Mosiah 18:17

[Fether]

In Mosiah 18 Alma forms the church . After Alma and his people came to Zarahemla he established the church (Mosiah 25) there which would last till the fall of the Nephites. Prior to Alma’s work, was there an official church in the Americas? There seems to be no mention prior to Mosiah 18 and then a lot of discussion about it afterwards.

If not, Why was there no church established in the previous 469-471 years? The gospel was taught, there were priests, temples built.

Any insights???

[Guest]

I can't really find anything that specifically says yes or no.  But here his my theory (take it for what it's worth).

First, we need to keep in mind that there were multiple civilizations going on who were so disconnected, they may as well have been on another continent.  Noah's people were so far away through uncharted jungles/forest/wilderness that Limhi's scouts never found Mosiah's people.  It was only after Ammon (the first one) found them that they were able to connect.

I believe that there was a Church established.  And Mosiah was the President.  When Alma repented, he became the default, and de-facto, President of his people's church.  When the people united, who was supposed to be president?

I believe Alma's "establishing" a church was first to iron out the unification issue.  Then it was to determine who would be President.  New president, new church.  Mosiah had kingly duties, so it made sense that Alma (who spent his backsliding adult life as a paid priest) would be able to take over those duties, now that he had repented. 

Then they had to organize and merge middle management.  I believe this took some revelation.  And it included a hierarchical structure that wasn't there previously.  Part of it was that the Nephites had been relatively righteous and didn't need as many shepherds.  Now they were getting to be a much larger nation and sin was creeping in.

I think you can figure out the rest.

[Anddenex]

As to my understanding, any time priesthood keys and organization have existed a church was formed (or an organization was formed). When Nephi consecrated priests and teachers an organization was formed - a church.

If a group of people are small enough, the organization may have met in someone's home/tent, or simply a place of gathering where they would worship in spirit and truth. Yet, would someone call this place of gathering a "church"? Probably not.

As populations increase, places dedicated for worship would be formed. As populations increase we also see apostasy increase (thus other organizations forming), and to be identified as separate from these organizations then churches would be established.

If temples were built, as we know they were, then a place of worship would have been organized, but not necessarily called a church.

My personal opinion is that the concept of "church" instead of simply worshiping is a by-product of apostasy, and the Lord's way of identifying his true source.

[Fether]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

If a group of people are small enough, the organization may have met in someone's home/tent, or simply a place of gathering where they would worship in spirit and truth. Yet, would someone call this place of gathering a "church"? Probably not.

As populations increase, places dedicated for worship would be formed. As populations increase we also see apostasy increase (thus other organizations forming), and to be identified as separate from these organizations then churches would be established.

 

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

I believe Alma's "establishing" a church was first to iron out the unification issue

This would all make sense cause the Nephites, People of Alma, People Of Zeniff (who, I guess, are both arguably the same people and also Nephites) and Mulekites all came together around the same period, all bringing different experiences and traditions. There would definitely need to be some re-organization and unifying done.

[theplains]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

This would all make sense cause the Nephites, People of Alma, People Of Zeniff (who, I guess, are both arguably the same people and also Nephites) and Mulekites all came together around the same period, all bringing different experiences and traditions. There would definitely need to be some re-organization and unifying done.

Why were some named Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 23:17)?  The phrase 'anti' seems negative when calling someone anti-Mormon.

Jim

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

Why were some named Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 23:17)?  The phrase 'anti' seems negative when calling someone anti-Mormon.

This is a good question. We'll address it when you honestly answer Mordorbund's simple question to you.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, theplains said:

Why were some named Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 23:17)?  The phrase 'anti' seems negative when calling someone anti-Mormon.

Jim

Why is it that you believe the only way to show our faith in Christ is to refuse to do any good works as he has commanded?

[CV75]

On 10/26/2018 at 12:10 PM, Fether said:

In Mosiah 18 Alma forms the church . After Alma and his people came to Zarahemla he established the church (Mosiah 25) there which would last till the fall of the Nephites. Prior to Alma’s work, was there an official church in the Americas? There seems to be no mention prior to Mosiah 18 and then a lot of discussion about it afterwards.

If not, Why was there no church established in the previous 469-471 years? The gospel was taught, there were priests, temples built.

Any insights???

My take is that up until Alma, the temporal and spiritual governments were combined, whether along patriarchal, family and allied lines (the righteous Nephites) or kingly lines (the secular Zeniff-Noah-Limhi reign). After escaping King Noah, Alma and his people lived under a spiritual government (a church), as he refused to be a king (details in Alma 1). They had no government but the church until they joined up with Zarahemla and subjected themselves to Mosiah, the king-high priest. He subsequently separated the temporal and spiritual governments (a modified model for the separation of church and state) when he authorized Alma to form the Church of God in that land. Mosiah had the religious and governmental (both being part of his priesthood) authority to do that.

Edited October 28, 2018 by CV75

[mordorbund]

On 10/27/2018 at 1:17 PM, theplains said:

Why were some named Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 23:17)?  The phrase 'anti' seems negative when calling someone anti-Mormon.

Jim

If you really want to pursue this, I would recommend starting a separate thread since this thread is about a verse a full book earlier. Imagine a thread asking "I wonder why David brought 5 stones with him against Goliath when he had Faith that God was with him. Thoughts?" It wouldn't be terribly appropriate to jump in with "Ruth is known for her loyalty ('whither thou goest I will go... thy people will be my people' and all that), but her foundational family community would not have viewed her as such. Is it really truthful to call Ruth loyal?"

Sure, there's a tenuous connection,  but it's not remarkably relevant to the discussion at hand.

[mordorbund]

On 10/27/2018 at 1:17 PM, theplains said:

Why were some named Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 23:17)?  The phrase 'anti' seems negative when calling someone anti-Mormon.

Jim

Something to jumpstart your thinking (for the other thread if you start it):

 

[theplains]

On 10/28/2018 at 1:04 PM, Carborendum said:

Why is it that you believe the only way to show our faith in Christ is to refuse to do any good works as he has commanded?

I don't see how this is related to the forum topic.

Jim

[Guest]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't see how this is related to the forum topic.

Jim

That never stopped you from posting similar type questions before.  So, how about you stop dodging and answer the question?

[theplains]

On 10/28/2018 at 1:04 PM, Carborendum said:

Why is it that you believe the only way to show our faith in Christ is to refuse to do any good works as he has commanded?

If one says they have faith but cannot show works, this is really evidence of dead faith (i.e. faith without works is dead). 
But having true faith in Christ will be evidenced by good works.  Faith alone saves, but that faith (if genuine) is not alone.

I don't believe in the Book of Mormon teachings that we are saved by grace after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23) or that
Christ's grace is sufficient for us only after all the many other things we must do (Moroni 10:32).  Christ's grace is
all that one needs for salvation (saved by grace through faith) and is sufficient without us having to do anything.

Thanks,
Jim

[Traveler]

On 10/26/2018 at 10:10 AM, Fether said:

In Mosiah 18 Alma forms the church . After Alma and his people came to Zarahemla he established the church (Mosiah 25) there which would last till the fall of the Nephites. Prior to Alma’s work, was there an official church in the Americas? There seems to be no mention prior to Mosiah 18 and then a lot of discussion about it afterwards.

If not, Why was there no church established in the previous 469-471 years? The gospel was taught, there were priests, temples built.

Any insights???gs

 Part of the problem is understanding ancient culture and terms used within the culture.  The concept of a church is sort of a term created during the Dark Ages.  Previously such references were more associated with congregations or gatherings.  For example - in the Dead Sea Scriptures there are references to the congregations of "The Children of Light" and "The Children of Darkness".  In general ancients thought more in term like "gathering" so in essence a church is kind of an official term for a gathering.  

As far as official gatherings - Jacob references an individual that came among the Nephites shortly after the death of Nephi (but does not mention from where - a little side note here about the Book of Mormon being a "historic" document - obviously there are historical information missing - indicating that the purpose is not historic but rather something else - in the past I have suggested that the actual purpose is not historic but prophetic).  Jacob references that this person preaching against Christ, created followers.  I suggest this means a "gathering" or "congregation" - which is the essence of what we think of as a church in our modern time.  The reference in Mosiah indicates that Alma was a descendant of Nephi.  It is common in ancient documents to reference someone that is an heir of authority as a descendant.  In essence - this would mean that Alma was an official of the church that was using their position in Noah's court outside of covenant.  Alma was renewed in the covenant by a washing ordinance that was called "baptism".  But the actual term on the golden plates may have been different but is properly translated as baptism.

I would point out that ritual cleansing (or preparation) was not uncommon under the Law of Moses in the Old Testament.  An example is when Joshua baptized the all children of Israel in Jordan before entering Israel.  This was to establish an new era of covenant.  The idea of covenant era is what I believe the Book of Mormon is referencing in Mosiah rather than a whole new "church" that did not previously exist.

I would like to now make two points - first is to the accuracy and proof that the Book of Mormon is of ancient source and not a fabrication of Joseph Smith in our modern era.  Joseph Smith could have been a literal genius but being a farm boy of early American culture - could not have had access to such in depth understanding of ancient cultures to have created the Book of Mormon by his own devices.  

The second point concerns prophesies of two churches in the last days.  One being the Church of G-d and the other the Church of the Devil.  Many try to point to some modern Church (for example the Catholic church) as the church of the devil.  This is an incorrect understanding of the ancient terms.  What we should understand is that in these last days - people will be divided by issues.  A good example of this is access to religious covenants (in particular marriage) by individuals unwilling to follow the divine religious covenant of marriage between a man and a woman to bring children into the world by sexual relationships).  We see this particular division taking place not so much by what we may think of as "Church" but as a "gathering" of like thinking peoples.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 3, 2018 by Traveler

[Guest]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If one says they have faith but cannot show works, this is really evidence of dead faith (i.e. faith without works is dead). 
But having true faith in Christ will be evidenced by good works.  Faith alone saves, but that faith (if genuine) is not alone.

I don't believe in the Book of Mormon teachings that we are saved by grace after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23) or that
Christ's grace is sufficient for us only after all the many other things we must do (Moroni 10:32).  Christ's grace is
all that one needs for salvation (saved by grace through faith) and is sufficient without us having to do anything.

Thanks,
Jim

You know what, Jim.  That's a great exposition.  So, since your faith is dead, how do you justify saying you're saved?

Edited November 3, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If one says they have faith but cannot show works, this is really evidence of dead faith (i.e. faith without works is dead). 
But having true faith in Christ will be evidenced by good works.  Faith alone saves, but that faith (if genuine) is not alone.

I don't believe in the Book of Mormon teachings that we are saved by grace after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23) or that
Christ's grace is sufficient for us only after all the many other things we must do (Moroni 10:32).  Christ's grace is
all that one needs for salvation (saved by grace through faith) and is sufficient without us having to do anything.

Thanks,
Jim

if this is true then nothing anyone does, thinks or believes matters - which would include what you teach.  Since what Christ has done is sufficient - there is no reason to go to church or be kind, just, honest or anything else.  Since nothing we can do or think, matters - why should anyone teach anything?

 

The Traveler

[Fether]

44 minutes ago, Traveler said:

if this is true then nothing anyone does, thinks or believes matters - which would include what you teach.  Since what Christ has done is sufficient - there is no reason to go to church or be kind, just, honest or anything else.  Since nothing we can do or think, matters - why should anyone teach anything?

 

The Traveler

WOW!! Traditional Christianity believes this!?!! Why would anyone want to be a part of a church that says you don’t need to do anything???

Edited November 3, 2018 by Fether

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

WOW!! Traditional Christianity believes this!?!!

No! Traditional Christianity does not teach this; in fact Traditional Christianity taught that the grace of Christ is not sufficient to overcome heresy and many other sins - for which individuals were put to death.  The concept that what Christ has done is sufficient is an outgrowth of Calvinism (determinism) and opposes free will.  However, there are some that have acquired beliefs that are contradictory - but lack the intelligence to realize it.  This is also most obvious in many that propose departmentalized political thinking (conservative and liberal) as well.

 

The Traveler 

[theplains]

On 11/3/2018 at 1:35 PM, Carborendum said:

You know what, Jim.  That's a great exposition.  So, since your faith is dead, how do you justify saying you're saved?

I believe my faith rests solely on faith in Jesus Christ (the Eternal God - not a spirit child of heavenly parents who became
a God), hopefully evidenced by works approved by Him. Nothing in my hand I bring..Simply to the cross I cling. I can't
remember the originator of that phrase and if I worded it correctly. I don't believe those who place their faith in Jesus (aka
Michael the Archangel) are saved.

Jim

[theplains]

On 11/3/2018 at 1:47 PM, Traveler said:

if this is true then nothing anyone does, thinks or believes matters - which would include what you teach.  Since what Christ has done is sufficient - there is no reason to go to church or be kind, just, honest or anything else.  Since nothing we can do or think, matters - why should anyone teach anything?

 

The Traveler

I don't believe in being a Lone Ranger Christian who does not wish to have community/fellowship with other believers 🙂

A belief in teachings will influence one's actions. I believe it was the thought of becoming a god that was the great
temptation which led Adam and Eve to disobey God.  There is more to the story of the fall that initially meets the eye.
I also believe Satan was able to convince them that God was withholding something from them so they chose to
believe the lie.

After they sinned (the original or first sin), shame followed, and fear (they hid from God), and then the blame game
followed (Adam blamed God indirectly for giving him Eve and Eve blamed Satan - they were not even able to accept
responsibility for their actions).

So its very important to teach correctly so people are not led  away by strange doctrines. This is what the apostles
warned about in NT writings.

Thanks,
Jim

[mordorbund]

<sigh> tellyouwhat. I'll start a thread in the Christian Beliefs forum for ongoing dialogue with @theplains about his beliefs, his purpose here, and address his common topics of misunderstanding. This isn't to silo or shun him. He can continue to post relevant questions or comments to thread like this one (if he were discussing ancient church organizations), and if he posts a non-sequitur someone can engage by quoting it in that thread and keep the original thread from getting derailed.

I'll add a link below once I've set it up

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by mordorbund
added link

[Guest]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe my faith rests solely on faith in Jesus Christ (the Eternal God - not a spirit child of heavenly parents who became
a God), hopefully evidenced by works approved by Him. Nothing in my hand I bring..Simply to the cross I cling. I can't
remember the originator of that phrase and if I worded it correctly. I don't believe those who place their faith in Jesus (aka
Michael the Archangel) are saved.

Jim

So, now you're admitting that you have no faith in Jesus Christ.  Sad.  I'll start praying for you.

The thing is, Jim.  I believe we BOTH have faith in Jesus Christ.  But because my works are those which he had prescribed, I KNOW those works are approved by him.  He commanded them.  Because your works are of your own choosing, you cannot know until at the judgment bar.

I'd always choose to trust in His judgment over my own any day.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't believe in being a Lone Ranger Christian who does not wish to have community/fellowship with other believers 🙂

A belief in teachings will influence one's actions. I believe it was the thought of becoming a god that was the great
temptation which led Adam and Eve to disobey God.  There is more to the story of the fall that initially meets the eye.
I also believe Satan was able to convince them that God was withholding something from them so they chose to
believe the lie.

After they sinned (the original or first sin), shame followed, and fear (they hid from God), and then the blame game
followed (Adam blamed God indirectly for giving him Eve and Eve blamed Satan - they were not even able to accept
responsibility for their actions).

So its very important to teach correctly so people are not led  away by strange doctrines. This is what the apostles
warned about in NT writings.

Thanks,
Jim

I have a difficult time with made up terms like "original sin".  So I have a couple of questions.  Is not making up terms to be believed to be true - something G-d should do and not man?  I find it interesting that in one sentence you assume it is bad to pretend to be a G-d and then in the next paragraph define things that G-d alone has the authority to do?  

The next question has to do with what Adam and Eve were attempting to do in partaking of the fruit - It is true that they were taking a step towards a clear understanding of the difference between good and evil - why do you think such knowledge is sinful, let alone the first or original sin.  It is true that such knowledge is necessary to become a G-d but surely there is more than that to becoming a G-d.  So why is it that you believe it to be so evil to seek knowledge of the difference between good and evil?  I just do not see the knowledge of good and evil as evil - especially since G-d, who is obviously good has such knowledge.  But if pretending to be a G-d is evil - why use terms like original sin as though you have to power to make such things up?

It is my impression that you are caught up in a translation of ancient scripture describing things in another language that by applying literal modern English understanding to ancient Hebrew text - you are creating conflicting beliefs that make no sense at all.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 8, 2018 by Traveler

[mordorbund]

On 10/26/2018 at 12:10 PM, Fether said:

In Mosiah 18 Alma forms the church . After Alma and his people came to Zarahemla he established the church (Mosiah 25) there which would last till the fall of the Nephites. Prior to Alma’s work, was there an official church in the Americas? There seems to be no mention prior to Mosiah 18 and then a lot of discussion about it afterwards.

If not, Why was there no church established in the previous 469-471 years? The gospel was taught, there were priests, temples built.

Any insights???

In the Old World, Paul recognized that the Mosaic order had a church, though it went by a different name.

Quote

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Compare the nested quote with the Psalm.

Quote

I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Paul sees the Mosaic congregation as the pre-Messianic church. Under the Mosaic Law, the congregation was subject to 3 bodies: prophets, priests, and kings. The priests had authority over all things temple. From what I can tell, Moses ordained Aaron, who in turn ordained the other priests and subsequent high priest (I'm being sloppy and not looking up references, so I welcome correction). The kings held some ritual authority (Solomon dedicates the temple, for instance), but by and large their role is to administer the Law and epitomize it. Prophets also have ritual authority, anointing kings and offering sacrifice. Some serve in the king's court (like the traditional sage or soothsayers), and some are wild cards sent among the congregation. They also are organized (with a school), but details on that organization are wanting.

Pre-Mosaic there is another kind of template. Melchizedek is a king-priest, but little is said of him.

King Nephi takes on this priest-king role, serving both as legal and ritual administrator. Nephi "did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people." Later priests are consecrated by other kings! Zeniff and Noah practiced this, as Noah "put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead". This practice continues until Alma breaks off from Noah's apostasy.

Alma's church in the wilderness is run by priests, who also serve the role of teachers (or perhaps they serve exclusively as teachers, it looks as though Alma reserved the sole right for ritual observances). Upon returning to the land of Zarahemla, where a proper priest-king reigns, Alma submits to his authority. "King Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church." And once again, we see that the authority to consecrate priests AND teachers comes from the king himself!

Mosiah's concern for his sons' potential backsliding, combined with the account of King Noah's wicked influence over an entire congregation, led Mosiah to consider alternate forms of government. The challenge with ruling judges is what does the priesthood order look like? Is the high priest to be determined by the voice of the people as well? Surely priesthood offices should be kept aloof from such politicking. Perhaps counselling with Alma (along with the pilot programs he set up throughout Zarahemla) gave the king the insight that priesthood orders can be run separately from the governmental duties.

Under Nephi, we see the organization of priest-kings, priests, and teachers for the congregation/church. This continued through Mosiah (even including the Zeniff branch), who was the last of the priest-kings with the role of high priest/prophet getting handed off to Alma the younger (ordained by his father), and the role of chief judge broken off from that, although it was also given to Alma the younger (who quickly divested himself of it to tend to his ministerial duties). Alma the elder's innovation was to organize the congregation into branches, and to operate it separate from a king line (and he may or may not have had teachers - if not, it was restored under Mosiah).

 

[theplains]

On 11/7/2018 at 9:27 PM, Traveler said:

I have a difficult time with made up terms like "original sin".  So I have a couple of questions.  Is not making up terms to be believed to be true - something G-d should do and not man?  I find it interesting that in one sentence you assume it is bad to pretend to be a G-d and then in the next paragraph define things that G-d alone has the authority to do?  

The next question has to do with what Adam and Eve were attempting to do in partaking of the fruit - It is true that they were taking a step towards a clear understanding of the difference between good and evil - why do you think such knowledge is sinful, let alone the first or original sin.  It is true that such knowledge is necessary to become a G-d but surely there is more than that to becoming a G-d.  So why is it that you believe it to be so evil to seek knowledge of the difference between good and evil?  I just do not see the knowledge of good and evil as evil - especially since G-d, who is obviously good has such knowledge.  But if pretending to be a G-d is evil - why use terms like original sin as though you have to power to make such things up?

It is my impression that you are caught up in a translation of ancient scripture describing things in another language that by applying literal modern English understanding to ancient Hebrew text - you are creating conflicting beliefs that make no sense at all.

 

The Traveler

Maybe the simple answer is that seeking something outside the will of God is sinful.  Unless one believes that God really wanted
Adam and Eve to disobey Him.

Another term for original sin is 'first sin'.   What is the first sin you believe Adam and Eve committed?

Thanks,
Jim