Either Catholics or Mormons have it right...

[ParkerD]

I follow you Parker, up to a certain point, but when you refer to the New Covenant, it does not mean doing away with the priesthood…Yes, washing the feet of people entering a home was a custom, and probably still is in some places today.

Can you define more then, and this time I won’t use the ‘c’ word, exactly how the Mormons perceive our priesthood as not…how should I say it…in the intent of Christ?

Kathleen,

The priesthood certainly continued after the Ascension, and was vitally important. But the essential questions are, (1) “what was it for, since the priests no longer needed to perform sacrifices and Christ was shown to be the Intercessor in the New Covenant gospel, with no priest needing to be involved in that intercession?” (see Romans and Hebrews)
and (2) "what about the teaching of Moses that God wanted there to be a “kingdom of priests”?

If the priests take the role of being like the Mosaic law (Jewish) priests as is described in Leviticus 5:5-7, then they are assuming a role that was to have been completely fulfilled with the great and last sacrifice of Jesus Christ, through His atonement and crucifixion. If they do that, then they are not “in the intent of Christ” because that practice takes away from the personal, one-to-one relationship that Christ promised to have with each and every believer. It lessens the degree of trust and the degree of faith in Christ, and makes the priest an intermediary rather than allowing Christ to be the sole Intercessor who makes intercession for all the sins of mankind on condition of individual repentance. If the priests are assumed to be needed for confessions, then they are assumed to have a role that was under the Mosaic law, and was part of the Old covenant and the law of sacrifice.

For any priest or priesthood “officer” in the church to have been chosen by an “election” by the people would not be in keeping with the New Covenant gospel, since the priests and apostles were chosen by the guiding and specific direction of the Holy Spirit to the presiding officer or to the assembled apostles. So if priests or other priesthood leaders are chosen by any practice that is an “election” where the people or other priests vote, then that is “not in the intent of Christ” and is a non-Biblical practice.

To answer the two questions I posed:

1. The priesthood was appointed “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ…” (Ephesians 4:11-12) So those purposes would lead to teaching, missionary work among non-members, and strengthening the members by encouragement and counsel. It was also clearly needed for giving the gift of the Holy Ghost by proper authority as noted in Acts, and for performing the ordinance of baptism as occurred at the day of Pentecost for the converted Jews of that day. Those two ordinances needed to be in succession, so the converted new member was “born of the water and of the Spirit” through baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
2. Ultimately, a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6) would mean that all the men of “Israel” would be holders of the priesthood and would bless their families with the presence of priesthood in their individual homes so that each and every day would be a day where each individual in each family was able to be blessed by the power held by the priesthood–the power of God delegated to man to bless others. It was not intended to be a “when I go to the church” blessing–it was intended to be a blessing in each individual home, each and every day.

 

[KathleenGee]

Melchizedek said some day there would come the perfect sacrifice…and we know that is Jesus Christ…and in Revelations the reference is made to the Daily Sacrifice, as well as ancient early Christian documents referring to daily Mass.

 

[KathleenGee]

We as Catholics also share in the royal priesthood doing as you say in the home, blessing others – and God bless you – and extending the healing and loving presence of Christ into the world.

The Catholic priesthood is the Ministers of the Blood. I will get back to that. How you describe Mormonism priesthood looks like the extension of the Catholic priesthood into the laity where there is much cooperation and sense of community in a Catholic parish, the laity ministering to others through the Holy Spirit.

But the Catholic priesthood is different than that.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker…

So what was the format of early 1800’s Mormon worship?

And in what passages of Scripture does it show that the Catholic/Orthodox priests are not what Christ wanted?

Kathleen,
See my post just before this one for item 2.

For item 1, they had communion, had hymn-singing and prayers and a sermon by one of the priesthood officers or by an assigned member, or may have had a baptismal ceremony where a new member was baptized by immersion in a nearby river during the meeting. They eventually started having different classes for studying the gospel (Sunday School) and for having the women help each other in a service organization for women (later called “Relief Society”).

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,
I asked Flyonthewall about the early Mormon services of worship. Can you also explain what happened, when changes began, and how service is enacted today?

 

[BlueShadow123]

There are those who are agnostic or even atheist but do not believe in God, yet have a sense of reciprocity towards mankind…humanitarians, and work for the common good.

But what the focus here is about is Divine revealed Truth.

Religion or no religion, people should always do good works.

And i have yet to meet somebody who disagrees.

 

[ParkerD]

Melchizedek said some day there would come the perfect sacrifice…and we know that is Jesus Christ…

Kathleen,

Yes–correct.

and in Revelations the reference is made to the Daily Sacrifice, as well as ancient early Christian documents referring to daily Mass.

I looked trying to figure out where you may have gotten those words from Revelation, but they are not there, nor anything I can see would lead to that conclusion in Revelation. As far as “daily Mass”, that would be long after the apostles were no longer leading the church.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I asked Flyonthewall about the early Mormon services of worship. Can you also explain what happened, when changes began, and how service is enacted today?

Kathleen,
I’ll look for an online article about that subject, but it will probably be tomorrow since I need to be with the children for reading and family prayer at this point tonight.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That practice of “washing his hands” and so forth is indeed taken from Jewish practices, and shows that the New Covenant gospel was being changed back to assume some of the old traditions from the Old Covenant, the law of Moses where the priest did indeed wash his hands and was acting for the people in completing a sacrifice.

It’s a bit ironic this citing of “washing his hands” as changing back to old traditions considering JS restored polygamy, if that’s not changing back nothing is. It is also ironic in light of the fact that JS also said it will be necessary to restore blood sacrifice. You can read about it on the LDS website in one of their manuals.

 

[zaffiroborant]

1. Ultimately, a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6) would mean that all the men of “Israel” would be holders of the priesthood and would bless their families with the presence of priesthood in their individual homes so that each and every day would be a day where each individual in each family was able to be blessed by the power held by the priesthood–the power of God delegated to man to bless others. It was not intended to be a “when I go to the church” blessing–it was intended to be a blessing in each individual home, each and every day.

All of that is present in the Catholic church AND if a widowed Catholic woman has a sick child she can administer a blessing to her child, no calling around to find a “priesthood holder” to come over and do it for her.

 

[DocProto]

All of that is present in the Catholic church AND if a widowed Catholic woman has a sick child she can administer a blessing to her child, no calling around to find a “priesthood holder” to come over and do it for her.

A Catholic woman can administer the anointing of the sick? Because that’s what the LDS “priesthood holder” would be doing.

 

[ParkerD]

It’s a bit ironic this citing of “washing his hands” as changing back to old traditions considering JS restored polygamy, if that’s not changing back nothing is. It is also ironic in light of the fact that JS also said it will be necessary to restore blood sacrifice. You can read about it on the LDS website in one of their manuals.

Zaffiroborant,

It’s a different situation than polygamy in that the teachings of Paul are clear that the law of Moses and anything symbolically similar that would not acknowledge that Christ had completely fulfilled the law of sacrifice and done so as the great High Priest who did not need to “wash his hands” would be departing from Paul’s teachings.

As far as “blood sacrifice” of an animal such as a lamb, that may or may not be something that will be done in the Jackson County, Missouri temple when there are sons of Levi (literal descendants) who would join the LDS church during or just before the Millennium and fulfill that prophecy and thus complete their stewardship on earth and then turn the keys over to Christ (which makes sense to me in the completing of the stewardship of the tribe of Levi), or it may be fulfilled by sons of Levi doing temple work for their ancestors and thus offering a sacrifice of their time and consecrated service. The prophet at that time will know by revelation or by Christ’s direct instruction, what is to be done.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

It’s a different situation than polygamy in that the teachings of Paul are clear that the law of Moses and anything symbolically similar that would not acknowledge that Christ had completely fulfilled the law of sacrifice and done so as the great High Priest who did not need to “wash his hands” would be departing from Paul’s teachings.

As far as “blood sacrifice” of an animal such as a lamb, that may or may not be something that will be done in the Jackson County, Missouri temple when there are sons of Levi (literal descendants) who would join the LDS church during or just before the Millennium and fulfill that prophecy and thus complete their stewardship on earth and then turn the keys over to Christ (which makes sense to me in the completing of the stewardship of the tribe of Levi), or it may be fulfilled by sons of Levi doing temple work for their ancestors and thus offering a sacrifice of their time and consecrated service. The prophet at that time will know by revelation or by Christ’s direct instruction, what is to be done.

And a sacrifice of “their time and consecrated service” would not be symbolic how??? And JS said nothing about time and service he said blood sacrifice. Man up here Parker symbolically washing hands is no different than symbolically offering a “blood sacrifice” through time and service. You are simply choosing what you think is “going back” and you will always choose what your church teaches is acceptable.

Mormonism “goes back” willy nilly.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I asked Flyonthewall about the early Mormon services of worship. Can you also explain what happened, when changes began, and how service is enacted today?

Kathleen,
Here is a link to an article that delves into that subject. Today, an LDS service is comprised of opening prayer by a member assigned, two hymns, communion offered to all the members after the bread and water have been blessed and sanctified by the prayers of priests who had that assignment for the meeting, three speakers who have prepared uplifting messages using the scriptures and personal experiences to strengthen faith and encourage living the gospel, followed by a hymn and the closing prayer.

The link:

lds.org/ensign/1978/01/mormon-sundays?lang=eng

Have a good day, Kathleen.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Parker.

I could visualize the crowds.

Are you free to disclose the prayers of the sacraments?

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks, Parker.

I could visualize the crowds.

Are you free to disclose the prayers of the sacraments?

Kathleen,
Yes, the communion prayers are as follows, with the word “wine” changed to the word “water” as it is done today:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:77
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:79
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you. Is this a defined memorial or is this a memorial with the sacrament viewed as the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

And going far back when did Mormonism actually begin to use the word sacrament…because it is taken from the Latin, sacramento…used by the Romans to make sacred oaths.

 

[onenow1]

Kathleen,I looked trying to figure out where you may have gotten those words from Revelation, but they are not there, nor anything I can see would lead to that conclusion in Revelation. As far as “daily Mass”, that would be long after the apostles were no longer leading the church.

Malachi 1:11, For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

What is more pure then the Blood of God become man for us ? And what other eccliasial community but the Catholic Church does this around the world?

God Bless
npatrol:

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you. Is this a defined memorial or is this a memorial with the sacrament viewed as the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

And going far back when did Mormonism actually begin to use the word sacrament…because it is taken from the Latin, sacramento…used by the Romans to make sacred oaths.

Kathleen,
It is definitely not viewed as what you have asked. It is viewed exactly as those prayers say–“in remembrance of” and “that they may witness unto Thee”–so it is in remembrance of Christ, His life, His example, His atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind, and as a witness that we will always remember Him and do always remember Him, that we may have the Holy Spirit to be with us. The bread and water are very important symbols–of the Bread of life and of the laying down of the body of Christ and also of His resurrection, and of the water of life given by Christ and the shedding of the blood of Christ during His atoning sacrifice.

As far as the use of the word “sacrament,” I assume that it began to be used in August 1831 when Doctrine and Covenants section 59 was given by revelation to Joseph Smith, including the following:

Doctrine and Covenants 59:9
And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,
Then I will be heartily glad to read your explanation in answer to the following comments about “First Cause” creation, given your premise that all science, history, and reason point toward the Catholic church as the fountain of all knowledge and as being completely reasonable in every way:

Yes, history shows Christians never practiced baptizing on behave of the dead, polygamy, or claimed a Melchizedek Priesthood. Science shows the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are not what Joseph Smith said they are.

As I had posted before in another thread, “omnipotent” means “all powerful” with no limitations whatsoever.
“Omniscient” means “all knowing” with no limitations whatsoever, including no limitations of time or space.
God is all powerful and all knowing. This means He knew, for example, that Satan was going to rebel before that happened.
If a person concludes that God is omnipotent, omniscient, started the universe from nothing, and was the First Cause of all creation, then that logically means that God created Satan giving Satan the exact attributes that would logically lead to his (Satan’s) rebellion.

God is omnipotent so he can create anything from nothing. God is omniscient so he knows everything. And knowing and causing are not the same thing. All God’s rational creations have free will and you seem to agree:

Two aspects of this are important. One is that although God has foreknowledge because of being omniscient, He allows choices by spirits and by people even though knowing those choices will often bring unhappiness. He knows that happiness is only possible by having free will choice available, so that is an essential part of the plan of salvation.

Or maybe you don’t

Thus God does not ultimately have the responsibility for the choice Satan made to rebel, whereas if God had created Satan out of nothing then the Creator would be responsible for His creation and its choices, given that He is omnipotent and omniscient as the Creator.

Because now you are saying God’s creations don’t have free will.

If a person moves along that logic path, then that would mean God was the First Cause of that particular effect and all the subsequent effects (because He is all-knowing about those subsequent effects). It means He didn’t cause the subsequent effects, but that by knowing they were going to happen and by having created the angel who fell through the choices that angel made but had the attributes given to that angel by God through creation, God placed into effect the circumstance that brought Satan into being and thus enabled the subsequent effects to happen. (In other words, leaving Satan out of creation would lead to no rebellion by such an angel. But leaving Satan in, eventuates the situation wherein Satan rebelled by the choice he made because he had the precise qualities he had.)

Christians know God creates beings with free will. Mormons teach God progresses beings with free will; including Satan. Therefore; ‘first cause’ has nothing to do with God knowing in advance that one of his creations is going to turn against him like Joseph Smith did.

(I think a computer programmer can understand what I am trying to explain in words, but perhaps few others can.)

I think what you are saying is AB=CD therefore XY=Z.

By that same logic path, effects that are less than desirable by the creations of God, such as poor (sinful) choices made by human beings, were not only fore-known by Him, but were placed into effect by His creation since He was omnipotent and omniscient at the point in time of the Creation and gave them the precise attributes they (we) have.
But I’m not saying that is how things are. I am saying that is how things aren’t–that God has not worked in the universe in that way.

That is your belief and not a defect in Christian reason.

God created the universe without defying the law He ordained, that matter or energy (in either form) would not be created or destroyed. He also brought spirits into existence from intelligences that already existed, then allowed those spirits to choose what they would do and whom they would follow.

Including Satan.

That opportunity of choice continues in this life. It is a wonderful blessing, made infinitely more of a blessing through the atoning grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Yes, it does.
To summarize: Mormons teach God is omnipotent, and omniscient. And he made Satan from an intelligence even though he knew Satan would turn against him; and this was a good thing.
Catholics teach God is omnipotent, and omniscient. Catholics believe God’s rational creations have free will and turning against him is a bad thing.
AND like most things Mormons, this is an argument of belief; and has nothing to do with reason.