LDS Make a list of all your LDS doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Wh

[Daniel Marsh]

Someone was discussing this, but I can not find it, so I am posting this here.

"
Chapter II. Objections to the resurrection of the flesh.
They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members. But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" [2614] And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith. And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will introduce in an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh, proving that it partakes of salvation."Justin Martyr on the Resurrection

 

[Daniel Marsh]

In Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xlix.-li. a description is given of the manner in which the righteous at the resurrection are transformed into angels shining like the stars, who behold the beauty of the heavenly "ḥayyot" beneath God's throne, whereas the wicked assume the horrible aspect of the pit of torture below. Whether or not the body at the resurrection undergoes the same process of growth as in the womb at the time of birth is a matter of dispute between the Hillelites and the Shammaites (Gen. R. xiv.; Lev. R. xiv.).

In regard to the state of the soul separated from the body by death, whether it is supposed to dwell in heaven, or in some sort of dove-cot or a columbarium (= "guf") in Hades (Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxx. 2; II Esd. iv. 35, 41; vii. 32, 80, 101), see Immortality of the Soul.
RESURRECTION - JewishEncyclopedia.com
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Peter1000]

Washing in Water, in the related literature does mean hand washing. smile

You can look this up in Kittel and ANE texts, also the church fathers.

Then if it uses the word baptize, it is referring to dipping the entire hand(s) into water and bringing them back out, hence baptizing your hands in water. It would not use the word baptize if it meant to run water over your hands.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It is interesting that the lds are so literal on baptism, but yet any element will do for communion. Oreo cookies and milk, I've been told by them, are sufficient elemental substitutes for bread and wine.

 

[Ironhold]

It is interesting that the lds are so literal on baptism, but yet any element will do for communion. Oreo cookies and milk, I've been told by them, are sufficient elemental substitutes for bread and wine.

With sacrament, it's the spirit behind the elements that matters.

...And also, there *are* set prayers for sacrament as well. Sacrament and baptism are among the few situations where scripture and revelation have specified the stated prayers to use.

 

[BigDaddy4]

With sacrament, it's the spirit behind the elements that matters.

...And also, there *are* set prayers for sacrament as well. Sacrament and baptism are among the few situations where scripture and revelation have specified the stated prayers to use.

Then the same has to be true for baptism. Or neither are true.

 

[Ironhold]

Then the same has to be true for baptism. Or neither are true.

With baptism, Jesus' baptism was the model. Full-body immersion in water. Period. Nothing has come down to contradict this.

With sacrament, Doctrine & Covenants has God telling Joseph that deviations from form are allowed so long as the spirit and intent are correct.

 

[BigDaddy4]

With baptism, Jesus' baptism was the model. Full-body immersion in water. Period. Nothing has come down to contradict this.

With sacrament, Doctrine & Covenants has God telling Joseph that deviations from form are allowed so long as the spirit and intent are correct.

And there you go with the lds hypocrisy. Jesus modeled communion at the last supper. Bread, fruit of the vine. Can't have it both ways.

The OP provided historical references about non-immersion baptism's being acceptable. "(S)o long as the spirit and intent are correct", eh?

 

[Ironhold]

And there you go with the lds hypocrisy. Jesus modeled communion at the last supper. Bread, fruit of the vine. Can't have it both ways.

The OP provided historical references about non-immersion baptism's being acceptable. "(S)o long as the spirit and intent are correct", eh?

What part of "God himself said that for this one thing, it's now allowable to deviate from the original standard" isn't clear?

 

[BigDaddy4]

What part of "God himself said that for this one thing, it's now allowable to deviate from the original standard" isn't clear?

What part of "false prophet teaches false doctrine" isn't clear? Jesus said "I am the bread of life", not "I am the Oreo cookie of life" or "I am the graham cracker of life".

Since Jesus said the bread and fruit of the vine represent his body and blood, it would seem to me that these would be the least allowable standards to deviate from.

 

[Peter1000]

What part of "false prophet teaches false doctrine" isn't clear? Jesus said "I am the bread of life", not "I am the Oreo cookie of life" or "I am the graham cracker of life".

Since Jesus said the bread and fruit of the vine represent his body and blood, it would seem to me that these would be the least allowable standards to deviate from.

Your use of "oreo cookies" or "graham crackers" is inappropriate. We use bread to represent his body. We use water to represent his blood.

The Lord instructed JS that he could use water as a representative of the blood of Jesus. This instruction was given because the merchants in the area would not sell wine or grape juice to the Mormons.

Because of the expense of wine or grape juice, lots of churches only do the Lord's supper once a month. The RCC only gives the participants a wafer, and no wine. The priest says when he drinks the wine it is for all.

How often does your church pass the sacrament to the whole congregation, or do the Lord's supper?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Your use of "oreo cookies" or "graham crackers" is inappropriate. We use bread to represent his body. We use water to represent his blood.

You weren't on CF at the time, at least in these parts, but the Oreo cookies and milk thing was confirmed as acceptable by at least 1 lds that I can recall.

The Lord instructed JS that he could use water as a representative of the blood of Jesus. This instruction was given because the merchants in the area would not sell wine or grape juice to the Mormons.

That's the thing, for 1800 years or so of serving communion, not one other church that I know of would use water. Besides, that, JS is a false prophet so whatever he thinks is of little value. Sounds like another "revelation" out of convenience (i.e., polygamy/not polygamy, blacks in your priesthood, etc.), rather than actual instruction from Jesus.

Because of the expense of wine or grape juice, lots of churches only do the Lord's supper once a month. The RCC only gives the participants a wafer, and no wine. The priest says when he drinks the wine it is for all.

How often does your church pass the sacrament to the whole congregation, or do the Lord's supper?

Once a month. But Scripture does not have any guidance on frequency, only that when it is done, it is done in remembrance of Jesus. And we are not discussing the RCC's method here, so please don't continue down that rabbit hole to justify your position.

 

[Peter1000]

You weren't on CF at the time, at least in these parts, but the Oreo cookies and milk thing was confirmed as acceptable by at least 1 lds that I can recall.

That's the thing, for 1800 years or so of serving communion, not one other church that I know of would use water. Besides, that, JS is a false prophet so whatever he thinks is of little value. Sounds like another "revelation" out of convenience (i.e., polygamy/not polygamy, blacks in your priesthood, etc.), rather than actual instruction from Jesus.

Once a month. But Scripture does not have any guidance on frequency, only that when it is done, it is done in remembrance of Jesus. And we are not discussing the RCC's method here, so please don't continue down that rabbit hole to justify your position.

In 67 years in the church, I have never heard that the bread and water could be substituted with oreo cookies and milk. You must be laughing your head off when you type that in. So be nice and do not mock the emblems of the Lords Supper.

 

[BigDaddy4]

In 67 years in the church, I have never heard that the bread and water could be substituted with oreo cookies and milk. You must be laughing your head off when you type that in. So be nice and do not mock the emblems of the Lords Supper.

The premise was, and still is, that the elements don't matter. Your fellow lds confirmed it earlier (bold mine for emphasis).

With sacrament, Doctrine & Covenants has God telling Joseph that deviations from form are allowed so long as the spirit and intent are correct.

 

[Peter1000]

The premise was, and still is, that the elements don't matter. Your fellow lds confirmed it earlier (bold mine for emphasis).

Fine! Just don't mock the emblems of the Lord by calling them Oreo cookies and milk. I understand the elements don't matter to you, but cookies and milk have nothing to do with the Lords supper.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Fine! Just don't mock the emblems of the Lord by calling them Oreo cookies and milk. I understand the elements don't matter to you, but cookies and milk have nothing to do with the Lords supper.

Hold on there, sport. Tis not I that is mocking. It is the lds who stated that the elements don't matter to your religion. I challenged that position with the milk and cookies example. To my surprise, the lds who responded confirmed that would be acceptable. Now THAT is mocking the elements. I am merely mocking the lds belief that elements don't matter. It's your church, your religion, who says that, so you need to deal with your own internal mocking of the elements.

And, once again, you are WAY off base with your "understanding" that the elements don't matter to me. They do. So much so that I would not worship in a church that would find milk and cookies an acceptable alternative to bread and wine/grape juice. If the elements matter so much to you, why are you part of a religion that disregards the Lords supper so much?

 

[Peter1000]

Hold on there, sport. Tis not I that is mocking. It is the lds who stated that the elements don't matter to your religion. I challenged that position with the milk and cookies example. To my surprise, the lds who responded confirmed that would be acceptable. Now THAT is mocking the elements. I am merely mocking the lds belief that elements don't matter. It's your church, your religion, who says that, so you need to deal with your own internal mocking of the elements.

And, once again, you are WAY off base with your "understanding" that the elements don't matter to me. They do. So much so that I would not worship in a church that would find milk and cookies an acceptable alternative to bread and wine/grape juice. If the elements matter so much to you, why are you part of a religion that disregards the Lords supper so much?

I know you cannot prove your conversation with that LDS person, but I guarantee you if that person said those things in our Sunday school class, they would be corrected immediately. So I have never heard of such a thing.

I will apologize to you for claiming the elements do not matter to you. I am sorry for saying that.

I have said enough on this subject.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I know you cannot prove your conversation with that LDS person, but I guarantee you if that person said those things in our Sunday school class, they would be corrected immediately. So I have never heard of such a thing.

Ironhold basically confirmed what I was told when he said that deviations are allowed and the elements don't matter as long as the intent is there. Maybe you should take that up with him.

Along those lines, what deviations are allowed?

I will apologize to you for claiming the elements do not matter to you. I am sorry for saying that.

Apology accepted.

 

[Peter1000]

Ironhold basically confirmed what I was told when he said that deviations are allowed and the elements don't matter as long as the intent is there. Maybe you should take that up with him.

Along those lines, what deviations are allowed?

Apology accepted.

Since I have never been in a position of not having bread and water, I would not know the answer.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Since I have never been in a position of not having bread and water, I would not know the answer.

Fair enough. But wouldn't water be a "deviation"? I wouldn't consider it a "fruit of the vine".