Posted on 04/06/2002 12:22:31 AM PST by P-Marlowe
That's right.
I am sure that the situation was embarrassing for all concerned for a short time.
You want to honor our Lord by performing the ordinance correctly.
You want to honor the person being baptized by calling them by their real name correctly and immersing them in a respectful manner.
Usually, when a small error is made it is no problem to repeat the ordinance, so that is what we usually do. In this case, it turned out to be a problem, and perhaps the decision to let the second time stand was due to the very thing that was troubling you -- a desire not to be too legalistic and let this be good enough.
All leaders need to learn by experience how not to be too strict and how not to be too lax. I think it shows real talent when a leader knows how to handle an unusual situation with grace and charm. If that didn't happen this time, I am sure everyone involved gave it a lot of thought about how to handle it better should it ever occur again.
Scottiewottie has addressed, somewhat, the quality of the content of that paper. I've only had a chance so far to just skim it but I'll look through it again and hopefully comment some more.
For example, do you adhere to the theological beliefs by Clement, Origen, Irenaeus, etc. Do you adhere to their other beliefs about God--or do you quote them only when it suits your fancy?
A fair question, and one that I had figured would eventually come up. I'd have to say that the answer you quoted is essentially valid, i.e. looking for parallels or echoes of the truth that was once found in the early church.
As you imply, I don't subscribe to all the theology of any of those writers mentioned. So how do I pick and choose? Well, first let me clarify something. My purpose in posting those things is not to prove that the ideas are correct but rather to demonstrate that they were taught in the early church. That is to say, that they are not new inventions of Joseph Smith as many would claim. Now the fact that Joseph Smith didn't have access to those documents and "came up with" the same teachings (and this is only one small instance of many) does seem to imply something but that's beside my current point.
So back to the question of how do I pick and choose? Well for one thing, I would tend to give higher credibility to the earliest writers, who had contact with the Apostles themselves. The doctrines that seem interesting tend to be ones that appeared early on and one can somewhat trace the history of when they died out or were declared heresy, etc.
A general trend I've seen is that people tend to latch onto things where the "official" position came well after the Apostles. For example, the Trinity. People claim the Trinity idea must be true because other ideas were declared heresy in AD 325. Or that Origen's doctrine of pre-existence was declared heresy in AD 553, etc.
What that says to me is confirmation of what I believe, i.e. that the church started out with the truth from Jesus and the Apostles and it was gradually lost (or voted out) over the centuries. Saying something was declared heresy centuries after Christ is almost a sure bet that I'm going to give higher credence to what was believed before, not after. Of course that's just in general. In reality, I'd admit I take it on a case by case basis and compare it to what God has revealed to us today.
And I dare say that, unless you are Catholic, you do very much the same as I do. As a Protestant you would tend to believe in the earlier writings and discount the official Catholic proclamations over the centuries. The differences are that you might have a different point in time where you think things started to go astray, and that instead of modern revelation you compare against the reformers interpretations of the Bible or Billy Grahams interpretations of the Bible or whichever set of interpreters formed the beliefs that you've chosen to most closely align with.
To cite Barker: "The LDS scholar affirms that the early Church believed in deification, but simultaneously rejects almost everything the Church taught about deification.
This I claim is false. Barker doesn't understand what LDS believe about deification and in addition is only comparing it to what he believes the early church must have believed about deification because to think they taught what they really did appear to teach would challenge his own beliefs.
There are nine different versions of Joseph's Smith first vision. Let's just deal with six of those nine for simplicity sake:
version 1: The "official" one found in the Pearl of Great Price
version 2: Joseph Smith's own diary, written by his own hand.
version 3: What Joseph dictated to F.G. Williams in 1832
version 4: Joseph's diary, recorded by Warren Cowdery in 1835.
version 5: The letter Joseph Smith wrote in 1841 to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat.
version 6: What ensuing Mormon leaders such as Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and John Taylor said about the matter.
I didn't include the 1838 written version you reference.
How old did Joseph say he was: v-1 he was 14; v-2 he was 15; v-3 he was 14 or 16; v-4 he was "about 14"; v-5 no specific age was given; v-6--15.
Ya better believe it. God or Christ appears to me, I'll know how old I was down to the day!
Was there a pillar of light? Versions 1 thru 4--yes; versions 5 & 6--no.
How many personages appeared unto Joseph? V-1 said "two"; versions 2 to 4 said "one"; v-5--back to "two" who looked alike; v-6--back to one.
Was the Father one of those personages? v-1--yes; v-2 &3--no; v 4 & 5--not specific; v-6--no.
Was the Son one of those personages? v-1, 2 & 3--yes; v-4--2nd spoke & Joseph saw many angels; v-5--not specific; v-6--no, Jesus wasn't there.
Did JoeSmith ask a question, & what was the reply: v-1--asked which church to join & told none of them; v-2& 3 essentially matched together--no, Joseph's sins are forgiven & "none doeth good"; v-4--same bit about Joseph's sins forgiven...this time the new part is about Jesus said to be the Son; v-5--no question; yet told to join no other churches; v-6--the angel answered & told him to join no other churches.
I ask you. If you were interviewing an alleged eyewitness about any event, and you get such six divergent characteristics, the eyewitness would be deemed as unbelievable.
What Mosiah 15:4 really teaches is God is not a mere exalted man. (re: your post #207)
Here we have an uneducated man (JS) telling his followers what Hebrew words meant. The word "create" is "baurau" in Hebrew; it means to "evoke" into existence what was previously non-existent. Ask a Jewish person if God created the heavens and the earth all by Himself, and he'll tell you to read Isaiah 43-48.
Actually, the LDS church has already spoken for Mormons on this: "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons." (Ensign Magazine, May, 1977, p. 26)
My Jesus is the Savior of all men--He never needed salvation; MorJesus is a mere saved being.
My Jesus is Creator of all that is not God--eternally self-existent (Col. 1:16, etc.); MorJesus is a mere created being.
My Jesus is God Himself from eternity to eternity--no competition; MorJesus is one of 3 gods of a godhead and part of a council of gods that may number in the hundreds, thousands, or millions.
My Jesus atoned for my personal sin on Calvary--the cross...in fact, like Paul I glory in the cross alone (Gal. 6:14) versus glorying in future exaltation glory; MorJesus atoned for sin primarily in the garden of Gethsemane.
My Jesus' blood is powerful--powerful enough to save all men from personal sin (not just open the door to salvation, but to actually BE the door--John 10:7,9...not just to open the way to salvation--but to actually BE the way--John 14:6); MorJesus' atonement amount to weak anemic blood (see McConkie's MORMON DOCTRINE, PP. 92-93; Joseph Fielding Smith's DOCTRINES OF SALVATION, vol. I, pp. 133-138...+ Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247 & vol. 4, pp. 51,53-54, 219-220)...Brigham said men's blood more powerful than Jesus--thus the doctrine of blood atonement.
My divine Jesus was never conceived & the divine-man, Jesus, was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; MorJesus was conceived twice--the first time as a spirit child and the second by way of sexual intercourse between Elohim and Mary (references many--from Brigham Young to Joseph Fielding Smith to Bruce McConkie, who referred to it as a "literal paternity").
Aside from his earthly brothers--sons of Mary, my Jesus only has his true followers as his (adopted) brothers; MorJesus has literal spirit brothers such as Satan (Gen. 3:1-3, JST version)...see also Milton Hunter, THE GOSPEL THRU THE AGES, p. 15...see also Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 3-4: "As for the devil and his fellow spirits, they are brothers to man and also to Jesus..."
If they wanted to be honest, they would hand these people a copy of the Pearl of Great Price and ask them to read the Book of Abraham and then ask God if that is true. I think the ususal response from the prospective convert would then be, "Well, which god should I ask?"
Whenever they are really challenged, they fall back on the old worn out, "I have a testimony that the book of mormon is true and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God." You don't ususlly hear them say, "I have a testimony that I am a sinner and that Jesus died for my sins." That's because Jesus' sacrifice was "only the beginniing" It allowed "everyone" to be resurrected, but if you want to be "saved" then YOU have to obey the laws and ordinaces of the gospel.
Amazing Works, how Sour the Sound!
Jesus said "It is finished." The Mormon Jesus says," Well this is the first step."
No I don't believe in the Mormon God, the Mormon Jesus or the Mormon holy spirit. I wonder how many Mormons do.
See my post #80 on the King Follet Sermon thread, which I believe, distinguishes some of the clearest distinctions of the "way of salvation" for Christians vs. "way of salvation" for LDS folks. It points out exactly what you just wrote about "Jesus' sacrifice was 'only the beginning.' In actuality, as I wrote there, Jesus as the Door (John 10:7,9) just didn't open the way to salvation for folks, He Himself is to be the Door...He is not simply the gate-keeper, but the very Gate; Jesus' just didn't open the way to heaven as some sort of divine gate-keeper, He is the Way (John 14:6).
Jesus' sacrifice...allowed everyone to be resurrected
LDS neglect the clear Scriptural presentation that thre is a resurrection unto condemnation and disgrace (Dan. 12:2; John 5:29)
...laws and ordinances of the gospel
There are no laws or ordinances in the true gospel (Col. 2:14). The law is distinct from the Gospel (2 Tim. 1:13). There is no grace in the law (John 1:14,17). Righteousness comes only from God (Rom. 10:3), not from seeking to establish your own righteousness in order to convince God you are worthy of exaltation.
"...which God should I ask?"
Excellent point!! Which indeed?
Amazing Works, How Sour the Sound
God rejects our works which are done trying to procure salvation/exaltation. He accepts our works which are done as a by-product of our salvation--as a by-product of Him equipping us first (Heb. 13:20-21). Works do not save (2 Nephi 2:4; 26:25, 27; Ether 12:8,33; John 6:28-29; Rom. 3:28). Are we justified in God's eyes via works of the law? Paul says "no" (Gal. 5:4; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 6:11). Works justify our faith just as intercourse consummates our marriage. In other words, our faith gives us the RIGHT to accomplish godly works in His strength. Works no more procure faith or salvific faith anymore than intercourse procures marriage. In fact, the act without a proper relationship is rejected by God! Yet, historically, LDS advocate salvation by works (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. I, p. 134).
There is a big difference between a two accounts that contridict and two accounts where one is not as detailed as the other. The various accounts do not show an 'evolution' of the account, and differences in minor details are normal for someone retelling of an event years ago, with years between the different accounts. Do you have a problem with the diffences between the four gosples of the NT as well?
I see absolutly no reason to consider you to be in any way qualified to say what any part of the BoM teaches. If you see Mosiah 15 as being in conflict with the sermon above, it is only proof that you do not understand what we teach.
The first is God's moving action in creating creation. -True, but generally describes a completed act.
The second is forming out of mud as one would mould pots as when He made things upon the earth. -Yes, more of a process of creating. A more descriptive component of something that is created.
In addition to these two there are several others words used, each with its own meaning. -True.
When He formed mankind a yud is added so that particular word sothat Adam's creation is unlike any other in the whole bible. -Let's look at the creation of Adam. Here is where I make the subtle differences between "bara'" and "yatsar". Adam was formed(yatsar) out of clay, but was not complete or created(bara') until the breath of life was placed in him and he became a living soul(nephesh). Afterward God declared that Adam was created(bara' used in Gen. 1:27, Gen. 5:2, Isa. 45:12, to name a few.)
But there are places where "bara'" and "yatsar" appear to be interchangeable or close to the same meaning such as in Isaiah 45:7. Here God forms(yatsar) the light and creates(bara') the darkness. Clearly this indicates that both are similar. Notice also that forming light and creating darkness, also imply causing a condition and not a thing. In other words making, causing, or organizing a particular action and not only shaping or forming a thing.
The words that mean organizing aren't related at all to these anyway. -Not true. The word "organize" cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible.
The root "bara'" is used also to render the english words, "Creator", "make", "made", "cut down", "done", "choose", "dispatch", all of them elements relating to organization. "Bara'" is closely related to the word "build"(banah) and "bring"(bow').
The root "yatsar" is used also to render the english words, "fashion", "made", "earthen", "potters", "framed", "make", "Maker", "purposed", all of them elements relating to organization. "Yatsar" is also to be "made straight" or "distressed", both actions of a type of organization or a cause.
Rather than shock me, have you ever made a case for your faith? Do you even know what your faith is?
Your caricature of my faith is insulting. Clearly if what I believe was slightly close to the way you describe it, I would reject it. So, finding myself homeless, what is there? Why should I trust what you believe?
Let me just say that even your anti-mormon apoligists say that you are a liar.
"Christians today hold firmly to the doctrine of ex nihilo creation, although admittedly, it is not explicitly taught in the Bible: there are only broad hints that are compatible with it."This passage brews a storm of controversy over a single word that is rendered here as "created": the Hebrew word bara. Does it indicate ex nihilo creation? Griffith [Grif.1L, 72] quotes Norman as saying that although bara:
...is usually reserved in the Old Testament for God's activity in forming the world and all things in it, synonymous terms and phrases scattered throughout the Hebrew scriptures take the force out of any attempt to use this fact as evidence that ex nihilo creation is being described in Genesis 1...Luis Stadelmann insists that both bara and yasar carry the anthropomorphic sense of fashioning, while 'asah connotes a more general idea of production.
"What is said here is true, but it is far from the complete story. It is true that bara is usually reserved for God's activity: Stadelmann [Stad.HCW, 5] describes it as"a technical term designating God's creative activity," noting that "the subject of (bara) is exclusively God himself." Stadelmann also adds:
"By analyzing God's efficient causality as well as his active control manifested in the world-order as a whole and in each of its aspects and details we find that (bara) expresses, together with its basic meaning of creating, the idea either of novelty or of an extraordinary result. Moreover, since (bara) is the term par excellence for God's creative activity, it is only natural that it also implies the idea of his effortless production by means of his powerful word without any help of outside intervention.
"The verb bara therefore has no explicit connotation of ex nihilo..."
LOL! And this from a scholarly paper that argues in support of the doctrine of ex nihilo! End of conversation!
My dear little scottiewottie, The Pope believes in evolution too but he is not my pope.
Try as you might, you and your cricket horde will NEVER suceed in changing the WORD, for like HASHEM, it is unchanging. He is ONE, the WORD is ONE. Of course, ISRAEL knows that. Yes, please, let's make this the end of our conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.