What do Mormons really believe? Let's discuss Mormonism!!! (evolve, holy communion, Apostle)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
We have talked about faith, repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, but we have not discussed the means of obtaining these ordinances.
The authority to act in the name of God is called the priesthood. This priesthood authority must be conferred upon us in a manner that is consistent with the will of God. Jesus said to His disciples "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you that you should go and bring forth fruit and that your fruit should remain..." (John 15:16, emphasis added)
Furthermore, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews, speaking of the ministry, "No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron" (Heb 5:4)
How was Aaron called? Look at Chapter 28 in Exodus. The Lord tells Moses to call his brother Aaron and his sons to the ministry of the priesthood and set them apart through consecration. This is what it means to be called by the spirit of prophecy by those that are in authority.
We believe that the keys of the priesthood, which are absolutely neccessary to conduct the affairs of the church and and to administer the saving ordinances, were lost with the death of the Apostles. There are many others who have come to this same conclusion. A group of English christians in the 1600's rebelled against the Church of England, believing that the priesthood authority was not to be found on the earth. This group called themselves "Seekers" because they were seeking a renewal of this priesthood authority from God but were short lived because they couldn't minister to their own spiritual needs.
Roger Williams in America came to the same conclusion saying "that there was no regularly-constituted Church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance; nor could there be, until new apostles were sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming he was seeking” (see William Cullen Bryant, ed., Picturesque America; or, the Land We Live In, 2 vols. [1872–74], 1:502).
Then how is it that we can administer in the ordinances of salvation today? That is the subject of my next post.
Well, for obvious reasons, we Protestants don't agree that the church went apostate after the death of the apostles. If we did, we would be saying that we are apostate, and I don't believe that we are. We read in the New Testament how Peter and Paul preached to many people. Large groups became Christians and were baptized. Churches were established. There were groups of Christians all over the Roman Empire. I just find it hard to believe that all of these groups were considered apostate upon the death of the apostles. In Paul's letters, it makes it clear that he was teaching these people to lead themselves. It was impossible for the apostles to be at all of these churches all of the time. What happened in the meantime?
As for the priesthood. We have an entirely different take on things here. First, the verse you quoted in Hebrews that mentions that the priests were called of God, not man. The first half of the book of Hebrews, when read all together, talks about how the law dictated that the priests had to offer blood sacrifices for the sins of the people. This had to be done again and again. But Jesus, our new high priest, has paid the blood sacrifice once and for all. See, Protestants don't view Hebrews as laying out the groundwork for the way the church should be run. To us, it is saying that the old way doesn't work. We no longer have earthly priests. We only have Jesus, who is the ultimate high priest.
The "supposed" apostacy was one thing that always troubled me during my time in the mormon church and no one would give me a real answer about it. I would ask them if the apostacy was of the OT church or the NT church and I received a variety of answers but nothing substantial. Perhaps they didn't really know for sure.
I have to agree with dojilynn because if the apostacy centered around the OT church, then why did Christ preach about different ideas revolving around how we were supposed to worship? If the apostacy centered around the NT church, the groundwork was laid out for us by Christ, before He returned the last time, as recorded in Acts. It is revealed to us in Acts and the premise is very simple; we are to gather together and worship God in fellowship. There are only two ordinances we are to partake in and they are: baptism and communion. Nothing else was listed in Acts or the rest of the Bible and that is what is observed today in most churches.
One thing I would like to know is: some of the ordinances that are observed in the mormon church come from the OT but there are some that I have never found anywhere in the Bible. This leaves me to wonder if (1) they were ever in place, (2) were they not included when the Bible was complied, or (3) were they unspoken/unwritten ordinances that were revealed to Joseph Smith?
Well, for obvious reasons, we Protestants don't agree that the church went apostate after the death of the apostles. If we did, we would be saying that we are apostate, and I don't believe that we are. We read in the New Testament how Peter and Paul preached to many people. Large groups became Christians and were baptized. Churches were established. There were groups of Christians all over the Roman Empire. I just find it hard to believe that all of these groups were considered apostate upon the death of the apostles. In Paul's letters, it makes it clear that he was teaching these people to lead themselves. It was impossible for the apostles to be at all of these churches all of the time. What happened in the meantime?
I would like to interject something here. First, I really hate the word apostate, because it carries a modern connotation, which I feel is inappropriate. Today, apostate or apostasy carries a connotation of willful and disobedient behavior. Yes, some apostasy is willful. Luther could be classified as a willful and disobedient apostate, but were his actions wrong? Certainly, if one is Lutheran, the answer is no. Second, apostasy can be positive and enacted with a pure conviction of intent and heart; yet, this aspect is often overlooked. Again, Luther is what I consider to be a positive example of person, who can be classified as an apostate and acted with purity of heart and conviction.
If I were in charge of the universe, I would have preferred to use the phrase, “a deviation from the established truth,” because this phrase is how I view apostasy. Note, however, that my definition of apostasy does not mean willful or a complete falling from the truth. It means that some aspects have been distorted, misinterpreted, or lost. It also means that things that did not exist somehow found themselves injected into doctrine.
You ask a valid question, dojilynn. “What [indeed] happened in the meantime?” Let me answer this question by first relating a story about an event that took place within the LDS Church in Germany during WWII.
Prior to, and during WWII, members in Germany were frightened they would be confused with Jewish congregations or congregations that were not looked upon favorably by the German Government. Our lay clergy do not wear any visible vestments, as is the case with Catholic clergy and many Protestant—including Lutheran— denominations. During the course of the war, many LDS clergy adopted visible vestments to keep the wolves from the door, so to speak. The rationalization was understandable; such a practice clearly linked those LDS congregations to the accepted norms in Germany under Hitler. One could rationalize such an action was beneficial and a shield of safety for the members. There is only one problem with this. Although it did no harm, it was not authorized by the Church, and after hostilities came to a close and communications were reestablished between the German membership and Church headquarters, the First Presidency put an immediate halt to the practice.
When you ask “what happened in the meantime,” your question is answered by the WWII German LDS Church experience. Time and events, which include but are not limited to politics and religion, can erode or distort practices and doctrines, unless there exists a constant central authority to prevent deviation. Paul tried to keep those congregations that were already in existence on the straight and narrow path, but after his death and without his constant monitoring, deviation crept in.
The "supposed" apostacy was one thing that always troubled me during my time in the mormon church and no one would give me a real answer about it. I would ask them if the apostacy was of the OT church or the NT church and I received a variety of answers but nothing substantial. Perhaps they didn't really know for sure.
Christ certainly fulfilled the law, and through His Crucifixion, many OT ordinances were no longer necessary; however, the Priesthood was not set aside. The function of the Priesthood was altered, in that blood sacrifice was no longer required, but the authority to perform other ordinances, such as baptism and ordination, was still retained within the Priesthood. So, to answer your question, LDS believe it is a deviation from both OT and NT practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlemur
One thing I would like to know is: some of the ordinances that are observed in the mormon church come from the OT but there are some that I have never found anywhere in the Bible. This leaves me to wonder if (1) they were ever in place, (2) were they not included when the Bible was complied, or (3) were they unspoken/unwritten ordinances that were revealed to Joseph Smith?
Could you expound on those practices you can't find? I would like to answer you.
First, no need to describe the ordinances because I know they're sacred but the endowments, the marriage/sealing, and the baptism for the dead. (Did I miss anything?) The reason I wonder is because all we know from the Bible is that sacrifices were made on the altars and that only the priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place. The Bible doesn't mention anything else other than these things so where did they come from?
First, no need to describe the ordinances because I know they're sacred but the endowments, the marriage/sealing, and the baptism for the dead. (Did I miss anything?) The reason I wonder is because all we know from the Bible is that sacrifices were made on the altars and that only the priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place. The Bible doesn't mention anything else other than these things so where did they come from?
I was pretty sure you meant these, and I thank you for honoring our belief such things are sacred by sticking to generalities.
Urban, this is a tough question to answer, but I will do my best. None of the Temple Ordinances of today are contained in what I term "public Church Canon." All instructions pertaining to the ordinances of the Temple are kept strictly within the confines of each Temple. If I wanted to become a worker, who performed a specific ordinance in the Temple, all of my instruction and training would be conducted within the walls of the Temple. I can only assume these ordinances were also restricted in the time of Christ's mortal ministry.
The OT Temple practices of sacrifice were actually conducted outside of the Temple proper, but within the Temple grounds. Some of the practices within the Holy of Holies were also recorded All of these practices were preparatory ordinances as a reminder of the coming of Christ and the sacrifice He would make and thus fulfill the law. I believe these ordinances were revealed in Mosaic Law as a reminder to the people of the mission of Christ, whereas, the current LDS practices are not preparatory to the coming of Christ.
In short, that which was kept in the Temple anciently was not recorded in the Bible and was lost over time until it was restored in these latter days.
Sergeant, I understand what you are saying, but . . .
Although the details of the temple ordinances are not discussed outside the temples, certainly the idea that there are temple ordinances and that they are crucial to eternal life is all over the place in the church. I would expect similar references in the Bible.
Sergeant, I understand what you are saying, but . . .
Although the details of the temple ordinances are not discussed outside the temples, certainly the idea that there are temple ordinances and that they are crucial to eternal life is all over the place in the church. I would expect similar references in the Bible.
There are similar references in the Bible:
! Cor. 15:29
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?
Now, I grant you, this passage does not specifically state baptisms for the dead took place in the Temple, but it does clearly state baptisms for the dead were performed. The more I look into the compilation of the current Bible, the more I come to believe much was left out, because no one could make the connection between what was known outside of the Temple and what was held sacred inside the Temple. You will note, however, that Paul follows the same pattern of speaking in general terms about the ordinance, just as Urban did, without describing the specifics.
Next, remember from your own lessons, anyone who has not received the saving ordinances in this life will receive them through proxy, either now or during the millennium. As you recall, LDS teachings tell us the primary purpose of the millennium is to perform the temple work for those who still need the ordinances.
i wore a cross to church when i was on my mission in argentina. we had a family at church with us that week, and were trying to show thm what we believe in and what our meetings are like. one of the girls had a crucifix around her neck (south america, 80% catholic. go figure), and one of the more ignorant church members came up to her and tucked the cross into her collar and told her that it was disrespectful to wear it.
needless to say, i was livid. i borrowed her crucifix and wore it the rest of the meeting.
i will admit that my anger made my intentions less than perfect at the time. but there is nothing wrong with wearing a cross in and of itself. we just choose not to, in order to remind us to focus on Christ Himself, not the images that we perceive (that does not imply that crucifix-wearers focus on images, just that it can happen). it is the same reason we -usually- don't have portraits of prophets and saints and stuff in the chapel.
Fascinating.
Thanks for sharing that. I'm still amazed at the level of civility being used in this thread.
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?
Now, I grant you, this passage does not specifically state baptisms for the dead took place in the Temple, but it does clearly state baptisms for the dead were performed. The more I look into the compilation of the current Bible, the more I come to believe much was left out, because no one could make the connection between what was known outside of the Temple and what was held sacred inside the Temple. You will note, however, that Paul follows the same pattern of speaking in general terms about the ordinance, just as Urban did, without describing the specifics.
Sorry, I should have said that I am aware of the 1 Corinthians verse, but not of any others. Is this the only one you know of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeantL
Next, remember from your own lessons, anyone who has not received the saving ordinances in this life will receive them through proxy, either now or during the millennium. As you recall, LDS teachings tell us the primary purpose of the millennium is to perform the temple work for those who still need the ordinances.
I understand the Mormon teaching, but I don't see how this provides evidence that the practice existed in the church of Jesus' day or shortly thereafter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
