LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[tickingclocker]

Well, from a Christian perspective it's pretty easy to convincingly criticize the mormon religion on their own doctrines since they are so starkly different from Christianity. I'd imagine most people who see just one or two of mormonism's very different beliefs would quickly see that it is not Christian and would dismiss it right away.

That is true to some extent. When I realized a long, long time ago that the God of the bible was very different from mormonism's version of God, I knew there was something foundationally wrong with what I was being told was spiritual truth. God seemed so... off... from what the bible showed Him to be, and from what He Himself says He is. It also made no sense why God would go to so much trouble to create the bible, then allow His message to save to be distorted then "apostasize"? (Is God bi-polar, working against Himself??) To me the message remained exactly the same as it always had. Jesus loves you. It didn't make sense how Christians could be so "apostasized" if they believe Jesus loves them simply because they didn't believe in priesthoods, etc. Jesus Christ is the central message of the entire bible. Not stuff we do like "priesthoods", etc.. So I had to eventually conclude someone was lying, and it couldn't be God. I was taught that God cannot lie, after all. So who else could be the culprit? Joseph Smith. Then I started noticing he was the only one who "experienced" most of this stuff I was being told to accept without proof or thinking about it? Something was wrong there, and sure enough.... (I even tried a "lie-truth" experiment on my parents. The reality of their assumptions profoundly shook my young mind to what lengths humans will go to in order to protect something they have invested so heavily in. It scared me at the time and I didn't know why. Now I know its a lot easier and more common than people believe.)

When the basis of all faith, which is God Himself, is compromised--why bother to inquire further? I did try, but was continually rebuffed from asking more penetrating questions, and didn't care for the "pat", obviously condescending non-answers I was always handed. There's just so much you can take of that attitude before it affects your outlook. When so much doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it? It's because it doesn't make sense.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Thank you, withwonderingawe - I see now what you are saying that the official mormon belief is that women have the Holy Spirit but do NOT have priesthood. Does mormonism teach that women must go through the men of the church who are the priests in order to go to God for anything such as official sacraments and rituals?

Since the Bible is official;
1 Cor 11
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Somehow the covering of the woman's head gives her power, I don't know why that is, it must be some sort of idiom or have cultural meaning but it is a symbol of power which she has. I quoted this on another thread; When Barclay translated his own 'The New Testament' he wrote Eph 5:11 like this; “…for this cause a man will leave father and mother, and will be inseparably joined to his wife, and they two will be come so completely one that they will no longer be two persons, but one..”

I posted the following also
On April 28th 1842 Eliza recorded in her min. of the RS;
“he (Joseph) spoke of delivering the keys of the priesthood to the church, and said that faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands…”

Woodruff a close friend of the prophet said; “Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connections with their husbands a wife has certain blessings and powers and rights and is a partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband”

Brigham Young“[they] never can hold the Priesthood apart from their husbands”

Mary Kimball quoting Heber Kimball talking about anointing with oil “..not by authority of the priesthood invested in them for that authority is not given to woman, they might administer by the authority given to their husbands in as much as they were one with their husband.”

John Taylor“…it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.”

So there you have the founding fathers of the Church, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Heber Kimball all saying that a woman’s priesthood comes to them in connection with their husbands and how one they have become one.

You asked; Does mormonism teach that women must go through the men of the church who are the priests in order to go to God for anything such as official sacraments and rituals?

I'm sorry I'm going off here a little on Mormon feminism;

Some of the feminist in Mormonism have demanded that women be ordained, what they fail to understand is this concept of oneness, there is no need for two ordinations because his priesthood is her priesthood. I heard a sealer at the temple express that very concept and as these two grow in faith their priesthood power becomes stronger.

What women don't have are the keys of authority. That authority comes with responsibility, Peter was told feed my sheep. I am not the servant of the Bishop he is my servant. The young deacon passing the sacrament is serving me, he does not hold power over me. He has to learn as the humble servant of the Lord he is serving me.

Jesus taught;
If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Women by the very nature of motherhood learn to serve others but men very often feel the need to be boss and need to learn they are the servant. I've heard this expressed in Sunday school that this is why men have the priesthood keys to serve, they need that humble experience.

D&C 121
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominionor compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 

[Rescued One]

Are Melchizedek and Jesus the same person? A case can be made either way. At the very least, Melchizedek is a type of Christ, prefiguring the Lord’s ministry.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Melchizedek.html

 

[Rescued One]

When the basis of all faith, which is God Himself, is compromised--why bother to inquire further? I did try, but was continually rebuffed from asking more penetrating questions, and didn't care for the "pat", obviously condescending non-answers I was always handed. There's just so much you can take of that attitude before it affects your outlook. When so much doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it? It's because it doesn't make sense.

Wow! It was happening to others besides myself!

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Since the Bible is official;
1 Cor 11
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Somehow the covering of the woman's head gives her power, I don't know why that is, it must be some sort of idiom or have cultural meaning but it is a symbol of power which she has.

Where are you getting that from? The woman has authority and power OVER her - "on her head". The man has authority over her. The reason you don't know why the covering of the woman's head "gives her power" is because it doesn't. It is a symbol of the power that sits over (on) her head. It is a symbol that the man has authority over her. This is why she must cover her head but the man must not.

I quoted this on another thread; When Barclay translated his own 'The New Testament' he wrote Eph 5:11 like this; “…for this cause a man will leave father and mother, and will be inseparably joined to his wife, and they two will be come so completely one that they will no longer be two persons, but one..”

I can't accept anything from Barclay as evidence because Barclay is someone that even you disagree with on most of his teachings. Even if you didn't, he is not official mormon doctrine or teaching at all.

I posted the following also
On April 28th 1842 Eliza recorded in her min. of the RS;
“he (Joseph) spoke of delivering the keys of the priesthood to the church, and said that faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands…”

Woodruff a close friend of the prophet said; “Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connections with their husbands a wife has certain blessings and powers and rights and is a partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband”

Brigham Young“[they] never can hold the Priesthood apart from their husbands”

Mary Kimball quoting Heber Kimball talking about anointing with oil “..not by authority of the priesthood invested in them for that authority is not given to woman, they might administer by the authority given to their husbands in as much as they were one with their husband.”

John Taylor“…it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.”

So there you have the founding fathers of the Church, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Heber Kimball all saying that a woman’s priesthood comes to them in connection with their husbands and how one they have become one.

None of the above are official mormon church teaching or doctrine, so they don't help support your point.

You asked; Does mormonism teach that women must go through the men of the church who are the priests in order to go to God for anything such as official sacraments and rituals?

I'm sorry I'm going off here a little on Mormon feminism;

Some of the feminist in Mormonism have demanded that women be ordained, what they fail to understand is this concept of oneness, there is no need for two ordinations because his priesthood is her priesthood. I heard a sealer at the temple express that very concept and as these two grow in faith their priesthood power becomes stronger.

What women don't have are the keys of authority. That authority comes with responsibility, Peter was told feed my sheep. I am not the servant of the Bishop he is my servant. The young deacon passing the sacrament is serving me, he does not hold power over me. He has to learn as the humble servant of the Lord he is serving me.

Jesus taught;
If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Women by the very nature of motherhood learn to serve others but men very often feel the need to be boss and need to learn they are the servant. I've heard this expressed in Sunday school that this is why men have the priesthood keys to serve, they need that humble experience.

Again, some opinion and hearsay you have "heard expressed in Sunday school" but no official belief, doctrine, teaching, etc. None of this is helpful at all.

D&C 121
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominionor compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Well this is official scripture but this passage mentions nothing about mormon priesthood for women. What it does say is that only "few are chosen" to become priests, yet we see the mormon religion disobeying the D&C here by ordaining every boy in the mormon church as priests while they are young teens. It is odd that the D&C says that in the priesthood "few are chosen" but that the mormon church goes against this and chooses every boy (not yet men) in their church to become "priests".

 

[tickingclocker]

See you have a completely distorted view of Joseph Smith. He was not setting himself up to be dictator. He set up a system where no one man had complete rule. Let's say the prophet had a stroke in the night and got up to announce we all must stand on our heads to be saved. He could not implement this new doctrine without 14 other men agreeing with him. If he wanted to be king he would not have set the church up this way.

Joseph as president of the Church had a councilor he didn't trust anymore and wanted to remove him from office but he couldn't because he couldn't get the others to agree. His own councilor and he couldn't get rid of him! It's said there were times he would leave a meeting to go outside and kick rocks around, he didn't always get his way. In the long run he was right about the man, he was instrumental in causing Joseph's death.

I'll go back to the diary entry of George A. Smith in May 1844 which says “Joseph Smith has been ordained “King over the Immediate house of Israel” , So not "King of Israel" as in Yahweh but again in Mormon speak that means the Church and we see the church as the gathering of Israel in this dispensation!

As I understand it this ordination took place during a Council of Fifty meeting, my husband's great great grandfather was a member. They like Paul and Peter in the New Testament felt the second coming was near, this council was set up to prepare for the King of kings coming. (because of sin the Church lost Zion) He was not ordained ruler of the world but only as presiding authority over that council to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The council was made up of members and non members. To pass any a motion the vote had to be unanimous in the affirmative, gees it's a wonder they got anything done. Once again Joseph did not set himself up as a dictator.

*And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion...over all the earth.

You said; Dominion means... "The divine honor and right of authority over all".

mmmmm?

*There is a much deeper meaning to this whole concept of Kingship which goes right over your head and the heads of many of the those who were plotting a rebellion within the Church at the time of Joseph, they were actually plotting his murder. All contention is of the devil and Jesus had his Judas too. What I mean is some of what you read about Joseph Smith is written by men who were driven by a spirit of contention and by the father of lies.

Jesus told his apostle;
Matthew 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Rev 1
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Rev 3
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev 21
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Rev 22
"....but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads..... for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

The name written on their foreheads is a reference to the temple where the High Priest would have Yahweh's name written on his forehead so to represent Yahweh. Those who over come will it in the throne with Yahweh and as heirs of God joint heirs with Christ. But at the same time we are his servants.

Don't think you can just ignore it. If you expect me to read what you say then respond to it, apologize for the "anti-mormonism" crack FIRST and I will. If you cannot respect me as a person, don't expect me to just "roll over and play dead" as another Mormon put it. You give me very little reason to answer you or interact with you if you are going to keep acting this way. If you cannot respect the rules of this forum, why are you here? This is not a free-for-all.

 

[drstevej]

REMINDER: SOP

The term "anti-____" has come to have the connotation of one who is against or hates a specific group of people. Therefore, if any member refers to another member as "anti-_____", "an anti", "hater", "_____ hater", or any related terms with the same meaning, such comments will be regarded as flaming.

 

[tickingclocker]

Wow! It was happening to others besides myself!

The same thing has happened to a lot of people. And not just within mormonism. I think what held more lasting heartbreak for me was that it was my own parents trying to make me believe something I knew deep down inside that there was something off about it. It's scary to a child to realize your parents choose to believe a lie when you got smacked for lying--by them. I was taught that God was... everything! He was the reason for our existence, our toys, our food, our family... everything. So if He wasn't what He said He was, then what did that make life? Very uncertain.

 

[mmksparbud]

What makes Mormons think we get our views from "anti-Mormon" sites?? Has it never occurred to them, that we simply know what the bible says, and what you say simply is not what the bible says. I don't go to anti Mormon sites, I don't need to. I learned everything about you from you people on here and from reading your Mormon books. It is enough to know that these are not of God. I so not need any site to tell me that!!!

 

[ToBeLoved]

That is true to some extent. When I realized a long, long time ago that the God of the bible was very different from mormonism's version of God, I knew there was something foundationally wrong with what I was being told was spiritual truth. God seemed so... off... from what the bible showed Him to be, and from what He Himself says He is. It also made no sense why God would go to so much trouble to create the bible, then allow His message to save to be distorted then "apostasize"? (Is God bi-polar, working against Himself??) To me the message remained exactly the same as it always had. Jesus loves you. It didn't make sense how Christians could be so "apostasized" if they believe Jesus loves them simply because they didn't believe in priesthoods, etc. Jesus Christ is the central message of the entire bible. Not stuff we do like "priesthoods", etc.. So I had to eventually conclude someone was lying, and it couldn't be God. I was taught that God cannot lie, after all. So who else could be the culprit? Joseph Smith. Then I started noticing he was the only one who "experienced" most of this stuff I was being told to accept without proof or thinking about it? Something was wrong there, and sure enough.... (I even tried a "lie-truth" experiment on my parents. The reality of their assumptions profoundly shook my young mind to what lengths humans will go to in order to protect something they have invested so heavily in. It scared me at the time and I didn't know why. Now I know its a lot easier and more common than people believe.)

When the basis of all faith, which is God Himself, is compromised--why bother to inquire further? I did try, but was continually rebuffed from asking more penetrating questions, and didn't care for the "pat", obviously condescending non-answers I was always handed. There's just so much you can take of that attitude before it affects your outlook. When so much doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it? It's because it doesn't make sense.

I think another thing that is clear as day is that the BOA was never translated by JS correctly. Not only was the text not a translation, but the pictures were also altered which is another step all together to deceive. The Kinderhook plates are another prime example.

JS knew those Egyptian hyroglifs were not about Abraham. They were not about anything religious in anyway.

Add into that the plants and animals that never existed in the US/North America at a certain time. There are so many/

 

[tickingclocker]

I think another thing that is clear as day is that the BOA was never translated by JS correctly. Not only was the text not a translation, but the pictures were also altered which is another step all together to deceive. The Kinderhook plates are another prime example.

JS knew those Egyptian hyroglifs were not about Abraham. They were not about anything religious in anyway.

Add into that the plants and animals that never existed in the US/North America at a certain time. There are so many/

God forgot to mention to him that Egyptian hieroglyphs would be unlocked some day? In his day they were a highly publicized secret that puzzled every scholar. All things Egyptian were hugely popular in Smith's day simply because of the exotic mysteries it [once] held. He counted upon that remaining true.

''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
---Sir Walter Scott

 

[fatboys]

What makes Mormons think we get our views from "anti-Mormon" sites?? Has it never occurred to them, that we simply know what the bible says, and what you say simply is not what the bible says. I don't go to anti Mormon sites, I don't need to. I learned everything about you from you people on here and from reading your Mormon books. It is enough to know that these are not of God. I so not need any site to tell me that!!!

Yes and you have put the time in to research all the history of the church. Right?

 

[Peter1000]

Peter. All you keep doing is going round and round creating these strange crop circles, pretending its somehow going to become a straight line everyone will accept as divine? IDK what to make of it. Do I believe in a priesthood? Of course I do. Levites were chosen priests of God (when there was a temple, that is. The NT tells us those who accept Jesus Christ's Lordship are now that temple made without hands, with Jesus Christ as High Priest). Do the Apostles Peter and John tell ALL believers that the priesthood has been bestowed, by God, upon ALL believers everywhere, who are now able to access God directly though Jesus Christ, their Savior and Lord, without going through someone else or requiring an animal sacrifice? That they now have the indwelling Holy Spirit? That they have been chosen, yet again, as priests of God? That they now can take the Gospel of salvation to the world? Of course they do. I've told you this before. So why would I not believe what the Word of God so clearly states now? Are you somehow assuming two of the Lord's Apostles... lied??

You, however, are the one rootlessly tumbling and twisting in the wind here, claiming--so many things--were "restored", when no one has ever proven the designation of priest bestowed BY GOD Himself upon all believers, was ever taken away! You are the one who has chosen to believe a myth of someone else's convenience, when both our bibles state unequivocally that all believers are priests eternally. You are the one who has chosen to place faith in others while minimizing God's Word. I haven't. I chose to believe GOD alone long, long ago, without ever seeing one sentence of any "anti-Mormon" material. If you wish to believe JS's words and not God's Word alone? So be it, but enough already, okay? Face the fact that you are upset because I reject JS's view of God's "priesthood", JS's "abomination" coupled with "apostasy" tales, so now you must tell yourself that I don't believe in ANY priesthood? Admit it. Try to move on. All that typing, and for what? Seriously.

Your belief in mormonism's rules don't affect my church, my faith, and my relationship with God--OR GOD not one iota. That is what I meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, although I thought I was to someone who I considered intelligent enough to understand that. Or did you, but still thought maybe you could "argue" me around to your thinking? Not a chance, dear. Not a chance. Ever ever again. You think you are the first who had a go? LOL!! Oh, if you only knew. I'm not going to be the one dog you can persuade that vomit tastes good. If not that, just what is truly at the bottom of all these meandering, lengthy, acrobatic "discourses" of yours with me, anyway? Trust me, you are welcome to your beliefs if you truly wish to believe them! Just stop telling yourself or me that we doctrinally "agree", we are "brothers and sisters in the Lord", you have "proven"... whatever... to me about mormonism, etc., etc. Never going to happen... according to GOD'S Word. Not mine, not yours, and certainly never JS's. No one can ever disprove what God has shown me.

First of all I don't get upset. If I do, I end responding, because to get mad is not what this forum is about.
There is no arguing a person over to anything on this forum. This is a forum about religion and God does not like contention. He does not mind discussion and learning from each other, but not contention.

IMO, correct me if I am wrong, if it were not for Mormons, the word "preisthood" would never be spoken. Ny understanding is your church has some minor, vague, belief in all baptized persons holding priesthood, but do you ever talk about what it is? What is the power that we all hold? Do we have the power to forgive sin, like Peter had? Is it the power to bind and loose on earth, and it will be bound and loosed in heaven? Do you ever talk about this power in your church?

 

[tickingclocker]

Yes and you have put the time in to research all the history of the church. Right?

No. I never said that. That's your assumption so don't think you can pretend it came from my mouth. I expect my thinking to be corrected by Mormons on here, because I know I don't know everything. Some things I do know the facts of, so offer concrete facts, not suppositions and opinions. Those just don't hold up to the Light. So far I've seen very little of that happening. Lead me to official answers I can SEE about what you believe and your history. Don't expect me to accept anyone's opinion or "best guess" as gospel fact. Ain't gonna happen. And don't expect me to agree with what those facts state either, if they fail to agree with God's Word.

And before you can shout I'm disrespecting you and your beliefs, keep in mind I once asked God to do the same as well. Prove it. He did. How about LDS doing the same?

 

[ToBeLoved]

First of all I don't get upset. If I do, I end responding, because to get mad is not what this forum is about.
There is no arguing a person over to anything on this forum. This is a forum about religion and God does not like contention. He does not mind discussion and learning from each other, but not contention.

IMO, correct me if I am wrong, if it were not for Mormons, the word "preisthood" would never be spoken. Ny understanding is your church has some minor, vague, belief in all baptized persons holding priesthood, but do you ever talk about what it is? What is the power that we all hold? Do we have the power to forgive sin, like Peter had? Is it the power to bind and loose on earth, and it will be bound and loosed in heaven? Do you ever talk about this power in your church?

This has been explained to you so many times.

We, Christians know who we are in Christ. We know we are part of His priesthood, but nothing to brag about because we ALL are.

In contrast, in Mormonism it is a big thing. The priesthood in Mormonism EXCLUDES people who believe in Christ, but that are not Mormon.

 

[tickingclocker]

First of all I don't get upset. If I do, I end responding, because to get mad is not what this forum is about.
There is no arguing a person over to anything on this forum. This is a forum about religion and God does not like contention. He does not mind discussion and learning from each other, but not contention.

IMO, correct me if I am wrong, if it were not for Mormons, the word "preisthood" would never be spoken. Ny understanding is your church has some minor, vague, belief in all baptized persons holding priesthood, but do you ever talk about what it is? What is the power that we all hold? Do we have the power to forgive sin, like Peter had? Is it the power to bind and loose on earth, and it will be bound and loosed in heaven? Do you ever talk about this power in your church?

Consider yourself corrected. And I'm not even Catholic. I am, however, a priest of God, and I know it. I have been in a very deep, ongoing personal bible study about these "priesthood" verses because I couldn't make sense of them. (Before I ever came on this website.) Now I see more and more what they meant, do mean, and will mean in my life.

Yes, we do talk about the "priesthood" and "kingship". THAT was precisely what brought my attention to them. The Lord has been making me more aware of HIS power in my life. That seems to be the theme this year for me. GOD's power. Not mine. (Man, you have one weird perception of Christians. What do you think we learn and discuss in our lives and churches? The latest pet costumes? Is this becoming your standard "fall-back" answer for every spiritual subject when it comes to Christians?? I've seen you claim it a few times before. Doesn't make you appear very humble, Pete, in all honesty. I don't tell you this to demean you, but more as a friend. Just so you know.) Edit: Make that "very aware", rather than "humble".

Of course we have the power to forgive sin. I tell many people to go to Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness. That's power! We pray in God's will and faith, believing God will work to glorify Himself however HE chooses to. That is "binding and loosing". Not in my name, but in God's. I can testify that God's power is real from doing just that, too. Without question.

Peter, if we didn't know about and utilize God's power in church or in our lives, do you honestly think there would BE such a thing as a Christian "assembly/church" in existence? Anywhere? Come on. Use your head here. You're better than this.

 

[fatboys]

No. I never said that. That's your assumption so don't think you can pretend it came from my mouth. I expect my thinking to be corrected by Mormons on here, because I know I don't know everything. Some things I do know the facts of, but offer concrete facts, not suppositions and opinions. So far I've seen very little of that happening. Lead me to official answers I can SEE about what you believe and your history. Don't expect me to accept anyone's opinion or "best guess" as gospel fact. Ain't gonna happen. And don't expect me to agree with what those facts state either, if they fail to agree with God's Word.

And before you can shout I'm disrespecting you and your beliefs, keep in mind I once asked God to do the same as well. Prove it. He did. How about LDS doing the same?

Fair enough

 

[tickingclocker]

This has been explained to you so many times.

We, Christians know who we are in Christ. We know we are part of His priesthood, but nothing to brag about because we ALL are.

In contrast, in Mormonism it is a big thing. The priesthood in Mormonism EXCLUDES people who believe in Christ, but that are not Mormon.

Amen. We are all on equal standing here before God, One in Christ Jesus. No one, no matter how much they do for the Lord, know all scriptures backwards and forwards, while being the most shining example of Christianity, is more important or "higher" than the most simple child who knows Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Does not Paul tell us in 1 Corinthians 6 that we will judge angels?

 

[tickingclocker]

Fair enough

It wasn't a challenge either, so please don't take it in a spirit it wasn't meant as. It's a simple request.

 

[Peter1000]

When Abraham entered the land of Canaan around 2000 BC the city of Jerusalem was called Salem (Gen 14). After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything." (Gen 14:17-20)

Melchizedek’s city was called Salem, or Shalem, which is also the name of the God whose worship was centered in the city. The full name of this God was “God Most High, Creator of Heaven and Earth” since he was the God of creation. It is interesting to note that Abram recognizes this God in verse 22 when he swears by his name and, at the same time, calls him “Lord” which is the word YHWH, the name of the covenant God of Israel:

"Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord (YHWH), God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath that I will accept nothing belonging to you.” (Gen 14:22-23)

The name of the city Jerusalem was originally “Yeru-shalem”. We already know that “shalem” comes from the name of the God worshiped in the city by Melchizedek. (The Jews taught that Melchizedek was Noah’s son Shem, who, according to biblical records, was still alive at this time.) The word “yeru” means “foundation stone” or “cornerstone.” The name Jerusalem, then, means “the foundation stone of Shalem” and refers to the original cornerstone laid by the Creator of the Universe when he built the earth. Melchizedek was the king of this city, which was located on the southern part of the Eastern Hill between the Kidron Valley and the Central Valley. Abraham met Melchizedek in the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley (Gen 14:17). This would be at the south end of the ridge of the city where the Kidron and Hinnom valleys meet. Melchizedek was also a [high] priest of God Most High, who was Abraham’s God as well.

Abraham was in Jerusalem again a few years later when he offered Isaac on Mount Moriah, as described in Gen 22. Mount Moriah is on the northern end of the Eastern Hill that Melchizedek’s city sat on. So, in Gen 14, Abraham met Melchizedek on the south end of the Eastern Hill in the valley, but in Gen 22 he went to the highest point, the north end, of that same ridge.

Canaanites continued to live in the city through the days of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jacob’s 12 sons. After the Hebrews spent 400 years in Egypt and 40 years in the wilderness, Joshua led them into the Promised Land. The Jebusites (also called Amorites) were a group of Canaanites. The king’s name at that time was Adonizedek (Jos 10:1-3) who appears to be an heir or descendent of Melchizedek. (Notice the spelling: Melchi-zedek.) The Zedek family, or the Zedek title, had been ruling Jerusalem from 2000 to 1400 BC. In about the year 1404 BC, Adoni-zedek met Joshua on that fateful day when the sun stood still and was killed by Joshua (Jos 10:3; 12:7, 10). Joshua continued to lead the Israelites through this Promised Land given to Abraham by God. After Joshua’s death, the men of Judah attacked and captured Jerusalem. The people in the city were slaughtered and the city was burnt. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire (Jud 1:8). After that time the city of Jerusalem was resettled by Jebusites and the city was named Jebus-salem by its inhabitants. Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah (Jos 15:63).

From - Jerusalem: History, Archaeology and Apologetic Proof of Scripture, by Galyn Wiemer.

Melchi Zedek, King and High Priest of Jerusalem, the City of God. There has been no other King and High Priest of Jerusalem between Melchi Zedek and Jesus Christ. There have been none after. No Mormon is a King and/or a High Priest of Jerusalem (not even JS, who insisted upon crowning himself "King of Israel" to pretend he was). There never will be any "order" of Melchi Zedek on earth outside of Melchi and Jesus, who both met all the divine and earthly conditions. Neither one appointed themselves, unlike JS.

Somehow I don't think the nation of Israel would approve of LDS leaders styling themselves "King of Jerusalem/Israel and High Priest". Because that would be a lie. Is this why the LDS keeps it quiet, while Mormons evade questions about it? I believe Christianity would be just as equally outraged if the LDS dared make it... publicly official... that JS was their "type" of Jesus Christ as well. Ummm.. Yeah.

You say: There never will be any "order" of Melchi Zedek on earth outside of Melchi and Jesus, who both met all the divine and earthly conditions.

I have pointed out many times that Jesus did not meet all the divine and earthly conditions you apparently put on people, in order to hold the MP. Let's go over it one more time. Your made up qualifications come from
Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.

So there are 5 conditions that must be met to qualify to hold the MP:
1) Without father - Jesus had a Father, does not meet this condition.
2) Without mother - Jesus had a Mother, does not meet this condition.
3) Without descent - Jesus's descent is part of the bible, Matthew 1
4) Having beginning of days - Jesus did not have a beginning of days, so this condition is met.
5) Nor end of life - Jesus died on the cross, he was only dead temporarily, but he did have an end of life, does not meet this condition.

So of the 5 conditions that you say is necessary to qualify to hold the MP, Jesus fails 4 of them.

So either Jesus did not hold the MP or your qualifications are not necessary. Because we know Jesus holds the MP, then I would suggest the conditions and qualifications were made up by some scholar to sell a book, but he/she did not do their homework very well, especially about Jesus.