using different words without authority that is the problem.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Wade Englund]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Nope. It doesn’t help.

You have again separated “Jews” from Jesus and John. At the time, they were one and the same!

They were of the same race and religious heritage, but had different AUTHORITY. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Quote

When did “the Jews” (as you say) lose the authority?  

They lost the HEAVENLY AUTHORITY when the KEYS of HEAVENLY AUTHORITY were taken from the EARTH (I have no idea exactly when that was, but perhaps following the death of Malichi), just like with other previous dispensations and the subsequent  "great apostasy" that followed. People have retained EARTHLY AUTHORITY, or the authority of man rather than God--not unlike how the various Christian denominations have held EARTHLY or man's authority since the meridian of time, whereas the HEAVENLY KEYS and AUTHORITY have been restored within Christ's church in the latter days.

If this doesn't compute, then it is likely best that you not understand.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited May 20, 2019 by Wade Englund

[SouthernMo]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's using different words without authority that is the problem.

 

In all church doctrines, it always seems to come down to whatever the people who are currently in positions of leadership say about something.

And while we would never claim that these leaders are infallible, no good Mormon would ever suggest that we might be doing baptisms wrong, or that leaders misunderstand priesthood authority.

The struggle continues...

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

They were of the same race and religious heritage, but had different AUTHORITY. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

They lost the HEAVENLY AUTHORITY when the KEYS of HEAVENLY authority were taken from the EARTH (I have no idea exactly when that was, but perhaps following the death of Malichi), just like with other previous dispensations and the subsequent  "great apostasy" that followed. They retained EARTHLY AUTHORITY, or the authority of man rather than God--not unlike how the various Christian denominations have held EARTHLY or man's authority since the meridian of time, whereas the HEAVENLY KEYS and AUTHORITY have been restored within Christ's church in the latter days.

If this doesn't compute, then it is likely best that you not understand.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Dude. Relax. Putting things in Capital letters doesn’t suddenly make things clear.

On what do you base the heavenly keys being taken from the earth?  Just because a record wasn’t included in the Old Testament (Post Malachi) doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

So then, even if this apostasy happened (although you provide no details as to exactly how this happened), then how did John the Baptist get his authority to baptize Jesus?  @Robert F. Smith Indicates that John got this authority from his father, but you say it was taken from the earth?  Explain?

Why would you say that it’s best I don’t understand things?  In what context of someone trying to find the truth would you believe it better not to understand truth?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

how did John the Baptist get his authority to baptize Jesus

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.27-28?lang=eng#p26

Quote

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

 

[Calm]

So since I got the rep point, was that what you were looking for?    or was it something else?

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.27-28?lang=eng#p26

 

Modern revelation fills in the gaps.

 

[Calm]

Metis mentioned it earlier though didn't quote the whole scripture, so I was wondering if it satisfied you or not.  I was thinking you might have missed it...or just not really processed it as happens to me sometimes when stuff isn't spelled out.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Calm said:

So since I got the rep point, was that what you were looking for?    or was it something else?

I like it when someone has a real answer to a question I have. With your response, we could debate about whether or not that section of D&C comes from God or not, but at least it doesn’t contradict with anything I’m aware of.