LDS Why do Mormons think they are of the Aaronic priesthood?

[Peter1000]

which reminds ----you believe as the Catholic and Orthodox---so why do you not do as they do and believe as they do? They use the same scriptures as you do, and they certainly precede you---they have a claim to the unbroken priesthood--not you, you claim it was lost they claim it never was lost and can claim an unbroken line of succession from Peter--you can not. We claim according to the bible, the priesthood all ended at the cross--period.

The protestant leaders knew the problems that they faced when they decided to break with the Catholic church. The history of the church clearly documents for centuries there was a fight among the most powerful sees of Christendom about who held the keys of Peter or the priesthood of God. Armies clashed, debates were furious, men and women and children died for the sake of the power of God on earth.
Here was the Protestant fathers problem. If we break from the church that proclaims the priesthood, we cannot bring the priesthood with us. We will be excommunicated and so long to the priesthood I once held. This was a major stress issue until Martin Luther came up with a solution. He said, it does not take a priest with the priesthood to access God. All persons have the right to go directly to God, there is no need of a representative of God. Therefore from that time forward, there was no need of the priesthood. Over 600 hundred of years, the priesthood has now been lost as an integral part of the Protestant movement.

Debate on the subject has from time to time kept the issue alive, especially between the Protestants and Catholics. I don't know who said it first but some Protestant came up with the idea that since the priesthood changed at the time of Christ, that meant it died with Jesus, and Protestants loved it because it meant not only do they not hold the priesthood, but nobody holds the priesthood.

LDS believe that the Protestants had a very good reason from breaking from the Catholic church. When murder is committed to have the man you want on the seat of Peter, you know that God has said Amen to their priesthood. God will not be with that organization and He did withdraw His power. Their claim is broken.

The difference between Luther and JS is that JS knew the priesthood was important and he needed it to proceed, so when he prayed about it, John the Baptist came from the presence of God and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood that held the power to baptize. A short time later the Lord sent Peter, James, and John, his 3 original apostles to JS and gave him the Melchisedec priesthood, or the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, and to officiate in all aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The protestant leaders knew the problems that they faced when they decided to break with the Catholic church. The history of the church clearly documents for centuries there was a fight among the most powerful sees of Christendom about who held the keys of Peter or the priesthood of God. Armies clashed, debates were furious, men and women and children died for the sake of the power of God on earth.
Here was the Protestant fathers problem. If we break from the church that proclaims the priesthood, we cannot bring the priesthood with us. We will be excommunicated and so long to the priesthood I once held. This was a major stress issue until Martin Luther came up with a solution. He said, it does not take a priest with the priesthood to access God. All persons have the right to go directly to God, there is no need of a representative of God. Therefore from that time forward, there was no need of the priesthood. Over 600 hundred of years, the priesthood has now been lost as an integral part of the Protestant movement.

Debate on the subject has from time to time kept the issue alive, especially between the Protestants and Catholics. I don't know who said it first but some Protestant came up with the idea that since the priesthood changed at the time of Christ, that meant it died with Jesus, and Protestants loved it because it meant not only do they not hold the priesthood, but nobody holds the priesthood.

LDS believe that the Protestants had a very good reason from breaking from the Catholic church. When murder is committed to have the man you want on the seat of Peter, you know that God has said Amen to their priesthood. God will not be with that organization and He did withdraw His power. Their claim is broken.

The difference between Luther and JS is that JS knew the priesthood was important and he needed it to proceed, so when he prayed about it, John the Baptist came from the presence of God and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood that held the power to baptize. A short time later the Lord sent Peter, James, and John, his 3 original apostles to JS and gave him the Melchisedec priesthood, or the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, and to officiate in all aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I know you have some serious documentation for all that. You cannot bring all these theories with no proof.

 

[mmksparbud]

Ecc_9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Psa_115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
Isa_8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Enoch, Elijah are the only ones that have not seen death---Moses was resurrected shortly after his death.

Jud_1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.


Those are all that are mentioned in the bible.

JS should not have been communicating with the dead. They don't know anything and are not of God. Peter, James and John are like David---dead and buried and not ascended.

 

[Peter1000]

Nowhere does it say--"I pass on to you the order of the Melchisidec priesthood." Doesn't mention priesthood at any point---The Holy Ghost came upon them---not the order of the priesthood.

The word "ordain" means to confer or pass on a holy order, with power and authority to function in your duties. It is usually done by the laying on of hands from one person to another.

So what do you think Jesus was doing when he "ordained" his apostles? What did he confer or pass upon them? Well he was going to be in heaven, and he needed righteous men here on earth to function as his representatives. And so Jesus conferred upon them the power and authority that he possessed, which was the holy order of the Melchisedec priesthood. It makes total sense that he would do this because the new church had to have the proper foundation, with the proper power and authority to call bishops, elders, deacons, teachers, pastors and the rest as the church grew.

No, it does not say that he ordained them with the MP but that is the power and authority that he possessed and that is the power and authority that he would have conferred upon them.

 

[Peter1000]

Please read it again with the comma's.

1Ti_2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Why you add your own comments I do not understand. Let the scripture stand on it's own.

When it says there is 1 God, and 1 mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. That means to me that the 1 God is God the Father sitting on His throne. Then there is man sitting on the earth. Then there is Christ Jesus standing before the throne of God the Father being our advocate.

So LDS POV, 3 separate and distinct entities. 1) God the Father on the throne, 2) man on earth, 3) Jesus standing before the throne as the advocate between God the Father and man. Seems very straight forward to me. Like I said, good scripture.

 

[Peter1000]

Not so fast yourself. Why don't you go back to the book of Acts and in between the verses you cite above, stop at Acts 10:44-48. This disproves the lds practice.

It certainly does not disprove the LDS practice, unless you want to strip
Acts 8:15-17 and Acts 19:6 from the bible. I'm not sure you would object, because it turns upside down your concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Your reference to Acts 10:44-48 is more like how you believe the Holy Spirit is given.

So now we seem to have a major biblical inconsistency. Peter, on the day of Pentecost told the people that were listening to him what they should do now they were believers in Jesus Christ. Do you remember what he told them to do? Well here it is:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is the LDS POV to the letter. First, Peter tells them to repent. Second, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Third, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As I remember, in most regular Christian churches, the instructions from the preacher are much, much different. They go similar to this. First, believe in Jesus Christ. Second, confess Jesus is your Savior. Third, the Holy Ghost will fall upon you and you will be saved. If you want to be baptized in water, that's up to you, but is not necessary.

So it seems we have a major biblical inconsistency about the Holy Ghost. I know how to reconcile the inconsistency to make perfect sense.

But I would like you to tell me how you reconcile the inconsistencies with the 4 scriptures that we have shared with each other. Then after you have given it your best, I will give it my best and let's see what happens. Thanks.

 

[mmksparbud]

The word "ordain" means to confer or pass on a holy order, with power and authority to function in your duties. It is usually done by the laying on of hands from one person to another.

So what do you think Jesus was doing when he "ordained" his apostles? What did he confer or pass upon them? Well he was going to be in heaven, and he needed righteous men here on earth to function as his representatives. And so Jesus conferred upon them the power and authority that he possessed, which was the holy order of the Melchisedec priesthood. It makes total sense that he would do this because the new church had to have the proper foundation, with the proper power and authority to call bishops, elders, deacons, teachers, pastors and the rest as the church grew.

No, it does not say that he ordained them with the MP but that is the power and authority that he possessed and that is the power and authority that he would have conferred upon them.

Tjhere are 23ndefinaition for the word ordain, just under Strongs, there are 9 under DBD, and 6 under Thayer--didn't want to list them all----this one seems to be the one closest to what you want

) to do, fashion, accomplish, make


1a) (Qal)

1a1) to do, work, make, produce

1a1a) to do

1a1b) to work

1a1c) to deal (with)

1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect

1a2) to make

1a2a) to make

1a2b) to produce

1a2c) to prepare

1a2d) to make (an offering)

1a2e) to attend to, put in order

1a2f) to observe, celebrate

1a2g) to acquire (property)

1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute

1a2i) to bring about

1a2j) to use

1a2k) to spend, pass

1b) (Niphal)

1b1) to be done

1b2) to be made

1b3) to be produced

1b4) to be offered

1b5) to be observed

1b6) to be used

1c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Not a single definition meant the priesthood. They were ordained as Elders, bishops and deacons---not a single one was ordained a priest. Jesus did not ordain any of them into the priesthood, and the disciples never ordained anyone into the priesthood. One can be ordained a temple guard even! It means appoint---

 

[mmksparbud]

When it says there is 1 God, and 1 mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. That means to me that the 1 God is God the Father sitting on His throne. Then there is man sitting on the earth. Then there is Christ Jesus standing before the throne of God the Father being our advocate.

So LDS POV, 3 separate and distinct entities. 1) God the Father on the throne, 2) man on earth, 3) Jesus standing before the throne as the advocate between God the Father and man. Seems very straight forward to me. Like I said, good scripture.

Yes it is---just exactly like you said---God the Father on the throne--man on earth and Jesus before the throne advocating between God the Father and man--indeed very straight forward---I'm glad we agree that it isn't man advocating for man before the throne of God the Father. We all can come to Jesus--and He does the advocating--

 

[Peter1000]

system error

 

[Peter1000]

Tjhere are 23ndefinaition for the word ordain, just under Strongs, there are 9 under DBD, and 6 under Thayer--didn't want to list them all----this one seems to be the one closest to what you want

) to do, fashion, accomplish, make


1a) (Qal)

1a1) to do, work, make, produce

1a1a) to do

1a1b) to work

1a1c) to deal (with)

1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect

1a2) to make

1a2a) to make

1a2b) to produce

1a2c) to prepare

1a2d) to make (an offering)

1a2e) to attend to, put in order

1a2f) to observe, celebrate

1a2g) to acquire (property)

1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute

1a2i) to bring about

1a2j) to use

1a2k) to spend, pass

1b) (Niphal)

1b1) to be done

1b2) to be made

1b3) to be produced

1b4) to be offered

1b5) to be observed

1b6) to be used

1c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Not a single definition meant the priesthood. They were ordained as Elders, bishops and deacons---not a single one was ordained a priest. Jesus did not ordain any of them into the priesthood, and the disciples never ordained anyone into the priesthood. One can be ordained a temple guard even! It means appoint---

I think it is interesting that the Strong (supposedly, religious leaning) concordance would not mention a thing about conferring holy orders or something to that effect, except to appoint.
Because I just looked in Dictionary.com, a rather gentile publication with no religious affiliation and this is what it says:
"to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon."

Why do you think Strong would be so lacking in defining the obvious religious word "ordain"?

You also seem to be fixated on the word "priest", like if there are no "priests" there is no "priesthood". Remember, the priesthood changed. It changed from the Aaronic to the Melchisedec priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood had multitudes of priests that did all of the sacrificing duties, which were an incredible burden. It took thousands and thousands of priests to care for this duty, plus all the other requirements that were to be done by the priests.

When Jesus came he did away with the daily sacrifice and the duties associated with the temple, so there was no more need of "priests". With the change in the priesthood, there also was a change in the offices of the priesthood. We now, in the new church of Jesus Christ have apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, bishops, elders, teachers and others. The "Aaronic priest" was replaced by these other Melchisedec offices. So just because the bible does not say "priest", if really does not mean there was no more "priesthood". There was, Jesus ordained his apostles with the MP.

If you don't think Jesus ordained his apostles with the MP, what do you think he ordained them with?

 

[ToBeLoved]

. So just because the bible does not say "priest", if really does not mean there was no more "priesthood". There was, Jesus ordained his apostles with the MP.

If you don't think Jesus ordained his apostles with the MP, what do you think he ordained them with?[/I]

I don't think Jesus did

Scripture reference?

Jesus knew He was the High Priest.

 

[mmksparbud]

I think it is interesting that the Strong (supposedly, religious leaning) concordance would not mention a thing about conferring holy orders or something to that effect, except to appoint.
Because I just looked in Dictionary.com, a rather gentile publication with no religious affiliation and this is what it says:
"to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon."

Why do you think Strong would be so lacking in defining the obvious religious word "ordain"?

You also seem to be fixated on the word "priest", like if there are no "priests" there is no "priesthood". Remember, the priesthood changed. It changed from the Aaronic to the Melchisedec priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood had multitudes of priests that did all of the sacrificing duties, which were an incredible burden. It took thousands and thousands of priests to care for this duty, plus all the other requirements that were to be done by the priests.

When Jesus came he did away with the daily sacrifice and the duties associated with the temple, so there was no more need of "priests". With the change in the priesthood, there also was a change in the offices of the priesthood. We now, in the new church of Jesus Christ have apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, bishops, elders, teachers and others. The "Aaronic priest" was replaced by these other Melchisedec offices. So just because the bible does not say "priest", if really does not mean there was no more "priesthood". There was, Jesus ordained his apostles with the MP.

If you don't think Jesus ordained his apostles with the MP, what do you think he ordained them with?

I said I checked out all the definitions, not just Strongs--it was Thayer and BDB also--and like I said---he ordained them to be deacons, apostles, elders, bishops=--they were not ordained to the priesthood.
Jesus and Jesus alone is of the Melchisidec priesthood--there is no other.

1Ch_17:9 Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning,

Isa_26:12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

1Co_7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

Tit_1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

 

[Peter1000]

Oh BTW Happy Easter. What a glorious day, the day the Lord Jesus Christ was risen from the dead, and proved that all mankind will be risen from the dead too. We no more look to the grave as the end, but look to have life everlasting. Thank you Jesus.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The word "ordain" means to confer or pass on a holy order, with power and authority to function in your duties. It is usually done by the laying on of hands from one person to another.

So what do you think Jesus was doing when he "ordained" his apostles? What did he confer or pass upon them? Well he was going to be in heaven, and he needed righteous men here on earth to function as his representatives. And so Jesus conferred upon them the power and authority that he possessed, which was the holy order of the Melchisedec priesthood. It makes total sense that he would do this because the new church had to have the proper foundation, with the proper power and authority to call bishops, elders, deacons, teachers, pastors and the rest as the church grew.

No, it does not say that he ordained them with the MP but that is the power and authority that he possessed and that is the power and authority that he would have conferred upon them.

What verse are you talking about that uses the word 'ordain'. I can look it up in the Greek and get to the bottom of what the word was and how it was used.

 

[mmksparbud]

What verse are you talking about that uses the word 'ordain'. I can look it up in the Greek and get to the bottom of what the word was and how it was used.

He was just talking about Jesus ordaining the disciples and what the word ordain means--I quoted some if the verses where that word is used in other places in the bible. There were many definitions, not one dealing with passing on a priesthood.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It certainly does not disprove the LDS practice, unless you want to strip
Acts 8:15-17

So let's look at what occurred in Acts 8 more closely by looking at the chapter.

Acts 8:9-23
9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.


So, in actuality they were not given the Holy Ghost before this. This was one of the apostles miracles, that laying on with hands on them, was to show GOD'S POWER to all the people who followed Simon the sorcerer. However Jesus sent the Holy Ghost/Spirit to the people. The apostles Peter and John were the conduit through which Jesus Christ's power was displayed through the miracle of giving the Holy Spirit to them by the laying on of hands.

See, it was a miracle. To show the people that thought Simon the sorcerer was doing miracles, that Jesus had much more power than a sorcerer. Because Simon then asked the apostles if he could pay them for them to also give him this power.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It certainly does not disprove the LDS practice, unless you want to strip
Acts 19:56 from the bible. I'm not sure you would object, because it turns upside down your concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19 only has 41 verses, so where are you getting Acts 19:56 from?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I
So now we seem to have a major biblical inconsistency. Peter, on the day of Pentecost told the people that were listening to him what they should do now they were believers in Jesus Christ. Do you remember what he told them to do? Well here it is:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



At this point, the only ones who had the Holy Spirit were those in the upper room on Pentecost, which is the same day this occured. Jesus had not yet begun to pour His Holy Spirit out at this point. So, Peter was telling them what they needed to do now. The Holy Spirit wasn't coming to all man at salvation yet. It had only been bestowed to the upper room apostles.

So this verse makes perfect sense. Please see the post above this one which confirms that even in Acts 8 the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out on people. The FIRST ones (besides the apostles) were in Acts 8, this is Pentecost in Acts 2. Notice 'ye SHALL RECIEVE the Holy Ghost'. No timeline is given.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So now we seem to have a major biblical inconsistency. Peter, on the day of Pentecost told the people that were listening to him what they should do now they were believers in Jesus Christ. Do you remember what he told them to do? Well here it is:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is the LDS POV to the letter. First, Peter tells them to repent. Second, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Third, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As I remember, in most regular Christian churches, the instructions from the preacher are much, much different. They go similar to this. First, believe in Jesus Christ. Second, confess Jesus is your Savior. Third, the Holy Ghost will fall upon you and you will be saved. If you want to be baptized in water, that's up to you, but is not necessary.

So it seems we have a major biblical inconsistency about the Holy Ghost. I know how to reconcile the inconsistency to make perfect sense.

But I would like you to tell me how you reconcile the inconsistencies with the 4 scriptures that we have shared with each other. Then after you have given it your best, I will give it my best and let's see what happens. Thanks.

No inconsistancy. Peter gave them the steps to do at that time, but once the Holy Ghost was freely given at salvation, this practice ended. It was only temporary for a short time that it was as a miracle (again see Post above, with Simon the sorcerer)

 

[ToBeLoved]

This is the LDS POV to the letter. First, Peter tells them to repent. Second, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Third, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As I remember, in most regular Christian churches, the instructions from the preacher are much, much different. They go similar to this. First, believe in Jesus Christ. Second, confess Jesus is your Savior. Third, the Holy Ghost will fall upon you and you will be saved. If you want to be baptized in water, that's up to you, but is not necessary.

So it seems we have a major biblical inconsistency about the Holy Ghost. I know how to reconcile the inconsistency to make perfect sense.

But I would like you to tell me how you reconcile the inconsistencies with the 4 scriptures that we have shared with each other. Then after you have given it your best, I will give it my best and let's see what happens. Thanks.

I believe that I have explained to you what you had seen as inconsistancy. Why is the Mormon church copying an apostolic practice shortly after Christ's death that was only temporary and use it in their permanent doctrine?