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

[Peter1000]

Where does it say that in the Bible? Jesus did not give anyone the Melchezedek priesthood, hence why only Jesus and Melchezedek had it.

It is the priesthood of the HIGH PRIEST. Get it

What else does scripture say about Melchezedek?

Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.”

Who is without a father or mother?

Who is without geneology?

Who is without a beginning of days?

Who is without end of days?

Who is resembling the Son of God?

Ummm.. Yeah.

Now run this same set of conditions for Jesus, and he would fail 4 out of 5, so your conditions are not necessary, because we know Jesus held the MP.

 

[withwonderingawe]

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.

The moment I read that I knew that was wrong, it's the Mormonism in me I guess.

I hunted around and found several different commentaries discussing this passage which agreed with your assessment. Then I found this article from BYU which makes sense to me. It’s written by Sherrie Mills Johnson and called Paul's Teachings in 1 Corinthians on Women.

rsc.byu.edu/archived/shedding-light-new-testament/6-pauls-teachings-1-corinthians-women

As I was reading 1 Cor 11 it this line bothered me,
“…every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head”

Because priest of the Old Testament wore a head covering.

Ex 29:6 6 And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre. (see also Zach 3)

So I was questing the reasoning of the passage.

From Johnson article; "Paul next explains that "every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" ….The Greek text literally says that a man should not pray with anything "hanging down from the head." In other words, it allows for a head covering as long as it doesn’t hang from his head as a veil does…..Traditionally headgear has often served as a symbol of a person’s power….”

I looked it up at Strongs and sure enough that is what it means, a veil hanging down from his head.

The article points out that a head covering is a mark of what one’s authority is; a crown for a king, the Pope’s papal tiara, even a chef’s hat designates an order of rank within the kitchen.

This article explanation is quite to the opposite of what you said;
“It is a symbol of the power that sits over (on) her head. It is a symbol that the man has authority over her.”

From the article;
“Older (and some modern) New Testament commentators claimed that this veiling of women was a sign of her subjection to man. But this does not take into account the context of Paul’s discussion. Both Paul’s words and the style he uses to express those words stress that while there needs to be order there is also equality and interdependence between man and woman as shown in a double chiastic structure:

A For the man is not of the woman;

A' but the woman of the man.

B Neither was the man created for the woman;

B' but the woman for the man.

C For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

b' Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman,

b neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

a For as the woman is of the man,

a' even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The climactic stress placed on the line “for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head” again tells us that Paul is not speaking of the subordination of women.

While this line has been debated a great deal, and there is no consensus as to what Paul meant, it is obvious that it is not about subjection. Paul goes to such lengths to express the equality and balance of the roles of men and women that for him to be urging the women to be veiled as a symbol of their subjection to men does not fit the context. There is no equality or balance in subjection. In addition, Paul has just stated that according to the line of authority man comes under Christ. If veiling were a sign or symbol that one is under some authority, the man would also be covered.”



This line is important; 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth….

It’s saying women/wife are capable of taking a role in the family and church, offering prayers and being guided by the Spirit to prophecy. That is significant.

Paul goes on to make a comparison which the Corinthians would have understood;

“..if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered….But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

There is a passage in Num 5:18 which address a woman accused of adultery; “And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head,…”

I found this article; http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/adultery.html

“…..This disarrangement of the hair (usually covered and concealed) may be the origin of the later punishment of shaving a woman's head – more particularly in cases where lesser misconduct, and not the act of adultery, could be proved against her.”

There is another time a woman might have her head shaved and that was when a priest shave her head to check for leprosy. (see Lev 13), This would be a disgrace and cause shame upon her.

Paul is equating the covering or veil with a woman’s long hair which was a symbol of her purity and authority or power to be heard and recognized as an equal to her husband.

 

[Rescued One]

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.

God allows contention (perhaps you're using another definition). Otherwise everything in the world would be peaceful and perfect as it will be in our heavenly home.

Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

2 Corinthians 10
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds,) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Ephesians 6
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 

[mmksparbud]

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

LOL---you've given us plenty, and I've read plenty of it--what has the "history" of the church got to do with telling the difference between biblical and non biblical theology? Does knowing the History of my church matter to anyone who is discussing the Sabbath?---Not one wit. They don't say we're not biblical, they say we do not interpreting right. It's plain with your theories they are not a matter of interpretation, but are not biblical.

 

[Peter1000]

Fact: They can't show you anyone else because there was no one else who met the conditions of King and High Priest. Jesus is the FINAL High Priest of the "order of Melchizekek". He still reigns, does He not?

Opinion: So JS crowning himself "King of Israel" and styling himself as new High Priest of the "order of Melchizekek" was nothing but a slap in the face of God. Shortly after he had the audacity to assume this, within the month, he was killed. God doesn't like it when humans assume they can tell Him what His Plan is going to be.

Jesus still reigns. No question about it.

Melchizekek does not have any known genealogy. Nobody wrote it down for Moses to trace and include in the Pentateuch. Nothing is known of where his family came to power, but they do know what happened to his descendants. They died, just like him, the kingdom of Salem/Jerusalem taken away from them for disobedience to GOD, just like King Solomon.
Moses recognized the office as being a "type" or word picture of the future Messiah. So did Paul recognize it as Jesus Christ alone being able to hold it. He still does hold it, and will eternally. No more "High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek" will ever be needed. Because that particular priesthood office is unfillable by man.

Jesus held the MP but he was not the king of Jerusalem. He would have been the king, if Israel would have stayed steady, but because of their fall, he was not king of Jerusalem. Jesus even told Pilot that his kingdom was not of this world. So again, Jesus does not qualify, if you need to be a King and a High Priest of Jerusalem.

Again, your anti-Mormon twist is not going anywhere. The idea that JS crowned himself King of Israel is not true.

 

[mmksparbud]

The moment I read that I knew that was wrong, it's the Mormonism in me I guess.

I hunted around and found several different commentaries discussing this passage which agreed with your assessment. Then I found this article from BYU which makes sense to me. It’s written by Sherrie Mills Johnson and called Paul's Teachings in 1 Corinthians on Women.

rsc.byu.edu/archived/shedding-light-new-testament/6-pauls-teachings-1-corinthians-women

As I was reading 1 Cor 11 it this line bothered me,
“…every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head”

Because priest of the Old Testament wore a head covering.

Ex 29:6 6 And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre. (see also Zach 3)

So I was questing the reasoning of the passage.

From Johnson article; "Paul next explains that "every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" ….The Greek text literally says that a man should not pray with anything "hanging down from the head." In other words, it allows for a head covering as long as it doesn’t hang from his head as a veil does…..Traditionally headgear has often served as a symbol of a person’s power….”

I looked it up at Strongs and sure enough that is what it means, a veil hanging down from his head.

The article points out that a head covering is a mark of what one’s authority is; a crown for a king, the Pope’s papal tiara, even a chef’s hat designates an order of rank within the kitchen.

This article explanation is quite to the opposite of what you said;
“It is a symbol of the power that sits over (on) her head. It is a symbol that the man has authority over her.”

From the article;
“Older (and some modern) New Testament commentators claimed that this veiling of women was a sign of her subjection to man. But this does not take into account the context of Paul’s discussion. Both Paul’s words and the style he uses to express those words stress that while there needs to be order there is also equality and interdependence between man and woman as shown in a double chiastic structure:

A For the man is not of the woman;

A' but the woman of the man.

B Neither was the man created for the woman;

B' but the woman for the man.

C For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

b' Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman,

b neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

a For as the woman is of the man,

a' even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The climactic stress placed on the line “for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head” again tells us that Paul is not speaking of the subordination of women.

While this line has been debated a great deal, and there is no consensus as to what Paul meant, it is obvious that it is not about subjection. Paul goes to such lengths to express the equality and balance of the roles of men and women that for him to be urging the women to be veiled as a symbol of their subjection to men does not fit the context. There is no equality or balance in subjection. In addition, Paul has just stated that according to the line of authority man comes under Christ. If veiling were a sign or symbol that one is under some authority, the man would also be covered.”



This line is important; 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth….

It’s saying women/wife are capable of taking a role in the family and church, offering prayers and being guided by the Spirit to prophecy. That is significant.

Paul goes on to make a comparison which the Corinthians would have understood;

“..if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered….But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

There is a passage in Num 5:18 which address a woman accused of adultery; “And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head,…”

I found this article; http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/adultery.html

“…..This disarrangement of the hair (usually covered and concealed) may be the origin of the later punishment of shaving a woman's head – more particularly in cases where lesser misconduct, and not the act of adultery, could be proved against her.”

There is another time a woman might have her head shaved and that was when a priest shave her head to check for leprosy. (see Lev 13), This would be a disgrace and cause shame upon her.

Paul is equating the covering or veil with a woman’s long hair which was a symbol of her purity and authority or power to be heard and recognized as an equal to her husband.

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

It didn't matter if a woman was married or not---her hair is what is being covered not her head. Men love to look at women's hair--it's pretty!! Men, the little dears, are visual --- just about anything sets them off!! Hide the pretty hair to keep them from lusting after the women--still a concept going on today. Married or not--after puberty--cover the hair.
Now---verse 16--0that has been interpreted 2 ways--1. If this is a problem, then there need not be any such custom---you don't have to cover the hair. 2. There should be no contention about this---

 

[tickingclocker]

Jesus held the MP but he was not the king of Jerusalem. He would have been the king, if Israel would have stayed steady, but because of their fall, he was not king of Jerusalem. Jesus even told Pilot that his kingdom was not of this world. So again, Jesus does not qualify, if you need to be a King and a High Priest of Jerusalem.

Again, your anti-Mormon twist is not going anywhere. The idea that JS crowned himself King of Israel is not true.

First of all, there is no "anti-mormon 'twist'" going on here. I would have said the same thing to anyone about Melchizedek. In fact, I have. Get that straight, okay?

Second of all, you know its against the rules of this forum to refer to anyone or use the term "anti-mormon" anywhere. I forewarned Mormons about reporting this violation every time I see it from now on. (Thank WWA for that one.) When I first came on here nobody used the term. Now its becoming a daily occurrence, no matter how many times the mods warn Mormons to cease? If you cannot abide by a very simple set of rules, just what are you here for, anyway?

 

[Peter1000]

Christ never passed on priesthood, He was the final High Priest was the final one.
Hebrews 7
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.


I agree, we don't know anything about Melchisedec other than what the Bible already tells us, which isn't very much. That's why I don't believe in a "Melchizedek Priesthood" which is a mormon construct and not something any Christian believes.

That's true, most mainstream Christians have no idea what the MP is, let alone believe in it. It is one of the signs of the apostasy. If the scriptures said that Jesus was our great High Priest, you may be right, but what the scripture really says is that Jesus is a priest and Hight Priest after the "order of Melchisedec". An "order" does not have 1 priesthood holder, there are many priesthood holders in an "order".

It is also true that the MP is a Mormon thing. It came about when JS was translating the BOM. He translated an event where the church leaders were baptizing people and he knew that he did not have that authority, not being a minister or pastor of the gospel. Long story short, he and another man were visited by Peter, James, and John and were ordained just like the original apostles were ordained by Jesus. This ordination included the passing of the MP from the hand of the 3 who held it at the time of Christ. It is because I believe this, that I am a member of the Mormon church. No other church can demonstrate or construct any other passing of authority that allows them to officially do the work of God so that when they bind and loose on earth, it is bound and lossed or recognized in. heaven.

It is an interesting study. But like I have said many time, if it were not for the Mormon church, the MP were not be spoken of in any church, because it was lost so long ago, it is not known or studied, or talked about in any of the churches.

 

[mmksparbud]

Right--It can be proven, of course, that Peter, James and John actually came to JS and this other man??

 

[ToBeLoved]

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

Exactly. And then if the BOA wasn't proof enough their are the Kinderhook plates.

 

[tickingclocker]

Exactly. And then if the BOA wasn't proof enough their are the Kinderhook plates.

IDK what the "Kinderhook plates" are. Will have to look them up.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's true, most mainstream Christians have no idea what the MP is, let alone believe in it. It is one of the signs of the apostasy. If the scriptures said that Jesus was our great High Priest, you may be right, but what the scripture really says is that Jesus is a priest and Hight Priest after the "order of Melchisedec". An "order" does not have 1 priesthood holder, there are many priesthood holders in an "order".

I think if Jesus Christ wants to have 1 priestholder, Jesus Christ get's to have it.

So now you are contridicting God and telling Him He's wrong? Melchezedek was a shadow of Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[tickingclocker]

I think if Jesus Christ wants to have 1 priestholder, Jesus Christ get's to have it.

So now you are contridicting God and telling Him He's wrong? Melchezedek was a shadow of Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about that?

Could be Pete's having trouble with the word "order" here. He has most likely been taught to see it as a one dimensional meaning, fitting only what the LDS promotes, and to be honest what many bible commentators [may] have assumed as well. That its an "order" like the Knights of Columbus, etc., i.e., a specialized group of people? Instead it could mean "orderly/in order", as logical sequence, a regulation, or even a command. Think outside the standard issue box. It helps. Does it have to be about authority, just because that is what has been "taught"? You have a Greek lexicon. What does it say about the word "order" in the book of Hebrews, TBL? Do you know what the Hebrew is for order in Genesis 14 and in Psalm 110?

 

[Ironhold]

IDK what the "Kinderhook plates" are. Will have to look them up.

Don't bother; it's another case of someone making a mountain out of a molehill.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#fooled

Joseph Smith was provided with what people claimed were more plates similar to the plates that yielded up the Book of Mormon.

He translated one character of the text and called it a day, having no further interest in them. Whether or not the fraudulent nature of the plates was revealed to him, he had his own gut instinct that something was wrong, or he was simply called away and never bothered going back to them is up for debate. That he didn't touch them again, however, indicates that he saw little value in them; had he seen value in them, he surely would have made them a priority.

However, some years after Joseph's death, when he was thus unable to defend himself in person, the last surviving individual behind the creation of the plates proclaimed that they were a fraud. Critics of the church took his confession and a handful of statements supposedly attributed to Joseph Smith - statements whose validity is questionable, as some of the recorded ones were in fact written down by scribes in his name - and spun them into a story stating that he was conned and thus was a false prophet without divine insight.

In order words, this is yet another case of the Christian counter-cult (et al) not wanting to let facts get in the way of a narrative.

 

[tickingclocker]

Don't bother; it's another case of someone making a mountain out of a molehill.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#fooled

Joseph Smith was provided with what people claimed were more plates similar to the plates that yielded up the Book of Mormon.

He translated one character of the text and called it a day, having no further interest in them. Whether or not the fraudulent nature of the plates was revealed to him, he had his own gut instinct that something was wrong, or he was simply called away and never bothered going back to them is up for debate. That he didn't touch them again, however, indicates that he saw little value in them; had he seen value in them, he surely would have made them a priority.

However, some years after Joseph's death, when he was thus unable to defend himself in person, the last surviving individual behind the creation of the plates proclaimed that they were a fraud. Critics of the church took his confession and a handful of statements supposedly attributed to Joseph Smith - statements whose validity is questionable, as some of the recorded ones were in fact written down by scribes in his name - and spun them into a story stating that he was conned and thus was a false prophet without divine insight.

In order words, this is yet another case of the Christian counter-cult (et al) not wanting to let facts get in the way of a narrative.

The LDS believed the plates were real until 1981, when they finally admitted they were a hoax--right AFTER scientists proved without doubt that the metal used was modern and not ancient. Not before. Too bad. Like Bill and AG Director meeting in a plane, we will never know the truth of the matter now... if the LDS was backpedaling or not.

"It's clear from the evidence above that the Church leaders believed the Kinderhook Plates were real and that Joseph translated a portion of them. Why did it take finding evidence that proved the Kinderhook Plates were fake to have the Church change their mind on whether or not Joseph tried to translate them? The Church only seems to change their beliefs (like the limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, location of Hill Cumorah, American Indians are the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, etc.) when contradictory evidence disproves their recorded history. This seems inconsistent with a church run by modern-day prophets with modern revelation..... "Why, may we ask, would anyone hope they were proven genuine IF JOSEPH NEVER ATTEMPTED TO TRANSLATE THEM?"
---Mormonthink.com/Kinderhookweb.htm

Check out "Why didn't Joseph do more with the plates?" on the above website. Because when someone tells me to not bother? I learned long ago that's like hoping you won't bother because they don't want something known. And usually for good reason. Is this a good reason? Not really. There's so many stories similar to this one about JS "translating" books which are always proven false. What's one more after so many? And every time the LDS believed him. Some still do. Consider it dismissed from my thoughts. Moving on....

 

[fatboys]

The LDS believed the plates were real until 1981, when they finally admitted they were a hoax--right AFTER scientists proved without doubt that the metal used was modern and not ancient. Not before. Too bad. Like Bill and AG Director meeting in a plane, we will never know the truth of the matter now... if the LDS was backpedaling or not.

"It's clear from the evidence above that the Church leaders believed the Kinderhook Plates were real and that Joseph translated a portion of them. Why did it take finding evidence that proved the Kinderhook Plates were fake to have the Church change their mind on whether or not Joseph tried to translate them? The Church only seems to change their beliefs (like the limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, location of Hill Cumorah, American Indians are the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, etc.) when contradictory evidence disproves their recorded history. This seems inconsistent with a church run by modern-day prophets with modern revelation..... "Why, may we ask, would anyone hope they were proven genuine IF JOSEPH NEVER ATTEMPTED TO TRANSLATE THEM?"
---Mormonthink.com/Kinderhookweb.htm

Check out "Why didn't Joseph do more with the plates?" on the above website. Because when someone tells me to not bother? I learned long ago that's like hoping you won't bother because they don't want something known. And usually for good reason. Is this a good reason? Not really. There's so many stories similar to this one about JS "translating" books which are always proven false. What's one more after so many? And every time the LDS believed him. Some still do. Consider it dismissed from my thoughts. Moving on....

1881

 

[fatboys]

There is no translation of them and if the hoax did what they say it did then why was the last surviving trickster mentioning 50 years after the fact? If they had been successful they would have promoted it long before

 

[ToBeLoved]

Now run this same set of conditions for Jesus, and he would fail 4 out of 5, so your conditions are not necessary, because we know Jesus held the MP.

If you don't believe the Bible then you don't believe the Bible. Look it up for yourself.

Melchezedek is a shadow of Christ. To show what was to come.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Don't bother; it's another case of someone making a mountain out of a molehill.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#fooled

Joseph Smith was provided with what people claimed were more plates similar to the plates that yielded up the Book of Mormon.

He translated one character of the text and called it a day, having no further interest in them. Whether or not the fraudulent nature of the plates was revealed to him, he had his own gut instinct that something was wrong, or he was simply called away and never bothered going back to them is up for debate. That he didn't touch them again, however, indicates that he saw little value in them; had he seen value in them, he surely would have made them a priority.

However, some years after Joseph's death, when he was thus unable to defend himself in person, the last surviving individual behind the creation of the plates proclaimed that they were a fraud. Critics of the church took his confession and a handful of statements supposedly attributed to Joseph Smith - statements whose validity is questionable, as some of the recorded ones were in fact written down by scribes in his name - and spun them into a story stating that he was conned and thus was a false prophet without divine insight.

In order words, this is yet another case of the Christian counter-cult (et al) not wanting to let facts get in the way of a narrative.

Stop using that word Christian counter-cult.

 

[ToBeLoved]

There is no translation of them and if the hoax did what they say it did then why was the last surviving trickster mentioning 50 years after the fact? If they had been successful they would have promoted it long before

There is no translation because they were made up.

But JS did translate them.