The argument is often made that since Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice and that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary, somehow this signaled the end of the Priesthood and that the destruction of the Temple was the sign for this. This is convoluted reasoning.

The Priesthood had many more duties besides sacrifice and the temple being destroyed had nothing to do with the continuance of the Priesthood. Sacrifices were conducted under the Levitical Priesthood and the administration thereof were not the duties of the Melchizedek order. It was this portion of the Levitical Priesthood that was done away (the offering of animal sacrifice), but the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood had other duties that administered in the temporal affairs of man. Evidently many of the church fathers and students of John felt the need for the continuance of the Priesthood until a unity of the faith was accomplished.

Reading Hebrews in context it will be seen as irrefutable proof of the necessity of the priesthood so that man through it, may become perfected and come to a unity of the faith.

(Eph. 4:11- 13) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

(Heb. 7:11) If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

So if apostles and pastors and teachers, etc were given for the perfecting of the saints and, as stated in Hebrews, that perfection comes through the Melchizedek Priesthood, then these officers therefore must have held the Melchizedek priesthood. This is clear. What authority did Christ give to His apostles? Who has the authority to administer in the requisite ordinances of the gospel? This is the priesthood and it is for the perfection and edification of the Saints.

Hebrews 7:11 refers to two “orders” of the Priesthood: 1) the order of Aaron and 2) the order of Melchizedek. The order of Aaron, according to this epistle was for the temporal ordinances but was not established for the perfecting of the Saints. This was the purpose of the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and men could not be made perfect without this priesthood. The very word “order” infers an organization. If one held the priesthood there would be no need for an “order”. In the Greek the word is “taxis” from the Greek verb “tasso”, meaning to arrange in an orderly manner. There would be no need to arrange anything if there were only one in the “order”, in fact it wouldn’t even be called an order.

Ignatius of Antioch (a student of the Apostle John who lived 35-110 AD) wrote: “For the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonours not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father. Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father” (Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, Chapter 9 – Honour the Bishop).

Notice that Ignatius does not say that Christ is the only High Priest; he says that He is the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father, meaning that this authority was inherent in Him as God. All others must be given this authority, as were the apostles. Christ gave this authority to His apostles and told them that they had power to bind on Earth and it would be binding in Heaven; and they could loose on Earth and the same would be done in Heaven (Matt 16:19). The apostles were not High Priests, by nature, and therefore had to be given that authority of Christ. They held the keys to the perfecting of the Saints, as Matthew made clear.

He said the “priesthood is the very highest point of all good things”. The priesthood was acknowledged at this time by the present tense. Then he distinguishes the priesthood from the laity in so much that he starts naming offices. And as Ignatius also said, in striving against this priesthood authority, “you dishonour… God”.

Now let’s see what Irenaeus (a second century church father and disciple of Polycarp, who was a student of John’s as well) said in the early 2nd Century: “adhere to those who… do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood (presbyterii ordine), display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others (Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4).

Irenaeus made it clear that the Apostles and those of His day held this order of priesthood. He earlier in his “Against Heresies” also mentions that no other except those who were called and ordained held this priesthood.

The ancient Jews at Qumran realized that the Melchizedek Priesthood would accompany the final days before the second coming of Christ: their understanding was that the Melchizedek Priesthood would return in the “last days” and bring about salvation after an apostasy (a reign of Belial – the Dark Ages). This was to apply “to the Last Days” and after a time when “teachers have been hidden and kept secret, even from the inheritance of Melchizedek, who will return them to what is rightfully theirs” (The Dead Sea Scrolls - 11Q13 – The Coming of Melchizedek).

“How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah” (Ps.82:2 – the 82nd Psalm is referenced a lot throughout this text and specific references to the divine council as well), the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, because all of them have rebelled, turning from God’s precepts and so becoming utterly wicked. Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengeance required by God’s statutes. In that day he will deliver them from the power of Belial, and from the power of all the spirits predestined to him. Allied with him will be the “righteous divine beings” (Isa 61:3)”. (Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook. “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation”. San Francisco: HarperCollins. 2005. pp 590-593).

Notice who will be aligned with Melchizedek!

Then there is this by Theophilus (115-180 AD) another early Bishop of Antioch and successor to Ignatius, also said to have been a representative of Barnabus (a prophet and one of the candidates for the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to Knight and Edwards Compact Bible Handbook - of the Nelson Compact Bible Study Series). If Barnabus was the author of this Epistle, as was supposed, and Theophilus was supposed to be one of his representatives then I would think his words would carry weight.

Here is what he said:
“And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchizedek, in the city of Salem, which is now Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all high priests of the Most High God. . . . And from his time priests were found in all the earth.” (Apologia ad Autolycum, Book I).

Theophilus tells of the beginning of the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Dead Sea Scrolls talk about its role in the Last Days, which most Christians firmly believe we are in.
I found this interesting as well (from the 5th century Church Historian Socrates Scholasticus) relaying an argument that occurred in a council at a reworking of the Nicene Creed for the umpteenth time:

“…Those assembled at Antioch were by them invested with the sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned their own fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides. Besides how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those whose faith they pronounce unsound and impious? If those, however, who constituted the Nicene Synod had not the Holy Spirit which is imparted by the imposition of hands, those at Antioch have not duly received the priesthood: for how could they have received it from those who had not the power of conferring it?” (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History Book 2).

So even in the 5th century the importance of the continuation of the Priesthood by proper authority and proper manner was seen as important to Socrates Scholasticus.

John Cotton, even later, in the 17th century spoke of this authority passed to the “fraternitie presbytery” (brethren of the Priesthood) in his “The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and Power Thereof , According to the Word of God”.

It has now been demonstrated that the Melchizedek Priesthood is the authority to act in the name of Christ. This authority was given to the apostles to “bind on earth and it would be bound in heaven”. This authority of Jesus was necessary for this to take affect. Jesus spoke of this when he said that there would be some that would cast out devils in His name but when the end came He would say to them, depart from me because I don’t know you (Matt 7:22). He will not recognize authority that He did not give. And further proves that the “priesthood of all believers” is a very recent evolution of the Protestant faith and was not to be had in the primitive church.

Joseph Smith had this authority given him (as did Oliver Cowdery) by Peter, James and John, who had received that authority from Jesus Christ. Peter, James and John delivered this priesthood authority at the time of the restoration. There was no man on the Earth at that time that still possessed the Melchizedek Priesthood and it had to be restored by those in authority to restore it; even Peter, to whom Jesus explicitly gave the keys while yet in His ministry.

Now, how is this Priesthood authority to be passed on? The scriptures make this very clear:

(1 Tim. 4:14)
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

(2 Tim. 1:6)
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

(Acts 6:2-9)
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

(Acts 13:2)
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

(Heb. 6:1,2)
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Remember, perfection comes by way of the Melchizedek Priesthood!

(Heb. 7:11)
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The scriptures make it clear that there would be no perfection without the Melchizedek Priesthood and that this priesthood was passed on by the laying on of hands (or ordination). There is no evidence here that the authority to administer the Priesthood was given to all believers but that some were chosen by the assembly to receive it after much prayer and fasting. Therefore, Jesus said be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48) but made it very clear that perfection could not come without the Melchizedek priesthood as written in the epistles by his apostles. It must then be deduced that either Jesus gave a commandment that was impossible to fulfill or that the Melchizedek Priesthood had to be passed on to achieve Jesus’ designs and fulfill His commandment.

I sit this morning at my window looking at the first signs of life, long dormant through a long winter’s sleep. Fresh, crisp blades of green grass peek gingerly through the snow crusted ground and the first new buds of spring, with a blanket of white enshrouding them, on tree limbs that no longer look dead, are yawning, showing chlorophyll laden tongues that will eventually bloom into glorious splendor, providing a refuge from the heat of the summer and an abundance of life within its verdant cover. The promise of life surrounds me on this brilliant resurrection morning as I ponder and reflect on the meaning of this heaven sent day.

For me this day has nothing to do with pagan bunnies, the fertility rites symbolized in colored eggs and chocolate sweets. The only sweets I am reflecting on are the sweets provided by my Savior who gave the true promise of a renewal of life. I think of families sitting in church singing praises to their God and King, who burst the bands of death in our behalf, so that we may all live again, after our own brief respite from our fleshly tabernacles, to rise once more unto glories untold in the morning of the first resurrection. And then, as this thought crosses my mind, my consciousness is transported to the final days of my Lord’s ministry where this King of Kings rode into Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, not in great glory on an Arabian Stallion, but humbly on the back off an ass fulfilling the prophecy which says, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass (Zech 9:9).

Later as Jesus celebrated the Passover with the traditional unleavened bread, bitter herbs and fruit of the vine He was already suffering with the knowledge that one of His own would betray Him. I can almost feel the heartbreak as Jesus told his apostles, “one of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto Him one by one, Is it I?” I can almost see the dark eyes of Judas Iscariot, averted from those of our Savior so as not to feel the searing and sorrowful scorn that must have accompanied His gaze, as he continued the charade by asking, “Is it I?” and knowing full well that it was. How our Lord must have sorrowed for Him knowing that He was now lost and destined to become a son of perdition. But this was just the beginning of the sorrows that He was foreordained to endure.

Now my minds eye is a witness at Gethsemane. The apostles at some distance from our Lord are sleeping, even as they had promised to keep watch, while the Savior of mankind is in deep and impassioned supplication to His Father, enduring, first hand, the suffering off all who had already lived, all that were then living and all that were yet to be born, being pressed by the tremendous guilt of the entire world so much so that great drops of blood were excreted from every pour. He was feeling the presses of Gethsemane’s name sake as the crushing weight of the world come down upon Him, pleading with His Father that if there were any other way to let the cup pass from Him. Even with the amount of suffering He was undergoing at that time, still He left the situation in the hands of His omniscient Father. A last and ultimate sacrifice for the sins of an entire world!

And then, came the betrayer, who, with a mock kiss delivered His God into the hands of the executioners. Thirty pieces of silver paid, never to be spent! A son of perdition hanging by the neck from some justice-bound tree! A grisly deed done!

Throughout His trials Christ stood mostly silent. He knew that His hour had come and that He now must finish what He was sent to do. I tremble, as in my mind I am witness to each stroke of the hammer, driving metal spikes into His hands and feet. I want to rush the executioners and deliver my Lord from this terrible anguish but I cannot move other than the incessant shaking within my body. I feel my Lord’s fleeting glance directed my way assuring me that this must be and it is all right. While He is suffering, I feel that He is still thinking about us, and not in His own excruciating pain as flesh is torn and bones move asunder. He knows that in so doing He will save us. Carrying His own cross toward Golgotha he is spit upon, beaten with rods and whips, and mocked with every step until He can no longer walk and another is mercifully and blessedly appointed to carry His cross for Him the last bit of the way.

Being raised up on the cross at the “place of the skull” between two common thieves “one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39-43).

And then the entire Earth was engulfed in darkness and the ground shook and there was great destruction upon all the land as God, the Father, I imagine, not being able to bear the tremendous agony of His Son, withdrew into the furthest recesses of His universe, causing Jesus to scream out, “My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me” (Mark 15:34). A malevolent onlooker, devoid of all compassion, then runs and gives Jesus vinegar to drink. With a loud cry Jesus then gives up the ghost, saying, “Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit” (Luke 23:46).

For three days the apostles of the Lord wandered like a ship in the night being tossed about by a storm, supposing that it was over, and we must assume that the thief on the Christ accompanied Jesus to a place set aside for the spirits of men, where they await the resurrection (1 Peter 3:18-21; 4:1-6). Not heaven, for on the third day after the Christ’s crucifixion Mary Magdalene came to the tomb of Christ. Upon arriving and seeing that the stone covering the tomb had been rolled away she became very concerned and asking, whom she supposed to be the gardener, what they had done with the body of her Lord was answered, “Mary”. Recognizing the voice of her Lord she turned and said, “Master” and ran toward Him. But Jesus kindly rebuked her and told her, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended unto my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:16,17).

Later, the disciples of Jesus were gathered together and Jesus came unto them and let them feel the wounds in his flesh and ate with them so that they would know that He was no longer dead, but was resurrected, not as a spirit but flesh and bone (Luke 24:37-43).

So now as I look out of my window at the new life forming on this beautiful spring morning that is set aside as a reflection of life and resurrection and as a symbol, to me, that all, though dead, will live again, just as the grass dies and is buried beneath the snow but is also renewed in the dawning of a new spring.

My testimony is that Jesus Christ, indeed, died for the sins of all and was resurrected and lives again, seated on the right hand of the Almighty God, His and our Father in heaven. He lives and this I know beyond any doubt. And it is in His wonderful name, even Jesus, the Christ, that I expound these eternal truths. Amen.

A friend of mine emailed these to me and they were too good to not pass them on.

I’m afraid, judging from Congress’ recent actions, that this may be more a reality than fiction if they, Mike Huckabee, or “nut job” Ron Paul win the White House:

Inviting Hugo Chávez (the paranoid and ignorant dictator of Venezuela) to a summit or other gathering of dignitaries is like inviting a pitt bull into a “for chihuahuas only” dog show. He always immerges as the big bully of the event, as evidenced here where the King of Spain tells him to Shut-up. Of course, how can one expect a dictator who was “elected” by a severely flawed election to understand the respect and common courtesy displayed by civilized and democratically (and need I say legitimately) elected leaders of the world?

The video is in Spanish and not translated into English so that nothing is lost in translation. Three cheers for the King of Spain and the backbone that he displayed in standing up to the blowhard Chávez!

The following is written in response to comments made by a certain individual with the moniker “Brother Joseph” to my post entitled Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul in which he accused me of not knowing the U.S. Constitution, not understanding scripture and being ignorant on LDS Doctrine. I couldn’t resist! Furthermore, I hope that the misinformation spun by the Ron Paul camp and aimed at Latter-day Saints will here be corrected through factual sources and the words of our living prophet:
(more…)

As a preface to the following utilitarian views let me say that these statements are strictly my opinion based on past study.

In a thread on a recent blog at Truth Restored I had a mini discussion with someone who claimed that God was no utilitarian. He made the statement that God was not concerned about numbers when it came to mankind’s happiness. According to Jeremy Bentham (who first set forth the moral theory of utilitarianism) utility is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number. The confusion of whether God is utilitarian or not comes into play with the definition of the word “good”. From John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism we read, “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (chapter 4). Previously in chapter 2 of the same work we read, “We not uncommonly hear the doctrine of utility inveighed against as a godless doctrine. If it be necessary to say anything at all against so mere an assumption, we may say that the question depends upon what idea we have formed of the moral character of the Deity. If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only NOT a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other. If it be meant that utilitarianism does not recognize the revealed will of God as the supreme law of morals, I answer that a utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals, must fulfill the requirements of utility in a supreme degree…

(more…)

From the moment Mitt Romney began to publicly contemplate running for president of the United States of America until now his Mormon faith has played a major part in the debate of his credentials to hold that office. Of course, most of the accusations about the church are totally false and as old as the church itself and each have been proven, using primary source documents, as such. One key point that has been totally omitted when addressing a “Mormon In The White House” (borrowing a title from Hugh Hewitt’s best selling book) by Hewitt and all other’s addressing how his faith would play in a presidency is the very high regard that Mormons hold for the U.S. Constitution and this great nation which is bound by it. 

(more…)

I thought this was a nice way to express the beauty of the state where I choose to reside in a way that words alone cannot do. The music is by the Bar D Wranglers and the photography is mine.

     Having grown up in Jackson, Mississippi at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I saw first hand the occurrences spoken of by Dr. King. I remember vividly walking hand in hand with my mother along the streets of downtown Jackson and stopping to drink out of the “colored” drinking fountain, but before my lips could touch the water my mother jerked me away, telling me that only “colored people” should drink out of those, and she took me a few paces away to drink from an “uncontaminated” source. I recall seeing little black children with wet pants and shameful expressions because they could no longer control their natural bodily functions, as there were no public facilities for those with dark skin. I remember going into the doctor’s office where there were two waiting rooms, one for the whites via the front door and one for the “Negro” via the back. I recollect the Jackson State College riots in Jackson, Mississippi in May 1967 that, locals claimed, were incited by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the white populace bought into the southern propaganda machine. The celebration of Dr. King’s murder, that took place in my all white boyhood environs, still plays in my mind, for we were told that this was the most evil man of our generation. At the time, I thought this was truth and didn’t think much of it. I was a product of the place and time. Only after having moved away from the south and its prejudices and educating myself, bursting the bands of my ignorance, did I realize that I had been lied to!

A Black Man drinks from a segregated water cooler pre-1960. Photograph courtesy of Library of Congress.      

Now, as I look back, I see the wisdom of Dr. King, his methods and philosophies. Could he have achieved the ends that he did, even though he did not live to see them through to fruition, in any other way? Sure, he could have raised an army and killed many white people in the process and possibly (in a few hundred years) been justified in his actions. But by his method of direct nonviolent action, he probably spared the nation another Civil War and taught people that differences can be solved oft times through peaceful means and negotiation. Dr. King lived what he taught and bore upon himself the consequences of his actions as he looked to the future and a better world for his children and grandchildren. As with all great men who have a God given purpose, Martin Luther King, Jr. sealed his life’s work with his most precious possession, his life blood, and in so doing, left a legacy of hope and equality, not just for those of African descent, but for all who dwell under the banner of the stars and stripes which at last, truly symbolize freedom.

Thoughts and recollections of Dennis K Olson – an expatriated rebel

The following filmstrip is an old film by The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints from the 1960’s and 70’s.

It answers the questions that at some time in all of our lives we eventually ask:
1. Where did I come from?
2. Why am I here on Earth?
3. Where am I going after I die?

Furthermore, it shows to the world that Mormon’s have considered themselves Christians since the beginnings of the Church in 1830 and it is not a recent phenomena or a change in our doctrine, as some have attempted to claim.

Part 1

Part 2