Lautensack's Comments

Mormon Postum : The Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and the 'Word'

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:25:00 +0000

Amanda, Is a baby fully human? Is an fetus fully human? Is a zygote fully human? I am speaking in the ontological sense of what it is to be human. You seem to be engaging in the same sort of rhetorical argumentation that Judith Jarvis Thomson uses in her A Defense of Abortion when she compares a fetus to an acorn and a human to an oak tree. Of course an acorn isn't an oak tree however she makes the necessary categorical mistake when she inserts the word tree. All she is really saying is that a fetus isn't an adult human, because an acorn is an oak. This brings us back to our original question if a fetus or zygote is fully human, would not a god in embryo be fully God? That is at least in theory be from everlasting to everlasting God with none before them and none after them? (I am in no way suggesting that you agree with Dr. Thomson, in fact I would be willing to wager that you are very strictly opposed to abortion in any fashion.) Furthermore simply being like something does not mean that you are that "thing" or even possess the necessary qualities to be that "thing." My dog is like me, she will never become me though, she could never become like me to that extent. However Mormon theology suggest that because we are like God in some ways we can be like him in all ways, in Logic this is called a non sequitur, literally "that does not follow." It seems you missed the point of my argument, were the pharisees literally sons of the devil? According to a Mormon understanding of the word son or father we must say yes. That being said being like God is in no way breaking the first commandment, it is how we are like God, in the Mormon sense that is blasphemy or to use your word a violation. Take Genesis 3:22, if we look at the whole verse we see the how we became like God. We knew good from evil. Take Galatians 4:7 and Romans 8:17 if we look at the context we see that we are heirs with Christ through our adoption not our birthright. In Acts 17 Paul is quoting pagan poets and showing how silly such a view is when we see that they are worshiping stone and bronze images in Athens. Furthermore just because someone or something bears the image of another does not mean that the image is a child of that which it represents? If that were the case your avatar icon would be your child. However all these reason are not why we reject the LDS Doctrine, they are more of a red herring thrown up to obscure the true nature of the Christian rejection of Mormonism. In Historical Mormonism God (Elohim) himself had a father. That is where the breaking of the first commandment comes. It is not that we are children of God but that God is himself a child of a God and that some of us will someday be equal with him, being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Gods ourselves. In theory we could even surpass him if he were to stumble in his progression and we do not. You say it is a false doctrine that we are not the literal physical children of God, If I am a child of God already why do I need to become a child of God? Further if we are using the term children to cover all of his creation then are lions horses dogs trees mushrooms dirt also his children? This brings me back once again to my original question, were the Pharisees really literal physical sons of the Devil (John 8:44) or does the term imply something different? You have not answered this question yet and it seems to be a simple one. As for my interpretation of Matthew 16:19 ties directly into ones understanding of Matthew 16:18 however since Mormonism rejects the understanding that the Church would continue through out all generations and the Gates of Hell would never prevail against it, I will do my best to explain it apart from it's context. Peter is given the authority to admit entrance into the kingdom through preaching the gospel, an authority that is subsequently granted to all who are called to proclaim the gospel. We see this in Acts when Peter is the first to preach the Gospel to the Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), and Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter also has authority to exercise discipline concerning right and wrong conduct for those in the kingdom, an authority that is not exclusive to Peter but is extended to the church as a whole in Matt. 18:18 (cf. John 20:23). Jesus delegates authority to human leaders in the church who are called to govern his church on earth, under his ultimate authority, through the application of his Word. Hope that helps at least a little bit. As for the one baptism, it is the baptism by Christ which John the Baptist foretold (Mark 1:8). Where Christ baptized believers into one body by the Holy Spirit. Thus water baptism is simply an outward sign of the inward reality of the believer being in Christ as the result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Thus there is spiritual unity of all genuine believers who are “in Christ,” founded on “one faith” in “one Lord,” irrespective of denominational differences. Unfortunately some who do not enter into this unity do not have the same Lord or Faith because they are not in the same Christ. Hope that helps. P.S. I wont let your bishop know :-p

Mormon Postum : The Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and the 'Word'

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:25:59 +0000

Amanda, Interesting post however I think you have created a few straw man arguments. In Romans 8 we see that we are son's by adoption not birth, a difference between the Mormon Gospel and the Christian. Just because a Christian is a son of God it does not mean that they are a God anymore than the Pharisees being the sons of devils meant that they were in fact fallen angels. (John 8:44) However in Mormon Theology men are gods in embryo and thusly Gods themselves. Therefore the Christian's rejection of Mormonism on the grounds that they are breaking the first commandment is not hypocritical but cogent. Secondly you set up a false dichotomy that because something is shown through a diagram the concept is not found in scripture, even Genesis. This is false. Third though I was unable to find that quote in "God and the order of Creation" I did find the identical quote verbatim in his Summa Theologica:

Article 3. Whether the angels were created before the corporeal world? Objection 2. Further, the angelic nature stands midway between the Divine and the corporeal natures. But the Divine nature is from eternity; while corporeal nature is from time. Therefore the angelic nature was produced ere time was made, and after eternity. ... Reply to Objection 2. God is not a part of, but far above, the whole universe, possessing within Himself the entire perfection of the universe in a more eminent way. But an angel is a part of the universe. Hence the comparison does not hold. Summa Theologica 1.061.3

St. Thomas is not speaking as though God has a corporeal nature, he rejects the concept and submits something deeper. Finally John 1:1 only proves the Pre-existence of the Logos, that is Jesus Christ, not every individual person. Also I don't know of any Christian who says that the Logos (Word in John's prologue 1:1-18) is the Bible. In fact anyone who held to the view that the Word of John 1:1-18 was the bible would be committing a Christological Heresy. However elsewhere in the bible the word of God is just that, the bible Such as 1 Peter 1:19-23. This is why the context of the passage is very important.

Mormon Postum : A Lengthy Response, New Post: DISPENSATIONS

Sat, 16 May 2009 00:49:50 +0000

Amanda, Very interesting definition of Sola Scriptura, including Sola Ecclesia (Tradition/Church Authority trumps scripture) as an essential portion of it since they seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Further I do not believe it is compelling Spirit of God is in conflict with the word of God. Sola Scriptura does not mean that one uses scripture to validate their point, since even believers in Sola Ecclesia seek to use scripture to validate their view. Much in the same way your church uses seeks to use scripture to validate the need for a succession of Prophets. However your church would not assume the stance of Sola Scriptura, at least as defined by Christianity. Are you suggesting the the Elias mentioned in Matthew 17:11 is a different person from the Elias mentioned in Matthew 17:12? Are you suggesting that the Corinthians were seeking to learn about God through the use of their bodies in rituals of some sort? Wouldn't it be much more plausible that the natural man is man in his natural state? That is a man with his mind set upon the flesh? A man whose mind is, as Paul put it, "hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." A second question on your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:14, are you suggesting with the comment that God fails to "compel [some of] mankind to remember Him"? As for our views on the kingdom of God I agree that it is both physical and spiritual, and will even be political, however I see this as with most things in the New Testament as following a pattern of already and not yet. Allow me to explain: according to Paul, all who have been raised from spiritual death to life are already, in some sense seated with Christ in the Heavenly Places because our lives are hidden with Christ in God. (Ephesians 2:4-8, Colossians 3:1-4) Yet we can see those in Christ still walking around here, why is that? Because they have already been raised from spiritual death and will at the resurrection of the body be raised from physical death as well.

Mormon Postum : A Lengthy Response, New Post: DISPENSATIONS

Tue, 12 May 2009 11:21:44 +0000

I guess it's fitting that I'm the first to respond. Quite an interesting post. Just a few observations. 1) The Pharisees didn't believe in Sola Scriptura. - Mark 7:6-9 2) Concerning Matthew 17:11 (that is if we are willing to read it in context) Jesus asserts that this had already come to pass as it were, in the very next verse. "But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them." A few questions as well: Could you elaborate on how you can affirm 1 Corinthians 2:14 with the assumption that God does not cause men to believe in him since all men are born natural men? Are you affirming that Christ's mission did not also include establishing His Church (on earth) and teach us "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints?" Would you affirm that the Kingdom of God is a physical or political institution something Christ Himself rejected? (John 18:36 cf. Mark 12:13-17)

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Fri, 8 May 2009 15:47:39 +0000

"Is it your position that the scholar who studies 'learned' context is superior to the context given of the Holy Ghost to even the simplest of minds?" It is my position that studying the Word does not contradict the Holy Spirit so if a spirit tells you something in opposition to the Word, the spirit speaking is not the Spirit of God. Yes even simple minds can know God and not know all the doctrinal nuances of God however if something is taken out of context it can lead to confusion and even an entirely incorrect view of God. For example a few post's back you took me out of context and assumed I was talking about a literally genealogy and not a priestly genealogy, which lead to some confusion. Likewise if one were to take say Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Taken out of context this verse could be used to say that God plans to prosper all believers. However from the context we see that this verse is talking about the Babylonian captivity of Israel. Now we can derive from this that God does have plans for all of His people, but clearly he does not always plan prosperity even for his people. (Acts 9:16) "Suggesting that Christ (whether you view Him as the Father or not) was 'unable' in the minds of LDS to prepare the way---you believe His abilities are incumbent upon the abilities or choices of men? Your faith in Christs' purpose on earth is also incumbent upon the world accepting Him and following Him?" First no Christian believes The Son is the Father, to assume so shows a lack in understanding of Trinitarianism. Second no, I don't think that Christ is limited by the choices of me, but yes I do believe that Christ died to save sinners, who accept and follow him. However even if one takes a stance, as you do, on the libertarian free will of man, with God knowing all things, one cannot believe in a total apostasy, or even an apostasy to the point where the true Gospel was never preached even for a generation lest we make God to be a liar. "Compared to mainstream Christians" You simply seem to be saying that because there is division in what is called Christianity, which if we use broadly enough to encompass any self-professed Christians could technically include Hindu's, is not an argument, but an avoidance. It would be equivalent to me saying "the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes x, y, and z, therefore Mormonism is False. You're applying the characteristics of one particular self professed group or a handful of groups to the universal of Historical Christianity, when these groups have broken from Historical Christianity just as much as the Mormon Movement did, though in a different direction perhaps. "Now, in the restoration--built on that rock promised in Matthew---is the restoration of BLESSINGS." Ok, I think I might actually understand your particular position now. To you the Restoration wasn't so much a restoration as the initial building since Christ hadn't actually built his church rather he only promised to build it, is that a correct summation of your position?

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Wed, 6 May 2009 05:04:59 +0000

Amanda, You wrote, So every scripture you cite, or read...my heart just says, 'YES, YES!! EXACTLY!' I don't find much to quarrel with when scripture is involved. It is only your interpretation of that scripture where we differ. But even there, the differences are usually a misconception of what we actually teach. I agree, we do have a difference of interpretation, However simply because your interpretation is different, that does not mean our interpretations are equally valid. When we engage the text we clearly start at different points. Yet it seems that one ought to deal with the text in it's original context then expand outward. Likewise if a New Testament text contains reference to an Old Testament text, we must first understand the Old in context before we can understand it in the New. The Priesthood and the Temple are two such things, (as well as turn the other cheek but a different time and place.) However it seems that if we believe in a New Covenant (Hebrews 8) we must likewise believe in a Priesthood that differs from the Old (Hebrews 7) and a New Temple (Hebrews 9:11-14) which is not earthly (23). I think you misunderstood my statement, "I understand you, or your Husband rather, have a genealogy tracing back to Joseph Smith Jr." by this I meant a priestly genealogy, that is the laying of hands which is traceable back to Joseph Smith Jr., essentially that you [your husband] were grafted into Joseph Smith Jr.'s priestly line of succession. Sorry for the confusion. You wrote, "The claim isn't that Christ failed---do you not remember that Christ was utterly alone in His sacrifice?" This is not answering the question, which was not one about the extent, effectiveness, or completeness of the atonement rather Christ's ability to keep His Church, something he was necessarily unable to do, and that a lesser son of God was necessarily able to do in order for your church to have any validity to its claims. Again you mistake the question. The question is not about the validity of keys or even what they metaphorically are, though perhaps this is what I should have asked, the question was where in Scripture, Old or New Testaments were keys ever used to bestow a priesthood. Of course depending on your definition of what the "keys" actually are I could agree that they were needed to bestow a priesthood, though I would submit that it is the priesthood of all believers. This whole "there is disunity within Christianity therefore it must be false" defense really lacks grounding. By the same standard one must find that Mormonism is also false taken at an extremely macro scale. There is disunity within Mormonism and even within the Mainstream Church, or are you willing to suggest that BYU and SLC are in 100% agreement at all times? As for my search for context, can one actually divorce a text from its time? Would it be fair to interpret Joseph Smith Jr., or Brigham Young outside of his historical and cultural setting? Our differences don't come because I wish to undermined your concept of the temple or priesthood, actually in my last post I did not mention your concepts until the second to last line, they come from our foundations. Your foundation is in Joseph Smith Jr.'s and his restoration, which assumes that Christ failed to keep His promise in Matthew 16:18 (see also: Ephesians 3:20-1). This seems so out of character for God who even in the worst of times keeps a remnant for Himself. (1 Kings 19:18 cf Romans 11:4) Mine assumes that Christ actually kept that promise and continues to keep a remnant for Himself from all generations. That is our hermeneutical and even worldview difference and why we arrive at different interpretations when we do.

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:31:37 +0000

Finally I agree that Priesthood blessings and the Temple are extremely important to God. I simply think that scripture teaches that neither the Temple nor the Priesthood in the New Covenant are as you describe them, rather the Temple is the Body and the Priest is the Believer, because at the Cross Christ tore down the veil that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reconstructed. Rather as Heidelberg expounds in a way that covers the entire book of Hebrews. Christ is better.

[Jesus] has been ordained by God the Father, and anointed with the Holy Spirit,[1] to be our chief Prophet and Teacher,[2] who has fully revealed to us the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption;[3] our only High Priest,[4] who by the one sacrifice of His body has redeemed us,[5] and who continually intercedes for us before the Father;[6] and our eternal King,[7] who governs us by His Word and Spirit, and who defends and preserves us in the redemption obtained for us.[8]
[1] Ps. 45:7 (Heb. 1:9); Is. 61:1 (Luke 4:18; Luke 3:21, 22. [2] Deut. 18:15 (Acts 3:22). [3] John 1:18; 15:15. [4] Ps. 110:4 (Heb. 7:17). [5] Heb. 9:12; 10:11-14. [6] Rom. 8:34; Heb. 9:24; I John 2:1. [7] Zach. 9:9 (Matt. 21:5); Luke 1:33. [8] Matt. 28:18-20; John 10:28; Rev. 12:10, 11.
[I am called Christian because] I am a member of Christ by faith[1] and thus share in His anointing,[2] so that I may as prophet confess His Name,[3] as priest present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him,[4] and as king fight with a free and good conscience against sin and the devil in this life,[5] and hereafter reign with Him eternally over all creatures.[6]
[1] I Cor. 12:12-27. [2] Joel 2:28 (Acts 2:17); I John 2:27. [3] Matt. 10:32; Rom 10:9, 10; Heb. 13:15. [4] Rom. 12:1; I Pet. 2:5, 9. [5] Gal. 5:16, 17; Eph. 6:11; I Tim. 1:18, 19. [6] Matt. 25:34; II Tim. 2:12.

Grace and Peace

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:31:29 +0000

Amanda, Please show me from scripture where "keys" are needed to ordain a priest, or where any priest is ordained by a priest of a different order. Further your interpretation of verse 28 makes absolutely no sense in the context of Hebrews 7 or even the verse itself, perhaps this is because you were tired, but lets just look at it for a moment, for your sake I will use the KJV.

28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Here we see the profundity of the differences between the two priesthoods. The Aaronic was by law, the Melchizedek by an oath, the old weakness and death (infirmity) the new by perfection. The first portion "for the law maketh men high priest which have infirmity" shows the inefficiency of the Law to establish a priesthood that could attain the goal of God for his people. (See also v.11-19) The second half "but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore" shows that God swore an oath establishing a new priesthood which radically supersedes the Levitical or Arronic priesthood. (See also v. 20-22) Further another subtle but noticeable antithesis of the verse is the contrast of the many high priests with the one Son. Here the author is sharply contrasting the the mortality and continual changing of the old high priests with the eternality and finality of the New High Priest. (See also v.23-25) A final contrast the verse points to is that the Aaronic Priesthood appointed men who were subject to imperfection and sin (infirmity), where as the New High Priest did not have this limitation, He did not need to offer sacrifices first for himself then for His people, rather he offered himself once for all not needing a sin sacrifice to take away his own sins first because he was sinless. (See also v.26-27 cf 4:15) Yes, I understand you, or your Husband rather, have a genealogy tracing back to Joseph Smith Jr. Unfortunately you did not understand the bulk of my nor the writer to the Hebrew's argument. It was the very fact that neither Melchizedek Nor Christ had a priestly genealogy that is of importance. You see, to the Jews unless you could prove your ancestry to be of the Priestly line or Aaron you could not be a Priest, however neither Melchizedek nor Christ had this, and thusly neither Melchizedek nor Christ could qualify to be a Levitical Priest. It was not a shot at LDS genealogy work, rather a statement that neither qualified to be a Levitical Priest, because neither had the correct genealogy, Melchizedek because he was born prior to Levi and Jesus because He was of Judah not Levi. As for Melchizedek having no beginning nor end, perhaps you were reading quickly and did not catch the subtle wording I used, both the words literally and literarily. The former meaning in reality and the latter meaning in a written work. This may have been why you misunderstood the argument about genealogy also. So No, He is not greater than God. As for the "dispensations" I have to ask if it is just this cycle of "restoration or truth following an apostasy" how do you know your church hasn't entered into the state of apostasy, if Christ failed to keep His church together, why on earth can we assume that a lesser son of God could do better than the perfect sinless one? Further if you suggest that the law done away with was the Law of Moses, wouldn't that mean that at least the Aaronic Priesthood was done away with since it is part of the Law of Moses? Yes, in fact I have read the entire triad cover to cover, perhaps someday I will outline a few of the more interesting chapters and sections from it. ...

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:50:04 +0000

Amanda, I agree the point of Hebrews 5:1 is to show that High Priests are called by God, However Aaron was not a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but the High Priest of the order of Aaron. 5:5-6 are very interesting verses because through Chapter 1 they connect Christ to David's decedents, which the writer will later pick up on in Chapter 7. 6:20-2 - "the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually." Now this is very interesting, especially when we look back at Genesis 14. It wasn't as though Melchizedek literally didn't have a father or a mother, or a beginning or end of days, because we know He was a man, however literarily he had no genealogy, or beginning or end of days something that all important figures do in the book of Genesis, and Abraham gave this guy a tithe so he was pretty important. Of course this is an argument from silence, and yet it is appealing because you would expect to hear a loud sound. This will be important later. The writer to the Hebrews continues in his assertion that Melchizedek is greater than Aaron. Then in verse 11 begins to compare Him to Jesus, things about how changing the priesthood requires a changing of the law, because the Priesthood and the law are intrinsically connected. Don't believe me re-read Exodus 20-31 or Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, notice how the Law and the Priesthood are inseparable. Verses 14-16 are very interesting because they basically say that Jesus could not be a priest in the order of Aaron, why? Because he was from the Kingly tribe of Judah, not the Priestly tribe of Levi. Then he goes on to explain how Jesus is after the order of Melchizedek, that it because he is in the likeness of Melchizedek. How so, well remember verses 6:20-:7:3. Jesus is the King of Righteousness and the King of Peace, no genealogy (I'll explain) and no beginning or end of days (this too). Now you are right to point to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke saying "see Jesus does have Genealogy." I agree however remember here we are speaking of the priesthood, Jesus had no priestly genealogy, rather he was of Judah so in effect he was without genealogy. Further Levitical priests only served their priestly office during their prime of life, though this was much longer than we would think of it today, perhaps from the time they were 20 to 50 or 60. However Melchizedek is given no beginning nor end to his priesthood and his sudden appearance and disappearance make the keen reader awaken to the notion of eternity. Further we see from verse 3 that Christ is not made like Melchizedek in that he remains forever, rather Melchizedek remains forever because he is made like the Son of God. This is a foreshadowing, or forerunner of Christ again because he has no Priestly genealogy nor a length of his priestly term. I have more to say but that's a lot to chew on and tease out, so I'll let it at that for the moment.

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:23:39 +0000

Amanda, I have been at a conference since Friday so I have been unable to respond, and even now am unable to respond as I like. I will respond in greater detail later however right now I am just curious as to why the discussion of the Melchizedk why Hebrews 7 wasn't mentioned, much less Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. It seems strange that the chapter with the most to say about him, and the two references to him in the Old Testament were not mentioned. I will explain why these seem very important to me when I return from Church sometime this afternoon. Again forgive my tardiness, and even not my failure to respond in full. Lautensack

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:46:36 +0000

Amanda, Do you believe everything that your church teaches exactly as your church teaches? If not then there is a division in your church, clearly Paul made room for such allotments. See also Romans 14. Furthermore there are not thousands of divisions as the Catholic and LDS apologist love to state, there are maybe 250 meaningful divisions in all of Evangelical Christianity, we must also remember that there are over 100 groups claiming Joseph Smith Jr. as their founder. Of course you only believe in one of those denominations of Mormonism, which is fine, however do not pretend that all of the "Restoration" is united under one banner. Such is an uninformed argument at best. Is the Melchizedk Priesthood transferable, No. But how can you say this? Have you not read the letter to the Hebrews? It was not Melchizedek who "transferred" his priesthood authority to Christ, or anyone rather "inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The LORD has sworn and will not relent, ‘ You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’”), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever." (Hebrews 7:20-28) Now if we follow the flow of the writer is contrasting "the many" with Christ, he is also contrasting the ability to save to the uttermost with those who must daily make sacrifices for their own sins, the changeable priesthood of the former priest is contrasted with the unchangeable priesthood of Jesus. Why was the former changeable, because of death, it needed to be transferred. Why is Christ's unchangeable because he lives forevermore and therefore does not need to be transferred. Now you will say, that's just your interpretation, however such a line of thinking leaves you to explain why the Aaronic priesthood was not unchangeable. Please show me where Aaron or any Levitical Priest baptizes in the Old Testament. Please show me where John 13 mentions a priesthood or even a priest. Please show me where John 15:16 refers to a priesthood. Please show me where Jeremiah 31:31ff refers to something other than Christ bringing about the New Covenant by his death and resurrection. See also (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11; 2 Corinthians 3; Hebrews 7-9;12) Please show me how Revelation 1:6ff is not referring to all the members of the church John is writing to and instead only men who have been through the proper rituals. I agree you cannot accept my definitions because the Holy Ghost has not confirmed them to you, at least has not yet. We both believe in the importance of the Holy Spirit in conversion, though His function may be quite a bit different. In fact I believe in the necessity of the Holy Spirit to the extent that no one anywhere will ever love God, as He defined Himself in scripture, much less seek and draw near to Him, unless the Holy Spirit does something absolutely radical, like remove a sinners heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh, raise the spiritually dead to spiritual life, give sight to the spiritually blind that they may see God. In all honesty our biggest differences come not from these peripheral doctrines, but from the most central doctrines of God, Man, Revelation, the Person and Work Christ, Salvation, etc. Everything else we speak about simply points to where we disagree on these larger theological issues.

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:19:23 +0000

Amanda, It seems we are still talking past one another, specifically with the words apostasy, both total and partial, church, and priesthood. So perhaps before moving further perhaps it would be helpful to nail down our definitions of these words, that way if either of us are wrong on our assumption of what the other side believes in regards to these words we can finally move past a point of talking through one another. Only when we understand each others position here, can we move to a discussion of authority. Apostasy - when an individual, or group of individuals denounce, reject, or fall away from their faith. Partial Apostasy - when an individual, or group of individuals denounce, reject, or fall away from their faith. Total Apostasy - when every member of a faith denounces, rejects, or fall away from their faith. Church - The body of believers in the true and living God through Jesus. It is comprised of those who are redeemed and is not limited to an earthly structure. Priesthood - Christ once for all offered a sacrifice of eternal expiation and reconciliation; now, having also entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for his church. In him believers are all priests, but to offer praises and thanksgiving, in short, to offer ourselves and ours to God. It was his office alone to appease God and atone for sins by his offering. Because they might come up. Aaronic - A priesthood that is no longer necessary now that we have the full revelation of Christ, in fact was done away with by Christ and the New Covenant. Melchizedek - A non-transferable priesthood held by Jesus alone.

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:07:59 +0000

Amanda, The reason the reformers were REALLY rejecting papal authority is because it assumed papal infallibility over the words of Scripture, just as your church assumes Prophetic Infallibility over the words of Scripture. Now you seem to think that it was "priesthood authority" that needed to be restored. I disagree, because it was never lost, only our perception of it was marred. If the Priesthood is as Priesthood of all believers as Peter seems to indicate (1 Peter 2:2-23), then just because our perception of it failed, in places, it does not follow that the Priesthood itself failed. Or would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet? The problem with this line of argumentation, that is arguing from John 13 in the manner in which you do is that the Catholic Church can use the same argument. Furthermore if you think that your hierarchical structure is not one in which the top glorifies themselves, why are you "Praising the Man" (LDS Hymnal #27) It certainly does not square with the words of Paul who said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." As for Christ saving His sheep in partial apostasy, even you believe this. Allow me to explain, not everyone in the world is Mormon. Some of those who are in the world were once Mormon but have now entered apostasy. Thus there is a partial apostasy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This however does not affect your belief that God still gathers his sheep in this environment of partial apostasy. Likewise just because certain Catholic leadership entered into apostasy it does not mean that the entire Church of God did. Rather in that world of partial apostasy there were many true members of Christ. Further in this line of thinking you must be careful, because according to you Christ does even save his church in partiality or did those who died prior to 1978 remain unsaved because the truth of the Priesthood had not yet been revealed in its fullness?

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:28:14 +0000

Amanda, I was simply pointing out that Protestants even Evangelicals, are not moving in line with the "Catholicism it abhorred when they suggest that the bible has tyrannical authority (dead apostles) and only the words contained in it are valid---and no other book...as if the bible is infinite!" While some claiming the name Evangelical might be moving here, Catholicism has never been here, rather they have been more in line with your Church's view on scripture, correct so long as it doesn't contradict the current Pope/Prophet. An example of this would be the Marian Doctrines and the Priesthood of Africans, respectively. Further I agree there are many churches within "evangelicalism" that do teach Bibleonlyism. Just as there are churches teaching Unitarianism, Pelagianism, Open Theism, etc. However using the term in the way you, and the world does now, would be akin to me using the words Mormonism or Latter-day Saints to describe all 100+ sects claiming linage to Joseph Smith Jr. as their founder, in accurate at best. Moreover I agree Luther and the reformers would perhaps state that you could "read the scriptures for myself, and interpret them for myself and not allow the wisdom of men dictate the conscience of my heart and my relationship with God" they would very quickly assert that simply because you have an interpretation it does not follow that such an interpretation is valid. In fact I believe it would be safe to assume, from the writings of the reformers, that they would also have rejected your anti-Trinitarian foundation as well as the semi-Pelagianism it preaches, which was a core issue of the Reformation (Sola Gratia/Sola Fide/Solo Christo). Finally, just because there was an Apostasy, it does not follow that there was a total Apostasy, in fact if we look at our history the exact opposite would be true since prior to the reformation men such as St. Thomas, St. Francis, John Huss and William Tyndale, etc. were working for the Gospel, not for apostasy. This is a great problem for your Church because there is absolutely no evidence for a Total Apostasy, which is foundational and necessity in order for it to be valid.

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:12:27 +0000

Amanda, We seem to once again be talking past one another. I was not trying to debate doctrines rather put up a general orthodox/mormon dichotomy so people could see the sides. Which you expounded upon, biased as it may be. However when it came to the question of of clarifying the statement "Works is about obedience--and obedience is faith" which from a Historical Christian perspective this statement appears to say that Faith is itself a work, you seem to dodge. Allow me to ask in terms you might more readily relate to or use. Is faith something that makes us worthy to be saved? As for the discussion of faith and works about a year ago I posted an article on my blog on on the subject. (http://thechristianpint.blogspot.com/2008/03/fait... .) I could get into the discussion of the BOM vs. the Bible however this has been discussed at length elsewhere such as in this video, (http://mormonchallenge.com/thebiblevs.html ) so I wont waste any more of our time here. However there was one thing that did surprise me about your post that was atypical from LDS. That was saying that Protestantism was becoming more like Catholicism "when they suggest that the bible has tyrannical authority (dead apostles) and only the words contained in it are valid---and no other book...as if the bible is infinite! Aside from the rhetorical emotionalism you seem to be appealing to here since prior to the Reformation, indeed a root of the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not to be confused with Solo Scripture, if you don't know the difference please look it up. What was happening was the Catholic church was creating doctrines, such a purgatory and indulgences, which were contrary to the words of scripture however they were justified by a body of Cardinals and the Pope being the only men on earth who could authoritatively speak on the word of God. For those of you who are Mormon out there these could be likened to Apostles and the President of the LDS Church, respectively. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra its irrefutable like when a Prophet is speaking as a prophet, at least until another prophet or pope amends/revokes the doctrine/prophecy. What Martin Luther and the Reformers did was say "No, every tradition, thought and word about God must be taken captive by His Word, because scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. I am being very general here for space sake. (Please note there is a difference between sole rule of faith and sole infallible rule of faith.) Doing so opened the door so that every one, could interpret the bible, though of course not all interpretation is equally valid or valid at all. Now this does not mean that Luther and the Reformers thought scripture was without a single correct and plain meaning on the subjects it touched upon, eg they wouldn't assume scripture is a calculus textbook. Your rhetoric in you final paragraph though cleaver, builds a false dichotomy between God and the bible. It was Christ Himself who on more than one occasion said all of scripture testifies to Him. (John 5:39; Luke 24:27) Christians don't worship the bible rather they worship the one who is revealed through scripture taking every thought captive in obedience to Christ. Yes it's a finite book, of course it is, that does not mean it isn't sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, John told us it would be (John 20:30-31) Jesus told us the Old Testament alone was sufficient. (Luke 16:29) Does this mean that God could not speak again? That he wont? Of course not, (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/10/why... ,) but allow me to ask a different question, have you mastered the entire scripture, has anyone aside from Jesus, Ever? How then can you keep closing your ears and screaming "its a finite book its a finite book." I just want to say back "you're a finite creature you're a finite creature" you could no more handle the infinite in its fullness than an ant could drink the Hover Dam dry. Which brings me to my final point, Amanda lets be fair, your entire argument is build upon the supposition that all Christians or at least Protestant Christians are cessationalist, something that is not true at all. However the distinction I made in my post one prior to this remains, Christians take new revelation and test it against previous revelation where as Mormons take previous revelation and make it subject to new and more modern revelation. Further if the old and the new are in direct contradiction the new wins out, rather than being rejected as false teaching from an Anti Christ. (2 John 10, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Ephesians 5:6-14)

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:05:16 +0000

Amanda, Perhaps you could clear up this statement you made "Works is about obedience--and obedience is faith." From a Historical Christian perspective this statement appears to say that Faith is itself a work. As for the matter of authority, many Christians within orthodoxy believe that there is modern prophecy and that there are modern prophets. Further a priesthood to us would not need to be restored since all who are in the covenant are priests, sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. With regard to baptism etc. while the Christian does not believe that these are necessary in the way that you use it, surely God can save without them, they do hold that all true believers will be baptized if possible. Yes the issue of authority is the key to this entire debate, the historical Christianity believes Scripture is the final and ultimate authority and the Church must submit to the words of the Apostles and Prophets who were closest to Jesus. It appears that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually takes this concept and flips it upon its head and makes all previous revelation subject to and under the authority of the Church, modern presidents of it, and their new revelations. Further if the old and the new are in direct contradiction the new wins out. Now I am not saying that scripture is not authoritative in the LDS Church nor am I saying that what i would call tradition and/or prophecy are not in historical christian churches rather that they are at very different levels of authority.

Mormon Postum : 'Work'-ing for Christ or the Spiritually-Spoiled Brat?

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:54:10 +0000

Amanda, Interesting post, I believe the disconnect that you and this young Christian were having was one of definition. I can not presume to speak for him, however, it seems his definition of Faith and yours differ. I believe he sees grace as the agent of salvation, faith as the means, and works as the fruit there of. An Orthodox perception of what you are communicating is that, you see grace, faith, and works as requirements for salvation, would this be a correct statement?

Mormon Coffee : Mormon Coffee Tabletalk: Friday, December 5th in West Jordan, UT

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:04:36 +0000

DOF wrote: Not scripture at the time he wrote it. It talks of another "gospel" and says nothing about what is scripture and what is not. This phrase seems a bit odd to me, while I agree no letter of Paul's was scripture prior to its inscription, when do you think it became scripture? Lautensack

Mormon Coffee : Mormon Coffee Tabletalk: Friday, December 5th in West Jordan, UT

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:00:41 +0000

DOF, Interesting positions, I am wondering what the definition of sola scriptura you are working with to make these assertions. Lautensack

Mormon Coffee : Progression to Godhood -- Mormonism's God

Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:04:50 +0000

Wow, Isaac this is perhaps one of my favorite arguments, "there are so many churches that there is no way to know who is actually speaking the word of God." That's because it doesn't actually take into account what those "1000's" of churches actually believe that is the same and what the differences are (Romans 14). However allow us to turn this argument around, How do you know your church is the one true Mormon Church that Joseph Smith started amongst the 100+ Churches out there claiming to be the true succession of his teachings? Lautensack