OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity?

[sweetnay]

Wow. Well said.

 

[cothrige]

I, too, like the Spanish better. Nice one Parker!!

But I must chime in and say this. Jesus didn’t answer the question. You tell me where he answered it. He didn’t.

Actually, he did answer it, and I have shown it several times. The only reason to suppose he didn’t is because it is helpful to do so. And that is eisegesis, not exegesis.

The Jewish tradition (and that of the Pharisees), of course, was that the wife would belong to the first husband. That is why the brothers would raise up seed for him. This would be his family in heaven.

Perhaps, but the Lord doesn’t say so. Here he is presented with a question directly about marriage in the resurrection. It is exactly about the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage. A revelation of that doctrine would silence the saducees and pharisees alike. But, does the Lord confirm the LDS position? Nothing of the sort. He flatly denies it. No marriage in heaven. He offers no qualifiers, no equivocations and no exceptions for this.

I will concede that there are moments in the scriptures in which an answer can be nuanced and seen in several ways. There are verses in which statements of our Lord which could be read to insinuate one thing can also be understood, after comparing to the rest of the Gospels, in another way. However, this moment is not one. There are no passages elsewhere which seem to bear on the clear or natural meaning of these verses. There are no teachings in the Apostles which nuance these ideas for us. They stand as they are, and we must accept the words as the Lord said them.

Jesus was not answering the question, “Are people married in heaven?” He wasn’t answering the question, “Does everyone become an angel in the resurrection?” He also wasn’t answering the question, “Will anyone get her at all (since there aren’t married people there)?”

No, actually Jesus was asked which husband of seven brothers the woman would be married to in the resurrection. And he answerd it by simply showing that there is no marriage there. This means that, for us, two main questions actually get answered. One, is there a resurrection? Two, who is a person married to? The problem is that you don’t like the answers, and so you have to create a very elaborate eisegetical model in which to defend a key LDS doctrine.

So, we can stop debate on the matter and either look for a different scripture or accept that we are all trying to prove too much about marriage from a scripture that is clearly about the resurrection.

I am surprised at your position on this. Just because a passage is about one thing doesn’t mean it doesn’t reveal something about another. When Christ teaches us how to pray he also teaches us other things. We learn about how God forgives and how to order our relationship with him. We would do well to remember what our Lord has told us, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

Personally, I have no problem if you stop trying to prove something from this verse. However, you will be unable to deny that reasonable people are going to see a direct contradition of the LDS teaching on marriage and the resurrection in this passage about marriage and the resurrection. Is that really any surprise?

 

[Scriptorian]

Why don’t you worship heavenly mother and why is a woman dependent on a man to pull her through the veil?

BTW, you may want to look up sarcasm versus bigotry, would an online dictionary suffice?

You checked your civility at the door the day you came over here. I would also assert you took these threads to an entirely new level of ridiculousness by claiming you have actual evidence from the BOM under your bed-or wherever you’re hiding it (giggle).
Come on!! What do you take us for???
Everything I said was true, not bigoted.
Shall we review?
-you don’t worship H.M.
-a woman needs a man to pull her through the veil
-Jmith was 14 at time of FV
-there are several diff FV accounts

My personal opinion: 'rabid teenage-boy fantasy"-although it makes a lot of sense when dissecting the person and history of Jsmith.
I’ve noticed the “rabid” use of red herrings among lds, won’t work here. Friend.

What are you some sort of religious feminist? I don’t get it. We all depend on someone else for our salvation. Women don’t hold the priesthood in the Catholic Church either, so women rely on men for the sacraments. Men cannot birth children, so men rely on women for that special gift of life. For everything else we work together (or should).

We worship God just as the scriptures teach us to do.

I don’t think I have been sarcastic or bigoted. You are not saying they are the same thing are you? I have been very sincere about disagreeing with you. I have also been sincere about avoiding personal attacks.

You on the other hand have been malicious in your criticisms. If I must delineate each instance, I suppose I can. For now, let’s take this entry for an example:

I would also assert you took these threads to an entirely new level of ridiculousness by claiming you have actual evidence from the BOM under your bed.

See, here you are calling these threads ridiculous (or perhaps inferring that only the Mormon threads are ridiculous…) and then blaming me for making them more ridiculous. That’s not very nice. Don’t I have the right to defend my religion? Just as I have the right to disagree with you on yours.

My personal opinion: 'rabid teenage-boy fantasy"-although it makes a lot of sense when dissecting the person and history of Jsmith.
I’ve noticed the “rabid” use of red herrings among lds, won’t work here.

Now Latter-day Saints are “rabid users of red herrings” as well. That would be a bigoted generalization… See, sweetnay, I can’t discuss things when I am talking to someone who has an axe to grind. For someone who doesn’t like red herrings you sure enjoy distractions and diversions.

What is your story? What did the church allegedly do to you?

 

[Scriptorian]

Oh, and keep blaming me for liberal atheists, (oweeee) feel better?

Good.

I am not blaming you. They just don’t need any more propagandist ammunition.

 

[Scriptorian]

Correct. Jsmith took the WORD “melchizedek” and created his own version. Sorry, taking words out of the Bible and creating your own version doesn’t count, another example would be the word “temple”-also found in the Bible however resembling NOTHING close to the masonic based mormon temple/ceremonies we see today-although they’d have you believe otherwise. Lds practice a form of “twistianity” and their false priesthood is a prime example.

Okay, then I have challenge for you and Stephen. Tell me exactly what “the order of Melchizedek” is if it is not priesthood.

(How is that for focused discussion?)

 

[Scriptorian]

You may believe this as a matter of faith, but as a fact of history it is not.

You only have Joseph Smith as your founder in 1830. Christ started his Church 1800 years before; free of polygamy, mark of Cain, blood atonement, and temples.

History, science, and reason are against Joseph Smith. All you have is faith.
A Catholic has it all.

There are many scientists, historians, and reasonable people that would disagree with you. I am one of them.

 

[Scriptorian]

Christ is the temple of the new covenant. (John 2:18-21)

That is how God comes to us. It is the center of Christian worship since the time of Christ. We have Christ in the Eucharist while Mormons are still building temples. Christ is present in the Eucharist (body, soul, and divinity) just as Christ told us it was and how it has been taught by his Church since the beginning.

By the way, I’m glad you’re here to show us how “nice” Mormons can be.

These forums are as much a case study in psychology as they are in religion.

One of the things I have noticed is that the most vocal Catholics on this thread are not interested in being “nice,” developing an inter-faith relationship, or making sure their religion is better understood. Some of you are, but others are just interested in venting their frustration with some Mormon themed injustice from the past. This thread, I think, is just a way to have other Catholics agree with them on how “screwy” the Mormons are.

That’s fine. It really doesn’t do any good to be polite (as ParkerD has tried to do) or to ask you to be civil (as I have tried to do). It just stirs you up for some reason. I think that is due to the spirit of antagonism that has developed in your hearts toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don’t know how it started and frankly I don’t care. But I know it is there.

As far as your understanding of the Eucharist, it is simply a question of whether the scriptures concerning the Holy Supper are literal or figurative. Mormons believe that their sacrament is symbolic and that the scriptures are figurative when they say, “This is my body; This is my blood;” etc.

Catholics believe the scripture is literal where the wafers and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. That’s fine. I disagree, but at least you have a scriptural argument.

As far as history is concerned, you find that the Catholic Eucharist concept of transubstantiation does not date back to the original church but was instituted later. My argument is that it was a Pagan tradition that was grandfathered into the Catholic Church around the 11th or 12th century. Many Christian scholars believe the idea was started by Aristotle and his idea of Hylomorphism.

 

[NewSeeker]

As far as history is concerned, you find that the Catholic Eucharist concept of transubstantiation does not date back to the original church but was instituted later. My argument is that it was a Pagan tradition that was grandfathered into the Catholic Church around the 11th or 12th century. Many Christian scholars believe the idea was started by Aristotle and his idea of Hylomorphism.

The concept of transubstantiation, as a fully developed idea so named, did come along later. But the teaching that the Eucharist was literally Christ’s body and blood can be found in Christian writings much earlier than the 11th century. The earliest references to the teaching in non-biblical documents (Ignatius, Justin Martyr) are dated in the early second century. Both Jesus (directly) and Paul (indirectly) taught the same thing in the first century. It is an authentic Christian teaching and does date to the original Church (which was recognizably catholic by the end of the 1st century. The Catholic Church evolved out of the house churches described in Acts and in Paul’s letters. There is no evidence that supports anything to the contrary.

NS

 

[Scriptorian]

Actually, he did answer it, and I have shown it several times. The only reason to suppose he didn’t is because it is helpful to do so. And that is eisegesis, not exegesis.

Perhaps, but the Lord doesn’t say so. Here he is presented with a question directly about marriage in the resurrection. It is exactly about the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage. A revelation of that doctrine would silence the saducees and pharisees alike. But, does the Lord confirm the LDS position? Nothing of the sort. He flatly denies it. No marriage in heaven. He offers no qualifiers, no equivocations and no exceptions for this.

I will concede that there are moments in the scriptures in which an answer can be nuanced and seen in several ways. There are verses in which statements of our Lord which could be read to insinuate one thing can also be understood, after comparing to the rest of the Gospels, in another way. However, this moment is not one. There are no passages elsewhere which seem to bear on the clear or natural meaning of these verses. There are no teachings in the Apostles which nuance these ideas for us. They stand as they are, and we must accept the words as the Lord said them.

No, actually Jesus was asked which husband of seven brothers the woman would be married to in the resurrection. And he answerd it by simply showing that there is no marriage there. This means that, for us, two main questions actually get answered. One, is there a resurrection? Two, who is a person married to? The problem is that you don’t like the answers, and so you have to create a very elaborate eisegetical model in which to defend a key LDS doctrine.

I am surprised at your position on this. Just because a passage is about one thing doesn’t mean it doesn’t reveal something about another. When Christ teaches us how to pray he also teaches us other things. We learn about how God forgives and how to order our relationship with him. We would do well to remember what our Lord has told us, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

Personally, I have no problem if you stop trying to prove something from this verse. However, you will be unable to deny that reasonable people are going to see a direct contradition of the LDS teaching on marriage and the resurrection in this passage about marriage and the resurrection. Is that really any surprise?

A careful reading of my explanation shows that I do believe this passage reveals truths about marriage. Just not the ones that Catholics claim. If Jesus had wanted to refute/explain the idea of eternal marriage, he wouldn’t have used a mere footnote from a passage on the resurrection. Marriage after all is a sacrament!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

There wasn’t anything uncivil about it. I disagree with the Catholic idea that wafers turn into Christ’s flesh and wine turns into his blood. It’s a doctrinal disagreement. I think that doctrine is a post-scriptural idea that has Pagan roots and is false.

I wasn’t calling your mother fat or saying you’re a wart covered hag. (I am sure both you and your mother are lovely… ) I was disagreeing with your doctrine. Do you see the difference?

scriptorian, you are only showing your ignorance. Think of the most sacred belief you have in mormonism, multiply that by one million, and there is what you will find how we believe about the Eucharist.

You are not insulting us. You are insulting GOD. Bringing to life “pearls before swine”. You, being the swine.

 

[Scriptorian]

There’s no way to “develop” worthiness, for none are righteous. None of us can “develop” perfection.

Right off the bat you misunderstand. I was talking about worthiness, not perfection. Was Moses perfect when he entered the presence of God and spoke with him face to face? No, but he was worthy.

The least degree of sinfulness cuts us off from God’s presence. That’s why, under the old covenant, only the High Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies - and only on one day of the year. That was the only day that an unworthy person was allowed into God’s presence and the high priest knew it - he would cover his head and enter the sanctuary with great fear and trembling, knowing that he was literally entering the presence of the holy God. None can make themselves righteous. Righteousness is a gift of grace from God, and he grants that grace to whoever he wills. Under the new covenant, that grace is granted by participating in the seven sacraments of the church - which are vehicles of grace.

We agree. That is why baptism, confirmation, and the sacrament (Holy Supper) are prerequisites to entering the temple.

As you said, the Holy of Holies is the place where heaven and earth meet. It is literally heaven on earth. Under the old covenant, that place was a room in the Jewish temple; under the new covenant, that place is the sanctuary in every Catholic and Orthodox church in communion with Rome. The sanctuary, with its altar, adornments, use of incense, etc., was consciously patterned after the Jewish temple by the earliest Christians because it was (and is) believed that that is the place where God dwells (the early christians did not pattern their places of worship after the Jewish synagogue! They copied the temple). It is the new holy of holies under the new covenant. Christ’s Real Presence is literally present and available in the sanctuary for those who desire Him and approach him in a state of grace (what Mormons would call “worthy”).

Again we agree, except of course on the location of the “new temple.” Mormons, also, have patterned their temples after the ancient temples. We have a baptistry where washings are performed, we have a holy place where anointings are performed and light is received (as with the menorah), and we have a Holy of Holies where the powers of godliness are manifest. Mormon temples are actually less ornamental than Catholic Cathedrals, however.

Any validly baptized Christian, in communion with Rome, can approach God in his holy sanctuary and receive him sacramentally through the bread and the wine. God is substantially present in the species of bread and wine - body, blood, soul, and divinity. None are ever worthy to approach God unless God makes them so; they are made so by his grace, which is a free gift to those who, before they approach the altar to receive Christ, confess and are cleansed of any mortal sin to a priest, who stands in for Christ in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is Christ you are confessing to in the confessional; it is Christ who absolves and cleanses you from mortal sin. That is how people become “worthy” to enter God’s presence in the earthly holy of holies, not that they are ever truly worthy, which is why at the beginning of every mass we continue to confess our sins as a community and ask God for forgiveness and mercy, even after some of us have received the Sacrament of Reconciliation. That is also why, before we receive Jesus in the bread and wine, we say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” None of us are worthy, but God, in his mercy and through Christ, allows all of us now to approach him in the holy of holies. Jesus put an end to temple worship since the temple’s sole purpose was to house the holy of holies where the high priest would bring the blood of a spotless lamb into God’s presence as an offering for sin. Any Christian can now approach God in the holy of holies and commune with Him. This only occurs in a Catholic church.

Again we agree on everything but the location.

The temple never was (and still is not) a place where endowment rituals and eternal marriages were performed. It was the place where God dwelt in the holy of holies and where the sacrificial blood of a spotless lamb was brought once a year to atone for the sins of Israel. That place is now the sanctuary in every Catholic Church, where God dwells and where Jesus, who is both lamb and high priest, offers his own blood to God in an infinite act of sacrifice. Jesus continues to offer that sacrifice to God through the mass, in the person of the priest.

Other than the fact that Jesus is both the Lamb and the High Priest (which I love the way you put that by the way…), I disagree with the rest of this. First of all, Jesus does not continue to offer his sacrifice:

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us…

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
** 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once** in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9:11-12,23-28)

Notice the last part, which I think is awesome…

…and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

What a great thing to look forward to!

 

[NewSeeker]

Scriptorian, Jesus was asked which of the seven men would the women be married to. Jesus answered none of them. Whose wife, then, will she be in the next life? You’ll note that Jesus did not say “none of them, for she must sealed eternally in the temple to be married in the next world.” If that was his teaching, then why not avail himself of the opportunity to teach it? Why would Jesus be so coy? If the teaching was structured like a parable ending with “he who has ears to hear, let him hear,” then your case would be strengthened. But Jesus was not speaking in parables here. He was speaking plainly when he said that none of the seven men would be her husband in the next world and would be like the angels in heaven. The answer is that there is no marriage or married persons in the next life. Marriage is God’s license to form a one-flesh union with a spouse . There is no need for marriage if there is no physical intimacy between a man and a woman. They can live in the same house, share a table and a bed, so long as they don’t touch each other in an unchaste way. The only reason for eternal marriage would be if there is physical intimacy between a resurrected man and resurrected woman (or women, if the Mormon man is sealed to more than one woman in the temple). Do you think sexual relations will continue into the next life? If not, then what purpose does eternal marriage serve? I don’t need to be “married” to my wife in the next life to hang out with her, have a conversation with her, hold her resurrected hand, worship God with her, and live with her. I only need to be married to her if I plan to have intimate relations with her in the next world.

NS

 

[Scriptorian]

scriptorian, you are only showing your ignorance. Think of the most sacred belief you have in mormonism, multiply that by one million, and there is what you will find how we believe about the Eucharist.

You are not insulting us. You are insulting GOD. Bringing to life “pearls before swine”. You, being the swine.

I meant no offense. I understand how heartbreaking it can be to have your most sacred beliefs torn to shreds by those who do not understand them.

However, it is even worse to have your beliefs torn to shreds by those who used to believe them and understand exactly how sacred they are to you.

I will not talk anymore about the Eucharist, as it is sacred ground to you.

 

[Scriptorian]

Scriptorian, Jesus was asked which of the seven men would the women be married to. Jesus answered none of them. Whose wife, then, will she be in the next life? You’ll note that Jesus did not say “none of them, for she must sealed eternally in the temple to be married in the next world.” If that was his teaching, then why not avail himself of the opportunity to teach it? Why would Jesus be so coy?

The Jews at this time did not have eternal marriage. This ordiance had been lost since the time of Elijah.

Jesus had introduced this “new” doctrine, but not to the apostate Sadducees or Pharisees. He introduced it to his disciples in quiet confidence. Why would he “cast pearls before swine”?

If the teaching was structured like a parable ending with “he who has ears to hear, let him hear,” then your case would be strengthened. But Jesus was not speaking in parables here. He was speaking plainly when he said that none of the seven men would be her husband in the next world and would be like the angels in heaven. The answer is that there is no marriage or married persons in the next life. Marriage is God’s license to form a one-flesh union with a spouse . There is no need for marriage if there is no physical intimacy between a man and a woman. They can live in the same house, share a table and a bed, so long as they don’t touch each other in an unchaste way. The only reason for eternal marriage would be if there is physical intimacy between a resurrected man and resurrected woman (or women, if the Mormon man is sealed to more than one woman in the temple). Do you think sexual relations will continue into the next life? If not, then what purpose does eternal marriage serve? I don’t need to be “married” to my wife in the next life to hang out with her, have a conversation with her, hold her resurrected hand, worship God with her, and live with her. I only need to be married to her if I plan to have intimate relations with her in the next world.

NS

You make an excellent point here. Why marriage if there is no intimacy? I think you have answered your own question , however. (In case you missed your own answer, yes we believe that intimacy and marriage both continue.)

Shall I ask another, why would God choose to surround himself with an infinite number of eunuchs for all of eternity?

 

[NewSeeker]

Right off the bat you misunderstand. I was talking about worthiness, not perfection. Was Moses perfect when he entered the presence of God and spoke with him face to face? No, but he was worthy.

I don’t think we’re in diagreement here. He was not perfect, but worthy, I agree. But he was only worthy because of God’s grace. I think the issue comes down to how righteous does a person need to be to be deemed “worthy” by God? Perfection is impossible for us, so there will always be come imperfection (sinfulness) in us when we approach God. How much sinfulness is tolerated by God before God considers us unworthy? What is the threshold or tipping point? Can you quantify that point? I’m fine with a percentage scale if you want to use it. Must we be 85% sinless to be worthy? Or must we be 99.9% sinless? If God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin, then who is ever worthy to be in God’s presence? That’s why the ability to be “worthy” enough to be in God’s presence is a gift from God. It is a grace, that we can never merit on our own. Even that .1% amount of sinfulness cuts us off from his presence.

Again we agree, except of course on the location of the “new temple.” Mormons, also, have patterned their temples after the ancient temples. We have a baptistry where washings are performed, we have a holy place where anointings are performed and light is received (as with the menorah), and we have a Holy of Holies where the powers of godliness are manifest. Mormon temples are actually less ornamental than Catholic Cathedrals, however.

Yes, there are similarities, as you point out (altar, font for washings, holy place). The difference, however, is that Mormon temples incorporate rituals that did not exist until Joseph Smith invented them - by adapting certain masonic rites for the purpose.

Other than the fact that Jesus is both the Lamb and the High Priest (which I love the way you put that by the way…), I disagree with the rest of this. First of all, Jesus does not continue to offer his sacrifice:

It’s true that Jesus offered himself only once while living on earth, as Hebrews says (and I agree, the last part of the passage is awesome). But his sacrifice is infinite and eternal, it was not limited to one specific point in time; it transcends time and it therefore infuses every millisecond of time with it’s power. Thus, Christ’s eternal sacrifice does in a sense continue to be offered again and again to God infinitely through time. That’s why at mass we get to be a participant in it. We are there with Christ as he eternally offers his body and blood to God for our redemption, although as finite beings we can only participate in it in a finite sense - at the times mass is said by the priest. It’s in that eternal sense that Jesus continues to offer his sacrifice to God.

NS

 

[Scriptorian]

Catholics believe that God has no gender.

If you believe that you have a co-creator goddess, why don’t you worship this goddess?

How can God be a Father, we be created in his image, his son (Jesus Christ) be the express image of his father, and be referred to in every relevant scriptural passage of the bible as he, his, or him and not have a gender?

Don’t you believe that Jesus was a male?

We worship God the Father in Jesus’ name as Jesus taught us to do.

As a side note. Goddess worship was a huge problem among ancient Jews. Ashtaroth and the groves were referenced from time to time as a false form of worship where people would worship a goddess (or goddesses) and perform sexual rituals in a grove of trees. It was yet another counterfeit of Satan where true worship of the Father and the Son was transposed into Goddess worship instead. It was the basis for parts of the Greek and Roman religions as well as modern Wicca traditions.

We don’t believe in such traditions.

 

[Scriptorian]

I don’t think we’re in diagreement here. He was not perfect, but worthy, I agree. But he was only worthy because of God’s grace. I think the issue comes down to how righteous does a person need to be to be deemed “worthy” by God? Perfection is impossible for us, so there will always be come imperfection (sinfulness) in us when we approach God. How much sinfulness is tolerated by God before God considers us unworthy? What is the threshold or tipping point? Can you quantify that point? I’m fine with a percentage scale if you want to use it. Must we be 85% sinless to be worthy? Or must we be 99.9% sinless? If God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin, then who is ever worthy to be in God’s presence? That’s why the ability to be “worthy” enough to be in God’s presence is a gift from God. It is a grace, that we can never merit on our own. Even that .1% amount of sinfulness cuts us off from his presence.

You know you really aren’t too far off. You said before that we must come under God’s grace to enter his presence. That is exactly right. You also said that sacraments are required. That, too, is correct. As far as a percentage goes, it really is 100%. But that does not mean imperfect people can’t participate, just that it requires faith in God’s grace to cover our sins. We can become perfect in Christ.

Another thing I wanted to mention, however, is the role of the Holy Ghost. In addition to a messenger and a teacher, the Holy Ghost is also a purifier. Only those who have the Holy Ghost with them may enter God’s presence. You must literally be filled with God’s spirit to enter God’s presence.

So, here are the requirements:

1. 
   *]Faith
   *]Repentance (penance)
   *]Baptism
   *]Confirmation
   *]God’s Grace
   *]Being filled with the Holy Ghost
   
   There are instances in the scriptures, however, where the Holy Ghost alone was able to bring someone into God’s presence having purified them as if by fire. I cannot stress enough the importance of God’s Holy Spirit when it comes to the temple and God’s grace.
   

   Yes, there are similarities, as you point out (altar, font for washings, holy place). The difference, however, is that Mormon temples incorporate rituals that did not exist until Joseph Smith invented them - by adapting certain masonic rites for the purpose.

   I forgot prayer! The incense of the temple represented the prayers of the people. We have that, too.
   
   Also, Masonic rituals did not have eternal marriage, sealing of families, baptisms, confirmations, priesthood ordinations, washings, or anointings. Only a small part of what we do in the temple is even barely similar to Masonic rites. And these parts have significant differences. To say the temple is a mere copy of Freemasonry is just not accurate. There is much more similarity between ancient Jewish rites and our Temples, truthfully.
   

   It’s true that Jesus offered himself only once while living on earth, as Hebrews says (and I agree, the last part of the passage is awesome). But his sacrifice is infinite and eternal, it was not limited to one specific point in time; it transcends time and it therefore infuses every millisecond of time with it’s power. Thus, Christ’s eternal sacrifice does in a sense continue to be offered again and again to God infinitely through time. That’s why at mass we get to be a participant in it. We are there with Christ as he eternally offers his body and blood to God for our redemption, although as finite beings we can only participate in it in a finite sense - at the times mass is said by the priest. It’s in that eternal sense that Jesus continues to offer his sacrifice to God.

   NS

   You are right on this: “His sacrifice is infinite and eternal, it was not limited to one specific point in time.” Perfectly stated.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
I can see where you have taken the position that there are only two “high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”–one being Melchizedek (who, if I understand what you highlighted and your logic, is still alive since he had no “end of life”–where is he, by the way?) and the other being Christ.

My position is there is only one; Jesus Christ.
Or.der 'o.rd-*r\ n [MF ordre, fr. ML & L; ML ordin-, ordo ecclesiastical order,]fr. L, arrangement, group, class; akin to L ordiri to lay the warp, begin. I want a horse on the order of an appaloosa.
The ‘order of Melchizedek’ means someone like Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews reminds us how Christ was like Melchizedek in Chapter 7:1-3 – Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Melchizedek is compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without earthly parents, or children, and was a priest always. The Levitical priesthood past down through one tribe and Christ was not of that tribe. Melchizedek was not of that tribe either.

The context of Hebrews 7 makes clear that Christ had a greater priesthood than the Levitical priesthood, yet He received the priesthood not by His lineage (7:14-17,20-21) but because He made an oath. Why couldn’t Abraham have made an oath and received priesthood?

The oath was God’s promise to us. (Psalm 110:3)

Why does it not seem logical to you that he held priesthood authority?

He did not hold Melchizedek priesthood authority because there is no such thing. Melchizedek suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children gives Abram bread and wine; blesses Abram, then disappears. But God promises a High Priest like him; not from Aaron but straight from God.

 

[NewSeeker]

Scriptorian, you are very close to becoming a very good Catholic! I think we are in agreement about the role of grace and the sacraments in our salvation. The only difference is where we place our trust; who has the authority to administer those sacraments. Of course, you know where I stand. We Catholics believe that it is the Holy Spirit that converts and is the instrument through which grace is given to us. You never know…keep coming here and the Holy Spirit will work on you to bring you into full communion with God’s people.

Also, Masonic rituals did not have eternal marriage, sealing of families, baptisms, confirmations, priesthood ordinations, washings, or anointings. Only a small part of what we do in the temple is even barely similar to Masonic rites. And these parts have significant differences. To say the temple is a mere copy of Freemasonry is just not accurate. There is much more similarity between ancient Jewish rites and our Temples, truthfully.

True, masonic elements were selectively incorporated into LDS temple rituals (and temple symbolism), and as you say they did not inform every LDS temple rite. But it is a fact that Joseph Smith did rely on his experiences in Nauvoo’s masonic lodge to craft the first endowment ritual. Those selected by Joseph to be the first participants noticed the obvious “borrowings” right away (hand clasps, signs and tokens, square and compass); those men were also initiated in the Nauvoo Masonic lodge. Joseph told them that Masonry preserved a corrupted temple tradition derived from Solomon’s temple. There is no evidence for that, however. Joseph made that part up or borrowed it from Masonic tradition (which asserts the same thing). Solomon’s temple was a place of animal sacrifice and atonement where Israel’s king was anointed and where atonement was made for the people. The rites involved blood, altars of incense and sacrifice, and the bread of the Presence. The evidence for the precise nature of those rites is sparse; but there is zero evidence from ancient times in support of the idea that Solomon’s temple was adorned with squares and compasses, and that handshakes, signs, and tokens were given. There is no evidence for these things at all, apart from what Joseph Smith and other masons say about Solomon’s temple. But that’s not evidence.

Finally, ancient Jewish rites did not include eternal sealings, let alone rites found in the LDS temple endowment. Those were all innovations from Joseph Smith - the latter based on masonry, the former probably derived from kabbalism and hermeticism, which Joseph likely learned from Alexander Neibaur, his Hebrew teacher, who was known to have kabbalistic texts in his position (including the Zohar, on which some of the King Follett discourse was apparently based). Hermeticism and kabbalism both included the idea of the alchemical marriage, whereby participants would be divinized. Gnosticism and its hermetic and kabbalistic progeny are the likely source of LDS eternal marriage and eternal progression theology. There is some evidence for the true 19th Century origin of Joseph Smith’s temple innovations, but there is no evidence that they derived from ancient Jewish temple rites. That’s a Mormon assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

NS

 

[zerinus]

I will concede that there are moments in the scriptures in which an answer can be nuanced and seen in several ways. There are verses in which statements of our Lord which could be read to insinuate one thing can also be understood, after comparing to the rest of the Gospels, in another way. However, this moment is not one. There are no passages elsewhere which seem to bear on the clear or natural meaning of these verses. There are no teachings in the Apostles which nuance these ideas for us. They stand as they are, and we must accept the words as the Lord said them.

We base that on our belief in modern scripture. In every religion there comes a time when you have to accept things on faith, without having direct evidence to prove it. Belief in modern revelation is one of those, as far as the LDS Church is concerned.

Personally, I have no problem if you stop trying to prove something from this verse. However, you will be unable to deny that reasonable people are going to see a direct contradition of the LDS teaching on marriage and the resurrection in this passage about marriage and the resurrection. Is that really any surprise?

Yes, I agree with you on that. But again, we have additional scripture (and quite a lot of it) that gives us a different perspective. If you are not prepared to accept that on faith, that is okay. A Jew might not be willing to accept the basis of your Christian scripture either. But that is neither here or there. Truth is not dependent on whether somebody believes in it or not. We claim that we know they are true because of the Holy Spirit that witness to us that they are true. You are free to doubt that if you wish.

zerinus