No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Mittens wrote:
Tobin wrote:Uh, Mittens - what are you driving at exactly?

First, a church is merely an association of members. Joe Smith or Joe Blow and form a church at any time they want, with or without God's authority.

And second, if someone has God's priesthood (or authority), then it will be clearly manifested. Otherwise, they don't got it no matter what they claim or when they claimed to have received it.

--------

Are you saying the Mormon Church doesn't have Gods authority?


Evangelics our members of the Royal Priesthood available to all races and genders, not like the Mormon conterfeit which wasn't available to Cain's race until 1989 or Women who still can't have it.


Please.... Do you REALLY want to go there???

1. You have even a less claim to the actual Priesthood than Mormons.
You are full apostates from the Holy Catholic Church, offshoots of the Protestants who are "Evangelical" who are the direct Apostates from the Catholic Church who DID have the Priesthood as directly given by Christ and his original Apostles.

Your "Priesthood of Believers" idea is a creation 1400 years AFTER Christ during the Protestant Reformation/Apostasy. That idea never existed before then. It was "created" then as a justification by the Protestants to separate themselves, giving THEMSELVES authority of Priesthood that they never had and lost due to their apostasy. Read the history, your "doctrine" never existed until then.

Further, the Bible itself doesn't even support the idea. Yes, it speaks of a "royal priesthood" of the body of saints, but that a translation artifact and only a general statement toward the body of saints (like all Mormons are also of the Royal Priesthood of God (whether they actually have it or not), or in a general sense with the body of believers in Christ are of a Royal Priesthood). But that is not speaking of the "actual" Priesthood. The fact is, is you ignore all the Biblical examples of Christ and the Apostles giving an ACTUAL Priesthood to various leaders, which was/is clearly SEPARATE from the "spiritual/royal priesthood of believers". The Catholic Church, despite it's on Apostasy in some things, DID/DOES a lot of what Christ himself established. You ignoring that demonstrates your own "man-made" religion.

The "Spirit" of God is not the "Priesthood of God". You have confused and perverted the two.
You only have access to his "spirit" as a Believer.... You don't have the actual Priesthood. If you actually read your Bible you would know this. Ignoring the parts which talk about an actual Priesthood being bestowed, while only focusing on the "spirit" of the believer parts, doesn't make you the holders of the truth and true priesthood.

2. The Priesthood was denied to many "races/tribes" in scriptural history. Only the Lineage of Levi were allowed the Priesthood, all others were BANNED. Were they racist too?

Was Christ himself racist for denying the Gospel to be even taught to Gentiles (those not of the chosen seed) until Peter got the revelation to official do so AFTER Christ's death?

The Priesthood being denied to the Lineage of Ham (i.e. African Lineage) was no more racist than the above two examples were racist. Since the ban only applied to those of that lineage, white or black, and since only those who were of that lineage were banned, not blacks of the Islands, not blacks of India, Central/South America, etc., and all other colors in-between, your claim of racism by the church is simply unsustainable. We never segregated our congregations like yours did either. Our church teachings also were of tolerance.

The priesthood ban existed because of the racism in the world toward the African.
The moment the racism in the world at large and American finally ended toward that race, the ban was removed.

http://www.ldsfaqs.com/history/mormons- ... riesthood/

3. Men can't have babies, is God sexist against men???
Was Christ and all the prophets and apostles of the Bible "sexist" when they didn't give women the Priesthood?

Further, women in the LDS Church serve in all kinds of positions as leaders in the Church. They are not held down, minimized in any way. Man and women are equal partners with simply different roles. As a "christian" you should understand this concept.

Your modern liberal political correctness and ignorance of the mind and purposes of God is not a case for you having the Priesthood of God, nor for you condemning us for us simply following what the Bible itself teaches.

I'm in this religion because it is literally true, and not another man-made religion like yours. It's the only religion on the planet that in full and with true authority follows everything the Bible teaches, without omitting and ignoring significant parts like your man-made religions do.

Sorry, find some other ignorant to preach to. It's not us.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _just me »

ldsfaqs wrote:
2. The Priesthood was denied to many "races/tribes" in scriptural history. Only the Lineage of Levi were allowed the Priesthood, all others were BANNED. Were they racist too?


yes

Was Christ himself racist for denying the Gospel to be even taught to Gentiles (those not of the chosen seed) until Peter got the revelation to official do so AFTER Christ's death?


yes

The Priesthood being denied to the Lineage of Ham (i.e. African Lineage) was no more racist than the above two examples were racist. Since the ban only applied to those of that lineage, white or black, and since only those who were of that lineage were banned, not blacks of the Islands, not blacks of India, Central/South America, etc., and all other colors in-between, your claim of racism by the church is simply unsustainable. We never segregated our congregations like yours did either. Our church teachings also were of tolerance.

The priesthood ban existed because of the racism in the world toward the African.
The moment the racism in the world at large and American finally ended toward that race, the ban was removed.


also racist

3. Men can't have babies, is God sexist against men???


LOL

Was Christ and all the prophets and apostles of the Bible "sexist" when they didn't give women the Priesthood?


yep
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _ldsfaqs »

just me..... You should really start to learn to think more critically and get yourself more information about those issues you claim "yes" to. I once believed as you do, but I was ignorant of the actual facts and truth of those issues, but I put away my judgments and kept learning.

The actual truth is, "no".... and "not racist".

Is God "racist" because he doesn't give the human race a different creature than he, ALL TRUTH and all power right now??? You would say "yes" according to your logic.

Problem is, like with all anti-mormons, atheists, etc., you judge on the surface and obvious of things, instead of what the actual truth and facts are, not understanding the nuances and intricacy's of life and human and God relations. God does things for good and important reasons, and guess what??? They ALL have to do with OUR OWN selves, our own preparation, our own willingness and ability to understand and be.

Ever ask yourself why it took until 2,000 years ago to even give the Higher Law, the Gospel of Christ to the world?

People like you want everything now..... You don't want to have to "work" for it, to understand, to accept, to be better. It took work for me to finally understand the actual and whole truth on the above issues. And trust me, I wasn't engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy.... "wanting it". I wanted the actual and whole truth, where-ever it took when "I" did what needed to be done to know. I was perfectly happy with not being in any religion. And you can't claim "family" pressures either.... because I have none.

So, you can continue being an ignorant bigot if you want, and falsely judge Christ, early saints, the Church today, etc., but that is your loss, and the other souls you lead to hell. Wake up....
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _just me »

ldsfaqs wrote:just me..... You should really start to learn to think more critically and get yourself more information about those issues you claim "yes" to. I once believed as you do, but I was ignorant of the actual facts and truth of those issues, but I put away my judgments and kept learning.

The actual truth is, "no".... and "not racist".

Is God "racist" because he doesn't give the human race a different creature than he, ALL TRUTH and all power right now??? You would say "yes" according to your logic.

Problem is, like with all anti-mormons, atheists, etc., you judge on the surface and obvious of things, instead of what the actual truth and facts are, not understanding the nuances and intricacy's of life and human and God relations. God does things for good and important reasons, and guess what??? They ALL have to do with OUR OWN selves, our own preparation, our own willingness and ability to understand and be.

Ever ask yourself why it took until 2,000 years ago to even give the Higher Law, the Gospel of Christ to the world?

People like you want everything now..... You don't want to have to "work" for it, to understand, to accept, to be better. It took work for me to finally understand the actual and whole truth on the above issues. And trust me, I wasn't engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy.... "wanting it". I wanted the actual and whole truth, where-ever it took when "I" did what needed to be done to know. I was perfectly happy with not being in any religion. And you can't claim "family" pressures either.... because I have none.

So, you can continue being an ignorant bigot if you want, and falsely judge Christ, early saints, the Church today, etc., but that is your loss, and the other souls you lead to hell. Wake up....


What group have I expressed bigotry towards?

I wanted the actual and whole truth, where-ever it took when "I" did what needed to be done to know.


Hey! I did that, too.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Albion
_Emeritus
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _Albion »

Tobin, you say there is plenty of proof. Where, what proof? Certainly none in the Bible. Please show this "proof" that you have.
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _Tobin »

Albion wrote:Tobin, you say there is plenty of proof. Where, what proof? Certainly none in the Bible. Please show this "proof" that you have.

Are you seriously stating there is no statements by Mormon prophets in Mormon scriptures and related texts about the Melchizedek Priesthood? Read D&C 107 to start. WoW?!? Talk about having a serious case of egg on your face.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _SteelHead »

Claim != proof
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Albion
_Emeritus
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _Albion »

Forgive me, Tobin, but as Steelhead points, out claims do not equal proof. No egg on my face because your chicken is barren on this topic. I have heard Mormon elders many times say: "In the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Mechizedec Priesthood which I hold...." Presumably this is all part of the "restoration" Mormonism claims. I wonder why there is no mention of this phrase, no mention of anyone, not Moses, not Elijah (not Elias for those who think he should be included) anywhere in the Bible using these word or even described as having the MP. Why not? Is it some vast conspiracy?

There are three mentions of Melchizedec in scripture...the first which identifies him as a great priest and king to whom even Abraham gave tithes (a type of Christ figure) , the second is a passing reference in the Psalms, and the third is in Hebrews in relation to Jesus ascending to the position of High Priest. Why is that significant...it is because there was only one high priest at a time and once per year, year after year after year, his primary function was to enter the temple Holy of Holies and after making atonement for himself he would make sacrifice and atonement on behalf of all the people. His priesthood was the Levitical priesthood, a priesthood to which Jesus, being of the tribe of Judah, could not lay claim. So, how could Jesus make atonement "once and for all"? By ascending to the holiest priesthood of all, the priesthood of Melchizedec, because he was the only man worthy and holy enough to claim it. In so doing, instead of entering a symbolic earthly Holy of Holies he entered the real Holy of Holies, the place where God dwells and sat down at the right hand of God. His sacrifice was himself and it never has to be done again...not ever...thus ending for all time the need for the Levitical priesthood and becoming the only high priest of Melchizedec of whom we have need. He broke down fully and completely the separation between God and man and the rending of the temple veil from top to bottom is declares.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _subgenius »

Mittens wrote: According to the text I posted only Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood , where in the Bible does anyone elso hold it ?

you really should rely more on the Bible than whatever hate group literature you subscribe to.
examples of Priesthood Authority being held by others: (we can start you slowly so your mind can adjust to the new and exciting routine of learning)
Matthew 10:1
Luke 10:1
Mark 13:34
Acts 1:21-25

John 15:16 <------obvious
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

Post by _subgenius »

SteelHead wrote:Melchizedek?


Image
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Post Reply