No proof for Melchizedek Priesthood for LDS

[_Mittens]

It is claimed by the Mormon leaders that before the church was organized Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood. Apostle LeGrand Richards admits that the exact date of this ordination is not known: "While we are a record-keeping people, as the Lord commanded, nevertheless our records are not complete.... we do not have the date that Peter, James and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon them" (Letter from LeGrand Richards, dated September 26, 1960).

"In the History of the Church, no account is given of the date when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored." Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3 page 95 Joseph Fielding Smith

The Doctrine and Covenants 27:12
is cited as proof that the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred at a very early date: "And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles .... "

This verse, however, did not appear in the revelation when it was published in the Book of Commandments in 1833. It was added into the Doctrine and Covenants, and therefore cannot be cited as proof that the Melchizedek Priesthood was in the church at the time the revelation was given

Hyperlink is the Original section of 27 before 12 verses were added.

This hyperlink shows the two side by side

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingther ... s_p157.gif

Visitations of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John conferring the priesthood apparently were not known in the church until sometime after 1834. If restoration of priesthood was such a significant event, wouldn’t Joseph have mentioned it earlier? “I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834, 5, or 6—in Ohio… I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…” – David Whitmer (Early Mormon Documents, 5:137). “I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so… I never heard of it in the church for years…” – William McLellin (An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, pp.224-25). The revelation referring to the Aaronic restoration is missing from the Book of Commandments, as well as from the original church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star (edition dated March 1833, p.6). The only known manuscript copy of the revelation makes no reference to the LDS priesthoods either (Origins of Power, p.16).

The account of the Melchizedek restoration is entirely missing. B.H. Roberts writes that “there is no definite account of the event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals…” (History of the Church, 1:40fn).

The information that is available about the Melchizedek restoration creates a problem. Many LDS scholars who have studied the event place the ordination within a few weeks of the Aaronic priesthood ordination date, which was in May 1829 (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:885-86). There is a brief mention of the event in Oliver B. Huntington’s journal, which places the Melchizedek ordination on a night after Joseph and Oliver had been on trial in Colesville, New York (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, 13 January 1881). Joseph Smith dated this incarceration in mid-to-late June of 1830 (History of the Church 1:84-85, 92-94). Wesley Walters located the court bill for this trial, which was dated “July 1st 1830” (Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials, p.125). That date is several weeks after the Church was organized. But LDS sources are emphatic that Smith could not have legally organized the Church unless he had received the Melchizedek priesthood first. At the time of church organization, Joseph Smith gave himself the title of FIRST ELDER of the church. That creates an irreconcilable problem for the LDS claim of authority.

The first mention of Melchizedek Priesthood in the scriptures of the church is Doctrine and Covenants 68, which was recorded in November 1831. Verse 15 says, “Wherefore they shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.” Nowhere before 1831 is there any such notion of a Priesthood of Melchizedek on the records of the church.


Other changes in Doctrines and Covenant

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingther ... s_p140.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingther ... s_p141.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingther ... s_p143.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingther ... s_p145.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingther ... s_p154.gif

[Guest]

What do you want a Certificate authenticated by Deity?

In fact I have it, so if I touch you I can pass it on!

[_Tobin]

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.

[_Drifting]

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?

[_Tobin]

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?

Churches don't have authority. Again, just an association of like-minded individuals. A person may or may not have the authority of God. If that is the case, that would be plainly manifest. Otherwise, they DO NOT.

[_Drifting]

Churches don't have authority. Again, just an association of like-minded individuals. A person may or may not have the authority of God. If that is the case, that would be plainly manifest. Otherwise, they DO NOT.

How, specifically, would it be 'plainly manifest' if an individual has God's authority?

[_Tobin]

Churches don't have authority. Again, just an association of like-minded individuals. A person may or may not have the authority of God. If that is the case, that would be plainly manifest. Otherwise, they DO NOT.

How, specifically, would it be 'plainly manifest' if an individual has God's authority?

Heal the sick, walk on water, divide the red sea asunder. Those kinds of things. Kind of hard to not notice.

[_Drifting]

How, specifically, would it be 'plainly manifest' if an individual has God's authority?

Heal the sick, walk on water, divide the red sea asunder. Those kinds of things. Kind of hard to not notice.

So, a doctor has God's authority?
Dynamo has God's authority?
Damn builders have God's authority?

[_Albion]

So, in your view does the Mormon Church have the Melchizedec priesthood?

[_Tobin]

So, a doctor has God's authority?
Dynamo has God's authority?
Damn builders have God's authority?

In a sense, when we use natural laws, we do things similar to God. But doctors can't cure all disease. I'd love to see you use a Dynamo in rough seas, and we don't have the technology and resources to damn a sea. God's authority (or power) is superior to anything else.