LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

chevyontheriver said:

Liturgical prayers ought to have pedigrees. What is the pedigree of your ceremony?

Not all prayers are liturgical prayers. The one you cited and the one I did simply are not liturgical. They are private prayers. They do not need a pedigree. Your ceremonies, if they were valid would be like our liturgies and be related to the earliest liturgies of the Christian Church. Since you don't have a liturgical pedigree, we might think rationally that it's like a lot of other Protestant worship that was just made up.

Click to expand...

Then these protestant churches cannot be the true church of Jesus Christ. Right?

chevyontheriver said:

It may not 'symbolize' a burial, but in my shower it is an effective washing, which is the literal meaning of the word baptism anyhow. You can get all legalistic about baptism by immersion if you want to. The Baptists do that too. In fact, your insistence only makes it look like you are perhaps a radical offshoot of the Anabaptists. They agree with you about Baptism. Only because they lost the connection to the apostles and cling to a book they don't fully understand for their rules on baptism.

Click to expand...

Yes, baptism is referred to as a washing, but it is a specific kind of washing. It is a full immersion washing, not a shower or sprinkling kind of washing, but a full immersion washing.

One element of the symbolism of baptism is that you are burying your sinful body into a watery grave and then you come up out of that grave clean and pure and ready to be a child of God and to do his will.

There is no grave in a shower, or sprinkling and so the symbolism is lost. That is why full immersion is needed.

chevyontheriver said:

It may not 'symbolize' a burial, but in my shower it is an effective washing, which is the literal meaning of the word baptism anyhow. You can get all legalistic about baptism by immersion if you want to. The Baptists do that too. In fact, your insistence only makes it look like you are perhaps a radical offshoot of the Anabaptists. They agree with you about Baptism. Only because they lost the connection to the apostles and cling to a book they don't fully understand for their rules on baptism.

Click to expand...

You argue with anyone that thinks baptism should be done by immersion. You have to because your church gives you a wide range of non-biblical options for baptism. What the Catholic church has done to the doctrine of baptism is a sure sign of apostasy.

BigDaddy4 said:

There is no other way to eat an Oreo with milk than immersion.

Click to expand...

Do you mean, there is no other way to be baptized other than by immersion?

chevyontheriver said:

It may not 'symbolize' a burial, but in my shower it is an effective washing, which is the literal meaning of the word baptism anyhow. You can get all legalistic about baptism by immersion if you want to. The Baptists do that too. In fact, your insistence only makes it look like you are perhaps a radical offshoot of the Anabaptists. They agree with you about Baptism. Only because they lost the connection to the apostles and cling to a book they don't fully understand for their rules on baptism.

Click to expand...

Baptism is indeed a washing, it washes away sins and is the reason that Christ suffered for our sins, by His proxy gift for those who repent and are baptized by someone who holds the keys for that ordinance. We believe that John the Baptist restored those keys to the earth through Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey. After a person is baptized and confirmed (receive the Holy Ghost) they become a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. We also believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance which everyone will have the opportunity to receive or reject through proxy baptism for the dead. This way even the Bedouin who lives in the desert and the hermit will be able to eventually be baptized. God is just, but He is also fair and has made provisions for everyone.

Peter1000 said:

Then these protestant churches cannot be the true church of Jesus Christ. Right?

Click to expand...

Though they have elements of truth in them they do not have valid sacraments other than baptism. They DO have more truth than the LDS does, by an order of magnitude at least. But no, they are not the Church that Jesus founded.

I'd rather be Protestant than Mormon as I approach the last judgment however. Most of the Protestants manage to preach Jesus, to teach their members to pray, and they baptize them validly. We are working with many varied kinds of Protestants on unity. There is no unity possible with the LDS or the other Mormons as there is a whole different deity.

Peter1000 said:

Yes, baptism is referred to as a washing, but it is a specific kind of washing. It is a full immersion washing, not a shower or sprinkling kind of washing, but a full immersion washing.

Click to expand...

And Scripture says exactly that where?

One element of the symbolism of baptism is that you are burying your sinful body into a watery grave and then you come up out of that grave clean and pure and ready to be a child of God and to do his will.

Click to expand...

Yup. That's the symbolism. But where is it written that the symbolism demands baptism be by immersion only?

There is no grave in a shower, or sprinkling and so the symbolism is lost. That is why full immersion is needed.

Click to expand...

So no valid baptism unless the symbolism is exactly observed? And you can get away with water for communion? The symbolism of blood red wine gets a little bit lost there!

So I ask again, how does the Bedouin in the desert get immersed? Does the Eskimo have to dive into ice water? Happily Christians have the Didache from about 100 AD, which explains that there can be an alternate to your overly restrictive dictate. But since you reject the Church Fathers you have to reject the Didache too.

He is the way said:

Baptism is indeed a washing, it washes away sins and is the reason that Christ suffered for our sins, by His proxy gift for those who repent and are baptized by someone who holds the keys for that ordinance. We believe that John the Baptist restored those keys to the earth through Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey. After a person is baptized and confirmed (receive the Holy Ghost) they become a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. We also believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance which everyone will have the opportunity to receive or reject through proxy baptism for the dead. This way even the Bedouin who lives in the desert and the hermit will be able to eventually be baptized. God is just, but He is also fair and has made provisions for everyone.

Click to expand...

Ha! I knew you would refer that poor Bedouin to your baptism for the dead. But don't you think it is a little more rational to baptize by pouring in the here and now rather than to wait?

He is the way said:

We believe that everyone has the light of Christ to know right from wrong and the agency to choose to live according to the dictates of their own conscience. Each of us will be rewarded according to our works whether they be good or evil. There have always been those who follow Jesus Christ and those who are of their father the devil. Those who follow Christ will have eternal life while those who choose the other way will experience spiritual death. This has been so since the beginning. Prophets, apostles, teachers, etc. are here to help us to help us understand the right way and help those in need. The poor will always be among us and they need our help. The priesthood of God is given for the purpose of helping others, not as a status symbol or to be praised of man. If miracles have ceased it is because of the lack of faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus was not able to do much work in His home town due to lack of faith and unbelief:

(New Testament | Mark 6:4 - 6)

4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you regarding my Church's own priesthood, that it was given for helping man, in distributing baptism, the Eucharist, in maintaining Church leadership, Christian teaching and discipline. My issue with Mormon claims is that these gifts were denied to us for 1700 years for no discernable reason. That the good gifts Mormons claim for themselves were denied to the Church. The only result of which was to bring about the great Apostasy. You even admit if God were to do to you, what he did to us, then you would be no better off than we are.

To even suggest there was not faith, in a time when faith was the order of the day (unlike in our nihilistic time) strikes me as a fantasy. Everyone believed in something at that point in time, be it philosophy, the gods or the one God of Christianity. Was there ever a time in the history of Christianity where there ceased to be devout people? I can't think of any. Hence why I reject this Mormon notion of the great apostasy.

I honestly think this conversation is over. Hence this is my last response. I've made my points as well as I can.

dzheremi said:

And yet nowhere does St. Paul nor any other apostle or other figure of early Christianity ever preach a universal apostasy that would make the Church so corrupted as to need to be 'restored' later by the coming of another prophet with another gospel.

Click to expand...

2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 King James Version (KJV)
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

How universal is this "falling away"

Pau is telling the Thessalonians that Jesus's return is not imminent. As proof of that he tells them that Jesus will not return until there is a "falling away" first, and the man of sin be revealed.
Then he says this mystery of iniquity doth already work and so we know that the "falling away" is going to happen in their time, not in our time.

Again, how universal is this "falling away"?

Peter1000 said:

You argue with anyone that thinks baptism should be done by immersion. You have to because your church gives you a wide range of non-biblical options for baptism. What the Catholic church has done to the doctrine of baptism is a sure sign of apostasy.

Click to expand...

I don't argue that baptism by immersion is wrong. If some Baptist wants to become Catholic, we don't re-baptize them because we accept their baptism.

And since we have historical textual evidence from 100 AD in the Didache that alternatives to immersion are legitimate, we can use those alternatives. Especially since there is no demand in the Bible that baptism be only by immersion. Our understanding of baptism is in plain continuity with the early Church. Your position is in plain continuity with the Anabaptists. THAT is a pretty clear sign you haven't got an apostolic origin even though you claim there was a message from an angel that you have it. Claiming Catholics are apostate for baptizing like the Church has done from the first century is a bit bold. It means you need to date your 'total apostasy' to before 100 AD. But you've been a bit wishy-washy on that date.

Peter1000 said:

Again, how universal is this "falling away"?

Click to expand...

Not universal enough for the Mormon claims to be true.

We've gone around and around and around. You have yet to date your 'total apostasy'. You have yet to show that it happened, all the while insisting that it has happened. Your cited Scriptures are misused to attempt to prove your apostasy but they have fallen flat.

I'm done too. This discussion has been going around in circled for at least the last 300 posts.You have added nothing new in that time.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I would agree with you regarding my Church's own priesthood, that it was given for helping man, in distributing baptism, the Eucharist, in maintaining Church leadership, Christian teaching and discipline. My issue with Mormon claims is that these gifts were denied to us for 1700 years for no discernable reason. That the good gifts Mormons claim for themselves were denied to the Church. The only result of which was to bring about the great Apostasy. You even admit if God were to do to you, what he did to us, then you would be no better off than we are.

To even suggest there was not faith, in a time when faith was the order of the day (unlike in our nihilistic time) strikes me as a fantasy. Everyone believed in something at that point in time, be it philosophy, the gods or the one God of Christianity. Was there ever a time in the history of Christianity where there ceased to be devout people? I can't think of any. Hence why I reject this Mormon notion of the great apostasy.

I honestly think this conversation is over. Hence this is my last response. I've made my points as well as I can.

Click to expand...

You have done well.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I would agree with you regarding my Church's own priesthood, that it was given for helping man, in distributing baptism, the Eucharist, in maintaining Church leadership, Christian teaching and discipline. My issue with Mormon claims is that these gifts were denied to us for 1700 years for no discernable reason. That the good gifts Mormons claim for themselves were denied to the Church. The only result of which was to bring about the great Apostasy. You even admit if God were to do to you, what he did to us, then you would be no better off than we are.

To even suggest there was not faith, in a time when faith was the order of the day (unlike in our nihilistic time) strikes me as a fantasy. Everyone believed in something at that point in time, be it philosophy, the gods or the one God of Christianity. Was there ever a time in the history of Christianity where there ceased to be devout people? I can't think of any. Hence why I reject this Mormon notion of the great apostasy.

I honestly think this conversation is over. Hence this is my last response. I've made my points as well as I can.

Click to expand...

We have given you many discernable reasons and God's solution to the problem, which you either have not read or you insist upon ignoring. Either way you do not get it, and so it is good at this point to let it go.

chevyontheriver said:

Not universal enough for the Mormon claims to be true.

We've gone around and around and around. You have yet to date your 'total apostasy'. You have yet to show that it happened, all the while insisting that it has happened. Your cited Scriptures are misused to attempt to prove your apostasy but they have fallen flat.

I'm done too. This discussion has been going around in circled for at least the last 300 posts.You have added nothing new in that time.

Click to expand...

What % of the church was going to "fall away" as Paul says?

chevyontheriver said:

Not universal enough for the Mormon claims to be true.

We've gone around and around and around. You have yet to date your 'total apostasy'. You have yet to show that it happened, all the while insisting that it has happened. Your cited Scriptures are misused to attempt to prove your apostasy but they have fallen flat.

I'm done too. This discussion has been going around in circled for at least the last 300 posts.You have added nothing new in that time.

Click to expand...

I have given you dates, and many discernable reasons for the apostasy, both scriptural and historical happenings that are good examples of apostasy. You choose to ignore them and I can understand why. But you are right at this point you too do not get it, and I cannot give you any more information that can help you.

Peter1000 said:

I have given you dates, and many discernable reasons for the apostasy, both scriptural and historical happenings that are good examples of apostasy. You choose to ignore them and I can understand why. But you are right at this point you too do not get it, and I cannot give you any more information that can help you.

Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. You ran into a Catholic, an EO, and an OO who knew their history. You tried to convince us that there was a total apostasy and it didn't fly. We asked when this apostasy happened and it's been a smear of dates and events. Traditional Christians expect historical detail and you were not in command of the history well enough to do more than repeat your corporate talking points. It doesn't fly. Did you even engage a little bit with the Early Church Fathers?

So at least two of us are done now, tired of you repeating your claims without having enough historical data to pin down a thing. You didn't give us much information, it was unimpressive, and it does seem you can't find any more.

Peter1000 said:

The oath asked God to meet out justice for the murder of JS and HS. We were not to seek revenge as a people, which we did not.

Click to expand...

Hi Friend, I remember hearing or reading that some did seek revenge. I do not remember from whom. I agree we are not to seek revenge --- Ameno to that.

chevyontheriver said:

Ha! I knew you would refer that poor Bedouin to your baptism for the dead. But don't you think it is a little more rational to baptize by pouring in the here and now rather than to wait?

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree it is better to baptize here on the earth when it is possible, but not by pouring. It must be done to symbolize the death of Jesus Christ.

Peter1000 said:

The keys were not used to open any door, Jesus opened the door and he will close it. Read Matthew 16:18-19, find me that verbiage in the scriptures, you will not find it. What the keys were for is for binding and loosing, and heaven recognizing the work of the ministry of the apostles.

Whatever church does not have the keys, their ministry will not be recognized by heaven. Since you don't know what the keys were for, then........

Click to expand...

In the Matthew passage you are so desperate to hang your hat on, Jesus is talking specifically to Peter. Can you even tell the difference? It was Peter who preached at Pentecost and opened the kingdom to the Jews gathered there by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. It was Peter who had a dream of clean and unclean that would unlock the Kingdom of Heaven to the Gentiles as demonstrated by converting the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 and Peter's confirmation to the other apostles in Acts 11.

As for "binding and loosing", read Matthew 18:15-20. That talks about binding and loosing, too. Nearly identical language. And the CONTEXT is about dealing with sin in the church. CONTEXT escapes you at times due to the faulty doctrine you've been trained to listen to through your church.

These "keys" are not held by one church. Nor were they meant to be. The kingdom of heaven is available to all who want it, in Jesus' name.