LDS Race and the LDS Priesthood

dzheremi · Jun 14, 2018

He is the way said:
So what about the Forgotten Books of Eden?

You mean this collection? What about it? I've only just looked it up, and it appears to be a 20th century collection of early pseudepigraphia, Gnostic texts, some letters of the early Church Fathers (particularly Ignatius of Antioch), apocrypha, etc. There is no suggestion that any of it should have been a part of the canon, as its arguably most popular manuscript, the Shepherd of Hermas, was very controversial even in the 2nd and 3rd centuries when it also enjoyed much popularity, to the point that Tertullian (d. 220) could write of it as follows (in reply to Pope Callixtus' argument that it should be part of the scriptural canon): "I would admit your argument, if the writing of The Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false."

The works appearing under the shorter title as you have given it (The Forgotten Books of Eden alone) are also of diverse origins. Apparently at least 4 Maccabees is in the canon of one particular Church (the Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the Eastern Orthodox churches), and until 17th century was in Romanian Orthodox (another EO church) bibles, but has since fallen out of favor. Here I will remind the reader that in the East the canon has never been closed, so it is not a problem that this should be the case. Other parts of this collection come from the Ge'ez (Oriental Orthodox of Ethiopia and Eritrea) tradition, such as The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, with the caveat that they never even formed a part of the scriptural canon with that particular tradition to begin with (notable perhaps because the Ethiopian/Eritrean Biblical canon is the largest of all Christian churches). Still others come from Aramaic Jewish or Christian Syriac sources (Ahikar, the Odes of Solomon), and still others come from Hellensitic Jewish sources, like the Letter of Aristeas.

So it's all over the place, and in no sense outside of the very narrow acceptance of one particular book by the Georgians and the Romanians has any of it ever been considered scripture in any church.

He is the way · Jun 14, 2018

dzheremi said:
No. It's plainly heretical and evil, and it's not wrong or a mistake to say so. Again, the early Church itself already made this decision in the 140s by getting rid of Marcion for teaching a bunch of Gnostic, anti-God nonsense. It'll always be wrong, and the fact that Mormons have managed to come up with their own justification for it, abusing the Bible in the process, has no bearing on whether or not the idea itself is acceptable. It's not.

You have twisted the meaning of the scripture into something you deem to be heretical. I see baptism for the dead being something that is indeed justified by the Bible indicating that there is a resurrection and that baptism for the dead would be of no value if there wasn't a resurrection. The molten sea was used for washing in this way:
(New Testament | Titus 3:5)

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (baptism), and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Besides the molten sea the temple also had lavers:
(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:38)

38 ¶ Then made he ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths: and every laver was four cubits: and upon every one of the ten bases one laver.

dzheremi · Jun 14, 2018

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the molten sea existed. I'm saying that according to the scriptures themselves, they were used for the priests to wash themselves. There is no indication that they were used for the baptisms of dead people, as the LDS would have it.

And, again, according to the witness of the early Church itself, the baptism of the dead was the practice of heretical sects that had been thrown out of the church centuries earlier. It is not attested to outside of the practices of the Marcionites.

(Marcion, by the way, denied that the God of the OT is the father of Jesus Christ, as his view was that the OT God was wicked. On that grounds he dismissed the OT as uninspired, and made a canon that fit his own belief instead.)

Ironhold · Jun 14, 2018

Thomas Schular said:
That is why they didn't allow ordinations of black men until 1978?

This is really not funny to me. You are telling me Mormons wanted to ordain black men from "day one" but they didn't until 1978 and it was the fault of everyone else?

The church *did* ordain black men to the priesthood in the 1830s and 1840s. This was in the links we've all been posting.

Did you read that?

drstevej · Jun 14, 2018

He is the way said:
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (baptism), and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

So you edit the Bible willy nilly to fit your theology. That is dangerous.

He is the way · Jun 14, 2018

dzheremi said:
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the molten sea existed. I'm saying that according to the scriptures themselves, they were used for the priests to wash themselves. There is no indication that they were used for the baptisms of dead people, as the LDS would have it.

And, again, according to the witness of the early Church itself, the baptism of the dead was the practice of heretical sects that had been thrown out of the church centuries earlier. It is not attested to outside of the practices of the Marcionites.

(Marcion, by the way, denied that the God of the OT is the father of Jesus Christ, as his view was that the OT God was wicked. On that grounds he dismissed the OT as uninspired, and made a canon that fit his own belief instead.)

Which witnesses are you referring to?

drstevej said:
So you edit the Bible willy nilly to fit your theology. That is dangerous.

The molten sea was used for the priests to wash {washing of regeneration (baptism) in. Do you have a better explanation for the washing of regeneration?

dzheremi · Jun 14, 2018

He is the way said:
Which witnesses are you referring to?

The witnesses of the early Church. St. John Chrysostom has already been referenced, but there are other even earlier sources such as St. Hippolytus (d. 235) and St. Irenaeus (d. 202) that testify to the fact that the early Church always rejected Marcionism. Most of the polemics against Marcion's theology deal with his dualistic creation narrative and gnostic tendencies (less so with the practices of his followers, which is what St. John Chrysostom was writing about), so I won't link them here, but really...the entire church was so against this guy from such an early time that even after his own departure from Christianity for Montanism, the Latin writer Tertullian (d. 220) was able to write Against Marcion and capture more or less the chronology and consequences of his error correctly.

The molten sea was used for the priests to wash {washing of regeneration (baptism) in. Do you have a better explanation for the washing of regeneration?

Yeah, and that explanation is what the scriptures actually say:

1 Moreover he made a bronze altar: twenty cubits was its length, twenty cubits its width, and ten cubits its height. 2 Then he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. 3 And under it was the likeness of oxen encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The oxen were cast in two rows, when it was cast. 4 It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward. 5 It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained three thousand baths. 6 He also made ten lavers, and put five on the right side and five on the left, to wash in them; such things as they offered for the burnt offering they would wash in them, but the Sea was for the priests to wash in. (2 Chronicles 4; emphasis added)

+++

So they would wash the things offered for the burnt offering in the ten lavers, and the priests would wash themselves in the molten sea. There's nothing about baptizing people in there. That is a distinctly Mormon belief, not supported by the scriptures, nor anything in the early Church. (Baptisteries are not altars, though there may be altars nearby depending on how/if they're integrated into the main church or cathedral -- some, like the famous Lateran baptistery in Rome, were originally free-standing structures.)

Ritual purification of those who are to handle the offerings was very important in the early Church, which kept this practice from the days of temple Judaism. It is still practiced in the Orthodox Church, wherein the priest washes his hands before handling the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice:

The priest washes his hands to prepare himself before handling the Body of Jesus Christ our God. This is not to wash his hands from physical dirt, but rather a time for him to ask God to purify him from his iniquities. The priest prays parts of psalm 51 while he does this, such as “purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow”. The priest then sprinkles the water in front of the congregation to remind them to do the same, and also to declare that he is innocent of the blood of Jesus if anyone partakes of the Eucharist unworthily without telling him. This is a reference to St. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 1:27-30. (Photo and explanatory text courtesy of St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church, Sydney Australia)

He is the way · Jun 14, 2018

dzheremi said:
The witnesses of the early Church. St. John Chrysostom has already been referenced, but there are other even earlier sources such as St. Hippolytus (d. 235) and St. Irenaeus (d. 202) that testify to the fact that the early Church always rejected Marcionism. Most of the polemics against Marcion's theology deal with his dualistic creation narrative and gnostic tendencies (less so with the practices of his followers, which is what St. John Chrysostom was writing about), so I won't link them here, but really...the entire church was so against this guy from such an early time that even after his own departure from Christianity for Montanism, the Latin writer Tertullian (d. 220) was able to write Against Marcion and capture more or less the chronology and consequences of his error correctly.

Yeah, and that explanation is what the scriptures actually say:

1 Moreover he made a bronze altar: twenty cubits was its length, twenty cubits its width, and ten cubits its height. 2 Then he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. 3 And under it was the likeness of oxen encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The oxen were cast in two rows, when it was cast. 4 It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward. 5 It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained three thousand baths. 6 He also made ten lavers, and put five on the right side and five on the left, to wash in them; such things as they offered for the burnt offering they would wash in them, but the Sea was for the priests to wash in. (2 Chronicles 4; emphasis added)

+++

So they would wash the things offered for the burnt offering in the ten lavers, and the priests would wash themselves in the molten sea. There's nothing about baptizing people in there. That is a distinctly Mormon belief, not supported by the scriptures, nor anything in the early Church. (Baptisteries are not altars, though there may be altars nearby depending on how/if they're integrated into the main church or cathedral -- some, like the famous Lateran baptistery in Rome, were originally free-standing structures.)

Ritual purification of those who are to handle the offerings was very important in the early Church, which kept this practice from the days of temple Judaism. It is still practiced in the Orthodox Church, wherein the priest washes his hands before handling the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice:

The priest washes his hands to prepare himself before handling the Body of Jesus Christ our God. This is not to wash his hands from physical dirt, but rather a time for him to ask God to purify him from his iniquities. The priest prays parts of psalm 51 while he does this, such as “purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow”. The priest then sprinkles the water in front of the congregation to remind them to do the same, and also to declare that he is innocent of the blood of Jesus if anyone partakes of the Eucharist unworthily without telling him. This is a reference to St. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 1:27-30. (Photo and explanatory text courtesy of St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church, Sydney Australia)

The lavors were for the washing of the hands, but the molten sea was for the washing of regeneration.

dzheremi · Jun 15, 2018

It really wasn't, if by that you mean baptism. You can keep repeating that, but you cannot show it to be the case either from the text or the traditions of the early Christians or the Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia in fact notes specific baptisms which took place in particular rivers (NB: not in the molten sea), and also that Essenes underwent baptism every morning...you think they went to the temple every morning to do so in the molten sea? Well...I mean, that's really not possible, since the text tells us that it was made by Solomon, who reigned from 970 to 931 BC and built the first Temple in Jerusalem which was subsequently completely destroyed by the Babylonians when they sacked the city in 425 BC. The second temple was constructed beginning in 538 BC, and it was this temple that was standing when the Essenes first appeared in the 2nd century BC. Archaeological evidence shows that this temple had ceremonial baths, but these were for pilgrims to ritually clean themselves, and they were apparently found in the thousands (as per Wikipedia), which pretty much eliminates the idea that they could be large enough to baptize people in them in the manner that Jews were known to do, by immersion of the body in water (as in the Jordan).

The bottom line is that there is absolutely zero evidence that the molten sea was ever used for baptisms, and plenty of evidence from elsewhere in the Biblical text and other Jewish texts of the places in which the Jews underwent baptism.

He is the way · Jun 15, 2018

dzheremi said:
It really wasn't, if by that you mean baptism. You can keep repeating that, but you cannot show it to be the case either from the text or the traditions of the early Christians or the Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia in fact notes specific baptisms which took place in particular rivers (NB: not in the molten sea), and also that Essenes underwent baptism every morning...you think they went to the temple every morning to do so in the molten sea? Well...I mean, that's really not possible, since the text tells us that it was made by Solomon, who reigned from 970 to 931 BC and built the first Temple in Jerusalem which was subsequently completely destroyed by the Babylonians when they sacked the city in 425 BC. The second temple was constructed beginning in 538 BC, and it was this temple that was standing when the Essenes first appeared in the 2nd century BC. Archaeological evidence shows that this temple had ceremonial baths, but these were for pilgrims to ritually clean themselves, and they were apparently found in the thousands (as per Wikipedia), which pretty much eliminates the idea that they could be large enough to baptize people in them in the manner that Jews were known to do, by immersion of the body in water (as in the Jordan).

The bottom line is that there is absolutely zero evidence that the molten sea was ever used for baptisms, and plenty of evidence from elsewhere in the Biblical text and other Jewish texts of the places in which the Jews underwent baptism.

We are talking about two different types of baptism, baptism for the dead and live baptism or baptism for the living. Baptism for the living does not take place in the temple. Baptism for the dead takes place in the temple. This ordinance is called washing of regeneration and was performed by the priests as stated in the Bible.

drstevej · Jun 15, 2018

He is the way said:
We are talking about two different types of baptism, baptism for the dead and live baptism or baptism for the living. Baptism for the living does not take place in the temple. Baptism for the dead takes place in the temple. This ordinance is called washing of regeneration and was performed by the priests as stated in the Bible.

What was being baptized for the dead? It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different interpretations put forward. 1. The plain meaning of the Greek in verse 29 is that some people are being baptized on behalf of those who have died—and if there is no resurrection, why are they doing this? 2. Either Paul is referring to a pagan custom (notice he uses they, not "we"), or to a superstitious and unscriptural practice in the Corinthian church of vicarious baptism for believers who died before being baptized. 3. Either way, he certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there is no resurrection, why would the custom take place? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is neither scriptural nor sensible.

What is baptism for the dead?

He is the way · Jun 15, 2018

drstevej said:
What is baptism for the dead?

There is a reason thea Paul used the term they. He was not called to baptize:
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 1:17)

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Paul did not oppose baptism:
(New Testament | Romans 6:3 - 7)

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

dzheremi · Jun 15, 2018

He is the way said:
We are talking about two different types of baptism, baptism for the dead and live baptism or baptism for the living. Baptism for the living does not take place in the temple. Baptism for the dead takes place in the temple. This ordinance is called washing of regeneration and was performed by the priests as stated in the Bible.

There is no evidence that the molten sea was ever used for any kind of baptism, and the Bible certainly doesn't say that it was.

One thing that it does say, however, is that a priest may not defile himself by coming near a dead body, except in the case of their immediate relatives (Ezekiel 44:25). So we know that baptisms for the dead could not have been a thing.

Rescued One · Jun 15, 2018

Who can be baptized for the dead?
Any member of the Church who is at least 12 years old may be baptized for the dead. Young men must hold the priesthood. Most importantly, everyone who enters the house of the Lord must be worthy. You and your bishop or one of his counselors will determine your worthiness in an interview....
Baptisms for the Dead: What to Know Before You Go - new-era

Do I have to bring my own family names to the temple?
Often you will see others come to the temple with pink- or blue-colored cards with names on them. These are the names of those who have died and need baptism and other temple ordinances done for them. You are not required to bring your own names, but it is wonderful when you do. Often the temple has names of people you may be baptized for that others have submitted. It is best to call ahead to find out if you need to bring your own names.
Baptisms for the Dead: What to Know Before You Go - new-era

This information is from lds.org.

He is the way · Jun 15, 2018

dzheremi said:
There is no evidence that the molten sea was ever used for any kind of baptism, and the Bible certainly doesn't say that it was.

One thing that it does say, however, is that a priest may not defile himself by coming near a dead body, except in the case of their immediate relatives (Ezekiel 44:25). So we know that baptisms for the dead could not have been a thing.

The priests did not have to come near a dead body to do baptisms for the dead and the Bible does mention baptism for the dead.

He is the way · Jun 15, 2018

Phoebe Ann said:
Who can be baptized for the dead?
Any member of the Church who is at least 12 years old may be baptized for the dead. Young men must hold the priesthood. Most importantly, everyone who enters the house of the Lord must be worthy. You and your bishop or one of his counselors will determine your worthiness in an interview....
Baptisms for the Dead: What to Know Before You Go - new-era

View attachment 231137

Do I have to bring my own family names to the temple?
Often you will see others come to the temple with pink- or blue-colored cards with names on them. These are the names of those who have died and need baptism and other temple ordinances done for them. You are not required to bring your own names, but it is wonderful when you do. Often the temple has names of people you may be baptized for that others have submitted. It is best to call ahead to find out if you need to bring your own names.
Baptisms for the Dead: What to Know Before You Go - new-era

Thank you for posting this.

Rescued One · Jun 16, 2018

He is the way said:
The priests did not have to come near a dead body to do baptisms for the dead and the Bible does mention baptism for the dead.

Mentioning what some people are doing, doesn't mean, "Why are we baptizing for the dead?"

Rescued One · Jun 16, 2018

He is the way · Jun 16, 2018

Phoebe Ann said:
Mentioning what some people are doing, doesn't mean, "Why are we baptizing for the dead?"

I know why baptism for the dead in necessary, it is because God makes it possible for all of His children to return to Him. God is just, merciful and fair.

mmksparbud · Jun 16, 2018

He is the way said:
I know why baptism for the dead in necessary, it is because God makes it possible for all of His children to return to Him. God is just, merciful and fair.

Christ has made baptism the sign of entrance to His spiritual kingdom, which is to acknowledge to the world that we are now under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they now all work in our behalf. It is symbolically a type of "burial", representing our death to the old man of sin, and spiritual rebirth through Jesus Christ. God wants to give us a life to live here and now, and baptism should only be for the living, not the dead. The gospel teaches freedom of choice and baptism of the dead runs entirely contrary to that. Salvation in Christ is a personal choice that cannot be made for someone else.
In 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul is referring to a pagan practice of baptizing for the dead. In a sense he was saying, "Even pagans and heretics fasten their faith on the hope of a resurrection, and if they cherish that hope, how much more should we." That it is not possible for Christians to be baptized vicariously on behalf of deceased relatives and friends is apparent from the many Scriptures which declare that a man must personally believe in Christ and confess his sins in order to profit by baptism and be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:36, 37; cf. Ezekiel 18:20-24; John 3:16; 1 John 1:9). Even the most righteous of men can "deliver but their own souls" (Ezekiel 14:14, 16; cf. Psalm 49:7). Death marks the close of human probation (see Psalm 49:7-9; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10; Isaiah 38:18, 19; Luke 16:26; Hebrews 9:27, 28).

LDS Race and the LDS Priesthood

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Member

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads