Circumcision

[Seminarysnoozer]

Try D&C 110:13-16 and 128:16-19.

In those versus it explains that the spirit of Elijah relates to the baptism of the dead, so I still don't understand why you said the "agency" of Elijah. And how does this relate to circumcision?

[volgadon]

In those versus it explains that the spirit of Elijah relates to the baptism of the dead, so I still don't understand why you said the "agency" of Elijah.

I provided a scripture showing through who, or rather, through whose agency that was restored.

Agency in this case speaks to instrumentality. By means of what or whom a certain action was carried out or a purpose was achieved.

And how does this relate to circumcision?

As Elijah is the agent through whom children are brought into the covenant of the fathers in Judaism, in LDS teaching due to the keys restored through Elijah we are able to perform ordinances bringing our ancestors to the same covenant we are in.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I hate to burst that bubble, but a living prophet is not considered the salient point of the Law of Moses, so the notion that your statements aren't offensive because nobody really lives by the Law of Moses seeing as they don't have prophets hasn't a leg to stand on.

I obviously can't stress this enough. THE central tenet of Judaism is that Jews are a covenant people of God, and that abiding in the covenant means following the 613 positive and negative commandments contained in the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is central to Judaism (and to Samaritans), so to claim that The law of Moses doesn't relate to any current religion is patently absurd.

So, do you believe that Judaism now is as the law of Moses was lived back then, including the inspired guidance?

I appreciate your knowledge in these matters, don't get me wrong, but a covenant is only as good as the authority in which it is done. You state that Elijah restored the keys, are you saying that Judaism has those keys? ... if not, then there is no current religion living the law of Moses, sorry, that is my view. It may mimic it, just like Catholicism mimics the Church of Christ as it was first started, but that is as far as it goes.

[volgadon]

So, do you believe that Judaism now is as the law of Moses was lived back then, including the inspired guidance?

No, I believe that Judaism is based around the observance of the 613 commandmnts contained in the Torah.

I appreciate your knowledge in these matters, don't get me wrong, but a covenant is only as good as the authority in which it is done.

A covenant is still a matter of deep devotion, even if you don't accept the validity of it.

I reccomend reading this.

Back to the issue of Jewish identity, I want to share the following from "Hassidic Tales of the Holocaust" by Yaffa Eliach.

One of the forced laborers in the camps relates that one day he heard frightening cries of anguish the likes of which he had never heard before. Later he learned that on that very day a selection had been made -- of infants to be sent to the ovens. We continued working, tears rolling down our faces, and suddenly I hear the voice of a Jewish woman: "Give me a knife."

I thought she wanted to take her own life. I said to her, "Why are you hurrying so quickly to the world of truth..." All of a sudden the German soldier called out, "Dog, what did you say to the woman?"

"She requested a pocketknife and I explained to her that it was prohibited to commit suicide."

The woman looked at the German with inflamed eyes, and stared spellbound at his coat pocket where she saw the shape of his pocketknife. "Give it to me," she requested. She bent down and picked up a package of old rags. Hidden among them, on a pillow as white as snow, lay a tender infant. The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child. "Master of the Universe," she cried, "You gave me a healthy child, I return him to You a worthy Jew."

Archives

You state that Elijah restored the keys, are you saying that Judaism has those keys?

It might help cut down on questions were you to read what I wrote.

... if not, then there is no current religion living the law of Moses, sorry, that is my view.

It may be your POV, but it is a non sequitur. What you mean to say is that in your view is that there is no current religion living the Law of Moses according to your own peculiar conception of it, in which case I can't say you're wrong...

It may mimic it, just like Catholicism mimics the Church of Christ as it was first started, but that is as far as it goes.

Of course, it is easy to pontificate from a 21st century American LDS POV.

[volgadon]

This "no current religion living the Law of Moses" reminds me of the "Mormons worship a different Jesus" accusation frequently levelled at us. Both are equally absurd.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This "no current religion living the Law of Moses" reminds me of the "Mormons worship a different Jesus" accusation frequently levelled at us. Both are equally absurd.

That is your point of view. I believe that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, it no longer exists. I think we are comparing laws and the reasons for the laws which is different than comparing Gods. A vote for the law of Moses still being around is a denial of Christ. There is no current religion living the law of Moses as it was given because it was fulfilled and there is no reason for it now and there is no authority for it. This is what LDS believe, you are saying LDS beliefs are absurd?

D&C 74: "3And it came to pass that there arose a great acontention among the people concerning the law of bcircumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the claw of Moses, which law was fulfilled.

4And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the atraditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.

5Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the claw of Moses should be done away among them,

6That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the atradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;

7But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean."

Without the appreciation for what Christ did to sanctify the little children, then that is a primitive mindset for which primitive covenants are designed. We have a hard time appreciating those covenants because we believe in Christ and His redeeming acts. I have a hard time switching off the belief in Christ and therefore I can't appreciate the token of circumcision the way it was intended to provide (on top of being female) anyways. We are now to believe in Christ and have faith in Him now that we have this gospel, not go back to primitive, carnal covenants. The law of the carnal is fulfilled. .... that is not absurd, unless one does not believe in Christ.

[rameumptom]

SS,

Actually, the Jews are a current religion, and they do live the Law of Moses today.

Second, we live many portions of the Law of Moses today as LDS: such as the Ten Commandments. So, not all things in the Law of Moses are done away with, but all of it has been fulfilled in Christ.

The JST tells us that circumcision was a covenant with God and Abraham - NOT originally a part of the Law of Moses!

JST Genesis 17:11 tells us:

And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

That is a covenant that goes through the generations "for ever", showing that children are saved in their innocence until eight years of age. That covenant hasn't changed, even though we do not require circumcision anymore.

[Seminarysnoozer]

SS,

Actually, the Jews are a current religion, and they do live the Law of Moses today.

Second, we live many portions of the Law of Moses today as LDS: such as the Ten Commandments. So, not all things in the Law of Moses are done away with, but all of it has been fulfilled in Christ.

The JST tells us that circumcision was a covenant with God and Abraham - NOT originally a part of the Law of Moses!

JST Genesis 17:11 tells us:

That is a covenant that goes through the generations "for ever", showing that children are saved in their innocence until eight years of age. That covenant hasn't changed, even though we do not require circumcision anymore.

I would have a hard time believing that the Law of Moses given to Moses in the wilderness was left unchanged over the centuries without divine guidance. That was my point earlier that the Jews today do not practice what Moses was given any more than Catholics practice what was given through Jesus Christ. Sure, there are many similarities and much has been passed down through the generations but it was corrupt even in Jesus time. How did that corruption fix itself then? Explain that to me, please. You really believe the Jewish customs are the untouched version of the Law of Moses, carrying the same amount of spiritual significance and power it did then?

The covenant of circumcision is taken in by our current baptismal covenants, I realize that, the circumcision without hands. Therefore, nobody today is participating in the covenant of circumcision as it was given originally, it does not exist today. The reason is that that particular covenant is for a certain people who could not live a higher law. They needed a lesser law at that time. This is why we would have a hard time understanding those circumstances and all the associated learning from such a covenant and token today. We can understand most of it, I am okay with saying that, but we are not in the same situation.

Like when I watch Dora the Explorer with my 4 year old, I don't get into it as much as she does, it has a different meaning to her, even though I can understand all that is being said in the program. It is not comprehension we are talking about, we are talking about the significance of the token. That means something different to a person in that particular mindset, that does not exist today because Christ has come and has fulfilled those things. Just like I can't go back to being a 4 year old, I can try, might even be accused of that from time to time but it would not be the same as if I was really a 4 year old.

This is not meant to be disrespectful because we today benefit from all that was done before us and we can build line upon line. If I was living in that day with those circumstances I doubt that I would fair any better than any one of them, I would probably have a hard time with that law. But, eventually we all put away childish things and move on once childish things loose their teaching value.

[rameumptom]

You are writing with too broad a brush. There are three main Jewish organizations ranging from ultra-conservative to liberal. Given there is no temple today for them, they cannot do all the things required in the Law of Moses. But of the 618 laws, they are still able to obey about 400 of them. These include their dietary laws, laws of the Sabbath, the Ten Commandments, etc.

And on circumcision, you again are wrong. Abraham was initially commanded to circumcise himself and his family as a covenant with God. This was not the Law of Moses, but a higher covenant embracing a rite we no longer use in Christianity, as we use other symbols instead (blessing babies rather than circumcising them). God sometimes adapts his symbols and rites according to the people and their customs.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You are writing with too broad a brush. There are three main Jewish organizations ranging from ultra-conservative to liberal. Given there is no temple today for them, they cannot do all the things required in the Law of Moses. But of the 618 laws, they are still able to obey about 400 of them. These include their dietary laws, laws of the Sabbath, the Ten Commandments, etc.

And on circumcision, you again are wrong. Abraham was initially commanded to circumcise himself and his family as a covenant with God. This was not the Law of Moses, but a higher covenant embracing a rite we no longer use in Christianity, as we use other symbols instead (blessing babies rather than circumcising them). God sometimes adapts his symbols and rites according to the people and their customs.

I think I am writing with a very specific brush that is without authority a law is not a law. Either one believes the law of Moses is really a set of laws from God or it is just a man made set of rules. If one believes it is a man made set of rules then fine I will go along with the idea that people today still live the man made set of rules. I guess I looked at the law of Moses as an order of God and through His authority. I didn't suppose it was just a man made law (back then when it was given).

If I am wrong then I guess LDS.org is wrong, the church is wrong because they seem to equate the two together; .... maybe you should inform them that they are wrong.

"Circumcision

Circumcision. The token of the Abrahamic covenant during O.T. dispensations. Those who received it thenceforth enjoyed the privileges and undertook the responsibilities of the covenant. It symbolized some aspects of separation or dedication (1) to God, to whom Israel belonged; (2) from the world, the uncircumcised with whom Israel might not mix; (3) from sin (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25–26; Ezek. 44:7).

The subjects of circumcision were (1) male Israelites, properly when eight days old (Gen. 17:12), but sometimes at a later age (Ex. 4:25; Josh. 5:2–9); (2) slaves born in the house or bought with money (Gen. 17:13); (3) strangers who wished to eat the Passover (Ex. 12:48).

Circumcision was not peculiar to Israel. It was practiced in Egypt, and also by nations with whom Israel had not come in contact. The significance of circumcision was that it was the manifest token of the covenant that the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed. It does not matter that other nations also practiced circumcision for to them it did not have the same meaning or purpose. The various Canaanite tribes appear to have been uncircumcised (Gen. 34:14–17; Judg. 14:3; 1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:20).

With circumcision was connected the giving of a name; but there is no express mention of this custom until N.T. times (Luke 1:59; 2:21). It would follow naturally from the fact that Abram’s name was changed at the institution of the ordinance (Gen. 17:5, 10–14).

There was much controversy in the early church with regard to the obligation of circumcision (Acts 15:1–31). The Church under direction of Peter and the Twelve, and acting under the guidance of the Spirit, declared that circumcision was not obligatory for gentile converts. However, it apparently did not settle the matter of whether or not Jewish members of the Church should have their children circumcised. As one reads the scriptures on the matter, it becomes evident that the real issue was not circumcision only, but also the larger question as to continued observance of the law of Moses by members of the Church. The word circumcision seems to have been representative of the law in these instances. The controversy was renewed later on in Galatia, as we read in Gal. 2:1–15; 5:2–6, 11; 6:12–16. These passages, along with Rom. 2:25–29; 3:1–2; Philip. 3:3; and Col. 2:11, contain Paul’s teaching on the subject.

The Jewish part of the church membership, especially in Jerusalem, appears to have been very reluctant to cease from the rituals and ceremony of the law of Moses (Acts 21:17–25). This is a marked contrast to the Church among the Nephites, in which there seems to have been a cessation of the law immediately upon their awareness of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3 Ne. 15:1–4; Moro. 8:8). See also Abraham, covenant of; Law of Moses; Proselytes."

[rameumptom]

Peter, James and John, in counsel with Paul agreed that the Jewish Christians were to continue receiving circumcision and obeying the Law of Moses (see Galatians). So, the Law of Moses continued being a law of God, for a specific group of people (Jews). In order to satisfy this law, Paul had Timothy circumcised (Timothy's mother was Jewish, his father Greek).

So, I don't get where you are coming up with all these thoughts and ideas about the Law of Moses. It is not a law of man, but of God. It is not a celestial law, but a terrestrial law designed to lift telestial people up to a higher level and be a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ and the celestial law. It still applies in this way today for Jews.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Peter, James and John, in counsel with Paul agreed that the Jewish Christians were to continue receiving circumcision and obeying the Law of Moses (see Galatians). So, the Law of Moses continued being a law of God, for a specific group of people (Jews). In order to satisfy this law, Paul had Timothy circumcised (Timothy's mother was Jewish, his father Greek).

So, I don't get where you are coming up with all these thoughts and ideas about the Law of Moses. It is not a law of man, but of God. It is not a celestial law, but a terrestrial law designed to lift telestial people up to a higher level and be a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ and the celestial law. It still applies in this way today for Jews.

So, the Nephites were wrong in stopping it?

Those were questions in attempts to understand where you are coming from. I asked if you thought that those living the law of Moses, as you are saying, are directed by God today and your answer seems to be saying 'yes'. So, in other words, you are saying that God is running two religions with two different sets of laws today? I have never heard that before. I don't know where you are coming up with that idea. I have been taught that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer active. I had no idea that God was still directing the law of Moses followers today. Jews are exempt from following the higher law today?

And don't forget that Israel as a whole were not faithful to the law of Moses. If they were they would have accepted the higher law when it came because, as you stated and is commonly understood the law of Moses was a preparatory law to receive the higher law after they failed to live it originally. Most of the old testament is the story of how Israel failed to follow the law of Moses. Now you are saying they continue with it after they didn't follow it before?

Even Jesus told them that they did not really keep the law given them: "“Then said the Pharisees unto him, Why will ye not receive us with our baptism, seeing we keep the whole law?

“But Jesus said unto them, Ye keep not the law. If ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I am he who gave the law.

“I receive not you with your baptism, because it profiteth you nothing.” (JST, Matt. 9:18–20.)

By the time Jesus came, the preparatory law was no longer preparatory because they had changed the law and added their extensive commentary and traditions on top of what was given to Moses .... i.e., most were not living the law of Moses, as it was given, maybe just those that followed John the Baptist followed it correctly.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[rameumptom]

The Nephites were not Jews. They kept the law of Moses until commanded to stop. In fact, the Book of Mormon teaches that when the sign of Christ's birth occurred, some Nephites thought they no longer had to live the Law of Moses, but were corrected. Obviously it was necessary for them to be under the Law of Moses until the resurrection and coming of Christ to them, even though they were Christian Jews.

The Jews of today are not Christian for the most part. These still fall under the Mosaic Law until they embrace the Law of Christ and his gospel.

[volgadon]

That is your point of view. I believe that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, it no longer exists.

How does its fulfilment render the law non-existant, especially for people who don't believe that Christ was the fulfilment?

I think we are comparing laws and the reasons for the laws which is different than comparing Gods.

The underlying logic is the same.

A vote for the law of Moses still being around is a denial of Christ.

Umm, no. You are flagrantly, wildly wrong here. Who died and appointed you Torquemada? First of all, it is not a vote but a statement of fact. Unlike the Law of Hamurabi, the Law of Moses is still around, as there is a major religion (Judaism) that continues to observe it. Second, accepting that fact does not mean that I am calling for a reinstatement of the whole of the Law of Moses, and calling for it to replace the gospelmof Jesus the Christ.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The Nephites were not Jews. They kept the law of Moses until commanded to stop. In fact, the Book of Mormon teaches that when the sign of Christ's birth occurred, some Nephites thought they no longer had to live the Law of Moses, but were corrected. Obviously it was necessary for them to be under the Law of Moses until the resurrection and coming of Christ to them, even though they were Christian Jews.

The Jews of today are not Christian for the most part. These still fall under the Mosaic Law until they embrace the Law of Christ and his gospel.

So, are you saying that the Law of Moses is not fulfilled until the person accepts Christ?

If Christ fulfilled the law, whether a person accepts that or not, Christ is no longer the governor of that old law (as a whole), without authority there is no law. The authority changed hands, so to speak. The authority now lies with the higher priesthood which governs over the lesser priesthood. Are you saying that there is still is a governing branch of the priesthood connected to Christ that runs Judaism? ... this is news to me, sorry for my ignorance then, I never formally studied religion.

[Seminarysnoozer]

How does its fulfilment render the law non-existant, especially for people who don't believe that Christ was the fulfilment?

The underlying logic is the same.

Umm, no. You are flagrantly, wildly wrong here. Who died and appointed you Torquemada? First of all, it is not a vote but a statement of fact. Unlike the Law of Hamurabi, the Law of Moses is still around, as there is a major religion (Judaism) that continues to observe it. Second, accepting that fact does not mean that I am calling for a reinstatement of the whole of the Law of Moses, and calling for it to replace the gospelmof Jesus the Christ.

Just because someone believes a law exists doesn't mean it exists.

Forgive me for trying to understand this, what you are saying is foreign to me. I am having a hard time understanding the idea that Christ runs two religions on the earth at the same time. That there are two separate bodies of priesthood authority, that are kept separate from each other, not one being a part of the other as is the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchizedek.

How can you say that it is still around and then the next statement suggests that it could be "reinstated"? If it is around, it doesn't need to be reinstated. It is one way or the other not both. Unless you are trying to say that there can be both the true gospel of Christ and also the old gospel of Christ at the same time. They are both His gospels and His law. Are there two current gospels and corresponding laws or one right now? I have never been taught in church that there are two current gospels and corresponding sets of priesthood authorities, that is a bizarre and foreign thing to me. Even if we say that aspects of the law of Moses were kept in with the new gospel then there is still only one gospel and corresponding priesthood authority.

Can there be a law without authority?

[rameumptom]

SS,

Christ runs many religions on the earth at the same time. Alma 29:8 tells us that God gives to each people the amount of truth they are ready to receive.

God gives each people the amount of light and truth they are ready to receive, so D&C 84:19-26 shows us that the Israelites rejected the celestial Law of Christ, and so God gave them a lesser law in its place. God still gives inspiration and guidance to Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else, to the level they are ready to receive.

D&C 88 tells us that each of the heavenly kingdoms has a law (set of laws) attached to it. Guess what? That is exactly what we are talking about here. The Law of Moses is a terrestrial law, designed to bring people up to a terrestrial level, where they can then be prepared to accept the celestial law. Many religions today offer a terrestrial law to their adherents. In fact, Brigham Young taught that during the Millennium, there will be people on earth of many religions, including Islam, Buddhism, etc. Why? Because they abide by a terrestrial law.

These religions help people become the "honorable men of the earth" (D&C 76), who are not valiant in their testimony of Christ.

You are incorrectly trying to equate the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ. They are apples and oranges. The Mosaic Law is designed to prepare people to rise above their telestial/perditious lifestyle and become children of Christ in the Terrestrial kingdom. The Law of Christ prepares us to be children of God and co-heirs of Christ in all things in the Celestial Kingdom. This is a very significant difference. And because we are speaking of various levels of heaven, it isn't a black/white, all-or-nothing thing as you attempt to claim.

[Seminarysnoozer]

SS,

Christ runs many religions on the earth at the same time. Alma 29:8 tells us that God gives to each people the amount of truth they are ready to receive.

God gives each people the amount of light and truth they are ready to receive, so D&C 84:19-26 shows us that the Israelites rejected the celestial Law of Christ, and so God gave them a lesser law in its place. God still gives inspiration and guidance to Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else, to the level they are ready to receive.

D&C 88 tells us that each of the heavenly kingdoms has a law (set of laws) attached to it. Guess what? That is exactly what we are talking about here. The Law of Moses is a terrestrial law, designed to bring people up to a terrestrial level, where they can then be prepared to accept the celestial law. Many religions today offer a terrestrial law to their adherents. In fact, Brigham Young taught that during the Millennium, there will be people on earth of many religions, including Islam, Buddhism, etc. Why? Because they abide by a terrestrial law.

These religions help people become the "honorable men of the earth" (D&C 76), who are not valiant in their testimony of Christ.

You are incorrectly trying to equate the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ. They are apples and oranges. The Mosaic Law is designed to prepare people to rise above their telestial/perditious lifestyle and become children of Christ in the Terrestrial kingdom. The Law of Christ prepares us to be children of God and co-heirs of Christ in all things in the Celestial Kingdom. This is a very significant difference. And because we are speaking of various levels of heaven, it isn't a black/white, all-or-nothing thing as you attempt to claim.

This is news to me. I think it would be for most LDS, I'll ask the sisters in my ward tonight during young women's. I didn't realize that God was allowing priesthood covenants to be made with other religions right now and giving members of those religions priesthood authority and keys. Thanks for sharing that information.

[rameumptom]

SS, no you are putting words in my mouth. I never said God is giving priesthood authority to anyone. Nor did I mention priesthood covenants, keys, etc.

I think you are looking to start a fight by blowing this out of proportion. And I will be concerned if you relay with young women things that are not true, nor doctrinal. God works with all people at the level they are at. But there is only one true and living celestial church with whom God is well pleased. Only the Prophet holds the keys and authorities of celestial covenants.

If God chooses to make lesser covenants with other peoples, that is his business. But it will be without priesthood authority, keys, and powers.

As it is, I'm a bit upset that you would put words like that in my mouth. I'm done with this discussion, and you can believe what you want to. Only do not EVER misquote me again.

[volgadon]

Just because someone believes a law exists doesn't mean it exists.

Just as disbelieving that a law exists doesn't obliterate it.

I don't have to accept the validity of Roman Catholic truth claims in order for the Rule of St. Benedict to exist. As long as at least one living person intentionally abides by a set of rules then that law exists. It isn't binding for anyone else, but it exists.

Forgive me for trying to understand this, what you are saying is foreign to me.

It seems quite obvious to me that what you are hearing is not what I'm saying. That is probably why it is foreign to you.

I am having a hard time understanding the idea that Christ runs two religions on the earth at the same time. That there are two separate bodies of priesthood authority, that are kept separate from each other, not one being a part of the other as is the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchizedek.

Perhaps you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding if you bothered to read what I am saying, seeing as I had not stated that. So stop huffing and puffing and blowing that strawman down.

How can you say that it is still around and then the next statement suggests that it could be "reinstated"? If it is around, it doesn't need to be reinstated. It is one way or the other not both.

I am not calling for the Law of Moses to be reinstated for followers of Christ. This certainly doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. It does.

Unless you are trying to say that there can be both the true gospel of Christ and also the old gospel of Christ at the same time. They are both His gospels and His law. Are there two current gospels and corresponding laws or one right now? I have never been taught in church that there are two current gospels and corresponding sets of priesthood authorities, that is a bizarre and foreign thing to me. Even if we say that aspects of the law of Moses were kept in with the new gospel then there is still only one gospel and corresponding priesthood authority.

The Law of Moses exists. Has nothing to do with priesthood validity.

Can there be a law without authority?

Yes. I really don't see why that is abysmally hard for you to grasp.

[volgadon]

There is no current religion living the law of Moses as it was given because it was fulfilled and there is no reason for it now and there is no authority for it.

Since your r posts seem to stretch words far beyond their usual semantic range, please elucidate what you mean by "as given."

This is what LDS believe, you are saying LDS beliefs are absurd?

No, I'm saying that your interpretation is absurd. I'm LDS too, I don't share the belief you outlined, nor do I appreciate your not-so-subtle insisnuations that I'm a Christ-denying apostate.

D&C 74: "3And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.

4And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.

5Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,

6That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;

7But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean."

Without the appreciation for what Christ did to sanctify the little children, then that is a primitive mindset for which primitive covenants are designed.

Please note that nowhere in that revelation is there mention of "a primitive mindset for which primitive covenants are designed." Instead of reading into the text why don't you read the text?

The main reason given there for Paul's de facto abolition of circumcision is rather different to yours.

Jewish fathers reared their children according to their own religion. Here BTW, is a good quote on what religion meant in the time of Paul. Page 51 of Cohen's "From the Macabbees to the Mishnah."

"In the eyes of the ancients, the essence of religion was neither faith nor dogma, but action.

Humanity was commanded by the gods to perform certain acts and to refrain from certain acts, and these commandments and prohibitions (espe*cially the prohibitions) constituted the essence of religio. " And on page 45. " In preexilic times, when conversion did not exist for either man or woman, a foreign woman was assimilated into the community through mar*riage with an Israelite husband.

Solomon may have sinned by marrying foreign wives, but no one suggested that they should be divorced or that his children were not members of the people of Israel. In fact, Solomon's successor was his son Rehoboam, the offspring of an Ammonite woman (1 Kgs. 14:21).

In the first cen*tury of our era, Josephus still adheres to the same system: intermarriage is pro*hibited, but if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman she joins his house and bears him legitimate children.

Marriage with a Jew was the de facto equivalent of conversion for a woman."

Paul's gripe was that Jewish fathers were raising their children according to their religion, not the one centered around Christ.

That little child were unholy was a secondary issue, which I'll address later.

Anyway, it appears that I was right when stating that you weren't using primitive in a positive sense.

We have a hard time appreciating those covenants because we believe in Christ and His redeeming acts.

Speak for yourself. My belief in Christ my redeemer certainly hasn't hindered my ability to appreciate prior covenants.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Since your r posts seem to stretch words far beyond their usual semantic range, please elucidate what you mean by "as given."

Speak for yourself. My belief in Christ my redeemer certainly hasn't hindered my ability to appreciate prior covenants.

I don't know what was given, do you? You want to try to tell me that what is known about the law of Moses now is exactly what was given to Moses, I think that is not correct.

What prior covenants are you talking about? Are you talking about circumcision? If you think there was a covenant involved there, that is false. A covenant requires authority to make them. What "prior covenants" are you talking about?

The lesser law was a preparatory law. To prepare for what? What Christ brought. If they had been living the preparatory law then they would have accepted Christ and there were many that did, all those that followed John the Baptist, Christ Himself and the apostles. But all those that held onto the traditions and the "law" did not believe Christ and therefore they were not really following the law. Just like today, if one lived the law of Moses, as soon as they receive the gospel of Christ they would accept it. That was the purpose of the law. The fact that they stay with what they think is the law tells me that they are not living what was given to Moses.

One enters the first grade with intentions of going onto the second grade. First grade does not exist so that one can stay in the first grade forever.

If you are getting mad at me for calling that law primitive and something that has passed and is no longer valid then how is that different than the Jews that stoned Stephen? or those that threw Peter and John in jail for similar statements?

I am using the word primitive because to me that implies it is not matured, it has not reached its full potential, the messages and teaching are basic, simple and primitive. That should not be offensive at all. I am sorry that you take offense to that, even though I can't understand why. One can appreciate previous covenants that those that lived the law of Moses during Moses day did, I appreciate the covenants they made as even Jesus did those things. Nobody today is living a law that is passed though. ... there is no authority to teach "first grade" right now, as far as I know. If you believe there are people living the Law of Moses right now, under what authority are they making covenants?

[Seminarysnoozer]

SS, no you are putting words in my mouth. I never said God is giving priesthood authority to anyone. Nor did I mention priesthood covenants, keys, etc.

I think you are looking to start a fight by blowing this out of proportion. And I will be concerned if you relay with young women things that are not true, nor doctrinal. God works with all people at the level they are at. But there is only one true and living celestial church with whom God is well pleased. Only the Prophet holds the keys and authorities of celestial covenants.

If God chooses to make lesser covenants with other peoples, that is his business. But it will be without priesthood authority, keys, and powers.

As it is, I'm a bit upset that you would put words like that in my mouth. I'm done with this discussion, and you can believe what you want to. Only do not EVER misquote me again.

It was with the other leaders, not the young women.

You were saying that people were living the law of Moses right now. A law of God requires priesthood and keys, so I don't know how you can separate those. I am trying to explain that a law of God does not exist without authority. You still insisted that it existed. I have never heard of a covenant done without priesthood power, ... that is not putting words into your mouth, you said it right there. Are you saying that the law of Moses was that way, since that is what this thread is about? I was taught that the law of Moses was run through the lesser priesthood. So, for it to be alive that means there has to be priesthood authority running it. Which is not the case, so, therefore, nobody is currently living the law of Moses.

I am glad, then, that I cleared up what you seemed to be saying that God is running other religions, in fact the one that stoned Stephen and put in jail Peter and John. So, I am glad to see you don't believe that. ... that is what it seemed like you were saying. ... that wasn't a misquote, just a statement of what I thought you were saying so you could clear up what I got from your post.

[volgadon]

I don't know what was given, do you? You want to try to tell me that what is known about the law of Moses now is exactly what was given to Moses, I think that is not correct.

You still haven't explained what you mean by "as given" and if you don't know, then how come you claim that I'm wrong.

What prior covenants are you talking about? Are you talking about circumcision? If you think there was a covenant involved there, that is false. A covenant requires authority to make them.

Oh, so are you saying that the Bible and modern revelation got it wrong and that there never was a covenant that God entered into with Abraham and the children of Israel and that circumcision wasn't its token? Why don't I ask the other Young Women leaders in your ward if they've ever heard that taught.

What "prior covenants" are you talking about?

The ones you meant when you said "those covenants."

The lesser law was a preparatory law. To prepare for what? What Christ brought.

Rameumptom did a far better job at explaining the difference.

If they had been living the preparatory law then they would have accepted Christ and there were many that did, all those that followed John the Baptist, Christ Himself and the apostles. But all those that held onto the traditions and the "law" did not believe Christ and therefore they were not really following the law. Just like today, if one lived the law of Moses, as soon as they receive the gospel of Christ they would accept it. That was the purpose of the law.

One can follow the law itself without necessarily following a certain interpretation of it.

The fact that they stay with what they think is the law tells me that they are not living what was given to Moses.

There is nothing in the Law of Moses which demands that it be interpreted in such a way that makes belief in Christ inevitable. Such doctrine has to be read into it, which, coincidentally, is precisely what Christ instructed people to do.

Christianity also has a long history of forcing its interpretations down the throats of Jews, and considering that many were persecuted and even martyred for their beliefs, of course Jews would be devoted to their own interpretations.

One enters the first grade with intentions of going onto the second grade. First grade does not exist so that one can stay in the first grade forever

.

If someone becomes an English major that does not obliterate out of existence the alphabet and fundmanetals of grammar, nor does it render them void and useless.

If you are getting mad at me for calling that law primitive and something that has passed and is no longer valid then how is that different than the Jews that stoned Stephen? or those that threw Peter and John in jail for similar statements?

First of all, I wasn't getting mad, nor was I really angry (the two are not synonymous), I just find your statements incredibly insulting, arrogant, and condescending. Your statements are that those who live the law of Moses have a primitive mindset.

I am using the word primitive because to me that implies it is not matured, it has not reached its full potential, the messages and teaching are basic, simple and primitive. That should not be offensive at all. I am sorry that you take offense to that, even though I can't understand why.

I am glad to hear that you have finally understood that your remarks were condescending, arrogant, and insulting.

One can appreciate previous covenants that those that lived the law of Moses during Moses day did, I appreciate the covenants they made as even Jesus did those things.

Yet you just stated that it is very hard to do so IF one believes in Christ's redemptive acts.

Nobody today is living a law that is passed though.

A major world religion does, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

... there is no authority to teach "first grade" right now, as far as I know. If you believe there are people living the Law of Moses right now, under what authority are they making covenants?

They believe that the covenants between the Patriarchs and God and between God and the children of Israel are perpetual. Passages like Deuteronomy 6 would support that idea.

[Seminarysnoozer]

SS,

Christ runs many religions on the earth at the same time. .

I am sorry if I misinterpreted this statement. I veiw "running" a religion diferent than allowing people to have various levels of teaching based on their faithfulness. There are no religions on the Earth that I know about that state that if they are faithful enough in that religion that they can advance to another religion that exists on the Earth. Judaism, as far as I know, doesn't tell it's members that if you are faithful to this religion then you will accept what Jesus Christ gave when he was here.

The law of Moses, I believe, was a living gospel just like our current gospel is a living gospel. I believe there is only one living gospel on the Earth at a time. In that sense of a living gospel, run by prophets who communicate with God, I don't know of anyone living the law of Moses right now. Just like the nephites made a change at the same time as what was happening in Isreal.

I interpreted what you said wrong. Sorry. I just think that "running" a religion includes priesthood authority, as opposed to allowing for eternal truths to be introduced to a people little by little through their own workings even from bits of truth from past revalations, like the steps before the modern restoration.