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

[Peter1000]

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.

Then we have a major inconsistency in how the HG is given, because the bible clearly teaches that some received the HG by the laying on of hands. Some received by the HG just falling on them. Which is it? Which is the true way?
Some received baptism, some did not, which is it. Which is the true way?

Can't have 2 or 3 or 4 ways to recieve the HG. Temporary to permanent was a perfect solution, but of course that twists the scriptures somehow because its a Mormon concept. So you tell me how to reconcile the differences in the same bible that the HG is given. It looks to me that from the bible we are both right, and if there were 5 of us, there would be 5 ways to give the HG. And if there were 10 of us there would be 10 different ways to recieve the HG. So tell me which way is true, but you cannot discard Acts 2:38, or Acts 15:17 or Acts 19:6, because they are literal biblical ways the HG was given.

BTW is it possible that not everything that happened with the apostles was recorded in the bible? It is possible that Peter layed his hands on their heads later and it was not recorded. If you cannot concede to that, then you must agree that everything that Peter and the apostles did was accurately recorded in the NT.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Then we have a major inconsistency in how the HG is given, because the bible clearly teaches that some received the HG by the laying on of hands. Some received by the HG just falling on them. Which is it? Which is the true way?
Some received baptism, some did not, which is it. Which is the true way?

Can't have 2 or 3 or 4 ways to recieve the HG. Temporary to permanent was a perfect solution, but of course that twists the scriptures somehow because its a Mormon concept. So you tell me how to reconcile the differences in the same bible that the HG is given. It looks to me that from the bible we are both right, and if there were 5 of us, there would be 5 ways to give the HG. And if there were 10 of us there would be 10 different ways to recieve the HG. So tell me which way is true, but you cannot discard Acts 2:38, or Acts 15:17 or Acts 19:6.

So. God did the miracle. God sent the Holy Spirit to them. Jesus said "I will NEVER leave you or forsake you". And he told them before He died that they would do miracles IN HIS NAME.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Temporary to permanent was a perfect solution, but of course that twists the scriptures somehow because its a Mormon concept.

The Bible existed way before JS and it is proven by carbon dating. What's to say JS didn't just read the Bible and make some books? He had the Bible available, no Mormon books

Mormon concepts have only been around less than 200 years. So, it would be JS twisting OUR SCRIPTURES. Thank you.

 

[BigDaddy4]

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?

Priesthood of believers - yes. Aaronic - no. Melchizedek - only Jesus holds this, now and forever. There can be only one.
Keys - no
Offices - only those as described in the NT (elders, deacons, etc.). Not 12-19 year olds.
Power and authority - Yes, only as the Bible describes and as the Holy Spirit guides us (healing, casting out demons, etc.).

 

[BigDaddy4]

Then we have a major inconsistency in how the HG is given, because the bible clearly teaches that some received the HG by the laying on of hands. Some received by the HG just falling on them. Which is it? Which is the true way?
Some received baptism, some did not, which is it. Which is the true way?

Can't have 2 or 3 or 4 ways to recieve the HG. Temporary to permanent was a perfect solution, but of course that twists the scriptures somehow because its a Mormon concept. So you tell me how to reconcile the differences in the same bible that the HG is given. It looks to me that from the bible we are both right, and if there were 5 of us, there would be 5 ways to give the HG. And if there were 10 of us there would be 10 different ways to recieve the HG. So tell me which way is true, but you cannot discard Acts 2:38, or Acts 15:17 or Acts 19:6, because they are literal biblical ways the HG was given.

BTW is it possible that not everything that happened with the apostles was recorded in the bible? It is possible that Peter layed his hands on their heads later and it was not recorded. If you cannot concede to that, then you must agree that everything that Peter and the apostles did was accurately recorded in the NT.

Why not? Why must there be 1 way? Who are you to make the rules or demand that your way be the only way?

I do not discard anything in the Bible. As you and others like to say "why do you limit God like that"?

We lay hands on people who are sick for their healing. But as the Bible shows, Jesus can heal with a word (Centurion's servant) or by the power of the Holy Spirit (Peter's shadow). We pray for people who are not around us, and those prayers are answered, hands free. So why are you limiting what God can do with His Holy Spirit? It's HIS SPIRIT TO GIVE!!! And praise be to God who gives it to anyone who asks!

 

[Truthfrees]

AMB HAT ON

Thread closed at OP's request.

AMB HAT OFF