LDS Atonement

[ἀλήθεια]

Alethia :
There are so many Christian Theories that I have a great deal of sympathy for the agnostics trying to make sense of the various christian arguments. I grew up in a non-denominational setting and thus was exposed to several Christianities, all having multiple doctrines regarding in what way individuals are "saved" by Christ. One new congregation I attended "felt their way along" separate doctrines and finally reaching an uncomfortable and tenuous "concensus" as to what they would teach since the pastor (my brother-in-law) "HAD to teach something" without it causing an argument among the congregants (or making the people who paid his salary, angry). Though, admittedly, it was watered down advertising rather than "doctrine". I think it was the best he could do given the tendency for the many individuals in the congregation having their own theories about what should be taught.sects tendency to argue with each other.
Because of the exposure to multiple Christianities, I’ve heard many theories among various christianities as to how a "debt" was created with God, from which all men must be "redeemed" by Christ’s atonement. You offered your personal theory that "each Christian" was in debt to God "because, by following Satan, they did not honor God". Alethia, I don’t think that I understand your personal theory either, regarding how individuals are "already" in debt to God, "because by following satan, they did not honor God.". It is one of few theories I’ve not heard (or not heard worded this way...). Can you explain your personal christian theory a bit more? For example, according to your personal theory :

Theories are meaningless. The Holy Spirit teaches truth. If you are only listening to theories, you haven't found the truth.

1) Does every living person have the same type of "debt" to God in your personal theory?

If a person needs a Savior, it is because he owes a debt.

2) If so, How does every living person acquire this "debt" to God in your personal theory? That is, can you explain the concept of "following satan" that your theory spoke of?
3) How specifically is every living person relieved of this debt according to your theory?

Bible, New Testament, John Chapter Three, entire chapter
If you can't understand it, ask God for help. This is not a cop-out; the word of God must be taught by the Holy Spirit.
We are called to be holy as God is holy. Do we succeed or fail? Do we fall short of His glory?

Though the concept of repentance is central to historical Christianity, I think the reason it gets such bad press is that it is so very unpopular (how many christians actually try an authentic version of it?)

How many people try repentance? Is living for God something that His children hate?

I grew up hearing the "agnostics lament" that "if people would only live the 10 commandments, the world would be better".

How odd! An agnostic doesn't live the Ten Commandments. Don't you think that a person who says he loves the Ten Commandments would want to live them? BTW, I've never heard an agnostic say that.

I’m grateful to ANYONE who is trying to live the highest moral standards they are able since, I agree with the agnostic, it makes the world better in a world where religions are watering down both doctrines and morals, I have great honor for any religion who attempts to live to a higher moral standard than the world generally has adopted.

The Holy Spirit doesn't teach watered down doctrines and morals. Thank God that where men fail, the Holy Spirit is successful.

 

[Clear]

Alethia :

"... each Christian was already very much in debt to God(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) because by following Satan, they did not honor God. So Christ paid the debt he/she owed Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. You don't seem to understand that... "

Clears first question: “Does every living person have the same type of "debt" to God in your personal theory?”
Alethia’s answer : “If a person needs a Savior, it is because he owes a debt.”
Clears second and third questions: 2) If so, How does every living person acquire this "debt" to God in your personal theory? That is, can you explain the concept of "following satan" that your theory spoke of? 3) How specifically is every living person relieved of this debt according to your theory?
Alethia’s answer : “Bible, New Testament, John Chapter Three, entire chapter
If you can't understand it, ask God for help. This is not a cop-out; the word of God must be taught by the Holy Spirit. We are called to be holy as God is holy. Do we succeed or fail? Do we fall short of His glory?”

Alethia, I have NO idea what these comments you are giving me mean. Please, if you don't want to answer my questions, it is ok. I will not be frustrated nor angry. (You may simply have your hands full with other posters and do not have the time for a description of your personal theories - this is fine as well) If you simply mis-spoke, that is also fine and I certainly think you are allowed to retract or change a statement to make it more understandable or correct an error. But I do NOT have any interest in wading through another 15 posts of evasive and obscure answers like I did with ChristianPilgrim in order to realize I was never going to get any real answer. Without your willingness to explanation regarding your personal theory, I cannot understand it.

How is an honest student to understand your personal theory that "each Christian" was in debt to God "because, by following Satan, they did not honor God"?

Why do you claim that Christians follow Satan? The claim doesn't make sense as it is.
What about individuals who do NOT follow Satan? Does your personal theory maintain that they create a debt to God by some other means?

Simply telling me to read certain scriptures does NOT tell me how you are interpreting them to mean that Christians are following Satan.

Please, if your theory has any worth, I would like to hear it. Why would you claim that Christians "followed Satan" and "did not honor God?" I have heard similar statements from middle eastern religions regarding man's unwillingness to "honor Allah" and end up, by so doing, in inadvertentely "following Iblis" (satan). Are you trying to offer a similar principle as part of a personal theory of moral debt inside your version of Christianity?



Clear
dracnu87jb

 

[idea]

Hi clear

Cleon (who is LDS) does a great job explaining the atonement I think:

The Atonement, by Cleon Skousen « reperiendi

I love this story he uses:

During the Civil War there was a 19 year old soldier who went to sleep on guard duty. A whole section of the Union army was wiped out in that particular sector. He lost many of his very best friends all because he went to sleep and they were able to make a surprise attack on one flank of that particular defense effort. He survived the battle. He was court-martialed and sentenced to be hanged for neglect of duty for going to sleep while servicing as a guard, which was routine military law. The death sentence and order of execution was placed on the desk of President Lincoln and he was prepared to sign it. We lost a lot of valuable men because a 19 year old soldier went to sleep. President Lincoln was communicated with by a little old woman. This mother said to President Lincoln, “When this war started, I had a husband and 6 sons. First I lost my husband, then I lost my sons–5 of them. I just have one son left. And he’s about to be executed for neglect of duty. He feels terrible about what he did. He knows he deserves to die. President Lincoln, I wonder if, maybe, because you have the pardoning power under the constitution, you could find it in your heart to let me have the last of my family–for my sake?” President Lincoln said to the mother, “For your sake, I pardon your son. I pray God he’ll survive the war and be a blessing to you all the days of your life.” See how compassion works? We completely overcame the demands of justice. And nobody criticized President Lincoln for using his pardoning power in that case once they found out what the plea of that little mother had been. And that’s the way all of us are.

you have to read through all of the above link... long read, but worth the time IMO.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/76858-who-redeemed-7.html
pg 7-8-9 for my personal understanding of it all...

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Alethia :
Alethia, I have NO idea what these comments you are giving me mean. I can't tell if they mean something to you; or if they are to obscure a lack of an answer; or if you do not have an answer; or If you do not want to answer my questions. Please, if you don't want to answer my questions, it is ok. I will not be frustrated nor angry. (You may simply have your hands full with other posters and do not have the time for a real answer - this is fine as well) If you simply mis-spoke, that is also fine and I certainly think you are allowed to retract or change a statement to make it more understandable or correct an error. But I do NOT have any interest in wading through another 15 posts of evasive and obscure answers like I did with ChristianPilgrim in order to realize I was never going to get any real answer. Without your willingness to explanation regarding your personal theory, I cannot understand it.

Why do you care about personal theories? And when you don't understand something, do you always claim that you weren't given a real answer?

How is an honest student to understand your personal theory that "each Christian" was in debt to God "because, by following Satan, they did not honor God"?
Why do you claim that Christians followed Satan? The claim doesn't make sense as it is.

Things make a lot more sense if a person has open eyes and is familiar with the Bible. It isn't necessary at all to understand theories about what the Bible says. Trying to understand God's word with man's intellect will not open a person's eyes to the truth. Truth is spiritually discerned.

What about individuals that did NOT follow Satan? Does your personal theory maintain that they create a debt to God by some other means?

And just who is it that never needs to come to Christ? He came into the world to save sinners. All have sinned. There is none righteous.

I can read scriptures, but that does NOT tell me how you are interpreting them to mean that Christians are following Satan.

I apologize that you so greatly misunderstood me. If a person is following Christ, he is a Christian. If a person is not following Christ, he is following Satan.

Please, if your theory has any worth, I would like to hear it.

If a person wants to know truth, he needn't look at men's theories. He needs to be born again and read his Bible.

Why would you claim that Christians "followed Satan" and "did not honor God?"

Why indeed? That is the opposite of what I said!

Are you trying to offer a similar principle as part of a personal theory of moral debt inside your version of Christianity?

I don't have a clue what that question means. No one should follow a "version" of Christianity.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
(John 10:27)

"they follow me"

 

[smitten508]

Works AND faith are required for salvation. Faith without works is dead says James. As a Catholic of the Roman Rite I take this to heart. However, good works are truly only a SIGN of our faith. Just as nourishment only comes from consumption, so does good works only come from salvific faith. The lds have certain rituals that MUST be fulfilled in order to have perfect standing before God. The merits of Christ alone are what brings a Christian to salvation by repentance, subsequent forgiveness and baptism... I do believe that Mormonism is the only sect calling themselves Christian that would refute the above as the only requirements to acheive righteous standing with Almighty God through Jesus Christ and his attoning sacrifice.

 

[Katzpur]

Works AND faith are required for salvation. Faith without works is dead says James. As a Catholic of the Roman Rite I take this to heart. However, good works are truly only a SIGN of our faith. Just as nourishment only comes from consumption, so does good works only come from salvific faith.

Just as faith without works is dead, I would argue that works without faith are dead. That's why they are referred to in the Bible as "filthy rags." Good works are a sign of our faith, and yet they are still a choice. No Christian is immune to temptation, and is still free to choose the promptings of the Spirit over the promptings of the adversary. None of us are on auto-pilot as a result of our conversion.

The lds have certain rituals that MUST be fulfilled in order to have perfect standing before God.

That is correct. It is essential to be obedient in all things in order to receive the greatest of God's promised blessings. Jesus said that He would reward every man according to his works. Greater works, greater obedience and greater faithfulness merit greater blessings.

The merits of Christ alone are what brings a Christian to salvation by repentance, subsequent forgiveness and baptism... I do believe that Mormonism is the only sect calling themselves Christian that would refute the above as the only requirements to acheive righteous standing with Almighty God through Jesus Christ and his attoning sacrifice.

You're probably right. We stand alone in our belief that God loves all of His children so much that even the least valiant among them will be blessed with some measure of His glory. Faith in Christ, repentence of one's sins, baptism by immersion for the remission of those sins, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and enduring to the end in a covenant relationship with our Savior results in the fulness of salvation.

You did raise a question in my mind, though. I have always been of the opinion that Catholics believed that certain of the sacraments were essential to salvation. Baptism, in particular, is one that all Catholics I know insist is a requirement for a person to enter into God's presence. And I know that a Catholic is forbidden to receive communion without having gone to confession first. Those things seem to me to fit into the category of "rituals which must be fulfilled."

 

[bluZero]

How would an LDS Chrisitan interpert this Scripture?

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:2

KJV>>>(1Jn 2:2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

If you take notice, the words the sins of are in brackets, and that means that those words are not in the original Greek.
The way it is written in the Greek is this: But also relating to the world And that changes the entire context. It is not sins of the whole world! PLeas amend your thinking to the original.

 

[bluZero]

I wonder if anyone of you on this thread truly understands what the atonement is. I do read in the OT, strong's H3722 appease,cleanse disanul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge, put off, reconcile...

But I have a question: During the exodus, 40 years in the wilderness, they, the Israelites, were constantly making atonement for their short comings. Yet, they did not make it to the promised land (enter into God's rest due to their unbelief) So how is it anyone can say that the atonement means salvation of the soul???

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I wonder if anyone of you on this thread truly understands what the atonement is. I do read in the OT, strong's H3722 appease,cleanse disanul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge, put off, reconcile...

But I have a question: During the exodus, 40 years in the wilderness, they, the Israelites, were constantly making atonement for their short comings. Yet, they did not make it to the promised land (enter into God's rest due to their unbelief) So how is it anyone can say that the atonement means salvation of the soul???

It is in the NT that we read about the New Birth and being redeemed by Christ. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us..." "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."(1 Corinthians 15:10)

 

[bluZero]

It is in the NT that we read about the New Birth and being redeemed by Christ. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us..." "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."(1 Corinthians 15:10)

So then it is just a matter of getting birth from above, baptized with the holy ghost and fire as john says, which is quite different than atonement per se.

(Mt 3:11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:[/COLOR]:candle:

 

[ἀλήθεια]

It is essential to be obedient in all things in order to receive the greatest of God's promised blessings.

Obedience is something that grows. But all Christians receive the same blessings:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; (Ephesians 1:3)

Jesus said that He would reward every man according to his works. Greater works, greater obedience and greater faithfulness merit greater blessings. [/quote]


The part that I highlighted in red is not in our Bibles.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; (Ephesians 1:3)

If we are born again, we are a new creation in Christ Jesus.

Some of the blessings promised to Christians are:

Crown of Righteousness for Christians because they loved the Lord's appearing (see 2 Timothy 4:8)

Incorruible Crown for disciplined bodies and self-control [a fruit of the Spirit] (see 1 Corinthians 9:25-27)

Crown of Life for enduring patiently through trials [patience is a fruit of the Spirit] (see James 1:12, Revelation 2:10)

Crown of Glory for being an example to the flock [but by the grace of God we are what we are](see 1 Peter 5:2-4)

Crown of rejoicing for winning souls; God gives the increase when we plant or water (see Thessalonians 2:19, Daniel 12:3)

And what do the Christians do with their crowns? (See Revelation 4:10-11).

Now to him who works his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

 

[Clear]

Orontes / Sola’lor / Katzpur :

I was considering the various quotes regarding priesthood and the holy Ghost and wanted to know your take, from an LDS perspective about the patterns of discussion. For example: Regarding the holy Ghost:


Alethia frequently offers a cut and pasted list of scriptures and then gives out the advice for others to "use the holy Ghost to help one understand scriptures" that are listed rather than offer a simple explanation. I noticed ChristianPilgrim had this habit also. "Seek the Holy Ghost when you study what I quoted" is a stock phrase that many debaters use and it is a code for "if you disagree, you must not have the spirit".

On the other hand,
Orontes tends to offer more meaningful explanations regarding the GIFT of the Holy Ghost given by authentic priesthood versus the simple INFLUENCE of the Holy Ghost which is available to all individuals, is informative and makes a great deal of sense to me.

All of us have our ways of looking at things. Orontes seems to be very logical. Sola’lor has a great deal of common sense. A Katzpur is one of the best "balanced" individuals on the forum, having good logic, common sense and knowledge of scriptures. However, I can’t help but see things from a historical context and, (since I am a clinician) I cannot help but see a psychological context and psychological pattens as well.



ALETHIAN CLAIMS AND THE GNOSTIC PARALLELS

As I look at Alethias various patterns of claims, the "Alethian" (alethia's) type of Christianities and their accompanying claims remind me historically of the various agnostic "claimers" coming out of the woodwork after the apostles died. Though it was the original apostles who HAD the true gnosis, still multiple groups claimed they were given "a special gnosis" of their own, and so one could not distinguish by superficial study, what was authentic and what was counterfeit. It was VERY confusing. At at some point the claimers could no longer put off the demands to deliver the "goods", that is, the evidence that they were any different than the other multitude of counterfeit claimers. The various groups of claimers reacted differently. Those less clever simply dropped their claims and stopped "posting" their claims. But those who refused to stop were left to attempt to associate themselves with the authentic apostolic christianity and to their own interpretations of scriptures to support their theoretical gnostics claims.

I do not think it is any different in our day. It is simply history repeating itself. For example:

In regards to the profound principle of apostollic Christian Authority (which Orontes alluded to), the Catholics (and eastern orthodox) and the LDS hold tangible claims. Either there is a succession of authority such as in the Catholic or eastern Orthodox model, or there is a restoration of apostolic authority as in the LDS model, or they are both incorrect and the authority has simply died out and NO one has authority. In all three cases, the Alethian Christianities are left without apostolic authority which authentic Christianity had.

What are the Alethian Christianities to do? Just as the ancient Gnostic claimers did, they may, simply stop claiming what they do not have or, they are simply left to the expediency of doing what anyone does when something is lost to them, they may return to the last place it was seen. Thus they are left to quote authentic references of apostolic authority and claim it applies to them in some way. Psychologically, what else is there for them to do? I believe that this is why the vast number of competing Alethian Christianities, teaching various and competing types of Christian atonement, must either make a claim to have some authority or claim that authority is not needed anymore.

Besides authority, the other principle to which Alethian Christianities must attempt to attach themselves is to personal guiding revelation through the Holy Ghost. There are few other ways to claim more credibility in Alethian theories than their competitors than to claim the Holy Ghost "approves" of their version. The first difficulty is, that many Alethian types of Christianities have already laid the foundation that revelation does not exist any more. When this is pointed out, they must then develop additional doctrines to fill this obvious gap. One is forced to generate a new doctrine that only certain "types" of revelations have stopped. And which types of revelation do the Alethian Christianities claim that have stopped? It is is precisely the types that they admit that they do not have! The apostolic or prophetic type they have already banned. Psychologically what can be done after making the admission that one’s christianity does not have revelation, but to make the claim that "others do not have it either".

The Alethian version of the "Holy Ghost" is able to interpret what old scriptures mean, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide any new scriptures. For them, there are No prophetic visions, no prophetic prophecies, no prophetic gifts, etc. If there are, they must not be written and claimed to be inspired and sacred, for then they are become the same as ancient visions and prophecies which were written; that is, provisional scripture. The claim is a double edged sword. Doctrines must spring up as to why certain revelations are allowed, and others excluded. It becomes more and more confusing as one has to "cover one’s doctrinal tracks".

I think this is what is so very offensive about the Book of Mormon and the continuing discoveries regarding the vast amount of other sacred texts (Dead Sea Scrolls, apocrypha, pseudographia, etc). It is evidence to Alethians that "other groups had what mine does not". Thus psychologically, there develops and emergent necessity to discount and disqualify anything that upsets the boat of previous Bias. The terrible question of "what am I to believe if what I currently believe if not true" IS so terrible to such individuals that they simply cannot bring themselves to ask it. In fact, Alethian’s may be unable to see that their theory of christianity IS just one theory competing against a thousand other Alethian-type of theories. To them, it cannot BE a theory. It is a psychological blinder that is self-administered, not because it helps one to see, but because it helps one NOT to see what one does not want to see.

Orontes, There are obvious historical parallels and psychological parallels to the pattern of Alethian type claims. Is there a Logical correlation in these patterns of Alethian Christianities and Gnosticism as there is a historical correlation?

Clear
visise82ol

 

[ἀλήθεια]

ALETHIAN CLAIMS AND THE GNOSTIC PARALLELS
As I look at Alethias various patterns of claims, the "Alethian" (alethia's) type of Christianities and their accompanying claims remind me historically of the various agnostic "claimers" coming out of the woodwork after the apostles died. Though it was the original apostles who truly HAD the true gnosis, still multiple groups claimed they were given "a special gnosis" of their own, and so one could not distinguish by superficial study, what was authentic and what was counterfeit. It was VERY confusing. At at some point the claimers could no longer put of the demands to deliver the "goods", that is, the evidence that they were any different than the multitude of counterfeit claimers. The various groups of claimers reacted differently. Those less clever simply dropped their claims and stopped "posting" their claims. But those who refused to stop were left to attempt to associate themselves with the authentic apostolic christianity and to their own interpretations of scriptures to support their theoretical gnostics claims.
I do not think it is any different in our day. It is simply history repeating itself. For example:
In regards to the profound principle of apostollic Christian Authority (which Orontes alluded to), the Catholics (and eastern orthodox) and the LDS hold tangible claims. Either there is a succession of authority such as in the Catholic or eastern Orthodox model, or there is a restoration of apostolic authority as in the LDS model, or they are both incorrect and the authority has simply died out and NO one has authority. In all three cases, the Alethian Christianities are left without apostolic authority which authentic Christianity had.

Authority from God goes to each believer. Christ is the head of that authority. We are under him. If we claim to be Christians, but are not, then we have no authority and have not been made sons(children) of God. If we are His children, we also have a royal priesthood, the priesthood of believers.

What are the Alethian Christianities to do? Just as the ancient Gnostic claimers did, they may, simply stop claiming what they do not have or, they are simply left to the expediency of doing what anyone does when something is lost to them, they may return to the last place it was seen. Thus they are left to quote authentic references of apostolic authority and claim it applies to them in some way. Psychologically, what else is there for them to do? I believe that this is why the vast number of competing Alethian Christianities, teaching various and competing types of Christian atonement, must either make a claim to have some authority or claim that authority is not needed anymore.

Speaking of claims, let's look at one of the claims of Joseph Smith:
He claimed that John the Baptist visited him and Oliver Cowdery and bestowed on them the Aaronic priesthood. Yet they had not been baptized and they ought not to have received the Aaronic priesthood. Afterwards they baptized each other. John the Baptist did not baptize them. Joseph Smith's priesthood was invalid because he had not been baptized. The LDS church teaches and practices that baptism must precede priesthood ordination.

The Aaronic priesthood was passed from father to son. The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood in biblical times was to make a sin offering by animal sacrifice. That priesthood was done away with by the death of Christ.

Hebrews 7
25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Who laid hands on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

 

[Katzpur]

Speaking of claims, let's look at one of the claims of Joseph Smith:
He claimed that John the Baptist visited him and Oliver Cowdery and bestowed on them the Aaronic priesthood. Yet they had not been baptized and they ought not to have received the Aaronic priesthood. Afterwards they baptized each other. John the Baptist did not baptize them. Joseph Smith's priesthood was invalid because he had not been baptized. The LDS church teaches and practices that baptism must precede priesthood ordination.

Here is what Joseph said happened on the day in question:

“We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying: ‘Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.’ He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me. Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me – after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood – for so we were commanded.

John conferred the priesthood upon Joseph and Oliver. Then, by the power of that Priesthood, Joseph baptized Oliver and Oliver baptized Joseph. Then what happened? Joseph ordained Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood and Oliver ordained Joseph to the Aaronic Priesthood. The initial ordination was get the ball rolling, so to speak. But there is always order in God’s work. And so, because baptism normally precedes Priesthood ordination, John had each of them baptize the other and then ordain the other. It was almost as if the initial ordination that John performed was to be in effect only until that particular event had been brought to its logical completion.

The Aaronic priesthood was passed from father to son. The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood in biblical times was to make a sin offering by animal sacrifice. That priesthood was done away with by the death of Christ.

That was not the only purpose of the Aaronic priesthood, and nowhere in the Bible are we told that it was ever done away with.

 

[bluZero]

Here is what Joseph said happened on the day in question:

“We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying: ‘Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins[/U];
Thee bible does not confirm that immersion in water is the way to baptize, and further water baptism does not bring about salvation.
[/COLOR]
and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.’

Moreover, God divorced Israel including the Aaronic priesthood. And never again or ever will the nation of Israel come to christ, only a remnant will be saved. READ BELOW
[/COLOR]
He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me. Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me – after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood – for so we were commanded.[/COLOR]

John conferred the priesthood upon Joseph and Oliver. Then, by the power of that Priesthood, Joseph baptized Oliver and Oliver baptized Joseph. Then what happened? Joseph ordained Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood and Oliver ordained Joseph to the Aaronic Priesthood. The initial ordination was get the ball rolling, so to speak. But there is always order in God’s work. And so, because baptism normally precedes Priesthood ordination, John had each of them baptize the other and then ordain the other. It was almost as if the initial ordination that John performed was to be in effect only until that particular event had been brought to its logical completion.

That was not the only purpose of the Aaronic priesthood, and nowhere in the Bible are we told that it was ever done away with.

How will you FIND your wAy ArounD this: (Isa 50:1) Thus saith the Lord, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

So you are saying, Katzpur, that John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith, then Oliver Cowdery baptized him, then Oliver Cowdery ordained him to the priesthood that John the Baptist had already conferred on him? That's a very interesting procedure.

The Aaronic priesthood could only be passed from father to son. It is never mentioned at the time of or after the time of Christ's ministry.

"We believe that a man must be called of God by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

LDS Article of Faith number five, written by Joseph Smith​

"What is the Priesthood? It is nothing more or less than the power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family... by which they may baptize for the remission of sins and lay on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost, and by which they can remit sin with the sanction and blessing of Almighty God. It is the same power and priesthood that was committed to the disciples of Christ while He was upon the earth..."
- Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 173

Laying on of hands is not necessary for the reception of the Holy Ghost. Even Joseph Smith did not claim to have had hands laid on him to receive the Holy Ghost.

Believers are a holy, royal priesthood without the laying on of hands:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter2:5)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; (1 Peter 2:9)

 

[Katzpur]

As I look at Alethias various patterns of claims, the "Alethian" (alethia's) type of Christianities and their accompanying claims remind me historically of the various agnostic "claimers" coming out of the woodwork after the apostles died. Though it was the original apostles who HAD the true gnosis, still multiple groups claimed they were given "a special gnosis" of their own, and so one could not distinguish by superficial study, what was authentic and what was counterfeit. It was VERY confusing. At at some point the claimers could no longer put off the demands to deliver the "goods", that is, the evidence that they were any different than the other multitude of counterfeit claimers. The various groups of claimers reacted differently. Those less clever simply dropped their claims and stopped "posting" their claims. But those who refused to stop were left to attempt to associate themselves with the authentic apostolic christianity and to their own interpretations of scriptures to support their theoretical gnostics claims.

This is precisely what Paul said would happen were the organizational structure of the Church Christ established to cease to exist. Jesus built His Church upon a foundation of prophets and apostles, and Paul pointed out that this pattern was to continue to exist until we all came into a unity of faith in Christ. He also warned what would happen otherwise: We would be as children, unable to know who to trust in matters of doctrine. The words of Christ's chosen prophets and apostles were not sufficient. There will always be a need for living prophets and apostles.​

In regards to the profound principle of apostollic Christian Authority

(which Orontes alluded to), the Catholics (and eastern orthodox) and the LDS hold tangible claims. Either there is a succession of authority such as in the Catholic or eastern Orthodox model, or there is a restoration of apostolic authority as in the LDS model, or they are both incorrect and the authority has simply died out and NO one has authority. In all three cases, the Alethian Christianities are left without apostolic authority which authentic Christianity had.

I have pointed this out to people so many times I have lost count. Apostolic authority is an essential component of Christ's Church. The Latter-day Saints aren't alone in recognizing this. For example, Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America stated: “[There is] no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new Apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” A number of the early Reformers made similar statements. They attempted to reform the existing Church, but flat out admitted that they could not restore the authority Christ gave to His Apostles.

What are the Alethian Christianities to do?

Just as the ancient Gnostic claimers did, they may, simply stop claiming what they do not have or, they are simply left to the expediency of doing what anyone does when something is lost to them,

they may return to the last place it was seen. Thus they are left to quote authentic references of apostolic authority and claim it applies to them in some way. Psychologically, what else is there for them to do? I believe that this is why the vast number of competing Alethian Christianities, teaching various and competing types of Christian atonement, must either make a claim to have some authority or claim that authority is not needed anymore.

They are, of course, doing the only thing they can do under the circumstances. Obviously, recognizing the lack of authority that can be traced back to its source, one person at a time, the only real option is to insist either that no authority is needed or that every believing Christian has it. That is not how the primitive Church functioned. There were clearly understood priesthood offices and a correct understanding of the responsibilities and authority associated with each office. After John baptized people by water, they still needed to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and that was given by the laying on of hands. John was not authorized to perform that ordinance, as that authority is given only to a Melchizedek priesthood holder. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is so totally unbiblical it's beyond comprehension how anyone could actually believe it. Unless, of course, we apply the old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention."

Besides authority, the other principle to which Alethian Christianities must attempt to attach themselves is to personal guiding revelation through the Holy Ghost.

There are few other ways to claim more credibility in Alethian theories than their competitors than to claim the Holy Ghost "approves" of their version. The first difficulty is, that many Alethian types of Christianities have already laid the foundation that revelation does not exist any more. When this is pointed out, they must then develop additional doctrines to fill this obvious gap. One is forced to generate a new doctrine that only certain "types" of revelations have stopped. And which types of revelation do the Alethian Christianities claim that have stopped? It is is precisely the types that they admit that they do not have! The apostolic or prophetic type they have already banned. Psychologically what can be done after making the admission that one’s christianity does not have revelation, but to make the claim that "others do not have it either".

I agree wholeheartedly. What I find particularly interesting is the fact that Catholicism claims that revelation to the Church ceased following the deaths of the Apostles while at the same time insisting that the Holy Spirit was present at the Council of Nicea when the doctrine of the Trinity was established and the Arian controversy squelched, and again later on when the canon was definitively closed and the books to be considered scriptural decided upon. This is such an obvious contradiction it boggles the mind how easily people can simply ignore it. Revelation to the Church as a whole either exists or else it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. If the Church leaders received guidance from the Holy Ghost in settling upon the canon, call it what it is: Revelation. And once you've done that, admit that the heavens are not sealed but that God continues to reveal His mind and will to His servants here on Earth.

Catholicism, at least, can fall back on "Holy Tradition," although to me, that's a kind of a scary option. If revelation ceased with the deaths of the apostles, how do we know that the traditions which apparently emerged several hundred years later are truly representative of the apostolic Church? As uncomfortable as I am with the idea of doctrines being established by tradition, though, I can accept that option much easier than I can the Protestant position. Sola scriptura, in my opinion, is not even a doctrine worth seriously considering. How can any reasonable person insist that the Bible is complete and yet be unable to provide any evidence to support that claim from "scripture alone"?

The Alethian version of the "Holy Ghost" is able to interpret what old scriptures mean, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide any new scriptures. For them, there are No prophetic visions, no prophetic prophecies, no prophetic gifts, etc. If there are, they must not be written and claimed to be inspired and sacred, for then they are become the same as ancient visions and prophecies which were written; that is, provisional scripture. The claim is a double edged sword. Doctrines must spring up as to why certain revelations are allowed, and others excluded. It becomes more and more confusing as one has to "cover one’s doctrinal tracks".

You know, as easily as I can understand people's reluctance to believe Joseph Smith's story, it makes more sense to me than the scenario you've just described.

I think this is what is so very offensive about the Book of Mormon and the continuing discoveries regarding the vast amount of other sacred texts

(Dead Sea Scrolls, apocrypha, pseudographia, etc). It is evidence to Alethians that "other groups had what mine does not". Thus psychologically, there develops and emergent necessity to discount and disqualify anything that upsets the boat of previous Bias. The terrible question of "what am I to believe if what I currently believe if not true" IS so terrible to such individuals that they simply cannot bring themselves to ask it. In fact, Alethian’s may be unable to see that their theory of christianity IS just one theory competing against a thousand other Alethian-type of theories. To them, it cannot BE a theory. It is a psychological blinder that is self-administered, not because it helps one to see, but because it helps one NOT to see what one does not want to see.

People do compensate in odd ways, don't they? What a proud lot they are. I have often thought it odd that what seems to bother people most about The Book of Mormon is not what it says, but that it exists.

 

[Katzpur]

How will you FIND your wAy ArounD this: (Isa 50:1) Thus saith the Lord, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Excuse me? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Katzpur]

So you are saying, Katzpur, that John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith, then Oliver Cowdery baptized him, then Oliver Cowdery ordained him to the priesthood that John the Baptist had already conferred on him? That's a very interesting procedure.

Yes, I found it interesting, too.

The Aaronic priesthood could only be passed from father to son. It is never mentioned at the time of or after the time of Christ's ministry.

The offices of that priesthood are, though (among them deacons, teachers and priests), as are the ordinances, baptism being the most significant one.

Laying on of hands is not necessary for the reception of the Holy Ghost. Even Joseph Smith did not claim to have had hands laid on him to receive the Holy Ghost.

You are wrong. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given exclusively by the laying on of hands by someone holding the Melchizedek priesthood.

Believers are a holy, royal priesthood without the laying on of hands:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter2:5)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; (1 Peter 2:9)

Yeah, don't you wish? Claim the authority as loudly as you wish. It exists only in your mind.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Yes, I found it interesting, too.

The offices of that priesthood are, though (among them deacons, teachers and priests), as are the ordinances, baptism being the most significant one.

There were no "deacons" and "teachers" in the Aaronic priesthood.

You are wrong. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given exclusively by the laying on of hands by someone holding the Melchizedek priesthood.

Not in my New Testament.

Yeah, don't you wish? Claim the authority as loudly as you wish. It exists only in your mind.

In my mind and in the New Testament.