Mormon Worldview

[RebeccaJ]

Originally Posted by TexanKnight

Ah...so you follow ALL the Old Testament laws? This oughta be good.....

Exactly, 613 Mitzvot, I'd like to know how Mormons are observing them.

[mtolympus]

Originally Posted by RebeccaJ

I never said they were abolished, I said the were FULFILLED.

You're the one that keeps insisting they are waiting to be fulfilled, i.e., your comments on Malachi. Also the necessity of tithing as covenantal for Christians. We aren't Jews, or aspiring Jews, we die to Christ and are raised with Him. The Abrahamic covenant prefigures our relationship with Jesus Christ. The covenant is fulfilled in, with and through Him. HE is the new and everlasting covenant (not Mormon marriage sealings).

I think the problem we're having here is Mormonism does not recognize salvation history for what it is. Short version, God saved a couple, Adam and Eve, then a family (Noah), then a people (Israel), then a Kingdom (David), which all prefigures Jesus Christ, Who died for ALL. This doesn't make us Jewish, and we are not required to become Jewish (see Acts), HE makes us children of God. HE is the fulfillment of everything that has gone on before.

I never said anything about becoming Jews. I'm sure you know that house of Israel is made up from all of all the sons of Jacob, not just the Jews. When we are baptised into Christ we enter the covenant that Christ made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where he said that He would be their God. Paul explains this quite clearly in Galations 3:27-29, saying of those who were baptised into Christ: "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)

Malachi Chapters three and four is talking to "the sons of Jacob" (not just the Jews) in a preparation of the Lord's second coming. We disagree on this point and that is fine. Some Catholics seem to believe in the literal second coming of Christ and others don't. I hope everyone will read Malachi chapters 3 and 4 and they can decide for themselves.

[RebeccaJ]

Originally Posted by mtolympus

I never said anything about becoming Jews. I'm sure you know that house of Israel is made up from all of all the sons of Jacob, not just the Jews. When we are baptised into Christ we enter the covenant that Christ made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where he said that He would be their God. Paul explains this quite clearly in Galations 3:27-29, saying of those who were baptised into Christ: "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)

Malachi Chapters three and four is talking to "the sons of Jacob" (not just the Jews) in a preparation of the Lord's second coming. We disagree on this point and that is fine. Some Catholics seem to believe in the literal second coming of Christ and others don't. I hope everyone will read Malachi chapters 3 and 4 and they can decide for themselves.

We are heirs by adoption through Jesus Christ, not by adhering to the law, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.Aren't you making an argument that our adoption puts us under the law? This is clearly denied in Acts by the Council of Jerusalem, and numerous times by Paul.

For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter. (Romans 7:6)

For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

ALL Catholics believe in the return of Jesus Christ. Malachi is a prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah, which has ALREADY occurred. In turn I could say some Mormons seem to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, while others don't.

[TexanKnight]

Originally Posted by mtolympus

I never said anything about becoming Jews. I'm sure you know that house of Israel is made up from all of all the sons of Jacob, not just the Jews. When we are baptised into Christ we enter the covenant that Christ made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where he said that He would be their God. Paul explains this quite clearly in Galations 3:27-29, saying of those who were baptised into Christ: "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)

Malachi Chapters three and four is talking to "the sons of Jacob" (not just the Jews) in a preparation of the Lord's second coming. We disagree on this point and that is fine. Some Catholics seem to believe in the literal second coming of Christ and others don't. I hope everyone will read Malachi chapters 3 and 4 and they can decide for themselves.

Dodging again.....

Do you follow All the OT laws or not?

[TexanKnight]

and Malachi was written to the Children of Israel

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by mtolympus

Yes, so why do you continue to insist that the covenants of the Old Testament have been abolished? Whether we are Jew or Gentile, male or female through baptism into the Church of Christ we are all adopted into the Abrahamic covenant and also the covenant made with Jacob (Israel). These covenants are in effect through the fulfillment of Christ. He did not abolish them!

He superseded them. The Mosaic law is not binding on Christians, except for those precepts that were repeated by our Lord.

Now, do you eat meat and dairy together? Do you declare the shema? (Obviously not, as Mormons are polytheists.) Do you marry your sisters-in-law if their husbands die? Do you eat the fat of the animal? Do you eat of anything containing blood? Do you eat only kosher foods? Do you hold passover seders, so that you may tell your children of what the LORD God did when he brought your ancestors out of the land of bondage? Do you sacrifice animals in the Temple? Do you offer holocausts of fire to the LORD? Or peace offerings? Do you circumcise your sons at eight days of age? Do you eat pork, or animal of cloven hoof? Animals that chew cud only? Do you believe Jesus was a bastard (mamzer) born of a fornicator, a madman and sorceror? Do you believe the New Testament contains the word of God? Do you believe the Book of Mormon contains the word of God? Do you believe there is more than one God, who is the LORD God, who is one Lord, in any way whatsoever? Do you believe Jesus is accursed of God for hanging on a tree?

If you answered incorrectly (some are yes, some no) to any one of those questions, you do not follow the Old Testament anymore than a Lutheran does. Not to mention the absurdity of an "order" of Melchizedek priests: there were two, Melchizedek (Christ in disguise) and Jesus Christ. As a question: I never learned this of Mormon theology, except that it has a strong emphasis on Donatism (that is, the validity of ordinances has to do with the worthiness of both the participant and the ordinance-performers, and is far from ex opere operato): because I received the Melchizedek Priesthood and then apostatized, am I still a Melchizedek priest? Am I allowed to baptize myself on behalf of the dead, because I am endowed? Am I still able to perform all of the ordinances of the Heavenly Father's covnenant, even though I am a Catholic?

And, for the information, although I will refrain from discussing Temple endowment details here, the Mormon Temple has absolutely nothing to do with the OT Temple/Solomon's Temple/The Second Temple (although many Mormons like to claim otherwise). It's movies and anointing with some esotericism, not sacrifices and burning with hereditary priests.

And there could never be more than one Temple: God rebuked all of those and scattered all of those who built other temples, and didn't worship in His City of Yahweh's Peace. And, I highly doubt the Old Temples ran hundreds of men a day through them, operating like a well-oiled machine.

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by TexanKnight

and Malachi was written to the Children of Israel

Israel was Jacob's new name after he wrestled with YHWH/an angel of YHWH. And, yeah, every exegete that I've ever read, Jew and Christian, takes it as a reference to the Jews. We become sons of GOD by adoption, not sons of Israel/Jacob.

Addendum:

Do you hold passover seders, so that you may tell your children of what the LORD God did when he brought your ancestors out of the land of bondage?

Do you drink alcoholic wine on these passover seders? for drinking wine until intoxication during them is commanded by the LORD thy God.

[mtolympus]

Originally Posted by RebeccaJ

We are heirs by adoption through Jesus Christ, not by adhering to the law,

Yes, I agree with this completely.

Originally Posted by RebeccaJ

Aren't you making an argument that our adoption puts us under the law?

No, I am saying that our covenant we make at baptism puts us under the same covenant that Jesus made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by which we become heirs to those promises as stated in Galations 3:27-29.

The Abrahamic covenant is completly different than "the law" you are talking about. Jesus' covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all recorded in Genesis. "The law" was recieved under the Levitical Priesthood (see Hebrews 7:11); the law was a "school master to bring us unto Christ." (Gal. 3:24) We completely agree that the law was fulfilled in Christ: "But after faith is come we are no longer under a school master." (Gal 3:25) Aaron and his brother Moses were Levites. (Exodus 4:14) The beginning of the Levitical Priesthood is recorded in Exodus when the Lord told Moses to take Aaron and his sons to minister unto the Lord in a Priest's office. (Exodus 28:1). The law was given under this Levitical Priesthood. (see Hebrews 7:11)

[RebeccaJ]

Originally Posted by mtolympus

Yes, I agree with this completely.


No, I am saying that our covenant we make at baptism puts us under the same covenant that Jesus made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by which we become heirs to those promises as stated in Galations 3:27-29.

The Abrahamic covenant is completly different than "the law" you are talking about. Jesus' covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all recorded in Genesis. "The law" was recieved under the Levitical Priesthood (see Hebrews 7:11); the law was a "school master to bring us unto Christ." (Gal. 3:24) We completely agree that the law was fulfilled in Christ: "But after faith is come we are no longer under a school master." (Gal 3:25) Aaron and his brother Moses were Levites. (Exodus 4:14) The beginning of the Levitical Priesthood is recorded in Exodus when the Lord told Moses to take Aaron and his sons to minister unto the Lord in a Priest's office. (Exodus 28:1). The law was given under this Levitical Priesthood. (see Hebrews 7:11)

The Levitical Priesthood is also fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Levites were consecrated for temple functions. These rites prefigure Jesus Christ and are fulfilled in Him. The covenant with Abraham is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The Mosaic laws encompassed the Abrahamic laws. The Abrahamic covenant is encompassed in the Mosaic covenant. Jesus fulfills all OT covenants and all the laws given. All were given for the perfection of God's chosen people.

Our baptism initiates us into the Kingdom of God, which is what the Abrahamic covenant prefigured, and again, is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He is our new and everlasting covenant, our High Priest forever, our Prophet, Priest and King. He is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and every man, woman and child who has ever or will ever live.

[mtolympus]

Originally Posted by Khalid

He superseded them. The Mosaic law is not binding on Christians, except for those precepts that were repeated by our Lord.

We are in basic agreement on this point. I hope that my response to Rebecca helps explain my understanding on this.

Originally Posted by Khalid

As a question: I never learned this of Mormon theology, except that it has a strong emphasis on Donatism (that is, the validity of ordinances has to do with the worthiness of both the participant and the ordinance-performers, and is far from ex opere operato): because I received the Melchizedek Priesthood and then apostatized, am I still a Melchizedek priest? Am I allowed to baptize myself on behalf of the dead, because I am endowed? Am I still able to perform all of the ordinances of the Heavenly Father's covnenant, even though I am a Catholic?

No, all of these things require worthiness as you mentioned. You may still be a Melchizedek priest of record, but if you no longer want to be a member of the LDS Church you should talk to the bishop in your area and he will help you have your name removed from the records.

It is interesting you brought up the temple because it is very closely realated to what we have been discussing. The Old Testament temples were operated by the Levite priests. Of course animal sacrifice was part of the Law of Moses and is no longer practiced. Here is a Bible scripture that may be interesting to you:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths." Isaiah 2:2-3 (emphasis added)

[TexanKnight]

Originally Posted by mtolympus

We are in basic agreement on this point. I hope that my response to Rebecca helps explain my understanding on this.



No, all of these things require worthiness as you mentioned. You may still be a Melchizedek priest of record, but if you no longer want to be a member of the LDS Church you should talk to the bishop in your area and he will help you have your name removed from the records.

It is interesting you brought up the temple because it is very closely realated to what we have been discussing. The Old Testament temples were operated by the Levite priests. Of course animal sacrifice was part of the Law of Moses and is no longer practiced. Here is a Bible scripture that may be interesting to you:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths." Isaiah 2:2-3 (emphasis added)

and?

[TexanKnight]

and you STILL dodge the issue of how many of the OT laws you follow

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by mtolympus

We are in basic agreement on this point. I hope that my response to Rebecca helps explain my understanding on this.

No, all of these things require worthiness as you mentioned. You may still be a Melchizedek priest of record....

It is interesting you brought up the temple because it is very closely realated to what we have been discussing. The Old Testament temples were operated by the Levite priests. Of course animal sacrifice was part of the Law of Moses and is no longer practiced. Here is a Bible scripture that may be interesting to you:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths." Isaiah 2:2-3 (emphasis added)

That talks of one House, not many (I'm not familiar with the context, but if I was to guess, I would say the Third Temple, which was Christ? Or, what dispensationalists would say, still needs to be built?). My name was struck from the records, I think to the shock of many, after my seemingly-invincible "testimony" (I worked on the genetic analyses to attempt to prove where all the professionals were wrong in claiming no Jew ancestry for American Indians) and somewhat meteoric rise in the LDS Church (trying to get me married to call me to the vacant spot on the Bishop's Council - as I understand it, no one is "called" that quickly: if anyone is every dying of loneliness and thinks nothing but marriage is the answer, join the LDS church, and ye shall soon be cured). I was a member for under (or just over) a year. I realized soon enough (and it was not rational thought about LDS theology), that my desire to be eventually elevated to the Quorum and the First Presidency, and become exalted, was exactly that which led to the (horrible) Fall of Man.

I apostatized not to Christianity, but back to the strict monotheism of Islam; of which my trials and travails in LDS theology led me to the recognition that the Christian Trinity is truly purely monotheistic and not illogical, which removed (in the formulations of St Aquinas) the main stumbling-block to my acceptance of the truth (I do have to credit the LDS with opening my eyes to the possibility of an incarnation/atoning death of God Incarnate, though: credit where credit is due).

I'm familiar with the BoM, D&C and Peal of Great Price as well, and I challenge you to bring the BoM in to the debate (supposedly the "most correct book on earth"), and be able to prove anything that you can not out of the Bible. The BoM slips in to Modalism in places, but teaches none of the distinctives of the Mormon religion, which were begun only in the latter days of JSJ's ministry with the King Follett Discourse and some of his later D&C additions, and under the leadership of Brigham Young (JSIII and Emma's church remained Trinitarian, just a quirky Protestant restorationist group with a supplemental scripture [the BoM]; the Strangites got the additional Book of the Law, and the Bickertonites or some other group claimed to receive additional revelations from JohnBap). The plurality of gods stuff was begun to be taught in the BoA and BoMos.

The problem with ordinances depending on worthiness - what if I decide to be baptized as an LDS, and the man who baptizes me is secretly unworthy? And then I rise through the ranks, and eventually become President, Prophet, and Revelator? Since my baptism was invalid (conducted by me worthily, but by the baptizer unworthily), all of the consecutive offices I have held (since they are all dependent on LDS baptism), I have held invalidly, since my baptism was invalid. That would mean that such a person elevated to the First Presidency would essentially make the LDS church apostate by its own criteria.

That's the major problem with Donatism the early Church Fathers saw so many millennia ago.

[Khalid]

Edit after 20 minutes: have you ever read the Comprehensive History or the Journal of Discourses? I managed to work my way through Apostle McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and the Comprehensive History cover-to-cover, but only read the first 16 volumes and selections from the other ten in the JoD.

[mtolympus]

Originally Posted by Khalid

I challenge you to bring the BoM in to the debate (supposedly the "most correct book on earth"), and be able to prove anything that you can not out of the Bible.

Thanks, but I will let other LDS do this as many can do a better job with the BofM than I can. I really am not trying prove anything, I just like to point out some biblical observations.

Originally Posted by Khalid

Emma's church remained Trinitarian, just a quirky Protestant restorationist group with a supplemental scripture [the BoM];

I have observed that "The Reorginize LDS Church" has reverted to Trinitarian doctrine over the past 50 years, and also changed its name, I believe, to be more acceptable to mainstream Protestantism.

Originally Posted by Khalid

The plurality of gods stuff was begun to be taught in the BoA and BoMos.

Not to mention Genesis- but that is another topic. I believe that LDS are monthesitic as they worship "the only true God." Jesus, who we know is divine, prayed to His Father "the only true God." (John 17:3) Since they are one in authority and purpose there is only one true God.

Originally Posted by Khalid

That's the major problem with Donatism the early Church Fathers saw so many millennia ago.

I agree this could easily become a problem. However, I believe, that as long as those who hold the Keys to over see the work maintain a high standard of worthiness the Holy Ghost who has the final say in all ordinances will make adjustments if needed. Those who are worthy will not be penalized for the unworthy actions of others.

Originally Posted by Khalid

That talks of one House, not many (I'm not familiar with the context, but if I was to guess, I would say the Third Temple, which was Christ? Or, what dispensationalists would say, still needs to be built?).

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths." Isaiah 2:2-3 (emphasis added)

I threw in this scripture because it helps us understand the other verses I have been talking about. I think it is interesting that Isaiah calls temples "the house of the God of Jacob." Compare this to Jacob's vow with God to pay tithing and "then shall the Lord be my (Jacob's) God" (read Genesis 28:20-22). Also read (Malachi 3:6-12) which warns the "sons of Jacob" to return the ordinances of the Lord and to pay tithing shortly before "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Machi 4:5-6), which is clearly refering to a time shortly before the Lord's second coming.