Comparing the LDS/Mormon Church With the New Testament Church

[LivingWaters7]

It’s been awhile since I updated my blog, and I’m thinking of doing a series of blog posts on comparing the LDS church with the New Testament one (after the semester is done though ). In the mean time, I thought I’d start a thread on the subject.

LDS believe that their church is a restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. Their 6th article of faith states: “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.” Also, on the church’s beta version of mormon.org, we read: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the complete RESTORATION of Christ’s original Church on earth.”

This restoration is believed to not only be a restoration of priesthood authority, but also organization, doctrines, and ordinances/sacraments. In this thread I’d like to discuss whether that is actually the case.

Organization

LDS believe that their church is a restoration of the organization of the original Church of Jesus Christ. They often cite Ephesians 4:11 in support of the offices necessary in the true church: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;". There are multiple problems with citing this verse:

1. if these are the offices (i.e. priesthood offices) necessary for the true church, then the LDS church has a problem: “prophet” is not a priesthood office in their church, nor is “pastor”.

2)Further, there is no office of “evangelist”, though Joseph Smith decided to claim that a “patriarch” is an “evangelist”.

LDS also claim that the office of “Seventy” has been restored. But here’s the problem: there is no evidence that “seventy” was an actual priesthood office in the New Testament Church. What we do find in the Bible is that Jesus chose seventy (or seventy-two, depending on the translation) other disciples that were sent out two by two. Luke 10:1-"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.". As we see, there is no idea of “seventy” being a priesthood office that one was ordained to, but that there were literally seventy (numerically) disciples called and sent by Jesus Christ in pairs.

I think that’s enough to start.

 

[HojaVerde]

Hi LivingWaters7!

Another fundamental detail is that apostles appear here as having higher position than prophets. In the LDS Church they believe apostles are prophets, and at the same time the prophet (the president) is on the top, being more important than the lds apostles.

It will be interesting to study in depth the role that apostles had and why they had something they couldn’t transmit to their successors (being the foundation of the church, eye-witnesses of the Christ)… But I suppose this will come later on .

 

[angell1]

funny you should sstart a thred on this today.

I had a huge discussion yesterday with a Mormon acquaintance of mine on various things

he said that they believe that there is still chance of repentance after death and that no one really goes to hell, e.g. outer darkness unless they actively rebel against God like Satan did. everyone else goes to one of the kingdoms, celestial, terrestrial and eternal glory or something like that.

and the whole eternal marriage thing where I tried to explain that Jesus said there would be marriage in heaven but he seems to think that refers to “wordly marriage”, whatever that means. and he said that marriage is essential for heaven or else God wouldn’t have given adam eve and we shouldn’t be alone.

and we were debating the meaning of the word “saint” because for us, it means a person who has reached heaven but I know it is also used in scripture to refer to all believers. I don’t think I explained that one very well. maybe someone could help with that?

 

[LivingWaters7]

funny you should sstart a thred on this today.

I had a huge discussion yesterday with a Mormon acquaintance of mine on various things

he said that they believe that there is still chance of repentance after death and that no one really goes to hell, e.g. outer darkness unless they actively rebel against God like Satan did. everyone else goes to one of the kingdoms, celestial, terrestrial and eternal glory or something like that.

Yes, that is true.

and the whole eternal marriage thing where I tried to explain that Jesus said there would be marriage in heaven but he seems to think that refers to “wordly marriage”, whatever that means. and he said that marriage is essential for heaven or else God wouldn’t have given adam eve and we shouldn’t be alone.

Nowhere in the Bible do we see that the New Testament Christians believed that marriage is essential to eternal life. Perhaps we’ll discuss that further in the “ordinances/sacraments” section of this thread.

What you should emphasize is that we believe that all in Heaven are part of one family: Christ’s. All those in Heaven are together, and no one is kept away from each other. No one is “alone”. When LDS talk about sealing, it is often imagined that you’ll be with your nuclear family in Heaven. The problem is this: lets say I’m sealed to my parents. My parents are also sealed to their own parents. I go off and start my own family, and I’m sealed to my wife (who’s sealed to her own parents and siblings), and we’re sealed to our children, who then go on to get sealed to their own spouses and children, etc. So, the appeal to having an “eternal family” as a purported benefit of the restored gospel doesn’t work, because you end up with something very similar to what traditional Christians believe in the first place. As Catholics, we believe that those in Heaven are part of one divine family. You will not be separated from your spouse or your children (if you all receive eternal life). You will be with them, as well as everyone else.

and we were debating the meaning of the word “saint” because for us, it means a person who has reached heaven but I know it is also used in scripture to refer to all believers. I don’t think I explained that one very well. maybe someone could help with that?

Yes, Catholics use the word “saint” to refer to canonized saints, however we also use the word to refer to members of the Church wherever they are (on earth, in purgatory, and in Heaven). This belief is termed the “communion of saints”. The Church is a communion of saints which is on earth and transcends earth. We use the word just like how it’s used in the Bible, as well as how it has always been used in the Church for 2000 years. It is not only referring to canonized saints, though that is a commonly believed misunderstanding.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Hi LivingWaters7!

Another fundamental detail is that apostles appear here as having higher position than prophets. In the LDS Church they believe apostles are prophets, and at the same time the prophet (the president) is on the top, being more important than the lds apostles.

It will be interesting to study in depth the role that apostles had and why they had something they couldn’t transmit to their successors (being the foundation of the church, eye-witnesses of the Christ)… But I suppose this will come later on .

Yes that would be interesting. Nowhere in the Bible do we see that the Apostles were ordained Apostles, as if “Apostle” is a priesthood office (and if a LDS refers to the aforementioned Ephesians 4:11, then they should see what I stated in the OP-where are the priesthood offices of “pastor” and “prophet” that one is ordained to, following the same logic). Instead, it seems as if their priesthood office was that of “bishop” (Acts 1:20). Therefore, the Apostles transmitted their authority to their successors, bishops. To be one of the Twelve, we see in the New Testament the criteria that must be met, criteria that LDS apostles do not meet. Having said that, we also see that the word “apostle” refers to many others outside of the Twelve, and thus seems to be used as it is defined-“one who is sent”. So, while no one else can be considered to be one of the Twelve, there have been many others that are “sent”, and can therefore be referred to as “apostles”, and we see such usage in the Catholic Church today, such as various apostolates.

 

[gazelam]

It’s been awhile since I updated my blog, and I’m thinking of doing a series of blog posts on comparing the LDS church with the New Testament one (after the semester is done though ). In the mean time, I thought I’d start a thread on the subject.

LDS believe that their church is a restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. Their 6th article of faith states: “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.” Also, on the church’s beta version of mormon.org, we read: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the complete RESTORATION of Christ’s original Church on earth.”

This restoration is believed to not only be a restoration of priesthood authority, but also organization, doctrines, and ordinances/sacraments. In this thread I’d like to discuss whether that is actually the case.

Organization

LDS believe that their church is a restoration of the organization of the original Church of Jesus Christ. They often cite Ephesians 4:11 in support of the offices necessary in the true church: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;". There are multiple problems with citing this verse:

1. if these are the offices (i.e. priesthood offices) necessary for the true church, then the LDS church has a problem: “prophet” is not a priesthood office in their church, nor is “pastor”.

2)Further, there is no office of “evangelist”, though Joseph Smith decided to claim that a “patriarch” is an “evangelist”.

LDS also claim that the office of “Seventy” has been restored. But here’s the problem: there is no evidence that “seventy” was an actual priesthood office in the New Testament Church. What we do find in the Bible is that Jesus chose seventy (or seventy-two, depending on the translation) other disciples that were sent out two by two. Luke 10:1-"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.". As we see, there is no idea of “seventy” being a priesthood office that one was ordained to, but that there were literally seventy (numerically) disciples called and sent by Jesus Christ in pairs.

I think that’s enough to start.

For one thing it may be hard to compare the New Testament church since the NT alone leaves out some details. Catholic Answers (catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon) says this:

*In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices (Bishop, Priest, Deacon) were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.*

Another Catholic source says that the role of Evangelist was uncertain: newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm

One noteworthy similarity between the first century Christian Church and the LDS church is that it is lead by the senior (longest serving) apostle. Note how Peter is always called first and generally listed first in Matthew 4:18-20; Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13.

Regarding the Seventy, there is a precedence in the Old Testament for calling seventy to assist with ecclesiastical duties in Exodus 24:1, 9 and Numbers 11:16, 24, 25.

LDS believe that callings, such as, bishops, stake presidents, elders quorum presidents, and high priest group leaders fill the role of “pastor” as listed in Ephesians 4:11, as they have a specific role to watch over the local membership.

Also, regarding the LDS belief that bishops do not organizationally replace apostles one only needs to look at Ignatius who was the third Bishop of Antioch… He said, "Shall I reach such a pitch of presumption…as to issue orders to you as if I were an apostle?” (Ignatius, Epistola ad Philadelphenses 4, I PG 5:828) He clearly didn’t believe he filled the role of an apostle.

 

[LivingWaters7]

For one thing it may be hard to compare the New Testament church since the NT alone leaves out some details. Catholic Answers (catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon) says this:

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices (Bishop, Priest, Deacon) were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

I agree with all of above. The point of this thread is that LDS claim that their church is a restoration of the original one established by Jesus Christ anciently (i.e., the New Testament Church). They often use many references, including Biblical and early Christian writings, to support that belief. In this thread I would like to see if the LDS church really is what it claims to be.

Another Catholic source says that the role of Evangelist was uncertain: newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm

In reading that, I don’t see it stating that the role of the Evangelist was uncertain. It states, “It seems to indicate not so much an order in the early ecclesiastical hierarchy as a function.” (“it” referring to the New Testament). Curious that you would cite this article, when Joseph Smith claimed that an Evangelist is a Patriarch, and that Patriarch is a priesthood office or “order”. The article further states this:

**"The Apostles, indeed, were evangelists, inasmuch as they preached the Gospel (Acts 8:25; 14:20; 1 Corinthians 1:17); Philip likewise was both a deacon (Acts 6:5) and an evangelist (Acts 8:4-5; 8:40; 21:8); in like manner was St. Timothy exhorted by St. Paul to do the work of an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5).

From the various statements contained in the New Testament, we may gather with some probability that evangelists were travelling missionaries, occasionally solemnly set apart, as seems to have been the case with Sts. Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3), to go about and preach the Gospel, yet sometimes with a settled place of abode, as Philip at Cæsarea, and Timothy at Ephesus. They were endowed with a special charisma to preach to those unacquainted with the Christian Faith and pave the way for the more thorough and systematic work of the pastors and teachers."**

So, I’m not sure where you get from that article that the role of the Evangelist was uncertain (did you read it?). The Encyclopedia delineates the role of the Evangelists in the early Church, and it certainly was not what Patriarchs in the LDS church do.

One noteworthy similarity between the first century Christian Church and the LDS church is that it is lead by the senior (longest serving) apostle. Note how Peter is always called first and generally listed first in Matthew 4:18-20; Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13.

Catholics agree that Peter was the chief Apostle. We believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter, and his primacy has always been present down to this day.

Regarding the Seventy, there is a precedence in the Old Testament for calling seventy to assist with ecclesiastical duties in Exodus 24:1, 9 and Numbers 11:16, 24, 25.

Yes, I am aware of the Old Testament references. However, they do not support the LDS office of Seventy anymore than the reference to Christ calling seventy (or seventy-two, depending on the translation) disciples in the New Testament. My point made on that in the OP still remains: there is no evidence that the New Testament Church had an office of Seventy that one was ordained to. Instead, in both the Old and New Testaments, we see the calling of seventy (numerically) disciples, not ordination to an office entitled “Seventy”.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LDS believe that callings, such as, bishops, stake presidents, elders quorum presidents, and high priest group leaders fill the role of “pastor” as listed in Ephesians 4:11, as they have a specific role to watch over the local membership.

Yes, Catholics would agree with such a usage (we often refer to the parish priest as the “pastor”). The problem, as mentioned in the OP, is that LDS quite commonly use Ephesians 4:11 as a proof text for the belief that the church should always have apostles and prophets, claiming that the offices of the church are delineated in Ephesians 4:11. As mentioned in the OP, “prophet” is not a priesthood office in the LDS church, nor is “pastor”, and as mentioned, Joseph Smith redefined “evangelist” to mean “patriarch” (which certainly is not evident in the New Testament Church). So, those LDS that use Ephesians 4:11 as a proof text for the priesthood offices required to be found in the true Church must do redefining and further explanation for it to fit the LDS church itself.

Also, regarding the LDS belief that bishops do not organizationally replace apostles one only needs to look at Ignatius who was the third Bishop of Antioch… He said, "Shall I reach such a pitch of presumption…as to issue orders to you as if I were an apostle?” (Ignatius, Epistola ad Philadelphenses 4, I PG 5:828) He clearly didn’t believe he filled the role of an apostle.

Catholics would claim that the Apostles were Bishops, but not all Bishops are Apostles. What is important is the priesthood office, and we believe, as we see in the Bible, that the priesthood office of the Apostles was that of Bishop (Acts 1:20). Therefore, that priesthood office continues down to this day.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Priesthood and Ordinances

The LDS church claims that the priesthood of God was restored in the 1800s through John the Baptist (who restored the Aaronic Priesthood), and Peter, James, and John (who restored the Melchizedek Priesthood). Where do we see two priesthoods, an Aaronic and a Melchizedek, in the New Testament and early Christian Church? Were the priesthood of Aaron part of the New Testament Church? I do not see that.

The LDS church also performs a number of ordinances. These include:

-baptism
-confirmation
-priesthood ordination (for men)
-the sacrament (i.e. the Lord’s Supper)
-sealing (eternal marriage)
-the endowment (which includes a washing and anointing initiatory ordinance, as well as clothing in a white garment)

LDS believe that to receive eternal life, in addition to being baptized and confirmed, one must also receive the ordinances of priesthood ordination (for men), as well as the temple ordinances of the endowment and sealing to your spouse. When we look at the New Testament and early Christian Church, we see no belief that to receive eternal life you have to be ordained to the priesthood. We do not see that to receive eternal life one has to be sealed to a spouse for eternity. We do not see that to receive eternal life one has to participate in a temple endowment, where the plan of salvation is presented, they enter into various covenants, and they learn various signs and tokens that are necessary to pass the angels on the way to Heaven (whether this is understood to be symbolic or not). The ancient Church had no understanding of learning signs and tokens as part of what is necessary to receive eternal life.

None of these things are actually a restoration of beliefs and practices of the Church that Christ established anciently.

 

[dcana]

Yes, that is true.

Nowhere in the Bible do we see that the New Testament Christians believed that marriage is essential to eternal life. Perhaps we’ll discuss that further in the “ordinances/sacraments” section of this thread.

What you should emphasize is that we believe that all in Heaven are part of one family: Christ’s. All those in Heaven are together, and no one is kept away from each other. No one is “alone”. When LDS talk about sealing, it is often imagined that you’ll be with your nuclear family in Heaven. The problem is this: lets say I’m sealed to my parents. My parents are also sealed to their own parents. I go off and start my own family, and I’m sealed to my wife (who’s sealed to her own parents and siblings), and we’re sealed to our children, who then go on to get sealed to their own spouses and children, etc. So, the appeal to having an “eternal family” as a purported benefit of the restored gospel doesn’t work, because you end up with something very similar to what traditional Christians believe in the first place. As Catholics, we believe that those in Heaven are part of one divine family. You will not be separated from your spouse or your children (if you all receive eternal life). You will be with them, as well as everyone else.

Yes, Catholics use the word “saint” to refer to canonized saints, however we also use the word to refer to members of the Church wherever they are (on earth, in purgatory, and in Heaven). This belief is termed the “communion of saints”. The Church is a communion of saints which is on earth and transcends earth. We use the word just like how it’s used in the Bible, as well as how it has always been used in the Church for 2000 years. It is not only referring to canonized saints, though that is a commonly believed misunderstanding.

There is no reference anywhere in the NT (certainly) or in early Christian writings (I can only assume) of people being “sealed” to other people.

 

[dcana]

funny you should sstart a thred on this today.

I had a huge discussion yesterday with a Mormon acquaintance of mine on various things

he said that they believe that there is still chance of repentance after death and that no one really goes to hell, e.g. outer darkness unless they actively rebel against God like Satan did. everyone else goes to one of the kingdoms, celestial, terrestrial and eternal glory or something like that.

That is wildly at variance with multiple sayings of Jesus and the writings of the ECF’s.

 

[dcana]

How about the “secret handshakes” and the other aspects that were culled from freemasonry? Not in the NT or in the ECF’s, obviously.

 

[gazelam]

Organization

LDS believe that their church is a restoration of the organization of the original Church of Jesus Christ. They often cite Ephesians 4:11 in support of the offices necessary in the true church: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;". There are multiple problems with citing this verse:

1. if these are the offices (i.e. priesthood offices) necessary for the true church, then the LDS church has a problem: “prophet” is not a priesthood office in their church, nor is “pastor”.

2)Further, there is no office of “evangelist”, though Joseph Smith decided to claim that a “patriarch” is an “evangelist”.

I would say it’s a legitimate statement to say that Ephesians 4:11 is cited to support necessary structure (i.e., priesthood offices, callings, etc.) but not to say it’s cited to support necessary priesthoods offices. I’d be interested to see statements to that effect. In the book “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce R. McConkie in page 605 it states that a prophet is a person who knows by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the son of God. “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”. (Revelation 19:10) It goes on to say "Nothing more than the testimony of Jesus is needed to make a person a prophet. (There’s more on the topic I’m not including.)

 

[gazelam]

In reading that, I don’t see it stating that the role of the Evangelist was uncertain. It states, “It seems to indicate not so much an order in the early ecclesiastical hierarchy as a function.” (“it” referring to the New Testament). Curious that you would cite this article, when Joseph Smith claimed that an Evangelist is a Patriarch, and that Patriarch is a priesthood office or “order”. The article further states this:

**"The Apostles, indeed, were evangelists, inasmuch as they preached the Gospel (Acts 8:25; 14:20; 1 Corinthians 1:17); Philip likewise was both a deacon (Acts 6:5) and an evangelist (Acts 8:4-5; 8:40; 21:8); in like manner was St. Timothy exhorted by St. Paul to do the work of an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5).

From the various statements contained in the New Testament, we may gather with some probability that evangelists were traveling missionaries, occasionally solemnly set apart, as seems to have been the case with Sts. Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3), to go about and preach the Gospel, yet sometimes with a settled place of abode, as Philip at Cæsarea, and Timothy at Ephesus. They were endowed with a special charisma to preach to those unacquainted with the Christian Faith and pave the way for the more thorough and systematic work of the pastors and teachers."**

So, I’m not sure where you get from that article that the role of the Evangelist was uncertain (did you read it?). The Encyclopedia delineates the role of the Evangelists in the early Church, and it certainly was not what Patriarchs in the LDS church do.

IMHO, statements, such as, “It seems to indicate not so much an order”, and “we may gather with some probability” show a degree of uncertainty.

 

[gazelam]

Catholics would claim that the Apostles were Bishops, but not all Bishops are Apostles. What is important is the priesthood office, and we believe, as we see in the Bible, that the priesthood office of the Apostles was that of Bishop (Acts 1:20). Therefore, that priesthood office continues down to this day.

Not all Bishops are Apostles?

Catholic Answers says this (catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession):

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

Also, regarding Acts 1:20 equating an apostle with a bishop there are several translations, including from among Catholic sources.

Douay Rheims

For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

NABRE (from USCCB website)

For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office’.

The word in question is “episkopēn”.

This link (biblehub.com/text/acts/1-20.htm) suggests that the meaning could be “position”.

So, I’m not an expert in ancient Greek, but there currently is no unanimity (at least on line) regarding how to best translate that word.

Also, Louis Duchesne (priest and historian) was perplexed by the fact that the great bishopric of Rome was fully equipped with the offices and machinery necessary for the administration of a city bishopric, but not had not the slightest trace of equipment, assistants, and traditions for running a church. (Origines du Culte Chretien, 15,16)

 

[gazelam]

Priesthood and Ordinances

The LDS church claims that the priesthood of God was restored in the 1800s through John the Baptist (who restored the Aaronic Priesthood), and Peter, James, and John (who restored the Melchizedek Priesthood). Where do we see two priesthoods, an Aaronic and a Melchizedek, in the New Testament and early Christian Church? Were the priesthood of Aaron part of the New Testament Church? I do not see that.

The Aaronic (or Leviical) priesthood is mentioned in Hebrews 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?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Note that the lower priesthood changed, meaning that it’s still around and therefore part of the New Testament church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Aaronic (or Leviical) priesthood is mentioned in Hebrews 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?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Note that the lower priesthood changed, meaning that it’s still around and therefore part of the New Testament church.

Continue reading. Jesus is the High Priest forever, fulfilling the Levitical priesthood, which is no longer needed.

 

[Alma147]

Continue reading. Jesus is the High Priest forever, fulfilling the Levitical priesthood, which is no longer needed.

Kinda kills the plain meaning of God’s words to Moses, though: Exodus 40:15

And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

I guess there aren’t any more generations of Aaron’s descendants?

AA

 

[thenobes]

Kinda kills the plain meaning of God’s words to Moses, though: Exodus 40:15

And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

I guess there aren’t any more generations of Aaron’s descendants?

AA

I guess not, else why would John the Baptist have to restore the priesthood?

peace,
steve

 

[Alma147]

I guess not, else why would John the Baptist have to restore the priesthood?

peace,
steve

Because neither Joseph Smith nor Oliver Cowdery were Levites.

AA