tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post3836290671677121058..comments2008-10-23T19:50:16.759-06:00Comments on Strong Reasons: Gift of the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of HandsAndrew I. Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13119240321588754796noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-43090297932340273952008-02-03T18:43:00.000-07:002008-02-03T18:43:00.000-07:00I wasn't concerned that you were suggesting that J...I wasn't concerned that you were suggesting that Joseph Smith borrowed his concepts of priesthood from another church. That is, rationally, a possibility. I don't think that's the case, but I have to admit that it is a rational possibility.<BR/><BR/> I didn't know there was an Episcopalian church in Palmyra. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the info.Andrew I. Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13119240321588754796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-29221329674609310512008-02-03T18:08:00.000-07:002008-02-03T18:08:00.000-07:00From the website of Zion Episcopal Church of Palmy...From the website of Zion Episcopal Church of Palmyra NY:<BR/><BR/>"Zion Episcopal Church was officially "organized" on June 28, 1823, but our roots actually began 20 years earlier. From the very beginning, it was obvious that Zion was a church intensely dedicated in its desire to succeed. The first Episcopalians in Palmyra were helped financially by the stronger, established congregations in the east. They were instrumental in the construction of the first Zion church and the first organ." (See: http://zion-episcopal-church.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26)<BR/><BR/>There is a Catholic church in Palmyra was founded in 1849 according to: http://www.palmyrany.com/presbyhistory.htm (I couldn't find a church website)<BR/><BR/>So Joseph could have been familiar with the Deacon, Priest, Bishop offices of ministry in at least the Episcopal church that had been there since 1823...<BR/><BR/>As for the Methodists - they do have deacons and pastors and Bishops but I am not sure what role the deacons play - I do know that the office of bishop in the United Methodist Church is fairly functional and administrative...<BR/><BR/>Presbyterians as I pointed out earlier operate with a system of leadership by "Elders" either teaching Elders who are ordained, professional ministers/pastors and ruling Elders who are also ordained but are taken from among the laity - ruling Elders cannot baptize (only in an emergency where no teaching Elder can be found) nor can they confirm or celebrate the eucharist...teaching Elders (pastors) can do all of that...So this system would have introduced J.S. to the pratice of leadership by Elders but would have been silent on the priesthood ministry...<BR/><BR/>Baptists have nothing like Elders or Priests...they do have deacons but they are lay people (whereas in the Episcopal & Catholic churches a deacon is an ordained ministry of the priesthood) so there is nothing in most Baptist circles that even remotely looks like the LDS priesthood..<BR/><BR/>Now with all of that said and all of what I said before, please do not think that I am saying Joseph made it (the priesthood) up...I don't that...but it (in concept and practice at least) is not unique...<BR/><BR/>I should also note that I have an undergraduate degree in church history with a minor in theology and I have spent a great deal of time working on ecumenism and with cross-denomination groups...so I am very familiar with the differences and the working of most mainstream denominations...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-91409942990824763972008-02-03T15:50:00.000-07:002008-02-03T15:50:00.000-07:00Thanks for the information. I didn't know most of...Thanks for the information. I didn't know most of that. However, I don't think Joseph Smith was familiar with Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Episcopalians. These churches were not in existence where he was raised, as far as I can tell. <BR/><BR/> He was however very familiar with Presbyterianism, Methodism, and Baptists. Do they have similar priesthood organizations to the churches above?<BR/><BR/>I think you're right about the possibility of the basic concept being passed on even if there were an apostasy. LDS, of course, believe that many concepts and doctrines were passed on correctly even though there was an apostasy.Andrew I. Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13119240321588754796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-59619820777876307262008-02-03T14:26:00.000-07:002008-02-03T14:26:00.000-07:00Andrew said"Those of the lesser priesthood can bap...Andrew said<BR/><BR/>"Those of the lesser priesthood can baptize but not confirm. Those of higher priesthood can do both. My reading of Acts 8 seems to imply the same thing. Philip could baptize, but Peter and John had to go to confirm.I don't think this exists in other churches."<BR/><BR/>Well that is exactly how it is in the 'catholic' denominations...<BR/><BR/>In Catholic, Episcopal and Orthodox churches ordained Deacons can Baptize and Marry and Preach but cannot ordain priests or deacons or celebrate the eucharist or confirm people. Only Bishops in these churches can ordain others and priests can celebrate the eucharist & as noted above with the exception of the Orthodox church only Bishops can confirm people in the faith.<BR/><BR/>In these churches the office of Bishops holds all the 'powers & privelages' of the priesthood. Priests and deacons hold some but not all. Similar I suppose to the Melchizidek & Aaronic Priesthood system in the LDS church.<BR/><BR/>Acts says that Phillip was one of the "seven men of good reputation, filled with the Spirit and with wisdom," (Ac 6:3) The Seven were presented by the full assembly of disciples to the Apostles. The Twelve, "after prayer, laid their hands on them." (Ac 6:6) These men, "Stephen, ... together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and ... Nicolaus of Antioch, a convert to Judaism," (Ac 6:5) constituted the first group of Christian deacons. (diakonos (διάκονος), which literally means 'through the dust' and is often translated servant or waiter).<BR/><BR/>So it would appear to me (and Catholic, Episcopal & Orthodox theologian I might add) that Phillip was a Deacon and as such had authority to baptize as do deacons in the modern 'catholic' denominations as I noted above - Unless I am mistaken doesn't the Aaronic Priesthood include 'Deacon'? - so in essence the LDS concept (I am emphasizing the word concept here) of the priesthood is not unique among all churches - but if this priesthood concept is true (or if this is the way the priesthood is supposed to look) then it would be safer to say that the concept at least (maybe not the actual authority i.e. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" 2 Timothy 3:5)passed through the apostasy intact - I don't think it is correct to say that it is a unique LDS concept however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-55880172334220043652008-02-03T12:58:00.000-07:002008-02-03T12:58:00.000-07:00One other difference is the unique role of two pri...One other difference is the unique role of two priesthoods in the LDS Church. Those of the lesser priesthood can baptize but not confirm. Those of higher priesthood can do both. My reading of Acts 8 seems to imply the same thing. Philip could baptize, but Peter and John had to go to confirm. I don't think this exists in other churches.Andrew I. Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13119240321588754796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-41049116196468379132008-02-03T09:58:00.000-07:002008-02-03T09:58:00.000-07:00Of course the stark difference I failed to point o...Of course the stark difference I failed to point out is that in all those 'mailine churched' be they Catholic or not - baptism is usually performed on infants...<BR/><BR/>The LDS doctrine of faith then repentance then baptism then confirmation is more akin to Anabaptism (and it's many descendants/variants) then to the others I mentioedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307305968564854073.post-37275871514997549642008-02-03T09:55:00.000-07:002008-02-03T09:55:00.000-07:00From an Evangelical perspective or maybe more clea...From an Evangelical perspective or maybe more clearly from a 'pentecostal' perspective...<BR/><BR/>A person receives a portion of the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion...because it is the Spirit that brings one to Christ.<BR/><BR/>At a later date the new believer may receive the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" which is the gift of guidance, direction, and most notably speaking in other tongues.<BR/><BR/>The LDS view is also similar to the Catholic, Episcopal, Orthodox view in that a person is first baptized and later (usually around 12yrs old) Confirmed (by a Bishop in the RC & Episcopal realm and the priest in the Eastern Orthodox church + confirmantion in the eastern church takes place immediately following infant baptism - they call it Chrismation) This Confirmation is by the laying on of hands of the one holding appropriate authority and then the confirman receives the Holy Spirit - in most mainline Protestant churches it is the local pastor who does the laying on of hands but the 'result' is the same - the gift of the Holy Spirit...<BR/><BR/>Intersting the apparent similarites between LDS and the prevelant churches of the time of J.S. - <BR/><BR/>I have also found it intersting that J.S. had contact with the Presbyterian church through his mother and sister and two brothers because the system of leadership by ordained Elders exists in both the LDS and Presbyterian (or other Reformed/Calvinist churches)churches. There are definate difference in duties and rights of Elders in these churches but nonetheless the systems are similar...<BR/><BR/>So these could be elements of truth in other churches, coincindences or Joseph taking already existing systems and understandings and giving them unique LDS meanings...<BR/><BR/>Great post...thanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com