the apostacy

[MormonFriend]

Hey Mormonfriend,
Benny Hinn, Duplantis, Ron Parsley and a bunch of other TBNers would sure love to have your address.

Actually, you couldn't tithe in the Biblical sense if you wanted to. Give 10% to somebody? That you can do, but it wouldn't be tithing. Even Jews do not tithe today. When you establish a Levitical priesthood, and have a temple operating in Jerusalem, then tithing will be the thing. Anybody else is taking your money under false pretenses.

Benny Hinn? Is that the late British comedian that did rather foul entertainment?

Your comment is notable, but it pre-assumes that God is not directing the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. By revelation, the same way it was done in Biblical times, God restored the law of tithing. We do not pay it to "somebody," but to God. "Somebodys" oversee its collection and proper distribution to build up the Kingdom of God.
The Priesthood was also restored and Temples are being built. The Temple in Jerusalem is on the "to do" list, but all things in their proper time frame.

 

[fatboys]

In response to your ten percent. I do grant to you that that is the letter of the Law! However, I do not concur as that being the spirit of the law. Christ showed us this in his life, teaching, and Sermon on the Mount. In his Sermon on the Mount he showed that merely following the law as is, is not following its 'spirit', he gave examples of lusting in mind being adultery and such. This can also be applied to tithing, whereby, giving your minimum to fulfill the law is like paying the tax man, you do it because you have to. Whereas if you followed the spirit you would not have a set amount but give according to your ability.

Christ did so say that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. You cannot get by with ten percent, and yet have plenty for that fourth car, that is not how things work. The term we can apply is 'Sacrificial Giving' a form of crucifying your own flesh to give unto God. This is a very high form of love that one can forsake themselve and give all they can to God, loving and trusting in Him. I do not tell you to do this! It must be your own emotion to drive you there, no law will give you Love of God.

I have seen churches that are dirt poor, the people could never be able to give close to ten percent, and yet they are the most loving of God I have ever seen. I have seen the Holy Spirit there.

FB: The law of Christ is that we give everything we have to the church, and thent he church would give us back what we need to live on. Because we as members are not worthy enough to live it, we are not required to live that law. Tithing which was practiced before the law of Moses and was part of the law given to those who lived before the Lower law was given.

As for those who are rich, you are saying that no rich man would be able to reach the kingdom of God if you take what Christ means literally. But if you take it to mean the outer wall of the city, in which the main gates would be closed for the night, those who arrived late at night but wanted the protection of the city wall could go through what they called the eye of the needle, where they would have the camel literally get on their knees and crawl through the small door left open but guarded for those who entered late. So a camel going through would be difficult but not impossible. What Christ was trying to say was that money corrupts. Prosperity brings wickedness because man starts to forget God and who gave man all things. The Lord gave Joseph Smith a revelation which states,

D&C 59:21
21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

 

[ByGrace]

I would like you to define who is being saved. You said that you do not hold to any christian religion. So those who do hold to a particular religion, and feel that they can follow Christ better through this religion, does that make them more saved than those who do not hold to any religion but believe in Christ?

You desperately flailing around trying to find something to attach to is not becoming. If you want to twist my words, then do so but I dont feel I have to play along.

 

[ByGrace]

Benny Hinn? Is that the late British comedian that did rather foul entertainment?

Your comment is notable, but it pre-assumes that God is not directing the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. By revelation, the same way it was done in Biblical times, God restored the law of tithing. We do not pay it to "somebody," but to God. "Somebodys" oversee its collection and proper distribution to build up the Kingdom of God.
The Priesthood was also restored and Temples are being built. The Temple in Jerusalem is on the "to do" list, but all things in their proper time frame.

Your temples have nothing to do with Biblical temples. I find it funny that you think your church will ever build a temple in Jerusalem. The Temple in Jerusalem was used for sacrifices that were handed down from God, not from joseph smith. There is not one correlation between the two. I find it so amusing that you guys think the whole end times has anything to do with the mormon church. No, the "priesthood" has not been restored. How do you even think your priesthood is anything like the one ordained by God? Just for fun, go and read the requirements for a Deacon in the Bible and then tell me how you can twist that into allowing 12 year old boys to have it. How many High Priests were there in the Bible at one time? How many is there now? (1) and who is it? (Jesus)

 

[Wrigley]

Benny Hinn? Is that the late British comedian that did rather foul entertainment?

Your comment is notable, but it pre-assumes that God is not directing the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. By revelation, the same way it was done in Biblical times, God restored the law of tithing. We do not pay it to "somebody," but to God. "Somebodys" oversee its collection and proper distribution to build up the Kingdom of God.
The Priesthood was also restored and Temples are being built. The Temple in Jerusalem is on the "to do" list, but all things in their proper time frame.

I have, in the past, not given too much credit to the "mormons are aiming to take over the world" conspiracy theories. But that last comment by you gives me pause. Now, is the mormon church looking to buy land and build its own mormon temple in Jerusalem, or is your church making a claim to the temple mount, just like the Jews and the muslims?

 

[JVAC]

FB: The law of Christ is that we give everything we have to the church, and thent he church would give us back what we need to live on. Because we as members are not worthy enough to live it, we are not required to live that law.

Ok, I took this piece, and I read it, and re-read it again and again. Whoa. First it says we are given a law. Then we are told not to do it. Logically that makes no sense to me. Sorta like a parent saying, "Don't steal that candy, oh wait you either aren't good enough for the command or couldn't follow it anyway so forget it."

It makes further sense, especially when I look at the book of Acts and see it played out among the early church. If the early church was 'worthy' of a law, why aren't we. We are but ransomed sinners as they were.

As for those who are rich, you are saying that no rich man would be able to reach the kingdom of God if you take what Christ means literally. But if you take it to mean the outer wall of the city, in which the main gates would be closed for the night, those who arrived late at night but wanted the protection of the city wall could go through what they called the eye of the needle, where they would have the camel literally get on their knees and crawl through the small door left open but guarded for those who entered late. So a camel going through would be difficult but not impossible. What Christ was trying to say was that money corrupts. Prosperity brings wickedness because man starts to forget God and who gave man all things.

Finally a note worthy post. However, a wealthy man who has plenty to give is not wealthy in the lord; for who can watch his brother suffer while he drives on by to the disco-tech, A Godly man? The Spirit would not allow for such flesh comforts if the neighbor is in peril.

D&C 59:21
21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

I interpret this to say that "God is not offended or angered unless you do not confess his workings and obey his law" Very good, but I do contend that even the evil can do this. What they can't do is live in faith with love and mercy from the Spirit. That is fullfillment of the law, 'for the greatest law is love the Lord God with all your heart, and second it is to love your neighbor'. What wealth would one not give to his loved one? Yet we scorn it when people ask for money.

Thus how could there be the Spirit in the teaching of tithing only 10%? Doesn't the Spirit require us to not just give our cloak but our robe as well? If the Spirit was taken from the catholic Christian Church and given to the Church of Utah, where are such fruits.

I was walking through the parking lot with a few mormon friends (not mormonfriend ;-) ) and this beggar came up to us asking for money. Me being a 'starving college student' myself, could only give some coins, yet when my friends gave nothing. As we walked away they told me that the church tells them not to give to people on the streets, instead give to the church because they can do better than giving to the stranger could. I do not see the Spirit in that teaching, that man's need was immediate, he came to us, he asked us. Isn't it our duty to love him? To whomever we love we want to give all we can. Not keep our possesions reasoning, "He'll only spend it on booze".

The Spirit, has it left us in favor of the Church of Utah? I think not.

 

[fatboys]

Ok, I took this piece, and I read it, and re-read it again and again. Whoa. First it says we are given a law. Then we are told not to do it. Logically that makes no sense to me. Sorta like a parent saying, "Don't steal that candy, oh wait you either aren't good enough for the command or couldn't follow it anyway so forget it."

It makes further sense, especially when I look at the book of Acts and see it played out among the early church. If the early church was 'worthy' of a law, why aren't we. We are but ransomed sinners as they were.

FB: Do you believe that it was a law lived by the early church members? Then why are you not living it today? You believe it was a law, and lived. When did God tell you to stop living it?

Finally a note worthy post. However, a wealthy man who has plenty to give is not wealthy in the lord; for who can watch his brother suffer while he drives on by to the disco-tech, A Godly man? The Spirit would not allow for such flesh comforts if the neighbor is in peril.

FB: That is not what was posted here. It was posted that no rich man could enter the kingdom of God. Period.

I interpret this to say that "God is not offended or angered unless you do not confess his workings and obey his law" Very good, but I do contend that even the evil can do this. What they can't do is live in faith with love and mercy from the Spirit. That is fullfillment of the law, 'for the greatest law is love the Lord God with all your heart, and second it is to love your neighbor'. What wealth would one not give to his loved one? Yet we scorn it when people ask for money.

FB: A house divided? Remember. All good things are of God. If evil does good then it serves not evil, it serves the purpose of God. Now as for living by faith, that is exactly the point Paul was trying to teach the Jews who was trying to incorporate old law teachings into the new law, or as one put it here, the fulfilled law. The higher law. Paul said about the work based old law that even though you lived this law perfectly, all those efforts were as filthy rags, because the law could not bring you to perfection. Christ brought the law that would bring us to perfection if we are obedient. You have taken a misunderstanding of Pauls teachings to create a whole religion based on faith only when Paul speaks that obedience is the most important things we can be doing with our faith in Christ. YOu believe that obedience is nothing. Only faith. It is wrong and a misunderstanding of Gods word.

Thus how could there be the Spirit in the teaching of tithing only 10%? Doesn't the Spirit require us to not just give our cloak but our robe as well? If the Spirit was taken from the catholic Christian Church and given to the Church of Utah, where are such fruits.

The law of Tithing was taught and lived before the Old law or lesser law was given. Abraham paid tithes to Melchezedik. They lived the higher law during this time. It was Israel who brough about the lower law. Tithing is part of the law you refer to in Acts, only taken a step higher. This is called the law of sacrifice which requires that we sacrifice what we have to the Lord. At times the lord requires more as the people are worthy enough to live by those words. Also the cloak is for those who sues you , in order to live the higher law, you are to give them more.

I was walking through the parking lot with a few mormon friends (not mormonfriend ;-) ) and this beggar came up to us asking for money. Me being a 'starving college student' myself, could only give some coins, yet when my friends gave nothing. As we walked away they told me that the church tells them not to give to people on the streets, instead give to the church because they can do better than giving to the stranger could. I do not see the Spirit in that teaching, that man's need was immediate, he came to us, he asked us. Isn't it our duty to love him? To whomever we love we want to give all we can. Not keep our possesions reasoning, "He'll only spend it on booze".

The Spirit, has it left us in favor of the Church of Utah? I think not.

FB: You also do not want to enable them. It would have been better for you to teach him to fish so he could live every day without begging for one fish. Although what those members told you is not what the church teaches, what the church does teach is to help people to control their own lives and feed their ownselves. And you don't know he would not spend it on Booze. If a person is in that situation there are many programs which could help get them on their feet. To just give money without teaching them is not really helping them either. It might for an day, but then they are in the same situation tomorrow. You gave that money to ease your conscience. You put little effort in really helping them. Give him a little money, and your conscience is free from guilt. What do you think Christ would have done?

 

[SiSSYGAL]

My son is dating a Mormon. She is a rude guest in our home. She comes in and opens the refrigerator and opens my closets and opens my drawers looking for whatever she needs. I asked her to stop and she said the rules aren't posted anywhere. To me, this is symbolic . Kids live under the law. There are a million rules for kids. But, when you're ready for grace, you're also ready to abandon the rules. I used my examples above but another might be that you no longer have the rule that you brush your teeth before going to bed at night. Does that mean that you stop brushing your teeth? No. It only means that you're adult enough to brush your teeth without the rule. My little friend should be adult enough to stay out of my stuff when she's a guest in my house without the rules. When you live under grace you love God and you love your neighbor as yourself. No longer is it necessary for someone to tell you to brush your teeth and stay out of your neighbor's refrigerator. That is, it is not necessary if you understand and live by grace. If you still needs the rules and the laws it is because you are still a child--figuratively, emotionally, spiritually and probably physically.
Sissygal

 

[skylark1]

My son is dating a Mormon. She is a rude guest in our home. She comes in and opens the refrigerator and opens my closets and opens my drawers looking for whatever she needs. I asked her to stop and she said the rules aren't posted anywhere. To me, this is symbolic . Kids live under the law. There are a million rules for kids. But, when you're ready for grace, you're also ready to abandon the rules. I used my examples above but another might be that you no longer have the rule that you brush your teeth before going to bed at night. Does that mean that you stop brushing your teeth? No. It only means that you're adult enough to brush your teeth without the rule. My little friend should be adult enough to stay out of my stuff when she's a guest in my house without the rules. When you live under grace you love God and you love your neighbor as yourself. No longer is it necessary for someone to tell you to brush your teeth and stay out of your neighbor's refrigerator. That is, it is not necessary if you understand and live by grace. If you still needs the rules and the laws it is because you are still a child--figuratively, emotionally, spiritually and probably physically.
Sissygal

It is unfair of you to characterize all LDS by the behavior of this woman. I know many LDS who would not behave in the way that you have described. I think that her bad manners are much more likely a product of what she was taught at home, than her religious beliefs.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

There was no recorded apostacy in the early church. We know this from early writings of the period. The council at Nicene in 300someodd thought that there were several lines of Christian doctrine growing and came up with the "official Nicene Creed" Other thinking was stamped out from that point forward for the most part.
Other lines of thinking no longer accepted is still available to be learned about. Check your local library. The fact that Mormons believe there was an early apostasy is simply a matter of faith for them. There is simply no recorded scrolls that have been found, or early writing to substantiate this. Mormon scholars today admit that the Bible is way more accurate that they previously believed and the Mormon church is clearly moving in a Christian direction. Thirty years ago, Mormons claimed not to be Christian and were proud to say so. Not today. Today, they are teaching most Christian doctrines in their church and early embarassing doctrines are swept under the rug.
Sissygal

 

[Theway]

There was no recorded apostacy in the early church. We know this from early writings of the period. The council at Nicene in 300someodd thought that there were several lines of Christian doctrine growing and came up with the "official Nicene Creed" Other thinking was stamped out from that point forward for the most part.
Other lines of thinking no longer accepted is still available to be learned about. Check your local library. The fact that Mormons believe there was an early apostasy is simply a matter of faith for them. There is simply no recorded scrolls that have been found, or early writing to substantiate this. Mormon scholars today admit that the Bible is way more accurate that they previously believed and the Mormon church is clearly moving in a Christian direction. Thirty years ago, Mormons claimed not to be Christian and were proud to say so. Not today. Today, they are teaching most Christian doctrines in their church and early embarassing doctrines are swept under the rug.
Sissygal

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
So eather you believe there was an apostacy (LDS belief)
or your church is about to go into one (Those churches who believe in the Bible but not the LDS interpatation)

 

[SiSSYGAL]

It is unfair of you to characterize all LDS by the behavior of this woman. I know many LDS who would not behave in the way that you have described. I think that her bad manners are much more likely a product of what she was taught at home, than her religious beliefs.

Hi Skylark:
You're right. Her bad manner are a likely product of her upbringing. And, I didn't mean to imply that all Mormons are rude. I used this example of this girl's rude behavior because I consider it to be symbolic. As soon as she learned my rules, she obeyed. And while her circumstance might be extreme to the average reader of this chain, I can relate something else.
Missionaries came here quite a few times trying to convert my family when my son converted. When my son graduated I threw a party for him and invited the missionaries to come as my guests and friends. They came as missionaries--I posted this on another link. They wore name tags and refused to let people know their names or speak to them personally. They tried to isolate one of my guests and prosyltize him. I told them that their behavior displeased me. I asked them to discontinue their behavior. They felt embarassed that I would bring this up to them, but conceded that if these were my house rules, then they would comply and as it turns out, they left. Well--my somewhat brief experience with Mormons is that you have to bluntly tell them the rules. Then they obey. You'll probably disagree again and say I am characterizing all Mormons. Actually, here's one other story:
I visited a church service with my son and (the rude girl) at a ward building
I realize this is very different from my church and I need to be respectful.
But, what I witnessed was disrespect by almost everyone else there. Children ran in the aisles. People spoke in a normal tone in the meeting hall and were silenced only after they were asked to be silenced. Then, they spoke in hushed tones. My son and girlfriend continued their whispery conversation until I informed them that they were being rude. Then, they were quiet and listened. But--many others in the room continued whispering. There was no reverence in the hall at all. But, in all fairness, there was no cross or any Christian window or symbol that would make someone realize they were in a church. So, that's my real explanation of all the disrespect. But, my point in this post is that when I asked my kids to be quiet and prayerful, they obeyed. Until I asked them to be quiet, they embarassed me with their disobedience.

 

[MormonFriend]

There was no recorded apostacy in the early church. We know this from early writings of the period. The council at Nicene in 300someodd thought that there were several lines of Christian doctrine growing and came up with the "official Nicene Creed" Other thinking was stamped out from that point forward for the most part. ........
Sissygal

That does not make sense to me. If the early church was already in apostasy, are they going to make record that "we are apostates?" Perhaps some of the "other thinking" that was "stamped out" was the correct gospel, or at least portions of it.

 

[MormonFriend]

Hi Skylark:
You're right. Her bad manner are a likely product of her upbringing. And, I didn't mean to imply that all Mormons are rude. I used this example of this girl's rude behavior because I consider it to be symbolic. As soon as she learned my rules, she obeyed. And while her circumstance might be extreme to the average reader of this chain, I can relate something else.
Missionaries came here quite a few times trying to convert my family when my son converted. When my son graduated I threw a party for him and invited the missionaries to come as my guests and friends. They came as missionaries--I posted this on another link. They wore name tags and refused to let people know their names or speak to them personally. They tried to isolate one of my guests and prosyltize him. I told them that their behavior displeased me. I asked them to discontinue their behavior. They felt embarassed that I would bring this up to them, but conceded that if these were my house rules, then they would comply and as it turns out, they left. Well--my somewhat brief experience with Mormons is that you have to bluntly tell them the rules. Then they obey. You'll probably disagree again and say I am characterizing all Mormons. Actually, here's one other story:
I visited a church service with my son and (the rude girl) at a ward building
I realize this is very different from my church and I need to be respectful.
But, what I witnessed was disrespect by almost everyone else there. Children ran in the aisles. People spoke in a normal tone in the meeting hall and were silenced only after they were asked to be silenced. Then, they spoke in hushed tones. My son and girlfriend continued their whispery conversation until I informed them that they were being rude. Then, they were quiet and listened. But--many others in the room continued whispering. There was no reverence in the hall at all. But, in all fairness, there was no cross or any Christian window or symbol that would make someone realize they were in a church. So, that's my real explanation of all the disrespect. But, my point in this post is that when I asked my kids to be quiet and prayerful, they obeyed. Until I asked them to be quiet, they embarassed me with their disobedience.

I think your symbolizm is profound. I think our Heavenly Father makes the same observation of all of us. The ones that obey Him will return to Him. Those who prove to be rebellious are the ones who spoil it for everyone (like the irrevrent people in the ward). So in heaven (or the Celestial Kingdom by LDS interpretation), things won't be spoiled because the wheat will have been separated from the tares.
By your own observation, there will be plenty of dissappointed LDS. Being a baptized member is not a free ticket.

 

[MormonFriend]

My son is dating a Mormon. She is a rude guest in our home. She comes in and opens the refrigerator and opens my closets and opens my drawers looking for whatever she needs. ....
Sissygal

I can give you some advice from personal experience. When I was dating my wife years ago, I would eat at her house often, and the "term out of house and home" may well apply.
One evening before dinner, her dad was showing me his new handcuffs (he had just joined police reserves). I found myself handcuffed to a door knob while they ate dinner.
I married her anyway and hold no grudges. As an adult I can see how I deserved it.

 

[JVAC]

Sissygal I just want to let you know that I had a similar experience at a Sacrament meeting. Babies crying, people talking, no one really paying attention. Quite different than my experiences at other churches.

 

[JVAC]

FB: Do you believe that it was a law lived by the early church members? Then why are you not living it today? You believe it was a law, and lived. When did God tell you to stop living it?

FB: That is not what was posted here. It was posted that no rich man could enter the kingdom of God. Period.

FB: A house divided? Remember. All good things are of God. If evil does good then it serves not evil, it serves the purpose of God. Now as for living by faith, that is exactly the point Paul was trying to teach the Jews who was trying to incorporate old law teachings into the new law, or as one put it here, the fulfilled law. The higher law. Paul said about the work based old law that even though you lived this law perfectly, all those efforts were as filthy rags, because the law could not bring you to perfection. Christ brought the law that would bring us to perfection if we are obedient. You have taken a misunderstanding of Pauls teachings to create a whole religion based on faith only when Paul speaks that obedience is the most important things we can be doing with our faith in Christ. YOu believe that obedience is nothing. Only faith. It is wrong and a misunderstanding of Gods word.

The law of Tithing was taught and lived before the Old law or lesser law was given. Abraham paid tithes to Melchezedik. They lived the higher law during this time. It was Israel who brough about the lower law. Tithing is part of the law you refer to in Acts, only taken a step higher. This is called the law of sacrifice which requires that we sacrifice what we have to the Lord. At times the lord requires more as the people are worthy enough to live by those words. Also the cloak is for those who sues you , in order to live the higher law, you are to give them more.

FB: You also do not want to enable them. It would have been better for you to teach him to fish so he could live every day without begging for one fish. Although what those members told you is not what the church teaches, what the church does teach is to help people to control their own lives and feed their ownselves. And you don't know he would not spend it on Booze. If a person is in that situation there are many programs which could help get them on their feet. To just give money without teaching them is not really helping them either. It might for an day, but then they are in the same situation tomorrow. You gave that money to ease your conscience. You put little effort in really helping them. Give him a little money, and your conscience is free from guilt. What do you think Christ would have done?

I had written up a rather long reply when the system went down on me, maybe it was the Spirit saying 'keep it simple stupid'. So I'll try again

First, your first comment is speculative, you don't know anything about me except what is on my profile, if you looked thatup. However, my criticism is of the 'tything law' and not you, if you feel offended I appologize. You must realize that all the laws are good for is that they point out that we are sinners, and can't be saved by ourselves. We need God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. We need them in everything.

Our church is not a church of the flesh, that is where the law has dominion, our church is of the spirit, where the law has no dominion only Christ. Christ is the end of the law Gal. 3:24; Rom 10:4. Thus the Spirit reigns not the flesh, Christ reigns and not the law.

 

[skylark1]

The Priesthood was also restored and Temples are being built. The Temple in Jerusalem is on the "to do" list, but all things in their proper time frame.

I was not aware that restoring the Temple in Jerusalem was on the LDS "to do" list.

The Temple Institute is an organization devoted to rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, including the temple vessels and furnishings. They have been working on the temple vessels for years. It is fascinating to read and see the details of the work that has already been completed.
http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.html


Do LDS plan on rebuilding the Temple according to the instructions that God gave to Moses? Like the Temple Institute, do they plan to restore the altar, incense, laver, menorah, table of showbread, priestly garments, and urim and thummin? The ark of the covenant?

Or is the plan to build a temple similar to other LDS temples?



I am just curious.

 

[MormonFriend]

I was not aware that restoring the Temple in Jerusalem was on the LDS "to do" list.

The Temple Institute is an organization devoted to rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, including the temple vessels and furnishings. They have been working on the temple vessels for years. It is fascinating to read and see the details of the work that has already been completed.
http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.html


Do LDS plan on rebuilding the Temple according to the instructions that God gave to Moses? Like the Temple Institute, do they plan to restore the altar, incense, laver, menorah, table of showbread, priestly garments, and urim and thummin? The ark of the covenant?

Or is the plan to build a temple similar to other LDS temples?
I am just curious.

For now I am only aware that the Temple will be rebuilt before Christ's Second Coming. How it will be accomplished, I will research what I can. I think it would be most fitting for it to be done by God's chosen people. But as Amos said:

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos3:7)

I assume that the Prophet at the time of its construction will have major input.
I am ignorant at this time of its design to be, and will soon fill that mental void.
Thanks for that link, I will be most interested in its content. I recall some talks presented that a LDS Scholar was working with local Jewish authorities about the Temple and was able to contribute some key issues of its reconstruction. I am speaking vaguely, so let me get my facts together.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Would you mind returning to Melchidezek? I have read (on-line which might not be the most reliable source) that Melchidezek was unique in that he didn't ask for or require a tithe. This is unlike the tithe of the OT Jews where it was more or less compulsory. In fact, Melchidezek counciled his flock and gave them bread and wine.
He was unique among priests and therefore famous. Hundreds & thousdands of years later, folks still talked about and loved the priest Melchidezek. Later, in the NT, Jesus is referred to as being a priest according to the order of Melchidezek. In other words, he's in a priesthood of one (like Melchidezek was in a priesthood of one) He doesn't ask for or require a sacrifice--except that it be freely given without outside nudging--and you are fed with the bread and the wine. (ie given spiritual sustenance.) So, does someone else have other info? ps I realize the Mormons have thousands of priests calling themselves Melchidezek--I really don't have much of a comment on that one way or another. My church (Lutheran) calls all believers priests (according to the Book of Hebrews) but not according to any specific order other than the body of Christ.