LDS Atonement

[Orontes]

I haven't posted on anything that isn't directly traceable to yourself. Further you have engaged my posts on several points. To adopt the above tone when you've already engaged is disingenuous and appears simply cowardly. These posts await your reply:

one,

two,

three,

four

Further these posts that directly relate to an LDS atonement have not been dealt with:

five

six

You are not doing very well.

Looks like she'll pull through, though. I thought that she did rather well in her efforts to avoid the traps that you kept setting and trying to keep the thread on target. In the whole scheme of things, it doesn't really matter though, does it. She asked some questions and you chose to attempt to divert the topic by addressing (or attempting to address) what she believes about the atonement when it was made very clear from the beginning that she was seeking to know what the LDS view of the atonement was. It could have been so simple, but there were those who dicker around about people's character (I'm NOT accusing you of this other than the not so compassionate "coward" label). That's okay. I understand that a good defense is a good offense. However, like I said I believe that she's going to survive (or do rather well) as long as people avoid the subject. Like you pointed out, you listed six posts, but admit that only two of them apply to the OP. Good batting average, but alas, we weren't paying baseball, were we?

Edward

Hello,

I've set no traps. My questions are straight forward and rather basic. Asking what are the grounds for salvation or whether a person must realize they are sinful, feel godly sorrow etc. to receive forgiveness are clear. Further, my approach in the thread has also been straight forward and explained. As I noted here, I was more than happy to focus on an LDS atonement, but ἀλήθεια began failing to respond. I then stated I would start asking questions about her view since nothing further was happening with any would be discussion of an LDS atonement. I also began asking questions about statements she had made. This is one example: here. The lack of reply or partial replying has been telling.

Note: as to appearing cowardly, if one is repeatedly asked to respond to a thread, but does not, or is engaged in a discussion, but then stops replying right where perhaps uncomfortable questions are being asked, that does appear cowardly.

 

[Orontes]

You aren't doing very well either. I answered several of your posts as well as those of other posters. I explained to you that I am easily distracted. I also explained the reason I started this thread and have asked LDS to explain where my understanding of LDS atonement is in error. For some reason, unknown to me, the LDS have no problem stating that I don't understand your views of the atonement, but don't want to correct that understanding. So now you want to resort to personal attacks instead of explaining what you believe. I've been reading your posts and Clear's posts and trying to respond to both of you. I do not feel obligated to respond to every single post especially when LDS are not complying with the OP.

You have replied to some of my posts, but ignored others repeatedly despite the fact I have pointed this out repeatedly. Distraction does not cover this. Moreover, the appeal to thread integrity rings hollow given I have a few threads solely concerned with an LDS atonement that you have not dealt with (that have also been pointed out successively). Given you haven't responded to my replies on an LDS atonement, there is nothing further I can do there. You must either agree or disagree (hopefully with some sort of reasoned position) with my points for a discussion to continue. As for the series of partial replies to your sense of any atonement: answer this simple question:

Does a person need to realize he is sinful, feel godly sorrow and have faith in Christ's blood to receive forgiveness and be saved?

 

[Orontes]

I believe that you do an incredible job defending the Christian faith, against incredible odds - even if you must go it alone.

This is an odd comment. Other than perhaps some sectarian loyalty, what incredible defense are you referring to?

If the thread is focused on an LDS atonement, how does this incredible defense notion apply?

Explain "defending the Christian faith" given ἀλήθεια's stance does not correspond with historical Christianity or the beliefs and ideas of literally billions of self professed Christians, denominations and sects.

 

[Clear]

Originally Posted by edward to Aletheia : " I believe that you do an incredible job defending the Christian faith, against incredible odds - even if you must go it alone. "

This is an odd comment. Other than perhaps some sectarian loyalty, what incredible defense are you referring to?

If the thread is focused on an LDS atonement, how does this incredible defense notion apply?

Explain "defending the Christian faith" given ???????'s stance does not correspond with historical Christianity or the beliefs and ideas of literally billions of self professed Christians, denominations and sects.

I agree with Orontes, Aletheia has not “defended” any significant principle other than to make a simple, repeated “claim” based on her personal bias without offering any exposition that might make her position on grace either clear, or which might give it some credibility advantage over the thousands of other Christian claims other individuals make based on their various personal and conflicting interpretations of bible verses.

I ALSO very MUCH agree that her theory is NOT consistent with “historical” Christianity.

Other than mostly "cutting and pasting" scriptures which she rarely bothers to expound on, and her naive assumption that her personal interpretation of scriptures is correct, WHAT “HISTORICAL” references has she made as to how the earliest Christians themselves interpreted and used those very same scriptures? If Early Christianity interpreted them as she does, I should be happy to concede this point, but the earliest Christians do NOT interpret them, nor use them as she does.

Should I bother to “re-quote” the apostolic Fathers who LIVED while the apostles were alive and heard the gospel from the mouth of the apostles themselves? Do I need to re-quote what they said about Aletheias theory of “grace”? If I missed such quotes, or significant exposition by Aletheia, someone tell me.

Clear
twsiacfu7

 

[Clear]

Edward, I apologize if you feel “beat up” by any comment I might have made, or if I appeared insensitive to your ideas. I would rather not discuss what I am learning about LDS doctrine, rather than simply cause frustration and anger and not progress in understanding. However, if the LDS doctrine is true, it changes everything dramatically.



1) LOOKING AT SPECIFIC LDS DOCTRINES REGARDING THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST FROM A SPECIFIC HISTORICAL VIEW

I am finding myself in the process of discoveries regarding the atonement that I am being introduced to by LDS doctrines and, importantly, they are so very similar to what I’ve been learning by studying texts from ancient Christianity and Judaism. However, the LDS seem to have these ancient principles in a single organization and they possess them in a mature form, and appear to be using them accurately. This is, for me, consistent with their claim to be a restoration of an ancient organization (i.e. the original church of Jesus Christ), rather than a naive “re-enactments” of history, like one attempts in a lavish, but high school play of “cleopatra”. Such attempts “never” work, and yet the LDS attempt, “works”, historically. It is a “singularity”, something my church of my youth said should not exist, yet it does.

I have, for some time, come to the conclusion that if one was patient and could start with the earliest and most basic principles of true religion (regardless of their source), then enter the process of adding additional principles of truth onto them; it would be both easier to learn and the principles would make greater sense and be more logical (being built on basic and good data).




2) THE LDS RESTORES AND RE-ENHANCES THE CONTEXT OF PRE-CREATION PLANS FOR THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST

From a historian’s perspective, I have, for years, been interested in the various pre-earth historical texts regarding what actually happened in pre-earth histories that pertain to God’s purposes in making men and populating the earth. The clearest and most logical models of what God is doing now, make greater sense in relation to prior history. It is in this context that I say that I do not know of another modern Christianity that both possesses extraordinary amounts of pre-creation data and is able to use it clearly and logically as it relates to the atonement and ultimate destiny of mankind than either ancient texts of Christianity and Judaism, or the LDS. (Otherwise, to gain such data, one must refer to the earliest Christianities and Judaism and their Documents to learn of such things).

For example: both Jewish/Christian Enoch make it clear that in the pre-creation "habitations", Jesus volunteered to the Father, to the the redeemer and atone for the fall of man (which fall was planned for before Adam was placed on the earth). The early Christian Abbaton also confirms this, in relating this specific pre-earth history when Jesus' Father is about to put the spirit of Adam into a body, Jesus relates to his disciples

"And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.” (abbaton)

Thus, Jesus approached the Lord God, his Father and volunteered to be the needed redeemer. Few, if any Aletheian-type christianities are even aware of such details, yet such details place the sacrifice of Jesus Christ into it's proper and larger and more glorious and more correct context.

It is in exploring the earliest doctrines in this way that I am discovering many of the profound differences in these underlying principles between the LDS and my native Christianity growing up.




3) THE LDS RESTORE THE LOGICAL “CASCADE” OF PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
For example, If the earliest Christians were correct that there is eternal matter and eternal conditions, then those conditions “set the stage” for the setting and underlying reasoning and purposes for the atonement. Rather than the self-serving God of the many modern Christianities where God “creates men who will sin and then saves them by atonement in order to demonstrate his mercy”, thus the LDS God seems to be glorified by an atonement that, from before the worlds creation, was designed to serve men (rather than God). One LDS scripture has God teaching Moses that

"And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

Thus, while most Modern Christianities must force the interpretation into scriptures to show that God’s purpose was to give Glory to himself, the LDS restore the knowledge that God is doing something for man (I used the word “force” simply because most modern Christianities have so little data and doctrine regarding what happened prior to creation - thus they are left to a great deal of varying and conflicting speculation) The principle of God loving men enough to serve them (rather than to demonstrate his own “mercy&#8221 profoundly changes the tenor and context of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The LDS concept of God’s atonement having been planned from before Adam, and for man’s ultimate benefit, rather than for God’s benefit has a different underlying tone that, as I become more and more familiar with it, and start with the basic and early principles, is more logical in it’s construction and progression of principles than my native Christian theory I grew up hearing.

For example; the Character of God (love, power, knowledge, etc) , bear directly on his purposes. That in, in LDS theology (if I am correct - correct me if I am wrong Orontes or Katzpur), one of God’s initial desires for creation was for men to achieve happiness and harmony. This is not a self-centered purpose, but a self-less service to other spirits.

Thus, in LDS theology, God’s initial desires for assistance and improvement of the existence of men’s spirits directly form the basis of and contribute to the nature of his plan and method of achieving this desire for the spirits of men. His desires and purposes determines the nature of this experience of mortality; what men are to learn in order to achieve “immortality and eternal life” (Moses 1:39).

Once this is clear, it makes perfect sense that the moral principles we are to learn in mortality, form a logical basis and underlie an existence of happiness and harmony in the eternal social setting Christians call “heaven”. There must be a screening process that divides men into various levels of willingness to live various levels of moral law.



4) THE LDS RESTORE FAIRNESS TO THE CONCEPT OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT RENDERED IN THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
Another profound theological difference that I find in LDS theology regards fairness. I grew up with a Christian Theology where there was the simplistic “Heaven and Hell” (despite the historical texts descriptions of multiple heavens and levels within heaven). In this model, those who authentically believed in Jesus went to “Heaven” where they lived in eternal splendor regardless of their many faults, and others who did not authentically believe in Jesus were placed in “Hell” where they suffered eternal agony and torture of flames f o r e v e r for either not having accepted Jesus, OR for not having even heard of Jesus (e.g. “The african native&#8221, or for not having the opportunity to accept Jesus (e.g. the infant who dies after just a few months). Though my Christian friends, acquaintances and even my pastor all knew deep in our hearts and on the surface of our conversations that the doctrine was an abomination, we had no other doctrinal fix for this, since it was clear from the scriptures, that “ALL” must accept Jesus to be “saved”, or they are punished. Augustine agonizes over this very issue regarding infant damnation. He doesn’t WANT to damn infants who die. He KNOWS the concept is incorrect. But he has no doctrinal alternative. (Other than a “light damnation&#8221.

The LDS were the first (that I know of, besides historian-theists), who returned to the concept of multiple levels of reward or punishment that is in PROPORTION to the person’s relative level of deserving (AFTER considering an atonement of Jesus).

Likewise, the LDS doctrine of proxy work where the dead are taught the gospel just as all others is the simplest and most profound way out of this deep and distasteful unfairness of another version of “damning the innocent”. Theist historians have long known of the early Christian doctrine of “amente” where dead souls went after they died while awaiting resurrection since such places were described in the early scriptures such as Jewish Enoch and Christian Abbaton histories, but the doctrines only appear in their fullest and mature forms in the LDS doctrines.

As one leaves the earliest Christian period, a vast number of theological and philosophical complaints arose from Agnostics, Philosophers, and Theists of other religions (and whispered among Christians themselves), regarding the inherent unfairness of Damning people without sufficient reasons. These simple doctrines regarding how the atonement applies to “unfair” situations, do away with almost 1300 years of such complaints and controversy of unfairness.


Clear
twaceifuii5

 

[Orontes]

From a historian’s perspective, I have, for years, been interested in the various pre-earth historical texts regarding what actually happened in pre-earth histories that pertain to God’s purposes in making men and populating the earth.

Hello,

Given your interest in this larger subject of pre-existence, perhaps I can suggest a book: 'When Souls had Wings Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought'. The author is Terryl Givens. I've spoken with Givens about this project a few times. He told me it's due to be released this September.

 

[Clear]

Orontes, thank you for the referral. I edited my post re: modern churches and the pre-existence. My text obscured my point that it is the LDS or the ancient sacred literature which are the only sources for significant data on the pre-creation time period and what took place. (The Quran refers to Ibis' (lucifers) quarrel with the Father and Adam but it's a scant reference). Can you pm me Terryl's email if you have it. (Hearing his name is like deja vu, but I don't know why) Thank you in any case Orontes

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

Hello,

Given your interest in this larger subject of pre-existence, perhaps I can suggest a book: 'When Souls had Wings Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought'. The author is Terryl Givens. I've spoken with Givens about this project a few times. He told me it's due to be released this September.

Have you ever considered coming up to Salt Lake City for the FAIR Conference, Orontes? Terry Givens presented a paper on this topic a couple of years ago.

 

[Orontes]

Have you ever considered coming up to Salt Lake City for the FAIR Conference, Orontes? Terry Givens presented a paper on this topic a couple of years ago.

Hi Katzpur,

That timeline would roughly correspond with my first introduction. Givens presented a lecture at the AAR* held in San Diego a couple years ago where he introduced his project and ran through his basic argument/position.

I've thought about traveling to the mountains for a FAIR confernece, but haven't yet. I've never been to one.


*American Academy of Religion

 

[Katzpur]

I've thought about traveling to the mountains for a FAIR confernece, but haven't yet. I've never been to one.

Well, for what it's worth, it would definitely be worth the trip.

 

[zomg]

I would LOVE to attend one. Maybe this year?

 

[Katzpur]

I would LOVE to attend one. Maybe this year?

It's on August 6 and 7 at the Southtowne Expo Center. I haven't been able to go for two years in a row, but I went for the four years before that and plan to go again this year.

 

[zomg]

It's on August 6 and 7 at the Southtowne Expo Center. I haven't been able to go for two years in a row, but I went for the four years before that and plan to go again this year.

I know I could probably look this up myself...how much does it cost?

 

[Katzpur]

I know I could probably look this up myself...how much does it cost?

You know, I can't remember for sure. It's around $50 as I recall. That's for both days and it includes a very good boxed lunch both days.

 

[idea]

... if the LDS doctrine is true, it changes everything dramatically.

...The clearest and most logical models of what God is doing now, make greater sense in relation to prior history.

Rather than the self-serving God of the many modern Christianities where God “creates men who will sin and then saves them by atonement in order to demonstrate his mercy”, thus the LDS God seems to be glorified by an atonement that, from before the worlds creation, was designed to serve men (rather than God).
while most Modern Christianities must force the interpretation into scriptures to show that God’s purpose was to give Glory to himself,
the LDS restore the knowledge that God is doing something for man

The LDS concept of God’s atonement having been planned from before Adam, and for man’s ultimate benefit, rather than for God’s benefit

one of God’s initial desires for creation was for men to achieve happiness and harmony. This is not a self-centered purpose, but a self-less service to other spirits.

yes clear, you are starting to understand it. I am a convert to the LDS church, it took some time for me to get the image of a selfish God who created imperfect slaves to gloat over out of my mind too. Heavenly Father is a completely different person than what some would have us think.

Yes, our Father in Heaven wants nothing more than for us to have joy, to have happioness.

25Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi2:25)

Heavenly Father did not create imperfect fallen beings in order to have someone grovel at His feet - Heavenly Father did not create us, He found us, took pity on us, He transforms what allows itself to be transformed.

Hebrew Word Studies
Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section93:29 - 31)

How can we have an independent will if part of us is not independent? Only the uncreated – the self-existent have free agency.

Joseph Smith once explained the beginning as thus:
"God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself."

God found us, saw potential in us, adopted those who wanted to progress, and prepared a way in which we could learn and advance in happiness and glory. This was totally selfless, He did not have to help us, was not responsible for us in any way, did not have to sacrifice His Son for us, He did not have to do any of it - but He did, because He loves us.

God is selflessly cleaning up a mess He did not create - (rather than creating a mess of servants to feed His ego). When I realized this, I did a 180° about face - it totally changed everything for me. Instead of God being a hypocritical monster who created pain and suffering, telling us to be and do things that He was not - I finally learned the truth of Heavenly Father. He is not responsible for any of the evils in the world, He is cleaning up a mess He did not create. He is selfless, and loving, and wants nothing but the best for us. It is mind boggling.

 

[idea]

As far as multiple levels in heaven -

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians15:40 - 42)

Celestial, terrestrial, and telestial

89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section76:89)

The lowest of the 3 kingdoms of glory "surpasses all understanding". Truly,

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians2:9)

Outer darkness, yes, there is one place that is not glorious. Those who see God for who He is, and openly reject Him - and very few there will be who do this, will be left as spirits, will not be allowed to have a body. Without a body they will be unable to harm anyone, they cannot touch anything, cannot harm anyone without a body.


interactive plan of salvation guide - click on the circles /lines.
God's Plan of Salvation


Thank you Clear for taking the time to "study it out in your mind"... the next step is to ask...


7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section9:7 - 8)

The Holy Spirit is real, it is all real, you really can receive an answer to your prayers. I am praying that you will find what you need to.


Thank you again for your thoughtful responses.
idea.

 

[Clear]

Post one of Two
This is my busy time of the week so I only have time for a “drive-by post”.

I had the impression that, in the desire to find error in LDS doctrine, Aletheia never understood why I quoted the earliest Christian texts and their teachings and applied them to the LDS who claim to be a restoration of those same ancient teachings. I am guessing that the original format was intended to be another boring contest of “battling interpretations” (which rarely allows for progression beyond simple argument). However, If the LDS are a restoration of the original Christianity, then there should be recognizable patterns in varying degrees of clarity between the LDS and the earliest Saints BEFORE Christian doctrines evolved and increasing corruptions tainted the original Christian doctrines. One can simply read what the ancient Christians taught in and about their sacred literature, read their commentaries; their letters, their hymns, etc. If the LDS and the ancients match, then the LDS claim that is it the same doctrine is correct.

This was my point to the LDS : Their match regarding salvific principle is too good to simply have been chance. And there are too many matches to have been chance. And the matches are not the type that could have been remotely guessed upon. For example; there are large chunks "new texts" that LDS sacred texts re-introduce to the world that look so close to early data that reminds one of texual imitation EXCEPT, the ancient texts he would have to have taken it from had not yet been discovered or available in Joseph Smith's day. A minor and simple example is the Book of Mormon teaching regarding "Precept upon Precept" and Dead Sea Scroll "Precept by Precept", larger swathes include equivalent paragraphs in Abbaton and other histories. How does one explain this frequent pattern other than by revelation from some source? It is in THIS context that I was attempting to compare what the earliest Christians themselves said about the principles relating to atonement and the LDS.

If the original Christians taught the same principles regarding the atonement as the LDS and the Aletheians did not, then the LDS have superior claims to being original Christianity. This was my point in showing that the earliest Christians taught that the Aletheian theory of “Grace renders repentance obsolete” was “heresy” to them. (Aletheian churches are still allowed to argue that the early Christians were wrong in their doctrines). In the same way that one can read what the earliest Christians felt about the doctrine of “grace renders repentance obsolete”, there is a vast amount of early sacred literature regarding what the earliest Christians taught about the atonement; what THEY taught about authority: what THEY taught about repentance; about obedience; about baptism; etc. Especially in the face of a thousand different interpretations of different scriptures, it is helpful to see what the earliest Christians said they believed.


THE "CHURCH OF THE IN BETWEEN" AND DOCTRINES OF "COMPENSATING FOR WHAT IS LACKING"
There is another different characteristic that I am discovering as I look at the LDS doctrines regarding the atonement and compare them with Aletheian Churches in general. For lack of a better term, Aletheian churches seem to me, best described as “The Churches of the In Between”. By this I mean the many Christian Churches that are stuck in the static situation that existed during the time period between the death of the authorized apostles of Jesus (and the resulting vacuum of authorized prophetic guidance) and the return of Jesus or his apostles, (and the resulting restoration of authorized prophetic guidance). Lightfoot describes the conditions in the christian church during this period as

“a time...when problems could no longer be solved by seeking an authoritative answer from an apostle. As a consequence, the church had to begin to deal with the question of sources of authority and authoritative tradition at a time when new challenges and pressures, both internal and external were confronting the new religious movement..” (Lightfoot, In his introduction to "Apostolic Fathers")

If the LDS claim is true, they are “The Church of the Restoration” (i.e. original Christianity restored). (I hope the LDS will correct me if I mis-characterize my personal impressions). If this is true, then they are NOT stuck in the position of the “Church of the In Between”. They have authority, doctrines, ordinances, revelation, etc that the original church was able to generate.

Even the principle of “restoration” is exciting since this was the very claim the original Christians taught. They taught that the organizations and doctrines of the “church” did not “begin” in Jesus Day, but was “restored” to them or “revealed” to them again in Jesus day, but the church as an organizational entity had ALWAYS existed in heaven before the creation of the earth. Thus the writer of 2nd Clement taught :

“the books and the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the Beginning. (2 cl 14:3).”

It has ALWAYS been there, but He says it was “revealed [restored] in the last days”, thus the one on the earth is only a copy of the original “spiritual” organization . This is why the early christians claimed that

“Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but judaism in christianity” (Ign to Magnesians 10:3).

“We also love the prophets because they anticipated the gospel in their preaching and set their hope on him; because they also believed in him” (Ign to Phillipians 5:2).

In Hermas’ vision he is speaking to an angel regarding the vision wherein the church was represented as “an elderly woman” (he is speaking to an angel who is explaining the vision).

“Who do you think the elderly woman..was.... “The Church” he replied. I said to him “Why, then, is she elderly?” “Because,” he said, “she was created before all things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.” (Her 8:1)

(Remember Hermas IS in the early New Testaments). How many “Churches of the In Between” hold to this sort of concept before the LDS claimed it was true? One of the underlying reasons Christians lost excitement about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it displayed a “Christianity” `that existed BEFORE (according to most modern Christian theories) ancient Christianity should had existed. Thus a principle that bothers modern christian beliefs, actualy should be seen as CONFIRMING the early Christian Beliefs. The LDS restored such beliefs (and this explains their interest and ability to make such wonderful usage of ancient texts...). They see the eternal truths underlying the provential and temporary structures described in such sacred texts. Such principles are not something Joseph Smith could have guessed about. There are too many principles and equivalent texts to be chance or "good" guesses.

Post two of two follows
drtzeise9g
I'll try to correct spelling/punctuation, etc later.

 

[Clear]

post two of two

Much of what happens in “The Church of the In Between” represents an attempt to “compensate” for what is lacking. It is a “making do” with what they do have. For example: Authentic meanings and authority to ordinances pertaining to salvation are gone and in their place, an empty “re-enactment” is offered to their members. For example: My Pastor would admit before the congregation that he did not know if baptism was needed or not but that he, himself, did believe in “tubbing” and occasionally, in a service, would invite any with interest to be “baptized” by him. “Tubbing” was a euphamism for baptism...a subtle reminder that it wasn’t “quite” the real thing. The Pastor meant well, and was trying to serve members who believed baptism was important, while not offending others who didn’t believe it was necessary. In this "Church of the In Between", our baptismal services were, after all was said and done, a “monkey see (i.e. read), monkey do” display, done as a naive attempt to do what the congregation had read in the bible that real Christians used to do. Gone was the real and authorized ordinance. There was no concrete and authentic covenant made to God in the process of “tubbing”. I doubt most of the congregation had the faintest idea of the nature of the ancient baptismal covenant (or “seal” as the early christians called it), nor it’s relationship to the atonement. The Pastor did not know, and what he did not know, he could not teach anyone else.


IF IT IS TRUE, THE LDS RESTORES THE UNDERSTANDING, THE AUTHENTIC “COVENANT” ASSOCIATED WITH BAPTISM.
If the earliest Christian “seal” (covenant) of baptism has evolved into a mere “caricature” of or counterfeit of the original, this is not the first time the ordinances were changed. Moses complaint that the “Boundary shifters” among Israel will change the very ordinances and doctrines he gave them (and he’s saying this on the same day he is giving them), is confirmed by Barnabas as he tells the ancient Saints :

“concerning the water (baptism), it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves” (Bar 11:1)

Just as Israel created their own compensating substitutes for baptism (since they refused the real thing), the modern “Church of the In Between” creates their own compensating substitutes for baptism since they no longer have the real thing. What else are they to do?

I am not faulting them in their desires to imitate the real thing. Ignatius reminds us Christians that “Ye are the imitators of God, once you took on new life” (Ig to eph 1:1). “The Churches of the In Between”, are left to attempt (often with the very best intentions) to re-enact the ordinances, but there is no authorization for the ordinances. There is little underlying genuine understanding as to what might be happening on in re-enactments of ordinances. Such counterfeit ordinance are NOT usually meant to mock the real thing, but are simply the best that can be done by an organization that has no authority, nor prophetic guidance, yet they read that such things were done by early Christians. What are they to do but attempt to imitate?

I have to stop here or I’ll be late to work

Clear

 

[idea]

post two of two

IF IT IS TRUE, THE LDS RESTORES THE UNDERSTANDING, THE AUTHENTIC “COVENANT” ASSOCIATED WITH BAPTISM.

Hi clear!

The difference between “reform” and “restore”. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is the “restored” church.

from topical guide:

BAPTISM, BAPTIZE. See also Born Again, Born of God; Holy Ghost; Infant Baptism; Ordinances

From a Greek word meaning to "dip" or "immerse." Baptism by immersion in water by one having authority is the introductory ordinance of the gospel and is necessary to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is preceded by faith in Jesus Christ and by repentance. It must be followed by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost in order to be complete (2 Ne. 31:13–14). Baptism by water and the Spirit is necessary before a person can enter the celestial kingdom. Adam was the first to be baptized (Moses 6:64–65). Jesus also was baptized to fulfill all righteousness and to show the way for all mankind (Matt. 3:13–17; 2 Ne. 31:5–12).
Because all on the earth do not have the opportunity to accept the gospel during mortality, the Lord has authorized baptisms performed by proxy for the dead. Therefore, those who accept the gospel in the spirit world may qualify for entrance into God's kingdom.

Essential: Suffer it to be so now to fulfill all righteousness, Matt. 3:15. Jesus came and was baptized of John, Mark 1:9. The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized, Luke 7:30. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:5. Repent, and be baptized every one of you, Acts 2:38. He commands all men that they must be baptized in his name, 2 Ne. 9:23–24. Men must follow Christ, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end to be saved, 2 Ne. 31. Christ's doctrine is that men should believe and be baptized, 3 Ne. 11:20–40. They who believe not on your words and are not baptized in water in my name shall be damned, D&C 84:74. God explained to Adam why repentance and baptism are necessary, Moses 6:52–60.

Baptism by immersion: Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, Matt. 3:16 (Mark 1:10). John was baptizing because there was much water there, John 3:23. Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, Acts 8:38. We are buried with him by baptism, Rom. 6:4 (Col. 2:12). Follow your Lord and your Savior down into the water, 2 Ne. 31:13. Alma, Helam, and others were buried in the water, Mosiah 18:12–16. And then shall ye immerse them in the water, 3 Ne. 11:25–26. The proper manner of baptism is explained, D&C 20:72–74. They were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, D&C 76:50–51. Adam was laid under the water and was brought forth out of the water, Moses 6:64. Baptism is by immersion for the remission of sins, A of F 1:4.

Baptism for remission of sins: Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, Acts 22:16. After baptism comes a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost, 2 Ne. 31:17. Come and be baptized unto repentance that ye may be washed from your sins, Alma 7:14. Blessed are they who shall believe and be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sins, 3 Ne. 12:1–2. Declare repentance and faith on the Savior and remission of sins by baptism, D&C 19:31. We believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, A of F 1:4.

Proper authority: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19 (D&C 68:8). Limhi and many of his people were desirous to be baptized, but there was none in the land that had authority from God, Mosiah 21:33. I give unto you power that ye shall baptize, 3 Ne. 11:19–21. The Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, D&C 13:1. They are they who are ordained of me to baptize in my name, D&C 18:29. John the Baptist gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the authority to baptize, JS-H 1:68–69.

Qualifications for baptism: Repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son, 2 Ne. 31:11. Ye must repent and be born again, Alma 7:14. See that ye are not baptized unworthily, Morm. 9:29. Teach parents that they must repent and be baptized and humble themselves, Moro. 8:10. Qualifications for those desiring baptism are set forth, D&C 20:37. Children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, D&C 68:25, 27.

Covenants made through baptism: Ye have entered into a covenant with him that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, Mosiah 18:8–10, 13. Those who repent, take on Christ's name, and determine to serve him shall be received by baptism, D&C 20:37.

Baptism for the dead: What shall they do which are baptized for the dead, 1 Cor. 15:29. Baptisms for the dead are performed for the remission of sins, D&C 124:29; 127:5–9; 128:1; 138:33.

Baptism not for infants: It is solemn mockery before God that ye should baptize little children, Moro. 8:4–23. Children shall be baptized when eight years old, D&C 68:27. All children who die before the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom, D&C 137:10.

(Guide to the Scriptures | BBaptism, Baptize.:Entry - Baptism not for infants)

 

[idea]

There is a lot more to baptism than tubbing – (cute expression though). Yes, proper authority is needed to perform the ordinance. There are also two different baptisms, one in water, and one by the Spirit. Most people ignore the latter…

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
(New Testament | Acts8:15 - 17)

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall afollow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi31:13)



There is baptism for the dead – for those who have died without the opportunity done in temples,

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?
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians15:29)

1:30 min into it talks about baptism for dead, this vid also talks about restoration.
watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8

So many things have been restored, prophets and apostles, temples, ordinances (baptisms, sealings, laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, endowment, washing and anointing, administration of the sacrament, etc. etc. etc.), continuing revelation, additional scriptures, fasting, tithing, word of wisdom (directions for healthy foods/practices), correct understanding of the Godhead, etc. etc. etc. So much was lost, so much is now restored.