Just because the LDS talks about Melchizedek doesn't make it that the LDS has an authentic Mechizedek priesthood. For that you would have to have bishops ordained by bishops in succession ordained by apostles who were ordained by Jesus. There is no short cut around that. But you guys don't have that. You have a 1700 year gap instead. So you can speak all you want about Melchizedek, write manuals about Melchizedek, have legends about Melchizedek, claim Peter gave keys to Joseph Smith, and that Jesus Christ himself explained it all to treasure hunter and some missing plates in a language nobody else has ever heard of.
You don't start with bishops, then apostles, then Jesus. You start with Jesus, then apostles, ordained by Jesus, then bishops, ordained by apostles.
JS was ordained by apostles who were ordained by Jesus. It is a very strong position. I realize you must believe that Peter, James, and John came to the prophet JS and ordained him and Oliver Cowdrey, but if it did happen, it is a very strong position. One that is stronger than any other church has with regards to keys and MP, even stronger than the Catholic church who only has a second place position. And only second place, because they at one time did hold the keys and the MP, but have long ago laid them aside for the glories of this world. All other Christian churches who broke from the Catholic, are not in the running because they cared more for their own power and money than for the true keys and the MP which the Catholic church once held.
Martin Luther recognized this conundrum because he was a Catholic priest. He decided, with tremendous anxiety to give up his MP and break from the Catholic, so he could start his own church. He reconciled this conundrum by saying, men do not need the MP to access God, and so for hundreds of years, the reformers have taught their peope that the MP is not necessary to be saved. They were wrong then, they are wrong today. But God has an alternative course for Martins blunder, and for all the protestant people to be saved.
Actually, it doesn't. What it takes for someone to be saved is faith and baptism. And for a valid baptism only three things are necessary, water, the Trinitarian words of baptism, and the intent of the guy baptizing to do what the Church does when baptizing. And thus a Catholic priest could validly baptize, so could a Baptist minister, a Jewish doctor, my neighbor, and so could I. No requirement for a priest of the order of Melchizedek for baptism. But not everything that claims to be baptism really is acceptable. For example, the LDS baptism, because it is done without the intent of being a Christian Trinitarian baptism, is no baptism at all. Someone from the LDS, to become Catholic, would need to be baptized.
When Jesus went to be baptized, he went to the only person that was authorized to baptize in the name of the Lord. That was John the Baptist. By the time Jesus left this world, there were only 12 people that had the authority to baptize, that was the 11 apostles, soon to be 12.
That is the whole reason for the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The person or persons who held these keys, could baptize, and that baptism was recognized by heaven. Someone that came around baptizing without those keys had no right to baptize and his baptisms were not recognized by heaven, either in the time of the apostles or now.
Let me say this again. Without the keys, anyone out there preaching and baptizing is doing it on their own power, but heaven does not recongize their work. So a person baptized by this man is not really baptized. But for that faithful person, God does have an aternative course for them to be saved. All is not lost.
You sound just like Martin Harris when you say no requirement for a priest of the order of Melchizedek for baptism. He was wrong.
Acts 8:37-38 King James Version (KJV)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The eunuch answered Philip: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then Philip, having the keys to baptize, baptized him.
Notice what the eunuch did not say: I believe in the Christian Trinitarian baptism, then Philip baptized him. Didn't say what you think is necessary for a truthful baptism. Who do I believe. You or the bible?
When I was baptized, I confessed the at I believe that Jesus was the son of God, and I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Any problems with this, biblically? The person that baptized me held the keys (of which you do not think is necessary any way), I confessed Jesus is the Son of God and I was baptized just like Jesus by immersion with the proper prayer given me during that baptism. Tell me what you think of my baptism.