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

[Peter1000]

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

Sorry, that should have been Acts 19:6

 

[Peter1000]

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

Well, mark this day as a red-letter day. We agree. We agreeeeeee.

Now tell me how the binding and loosing powers of the apostles works into our model?

 

[Peter1000]

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

How many serious books have you read on the history of Christianity?

 

[ToBeLoved]

How many serious books have you read on the history of Christianity?

You said it so you should list your sources. If you cannot show sources, it's interesting that you say it.

 

[fatboys]

You said it so you should list your sources. If you cannot show sources, it's interesting that you say it.

It would make little difference to sight sources. You shrug them of any way. I mean I could sight my sources but it does take time to look these things up. I really don't know how others here put their sources and post what they do. They sacrifice their valuable time and engery to do it. I pale in their shadow

 

[ToBeLoved]

It would make little difference to sight sources. You shrug them of any way. I mean I could sight my sources but it does take time to look these things up. I really don't know how others here put their sources and post what they do. They sacrifice their valuable time and engery to do it. I pale in their shadow

I was referring to a specific post where Peter1000 went through a quick history of the Christian church, so it was a reply to that. Not a stand-alone request. Although I do think that it is a good practice because it shows credibility in what one says in general, so I usually do it. Plus it eliminates follow-up questions quite a bit if they can see the context of what someone is saying.

To a reply to a reply specific to another post only to offer criticism I'm not sure is helpful.

 

[Peter1000]

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

2 verses: John 15:16, Mark 3:14 This is Jesus ordaining his apostles.

Another verse, Acts 14:23 is the apostles ordaining elders.

You are right when you say that "ordain" has many meanings. It can range from the Lord "ordaining" that it will be a beautiful day. Of course, in this case the word "ordain" means "to make happen".

But there is also a more serious (conferring of power) meaning such as in:
John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
AND
Mark 3:14
And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
AND
Acts 14:23
And when they (apostles) had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

 

[ToBeLoved]

2 verses: John 15:16, Mark 3:14 This is Jesus ordaining his apostles.

Yup. Personally. Who picks your apostles?

 

[BigDaddy4]

AND
Acts 14:23
And when they (apostles) had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

AND
Thus negating any assertion by the lds church that keys, priesthood, truth, etc. were lost when the apostles died, and refuting any claim that a restortation was needed.

 

[fatboys]

AND
Thus negating any assertion by the lds church that keys, priesthood, truth, etc. were lost when the apostles died, and refuting any claim that a restortation was needed.

A person may be ordained but if the go astray the power given is taken from them

 

[BigDaddy4]

A person may be ordained but if the go astray the power given is taken from them

Prove that that happened.

 

[ToBeLoved]

A person may be ordained but if the go astray the power given is taken from them

And... that would have been in the Bible. So where do you get the idea that they went astray? Is that something in the Mormon holy books? A nice little extra that is not in the Bible? Another contridiction. But yet Mormonism says that apostles appeared to their prophets, so maybe they are the ones that went astray that talked to your peoples.

 

[Peter1000]

You said it so you should list your sources. If you cannot show sources, it's interesting that you say it.

You can google anything like "the Reformation and the priesthood", or "Martin Luther and the keys of Peter". Read any book about Martin Luther and you will find the stress placed on him, because he was originally a Catholic priest. He knew that when he broke with the church he had to have an answer for "what about the priesthood". His answer is today called, "the Priesthood of all Believers". (google that)
This doctrine takes the place all priesthood offices in the Catholic church, especially the office of priest.

It says that you do not need a priest to access God, since we are all priests before our God, having been baptized unto Christ, our High Priest.
He quotes 1 Peter 2:5 & 9 we are a holy nation and royal priesthood. He also quotes Rev. 5:10 that he, Jesus has made us priests and kings and we will reign on the earth.

So Luther sees the priesthood continuing and all baptized persons are priests of the Most High.

Do you consider yourself a priest of God?

 

[Peter1000]

Prove that that happened.

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches and I'm sure other denominations it is called "unfrocked", if a person acts unbecoming a priest or any other priesthood holder. In non-denominational churches, who don't necessarily have ordained ministers, who commit adultery with a parishioner, they just move away and try to start afresh somewhere else where they are unknown. In LDS they lose their priesthood status, and have to repent and go through a process of forgiveness to be reinstated.

 

[Peter1000]

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



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

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

Let's analyze the 4 scriptures we all hav quoted about the Holy Ghost. And see if your solution holds.

First Acts 2:38 Peter has just spoken to thousands of people on the day of Pentecost. The people believe him and believe in Jesus and then they ask Peter what they should do. Peter tells them, knowing that they believe, to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Strong implication that the Holy Ghost will be given once you repent and are baptized and your sins are removed, then you will recieve the HG. So right on the first day of the new church of Jesus Christ, to me Peter outlines what a person should do when they come to a conclusion that Jesus is the Christ. BTW over 3,000 people heard him and became members of the church.

Second Acts 8:15-17 Here, the people had received baptism in Samaria and the word got back to the apostles. So they sent Peter and John to make sure all was right. When they got their they found out that the HG had not fallen on any of them. (So how many days past Pentecost, until you would think the HG would start falling upon people?) Anyway, the apostles found this out and so they laid their hands on each of their heads and they recieved the HG. Just like the model in Acts 2:38.

Third Acts 10:44-48 Here Peter was speaking to a group of people and the HG fell upon them and Peter said he would not refuse these people the waters of baptism, even though they were gentiles. In this case the scripture says the HG fell on them and then they were baptized, it does not say that hands were layed on their heads to receive the HG. It does not mean that this did not happen, it is possible it did because Peter presented the model in Acts 2:38 and followed it in Acts 8:15-17. Perhaps the bible just did not record the laying on of hands for these people, because look at the last scripture. They HG was surely falling on people now.

Fourth Acts 19:6 Paul goes to Ephesus and found baptized disciples of Jesus, and asks if they have recieved the HG. It is interesting that he asked this question. Because if the model was, belief in Jesus, then receiving the HG and confessing Jesus and automatically being saved, then baptism, (if you want), Paul would have assumed that since they were baptized, they certainly would have recieved the HG.
But he asks, and is told, they knew nothing of the HG. So Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus Christ and then lays his hands on their heads and gives them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is this model becoming obvious?

So your solution is that the HG was not falling on persons in Acts 2 or Acts 8, so they laid their hands to give the HG. But when the HG started falling on people, this act stopped and no lonter was necessary.

Well that would possibly be the solution except Acts 19:6 is after Acts 10:44-48 and therefore even though the HG is falling on people, Paul still gave the people in Ephesus the gift of the HG by laying his hands on their heads.

The LDS solution is that before you are baptized you can have a temporary witness from the HG, to witness to you that Jesus is the Christ. The HG can fall on anyone, at any time, to be a confirming witness of Jesus. Then if you follow the promptings of the HG and you believe and have faith in Jesus, and repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, then in this sinless condition you receive by the laying on of hands, the permanent witness of the HG and the HG stays with you always.

 

[BigDaddy4]

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches and I'm sure other denominations it is called "unfrocked", if a person acts unbecoming a priest or any other priesthood holder. In non-denominational churches, who don't necessarily have ordained ministers, who commit adultery with a parishioner, they just move away and try to start afresh somewhere else where they are unknown. In LDS they lose their priesthood status, and have to repent and go through a process of forgiveness to be reinstated.

That is not the lds claim. It is the "Great Apostasy", lost keys of the kingdom, plain and precious truths lost, and all the other unsubstantiated claims the lds church makes in order to justify their "restoration". A few priests who go astray does not qualify nor provide proof.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Let's analyze the 4 scriptures we all hav quoted about the Holy Ghost. And see if your solution holds.

First Acts 2:38 Peter has just spoken to thousands of people on the day of Pentecost. The people believe him and believe in Jesus and then they ask Peter what they should do. Peter tells them, knowing that they believe, to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Strong implication that the Holy Ghost will be given once you repent and are baptized and your sins are removed, then you will recieve the HG. So right on the first day of the new church of Jesus Christ, to me Peter outlines what a person should do when they come to a conclusion that Jesus is the Christ. BTW over 3,000 people heard him and became members of the church.

Second Acts 8:15-17 Here, the people had received baptism in Samaria and the word got back to the apostles. So they sent Peter and John to make sure all was right. When they got their they found out that the HG had not fallen on any of them. (So how many days past Pentecost, until you would think the HG would start falling upon people?) Anyway, the apostles found this out and so they laid their hands on each of their heads and they recieved the HG. Just like the model in Acts 2:38.

Third Acts 10:44-48 Here Peter was speaking to a group of people and the HG fell upon them and Peter said he would not refuse these people the waters of baptism, even though they were gentiles. In this case the scripture says the HG fell on them and then they were baptized, it does not say that hands were layed on their heads to receive the HG. It does not mean that this did not happen, it is possible it did because Peter presented the model in Acts 2:38 and followed it in Acts 8:15-17. Perhaps the bible just did not record the laying on of hands for these people, because look at the last scripture. They HG was surely falling on people now.

Fourth Acts 19:6 Paul goes to Ephesus and found baptized disciples of Jesus, and asks if they have recieved the HG. It is interesting that he asked this question. Because if the model was, belief in Jesus, then receiving the HG and confessing Jesus and automatically being saved, then baptism, (if you want), Paul would have assumed that since they were baptized, they certainly would have recieved the HG.
But he asks, and is told, they knew nothing of the HG. So Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus Christ and then lays his hands on their heads and gives them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is this model becoming obvious?

So your solution is that the HG was not falling on persons in Acts 2 or Acts 8, so they laid their hands to give the HG. But when the HG started falling on people, this act stopped and no lonter was necessary.

Well that would possibly be the solution except Acts 19:6 is after Acts 10:44-48 and therefore even though the HG is falling on people, Paul still gave the people in Ephesus the gift of the HG by laying his hands on their heads.

The LDS solution is that before you are baptized you can have a temporary witness from the HG, to witness to you that Jesus is the Christ. The HG can fall on anyone, at any time, to be a confirming witness of Jesus. Then if you follow the promptings of the HG and you believe and have faith in Jesus, and repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, then in this sinless condition you receive by the laying on of hands, the permanent witness of the HG and the HG stays with you always.

Nope not obvious. What else do you got?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Let's analyze the 4 scriptures we all hav quoted about the Holy Ghost. And see if your solution holds.

First Acts 2:38 Peter has just spoken to thousands of people on the day of Pentecost. The people believe him and believe in Jesus and then they ask Peter what they should do. Peter tells them, knowing that they believe, to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Strong implication that the Holy Ghost will be given once you repent and are baptized and your sins are removed, then you will recieve the HG. So right on the first day of the new church of Jesus Christ, to me Peter outlines what a person should do when they come to a conclusion that Jesus is the Christ. BTW over 3,000 people heard him and became members of the church.

Second Acts 8:15-17 Here, the people had received baptism in Samaria and the word got back to the apostles. So they sent Peter and John to make sure all was right. When they got their they found out that the HG had not fallen on any of them. (So how many days past Pentecost, until you would think the HG would start falling upon people?) Anyway, the apostles found this out and so they laid their hands on each of their heads and they recieved the HG. Just like the model in Acts 2:38.

Third Acts 10:44-48 Here Peter was speaking to a group of people and the HG fell upon them and Peter said he would not refuse these people the waters of baptism, even though they were gentiles. In this case the scripture says the HG fell on them and then they were baptized, it does not say that hands were layed on their heads to receive the HG. It does not mean that this did not happen, it is possible it did because Peter presented the model in Acts 2:38 and followed it in Acts 8:15-17. Perhaps the bible just did not record the laying on of hands for these people, because look at the last scripture. They HG was surely falling on people now.

Fourth Acts 19:6 Paul goes to Ephesus and found baptized disciples of Jesus, and asks if they have recieved the HG. It is interesting that he asked this question. Because if the model was, belief in Jesus, then receiving the HG and confessing Jesus and automatically being saved, then baptism, (if you want), Paul would have assumed that since they were baptized, they certainly would have recieved the HG.
But he asks, and is told, they knew nothing of the HG. So Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus Christ and then lays his hands on their heads and gives them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is this model becoming obvious?

So your solution is that the HG was not falling on persons in Acts 2 or Acts 8, so they laid their hands to give the HG. But when the HG started falling on people, this act stopped and no lonter was necessary.

Well that would possibly be the solution except Acts 19:6 is after Acts 10:44-48 and therefore even though the HG is falling on people, Paul still gave the people in Ephesus the gift of the HG by laying his hands on their heads.

The LDS solution is that before you are baptized you can have a temporary witness from the HG, to witness to you that Jesus is the Christ. The HG can fall on anyone, at any time, to be a confirming witness of Jesus. Then if you follow the promptings of the HG and you believe and have faith in Jesus, and repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, then in this sinless condition you receive by the laying on of hands, the permanent witness of the HG and the HG stays with you always.

Your "model" doesn't work and your bolded words are not true. You have to twist Scripture to fit your doctrine. For your first evidence, Acts 2:38, you seem to leave out Acts 2:1-4 where the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit happens. Who laid hands on whom? Who baptized whom? No mention of either on the disciples.

In your third evidence, Acts 10:44-48, you have to twist Scripture to fit your theology. "it's possible", "perhaps", etc. You are reading your theology into the Scripture. Verse 47 is the key "They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” How did Peter and the other disciples receive the Holy Spirit? See Acts 2:1-4. No baptism first, no laying on of hands someone with "proper authority".

For your bolded words, "temporary witness from the HG" and "permanent witness of the HG and the HG stays with you always." you have no proof of either and it's just your theology talking. There is no such thing as a "temporary witness" until you get baptized and it becomes "permanent". The Holy Spirit is always there, doing God's will.

 

[Peter1000]

AND
Thus negating any assertion by the lds church that keys, priesthood, truth, etc. were lost when the apostles died, and refuting any claim that a restortation was needed.

This discussion has centered around a priesthood with keys, and offices and power and authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ that continued even after the ascension of Jesus. The bible does contain valid enough information to confirm that. You seem to agree that this priesthood continued by saying it was unnecessary for God to restore this priesthood to JS.

Are you agreeing that the priesthood, keys and offices and power and authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ continued to exist after Jesus was ascended into heaven?

 

[ToBeLoved]

This discussion has centered around a priesthood with keys, and offices and power and authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ that continued even after the ascension of Jesus. The bible does contain valid enough information to confirm that. You seem to agree that this priesthood continued by saying it was unnecessary for God to restore this priesthood to JS.

Are you agreeing that the priesthood, keys and offices and power and authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ continued to exist after Jesus was ascended into heaven?

Even if you have authority from Jesus Christ, Jesus still had to work the miracles.

The apostles didn't have power themselves, per se. It was Jesus making those miracles.

God just doesn't hand you power.