The “Priesthood of Believers” and the Order of Melchizedek
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.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Wow, Dennis, what a great essay on the Priesthood! Makes me enjoy this last weekend’s General Conference even more, knowing the privilege and blessing we have of this church on the earth in which the Melchizedek priesthood is used to help perfect the saints, give us correct instruction and perform so many important ordinances, etc!
I appreciate you scholarship, and may have to borrow it, giving credit to you of course, some time.
I hope you and your family are well.
All the best,
Squiddy/LeeAnn
April 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
You may borrow whatever you like, Squiddy. No credit to me is necessary - you can give credit to Jesus Christ, who restored His authority again to the earth through Peter, James and John to our beloved prophet Joseph Smith Jr.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Dennis,
This looks strangely familiar. I wonder why? LOL!
Great piece. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
The more I read Hebrews, the stronger my testimony becomes.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
BTW,
If you have the time, this exchange (pages 3,4 & 5) are very interesting.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/03/social-con-group-to-mccain-just-say-no-to-mitt/comment-page-5/#comments
April 8th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Gunlock,
I figured after all the research I put into this I ought to post it here also. I don’t know why your comments went into moderation. You must have changed something in it because I had given you free pass before. I’ll check into it. Anyway, you should be good now to post whatever you want. You can even write an article if you want. There may be someone out there who will yet listen to reason. I will add to it as I find more information in my research.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
how do you know Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek priesthood from Peter?
April 11th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
gotta go maybe I will be back Monday.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Dennis,
I have invited one “eddie too” here to discuss theology.
I doubt that he will have the courage to show, but we will see.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
We know that Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James and John because he was not alone. Oliver Cowdery also recieved this Priesthood from them following the divine “law of witnesses”. Many miracles followed the ordination of the Priesthood, just as they did after the ordination of the Apostles under the hands of Jesus Christ.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am
eddie,
You showed up!!!
I see that Dennis has already answered your question.
Anything else you would like to know?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Been gone for awhile.
How do you know that the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as Peter, John and James were not servants of Satan in the guise of Peter, John and James?
Also, where are the miracles you speak of documented?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:52 am
We know that Peter, James and John gave the priesthood to Joseph and Oliver because we have studied it out and prayed to God and He has revealed the truth of it to us.
Miracles have been documented in the personal journals of those who experienced them. We don’t go about with a bull horn telling about them.
As you know miracles are signs for the faithful. But as Jesus said (Matt 16:4) A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; . . .
I personally have been healed by priesthood blessings.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
bill,
Satan is the father of lies. How has God revealed the truth to you personally? Did he appear to you? Did you hear His voice? Did he send you a letter?
April 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
To all LDS,
I think a big bone of contention between LDS and other christians is the definiton of God. Non-LDS christians believe God is the Supreme Being who created all things. Non-LDS christians believe that God has the following attributes (identifying these attributes is not meant to limit God to them), He is: infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just and all-merciful, among other attributes.
I am not sure what the LDS definition of God is and what LDS teaches as the attributes of God. Perhaps someone here can educate me on this.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Eddie,
God reveals truth to us by His Holy Spirit. The witness of the Holy Spirit, when it occurs, leaves no doubt about its source. But like a lot of things, unless you have personally experienced it, you can not know what it is like.
As far as God creating all things, you are looking at the scriptures from your, more scientifically educated point of view, and not from the understanding of the authors of those word.
Did the authors know about atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons? No they did not.
So could the author be referring to things that he knew nothing about? NO!!
The things the author was talking about were the things observable to him.
In that respect God did create all things.
But element/energy are eternal and coexist eternally with God.
A more accurate translation would be “God organized all things”.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
We believe that God, the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate beings.
They are united in love, purpose and perfection. In that respect They are one.
Jesus was born to the virgin Mary. When He had paid the price for the sins of all mankind, He died. Three days later He was resurrected to a physical body of flesh and bone.
The resurrection is the uniting of the spirit to the immortal physical body. Never to be separated again. Death (the separation of the spirit from the body) has no more dominion over Christ. He will live (have a physical body of flesh and bone) forever.
Jesus then has a physical body of flesh and bone and will have forever.
At His resurrection He became completely perfect, both body and spirit.
He was always perfect in spirit.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Does the Eternal Father have a physical body?
How was Jesus conceived in Mary’s womb?
Who resurrected Jesus?
Does the Holy Ghost have a physical body?
Where did the Holy Ghost come from?
In nuclear reactions, are not elements destroyed?
Are you saying that I just have to take your word that your understanding of Scripture and theology come from the Holy Spirit?
How do the revelations of the Holy Spirit manifest themselves to human beings?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
e:Does the Eternal Father have a physical body?
GB: Yes. It is similar to Jesus’ physical body.
e: How was Jesus conceived in Mary’s womb?
GB:Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, . . . she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
e: Who resurrected Jesus?
GB: By virtue of the fact that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. He inherited from His Father the power over death. With that power He was able to resurrect Himself.
e: Does the Holy Ghost have a physical body?
GB: No, He is a personage of spirit.
e: Where did the Holy Ghost come from?
GB: Good question, we have no scriptural based declaration regarding the answer to this question. One can only speculate that He, like Jesus, is a Son of God.
e: In nuclear reactions, are not elements destroyed?
GB: No, they are converted to energy governed by the equation E=mc2.
e: Are you saying that I just have to take your word that your understanding of Scripture and theology come from the Holy Spirit?
GB: Absolutely NOT!!! You must receive your own personal witness.
e: How do the revelations of the Holy Spirit manifest themselves to human beings?
GB: As the scripture says “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.”
It is the most peaceful and enlightening feeling that fills your heart with love and your mind with knowledge.
Once a person has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those that have authority (as described in Acts), they are entitled to the witness of the Holy Ghost whenever they are worthy. The Goal is to have the Holy Ghost as your constant companion.
Without the Gift of the Holy Ghost, he may witness to you of the truth but you are not entitled to have it as a constant companion.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Jesus received his physical body by being the Son of Mary. How did the Eternal Father receive His body and when?
Was Jesus conceived without human sperm?
Can someone receives a peaceful and englightening feeling that fills their heart with love and their mind with knowledge, but the knowledge that fills their mind refutes the teachings of LDS?
Can Satan act to dispose the heart and mind to be filled with false love and false knowledge and a great feeling of peace?
When is a person worthy to the witness of the Holy Ghost?
What does the phrase “only begotten Son of God” mean?
Converting mass to energy destroys the mass which are the elements.
Are the elements and energy in the universe infinite?
Is the Eternal Father infinite?
Was the Eternal Father created?
You say you know that the visions that Joseph Smith received are real and true because of the peaceful and enlightened feelings that filled your heart with love and your mind with knowledge, does that mean that people who do not experience such feelings you be convinced that the visions of Joseph Smith came from the devil?
What more does receiving the Holy Ghost give you besides good feelings that you love and now have certain knowledge?
Why believe LDS teachings are true if the Holy Ghost will not come to you?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If it takes laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, why would you want the laying on of hands before you have experienced the peace, love and knowledge it gives you?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Where in Sacred Scripture does it say the Eternal Father has a body?
April 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
eddie,
WOW, that is a lot of questions. It may take a while for me to put together the answer to all of them. I hope to get it done today.
Here is the first installment.
E: Jesus received his physical body by being the Son of Mary. How did the Eternal Father receive His body and when?
GB: John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
You figure it out.
e: Was Jesus conceived without human sperm?
GB: Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, . . . she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
Mary was His mortal mother, God, the Eternal Father was His Immortal Father. From His mother He inherited the ability to die. From His Father He inherited the power to overcome death. To us it is miraculous, the details of how it was accomplished is a matter of speculation and opinion.
e: Can someone receives a peaceful and englightening feeling that fills their heart with love and their mind with knowledge, but the knowledge that fills their mind refutes the teachings of LDS?
GB: God is not the author if confusion. The Holy Spirit ONLY testifies of the truth. From your question it is apparent that you haven’t actually experienced the witness of the Holy Ghost.
e: Can Satan act to dispose the heart and mind to be filled with false love and false knowledge and a great feeling of peace?
GB: False love? Yes. False knowledge? Yes. Great feeling of peace? No.
e: When is a person worthy to the witness of the Holy Ghost?
GB: When they are truly humble before God, humble enough to accept the rebuke of God, and willing to be obedient to all of Gods commandments.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Hi Squiddy, Dennis and GB. Thought I’d stop by. Nice to meet you eddie.
The fruits of the Spirit as outlined by the Bible:
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the bSpirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
Ephesians 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no awhoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
E: What does the phrase “only begotten Son of God” mean?
GB: We are all spirit children of God the Eternal Father, but Jesus is the only physical Son. As I said before; Mary was His mortal mother, God, the Eternal Father was His Immortal Father.
E: Converting mass to energy destroys the mass which are the elements.
GB: Technically speaking the mass isn’t destroyed it is converted to energy. The “element” is changed from one form, “mass” to another form, “energy”. Although the energy may dissipate into the surrounding environment it is never lost. Presumably if we understood the physical laws behind it, we could convert energy back into mass.
E: Are the elements and energy in the universe infinite?
GB: Yes.
E: Is the Eternal Father infinite?
GB: Yes.
E: Was the Eternal Father created?
GB: John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen (Jesus), the faithful and true witness (Jesus), the beginning of the creation of God (Jesus);
You figure it out.
E: You say you know that the visions that Joseph Smith received are real and true because of the peaceful and enlightened feelings that filled your heart with love and your mind with knowledge, does that mean that people who do not experience such feelings you be convinced that the visions of Joseph Smith came from the devil?
GB: I am not sure exactly what you are asking, but in addition to the witness of the Spirit (see Mike’s post above), Jesus gave another way to know.
Matt 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Now why warn about false prophets unless there are also going to be true prophets?
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I suspect that most of what you have heard about Joseph Smith came from his critics. So what you have heard about wasn’t HIS fruits.
His fruits are the expansion of God’s word through the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
He, through revelation, restored God’s church, Gospel, and priesthood authority.
For you to seriously look at Joseph Smith’s fruits, you must sincerely and prayerfully read and ponder the Book of Mormon from beginning to end. And then you must do as Moroni directs;
Moro 10:3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.
E: What more does receiving the Holy Ghost give you besides good feelings that you love and now have certain knowledge?
GB: The Holy Ghost helps us to become more Christ like. That is a rather simple statement that includes a rather large amount of “stuff”.
E: Why believe LDS teachings are true if the Holy Ghost will not come to you?
GB: “If the Holy Ghost will not come”, then apparently a person is unwilling to give away all his sins to know God. This is independent to believing LDS teachings.
E: If it takes laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, why would you want the laying on of hands before you have experienced the peace, love and knowledge it gives you?
GB: Let me clarify, The Gift of the Holy Ghost is only conferred upon someone, by the laying on of hands, after they have been Baptized.
Acts 2:38 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.
A witness from the Holy Ghost should come before baptism.
E: Where in Sacred Scripture does it say the Eternal Father has a body?
GB: D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Eddie,
I think the problem is that some people think that being created and being eternal (or infinite) are mutually exclusive things.
The reality is that they don’t need to be mutually exclusive. If the “elements” from which the creation was organized are eternal in nature then the creation is also eternal in nature, yet created.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Bill,
why did Jesus not ensure all of His followers would have access to the truth?
In other words, why did He create an institution that would leave His followers without the truth for 1700 years?
Saying that it was not Jesus’ who failed but His followers who failed to follow Him begs the question.
Jesus is perfect and all-powerful, but He could not ensure sinful man would have access to salvation? Why not?
The Jesus I believe in never deserted His followers. He gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them. I agree some fell away. I have never seen convincing evidence that they all fell away. The fact that traditional Christians do not agree with Joseph Smith is a sign that Joseph Smith got it wrong not that Jesus’ Church deserted Him.
The Jeus I believe in could and did provide His followers with the truth from the time He began His public life to the present. I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Eddie I am away for a few days. I will answer your questions when I return. Sorry for the delay.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:04 am
The temples and temple work insure that every man , women and child who has ever lived will have access to the knowledge and choice about Jesus and his Church and Gospel.
Traditional Christianity provides no rememdy for those who never heard of Jesus Christ. The fact that traditional Christians don’t know what to make of 1st Cor 15:29 shows that they have lost something over the years. But it is restored.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:06 am
To say that an apostasy means that Jesus failed is like saying that because a man dies he is forever lost.
The gates of hell will not prevail because the Church and Kingdom is restored just as hell will not claim the dead because there is a resurrection.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Eddie,
I’m a little late with this response but I just got back in town for one day and one day only but wanted to clarify something.
Peter and James visited Joseph Smith in the form of resurrected beings with flesh and bone. John, according to scripture, has not yet tasted death and was commissioned to tarry on the Earth as a quickened (also known as translated, as was Enoch) being. Since all of these heavenly messengers had tangible bodies of flesh and bone they could not be Satan or one of his minion as they were cast out of the presence of God before the foundations of the Earth were laid, “keeping not their first estate” (Jude 6) and being denied physical bodies. The original Apostles appeared from the heavens and laid their hands upon the heads of these pioneers of the Restoration and bestowed upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood. Besides the testimony of the Spirit this is physical evidence. If you want to read about the miracles that followed I would suggest reading the six-volume history of the church and the miraculous deeds witnessed by the members in the early days (of which there were numerous witnesses). But miracles in and of themselves do not convert – one must first have faith in most cases. As pointed out in the Bible faith precedes the miracle and where there is no faith there is no miracle. However, I too am a living witness of miracles, both recipient and vessel in the Hands of God through His Priesthood power.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:30 am
E: why did Jesus not ensure all of His followers would have access to the truth?
GB: He does! There have been literally Billions of people who have lived on this earth that never heard of Jesus Christ or His gospel. Being the loving God that He is, God has provided a way for all to hear the Gospel and given the opportunity of accepting it or rejecting it.
Between His death and resurrection, Jesus organized and authorized the preaching of the Gospel to the spirits of the dead in the spirit world. Some of these people were those that perished in the great Flood. (See 1 Pet 3:18-20, and 1 Pet 4:6)
E: In other words, why did He create an institution that would leave His followers without the truth for 1700 years?
GB: The problem wasn’t with the “institution”. The problem was with the people. The people rejected the gospel message and murdered the apostles. Jesus and the apostles and prophets all foretold that this rejection would occur. I can repost a list of scriptural references if you like.
The restoration of the Gospel in the latter-days was also foretold. I can post a list of scriptural references if you like.
E: Saying that it was not Jesus’ who failed but His followers who failed to follow Him begs the question.
GB: How so. Does God use force to make people accept Him? Does God prevent people from choosing and doing evil? No! God compensates for it. In this case He knew the people would reject His gospel. So He planned ahead for the restoration.
E: Jesus is perfect and all-powerful, but He could not ensure sinful man would have access to salvation? Why not?
GB: See above.
E: The Jesus I believe in never deserted His followers. He gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them. I agree some fell away. I have never seen convincing evidence that they all fell away.
GB: And the Jews never saw convincing evidence that Jesus was the messiah either.
E: The fact that traditional Christians do not agree with Joseph Smith is a sign that Joseph Smith got it wrong not that Jesus’ Church deserted Him.
GB: Does the fact that traditional Jews do not agree with Jesus Christ mean that Jesus got it wrong? Your logic is flawed.
E: The Jeus I believe in could and did provide His followers with the truth from the time He began His public life to the present. I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
GB: Humm. Protestants believe that the Catholics are wrong and that the Catholics believe that the Protestants are wrong and there are numerous churches that claim to be true and that all others are wrong and there are numerous preachers that claim to preach the true gospel and that all the others are wrong isn’t evidence that an apostasy occurred?
The numerous prophecies of the apostasy should be reason to believe I would think.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Is the fact that there are now at least three different churches that claim to be the true church started by Joseph Smith a sign that the apostasy has occurred again and that the truths revealed to Joseph Smith have now been lost because of these apostasies? How is one to know which of the churches that claim to be Smith’s true followers is correct? How does one know that they are not all wrong?
Please do not talk about the warm feeling one receives when one reads the BOM and prays to God. I get that feeling when I receive Communion in my Church. You have a feeling resulting in a conviction. So does everyone else. Feelings only prove that the mind and free will are at work.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
eddie,
Jesus Christ gave Peter and the other apostles the keys (authority) of the kingdom of God (the church).
Those keys were lost to the world with the disappearance of the apostles.
Peter, James and John were sent by Jesus Christ to give those keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
Those keys were also given to all of the members of the quorum of the twelve when it was organized under the direction of Jesus Christ.
Where those keys are, is where the true church is. Although at least 12 men hold those keys only one is authorized to exercise all of those keys. That one man is the senior apostle.
Brigham Young as the President of the Quorum of the twelve was the senior apostle at the death of Joseph Smith.
And so this is how the Lord has set up the succession of leadership in His church. This was revealed to Joseph Smith.
All those who reject the authority and doctrine of the one man authorized by God to exercise all of the keys of the kingdom of God are apostates and they are rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith in this area.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Joseph Smith once told the church that if some, or a large group, should stray from the church as it was reorganized by Jesus Christ through him that the church should go the way that the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles go and in that way they would never be deceived as to where the keys of the kingdom lie. The keys are held by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a group but are all of them held by one man individually, the prophet. These keys are conferred by the group onto one man. In this way the keys of the Priesthood of God will never again be taken from the Earth and the Saints will always know who it is that truly holds the keys. Therefore, all groups that have strayed from this principle as declared by Joseph Smith are apostate.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Fine as far as you go. But the way you say Smith set up the LDS, is the same way Jesus set up His Church. If Smith’s way is different from Jesus’ way, please explain the difference.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Jesus set up His church with the foundation being apostles and prophets.
Eph. 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief ccorner stone;
Notice that the foundation IS the apostles and prophets, NOT the writings of the apostles and prophets.
Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom (the power to bind and loose in heaven) to Peter
Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
These keys were given to all of the apostles.
Matt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The office of apostle is to remain in the true church that Jesus organized until we all come in the unity of the faith.
Eph 4:11 And he (Jesus) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 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:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
The apostles had the primary responsibility to maintain pure doctrine. Paul warned that without apostles and prophets the saints would be “carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”
If you study the New Testament it is obvious that the apostles had authority over all of the churches. They were the central or general authorities. All local authorities were subordinate to the apostles. Jesus revealed to the apostles whom He wanted to replace Judas. Setting up a pattern of calling a new apostle when one died or in nearly all cases murdered.
When Jesus wanted to extent the blessings of the Gospel to the Gentiles, He through a dream to Peter (the senior apostle) gave a revelation doing it. Only the apostles could authorize the change.
When it came to deciding whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumsized it was the apostles who were authorized to declare the doctrine.
This Biblical pattern continues today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Bill,
It also continues in the Church Jesus founded.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Eddie,
You are so right! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by Jesus Christ. He sits at the head of it.
If you are referring to the Roman Church, where are the apostles and prophets? In an interview in Time Magazine in April 1980 Pope John Paul II said that he was no prophet. You see there is a requirement to being an apostle and that is that they must be a special witness to the Savior. That means they no longer walk by faith in Him but rather have a sure knowledge of Him. For they have seen Him.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Since Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and told Peter whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven, it was up to Peter to decide how the Church would be run. This included determining how his successor as chief of the apostles would be chosen. Each subsequent successor to Peter had the same authority as Peter. All of Peter’s successors are well known. It is also well known that Pope Benedict XVI is Peter’s successor. If Peter’s successor’s could become unfaithful so could Joseph Smith’s successors. You sound as though you are concentrating on words. Jesus never spoke the word apostle nor the word prophet. These are translations of translations. You seem to be emphasizing form over substance.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Can you tell me when and where and how many times Jesus appeared and spoke to Joseph Smith?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Eddie: Since Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and told Peter whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven, it was up to Peter to decide how the Church would be run. This included determining how his successor as chief of the apostles would be chosen.
GB: Actually, Peter was entitled to direct revelation from Jesus Christ regarding passing on the keys. After all it was Jesus’ church.
A question for you eddie, if Peter passed on his apostolic keys, why wasn’t the recipient called an apostle?
The fact of the matter is that Peter didn’t pass on his keys. With his passing the keys were taken from the earth.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
eddie,
I don’t have time to give you a full response right now. Please be patient, for I will reply.
GB
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
It was up to Peter and his successors to determine what term was to be used to identify successors to Peter and the other apostles. He and his successors were given that authority by Jesus. Consequently, if Peter or one of his successors decided to use a term different from apostles, they were acting within their authority. Peter could have called the successors to the apostles leaders and it would not have made them any less successors to the apostles. The decision on what to call successors to the apostles belong to Peter and his successors.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 am
Also, Peter may have been entitled to direct revelation (whatever you may mean by that term), but direct revelation was not necessary for Peter to carry out his responsibilities to our Lord and His Church.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
eddie: Can you tell me when and where and how many times Jesus appeared and spoke to Joseph Smith?
GB: eddie, there are at least three occasions that I am aware of.
The first was in the spring of 1820 in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York.
Again on Feb 16, 1832, in Hiram, Ohio.
And then again Apr 3, 1836, in Kirkland Ohio.
All three of these events are documented in the LDS canon of scripture.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Eddie,
When Jesus organized His church He called and ordained apostles and gave them the keys of the kingdom. With those keys the apostles were second in authority in the church ONLY to Jesus Himself. On this I think we can agree. (also see 1 Cor 12:28)
When Judas fell and killed himself, his position or office need to be filled with another and this was done (see Acts 1).
The apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church with Jesus being the Chief Corner Stone. Eph 2:19-20
These offices of apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church and these offices were to remain in the church until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. (see Eph 4:11-13)
The apostles had the primary responsibility to maintain doctrinal purity. (see Eph 4:14)
This is what the Bible clearly and plainly declares.
Who (also when and where) overrode this Biblical pattern and where is it documented?
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
eddie,
I will also add that Eph 4:14 is a warning what would happen to the church in the absence of apostles and prophets.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Bill, are you going to address the point I made below?
It was up to Peter and his successors to determine what term was to be used to identify successors to Peter and the other apostles. He and his successors were given that authority by Jesus. Consequently, if Peter or one of his successors decided to use a term different from apostles, they were acting within their authority. Peter could have called the successors to the apostles leaders and it would not have made them any less successors to the apostles. The decision on what to call successors to the apostles belong to Peter and his successors.
Peter and his successors have used the authority given them by Christ to lead the Church through the centuries. The Church still calls it leaders successors to the apostoles. That is why the Creed talks the apostolic Church.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Eddie,
What is your source for the above statement. I believe this is assumption on your part. Christ’s church is unchanging, therefore, whether you call them by different names or not is irrelevant. The organization, however, was Christ’s alone. Where are the 12 apostles? In the New Testament there were never more than twelve and when one died another was called to replace him - I believe that there are many more cardinals than twelve. As mentioned above, Pope John Paul II admitted that he was no prophet and yet the Lord’s church was to have at it’s foundation apostles and prophets according to Ephesians 2:20.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
eddie: Bill, are you going to address the point I made below?
GB: eddie, I thought I had addressed this question before you asked it. Please see the last sentence of my May 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm post.
Let me know if this doesn’t satisfy you.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I have never seen anywhere in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition where Christ limited the number of Apostles to 12.
Also, if you count Paul as an Apostle, as is stated in Sacred Scripture, than there were at least 13 Apostles.
Also, Peter could decide if more than 13 apostles were needed. Afterall, he was told whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven. I have never seen anywhere in Sacred Scripture or in Sacred Tradition that Peter’s authority to bind was limited. This means Peter could easily have decided to have more Apostles than Christ had originally selected.
Consequently, I cannot understand your point that Christ’s Church should limit its leadership to 12 men.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
12 was the specified number by Jesus Christ because the 12 were to be judges in Israel. As there were Twelve tribes of Israel there were 12 apostles who were to judge the the tribes in each generation (Matthew 19:28). By the election of Mathias to fill the spot of Judas in the original 12 (Acts 1:26) we see that the number 12 had a significant importance and the scripture in Matthew shows what that was. We do not know the circumstances of all the Apostles and whether some had passed on or not by the time Paul was ordained. It could be that Peter, James and John, at this time, formed the presidency of the church, therefore, leaving a vacuum in the 12. The fact is that there are never numbered more then 12 at one time in the scriptures.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Thanks Dennis, but that still does not address by two points that: 1) Sacred Scripture does not limit the number of Apostles to twelve; and 2) Peter had the authority to call apostles by a different name and he had the authority to increase the number of apostles.
I agree Jesus selected 12 apostles originally, but I have never seen where having more than 12 apostles was prohibited by Jesus or anyone else in the Bible. Even if there were a place in the Bible where such a limitation might be implied (I am not saying there is such a place), Peter had the authority to override such a prohibition.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Eddie, with all due respect, I have cited the rationale behind the 12 as Jesus himself set it. I feel the burden is on you to prove that Peter had the authority to change the basic structure of the Church as was set up perfectly by Jesus Christ. If Christ’s church was perfect the way He set it up could Peter, then, add to perfection?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
The perfection includes being able to address the needs of the Church as it grows. Jesus said whatever Peter bound on earth was bound in heaven. Therefore if Peter increased the number of apostles on earth, the increase was accepted in heaven. Jesus never said the number of apostles should be limited to twelve.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Eddie, what is your source for the above statement or is this your opinion? I’ve asked you to please back up your rationale. There is no evidence of Peter breaking this formula. We do not know that there were ever more then 12 at one time in the New Testament. We do not know that their ordination came ahead of other vacancies in the 12 due to death or other factors. It is possible as Peter, James and John assumed the duties of the Presidency of the Church that Apostles were called into the vacancy in the quorum - but this is speculation since the New Testament or no extant writings outside of modern revelation point to this. There were also other Priesthood offices besides that of apostle to fulfill the needs of the Church as it grew. Just as there is today.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Dennis, I do not argue with what you said. However, Peter was given the authority to run Christ’s Church. Historically, we know that there is an unbroken line of successor’s to Peter. All had and have the same authority Peter had. Consequently, the historical fact that Peter’s and the other apostles chose many successors is enough evidence that twelve was not some kind of magical number imposed by Christ on the Church.
You must believe your version or you cannot be LDS. However, the fact remains that Peter had the authority to allow there to be more than 12 apostles. Unless you can show me something that specifically (not something based on someone’s interpretation) limited Peter’s authority in this area, I will continue to believe in the Church Jesus started.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Further, if the perfection of the Church does not include being able to address the needs of the Church I would not call the Church perfect since it would be helpless to address its needs.
Also, my other comments come directly from my knowledge of the Bible. Christ gave Peter the authority and nowhere in the Bible does Christ limit Peter’s authority. What other sources are you looking for.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I guess what I am looking for, Eddie, is something out of the Bible that clearly shows that the number of Apostles ever numbered more then 12 at one time. I am just trying to understand the Catholic position here. At least I can, to some extent, understand your perspective as far as Apostlic succession is concerned. This is a doctrine completely foreign to the Protestants, which they deny and will fight about tooth and nail. Of course their very existence relies on this principle.
Our stance, as you are probably aware, is that the original church fell into apostasy and lost the Priesthood Authority and therefore had to be restored, which was done in the exact formula that Jesus prescribed. Your stance is that there was never an apostasy and the original keys are still held by the Pope. Either we are right and you are wrong or we are wrong and you are right. And in the words of one of your own clergymen, “the protestants haven’t a leg to stand on.” (The above was paraphrased from a conversation that Orson F. Whitney had with a Catholic dignitary visiting Salt Lake City many years ago and is quoted in LeGrand Richards, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”).
May 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Agree Dennis with your 526 pm. So, I guess we are at an impasse. Maybe I will return sometime to see how you are doing. I will say you are the most reasonable and knowledgeable LDS I have run into. God bless you.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Thanks Eddie,
I have, also, enjoyed chatting with you! Please feel free to stop by anytime. God bless you and yours as well!