For JWs and LDS

[hosemonkey]

Did or did not Christ himself place limits on who the gospel was to be preached to at first?

Did or did not Christ compare the Samaritans to dogs?

Did or did not The Lord through Moses restrict the blessings of the priesthood to a specific linage for a very long time?

Anyone with a moderate understanding of the Bible knows the answers to this. yet you only apply the lets make them look racist skills to the LDS not to the Bible and its leaders you hold so dear.

Your right lets stop the charades. You cry foul for nearly the same behaviors our own savior engaged in, but only if a “mormon” does it.

That kind of discrimination was ancient history and perhaps had a reason, it is not my place to question Jesus Christ. However, while Joseph Smith was fabricating the mormon “religion” he had a real chance to bypass the racism of his time. He chose not only to include that racism, but to build upon it and emphasize it. Brigham Young added to it himself and subsequent mormon "prophets continued the practice. If Joseph Smith had been a true prophet, he would have righted that wrong, because it sure did not come from God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Justifying racism by twisting the Bible! Seems this has been done before.

 

[teancum79]

That kind of discrimination was ancient history and perhaps had a reason, it is not my place to question Jesus Christ. However, while Joseph Smith was fabricating the mormon “religion” he had a real chance to bypass the racism of his time. He chose not only to include that racism, but to build upon it and emphasize it. Brigham Young added to it himself and subsequent mormon "prophets continued the practice. If Joseph Smith had been a true prophet, he would have righted that wrong, because it sure did not come from God.

Oh okay so Christ was wrong and JS should have known better.

Thanks thats good to know.

 

[teancum79]

Justifying racism by twisting the Bible! Seems this has been done before.

There is no twisting of the Bible here. I simply extracted events from it.

 

[majick275]

There is no twisting of the Bible here. I simply extracted events from it.

and i showed specifically how you twisted them. you prove my case by insisting that jesus was racist.

 

[hosemonkey]

Oh okay so Christ was wrong and JS should have known better.

Thanks thats good to know.

Who said that Jesus Christ was wrong?
Joseph Smith was no prophet, he got too many things wrong.

 

[PaulDupre]

Did or did not Christ himself place limits on who the gospel was to be preached to at first?

Jesus himself was only sent to the House of Israel, those whom he had prepared in advance to hear his message. Jesus only had three years to proclaim the gospel and establish his Church. It was impractical for him to go outside of Israel. He left that to his Church, though he did on occasion teach non-Jews when he happened upon them, as I mention below.

Did or did not Christ compare the Samaritans to dogs?

No, that was a metaphor Jesus used when teaching a Canaanite woman, not a Samaritan. She understood his meaning and did not seem offended by it. He praised the Good Samaritan of his parable. He taught and prophesied to the Samaritan woman at the well, then stayed for several days and taught the whole village. Jesus only judged people’s behavior, not their race. In fact, there really was no concept of race back then. The idea of different races as we have it now was invented by the slave traders of the 16th century, and only capitalized upon by the Mormons.

Did or did not The Lord through Moses restrict the blessings of the priesthood to a specific linage for a very long time?

The blessings of the Levitical priesthood? You mean the inability to own land? The day-in and day-out slaughtering of animals? The smell of blood and feces and burned hides that never quite goes away? Those blessings? The Levitical priesthood, like all priesthood, is a duty of service (grueling service in the case of the Levites) and not a position of power and prestige. Don’t romanticize it.

Anyone with a moderate understanding of the Bible…

I think that excludes you.

… knows the answers to this. yet you only apply the lets make them look racist skills to the LDS not to the Bible and its leaders you hold so dear.

Yes, I do hold the bible and its leaders dear. Sorry you don’t. You only think the bible is racist because you are superimposing false LDS interpretations onto it. It is nothing of the sort. The law of Moses was incredibly enlightened for its time and was a revolutionary leap forward in social justice. The New Testament was even more so.

Your right lets stop the charades. You cry foul for nearly the same behaviors our own savior engaged in, but only if a “mormon” does it.

I’m sorry you think the savior was a racist. But then, you think he was a polygamist, too. Your leaders believed and taught that the apostles were a bunch of thugs who practiced blood atonement. Your organization’s view of the bible is deeply perverted.

 

[RebeccaJ]

teancum, please read the attached homily, by Auxilary Bishop Joseph Perry (who happens to be African American).

And then I suggest you think about what you are saying, and if you would say it to Jesus’ himself, or to a man such as Bishop Perry.

 

[rmcmullan]

Is that what Mormons believe?
…
The Jewish hierarchy’s rejecting Christ had nothing to do with their loss of authority. All authority was now in the hands of the apostles and those they would ordain, through the one priesthood of Jesus, the one after the order of Melchizadek.

By the way, whom does the LDS organization believe Melchizadek to be?

Paul

I guess I’m confused. For some reason I got it into my head that you were previously LDS. From your questions, it looks like I was wrong.

LDS still believe in the authority of the Levitical priesthood but it is a lower priesthood than the Melchezidek priesthood. The LDS understanding of Melchezidek (mostly from Hebrews 7) is that he held a higher priesthood and it is the same priesthood that Jesus restored.

So do RC believe their priests hold the Melchezidec priesthood? And that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was done away with? Or did only Jesus hold this priesthood and RC priests hold an unnamed priesthood and the layity no priesthood at all?​

This thread is getting to be a mess, I appreciate your perseverance.

 

[teancum79]

Jesus himself was only sent to the House of Israel, those whom he had prepared in advance to hear his message. Jesus only had three years to proclaim the gospel and establish his Church. It was impractical for him to go outside of Israel. He left that to his Church, though he did on occasion teach non-Jews when he happened upon them, as I mention below.

No, that was a metaphor Jesus used when teaching a Canaanite woman, not a Samaritan. She understood his meaning and did not seem offended by it. He praised the Good Samaritan of his parable. He taught and prophesied to the Samaritan woman at the well, then stayed for several days and taught the whole village. Jesus only judged people’s behavior, not their race. In fact, there really was no concept of race back then. The idea of different races as we have it now was invented by the slave traders of the 16th century, and only capitalized upon by the Mormons.

The blessings of the Levitical priesthood? You mean the inability to own land? The day-in and day-out slaughtering of animals? The smell of blood and feces and burned hides that never quite goes away? Those blessings? The Levitical priesthood, like all priesthood, is a duty of service (grueling service in the case of the Levites) and not a position of power and prestige. Don’t romanticize it.

I think that excludes you.

Yes, I do hold the bible and its leaders dear. Sorry you don’t. You only think the bible is racist because you are superimposing false LDS interpretations onto it. It is nothing of the sort. The law of Moses was incredibly enlightened for its time and was a revolutionary leap forward in social justice. The New Testament was even more so.

I’m sorry you think the savior was a racist. But then, you think he was a polygamist, too. Your leaders believed and taught that the apostles were a bunch of thugs who practiced blood atonement. Your organization’s view of the bible is deeply perverted.

Paul you apparent inability to look past your bitterness towards the Lord church is sad. I’ve been about as plan as I can be yet you continue on with insults and falsehoods.

I do not think Christ is racist that is the title you applied to a behavior which both he and others have engaged in.

I am once again astounded at your ignorance of the Bible and its teachings.

 

[teancum79]

teancum, please read the attached homily, by Auxilary Bishop Joseph Perry (who happens to be African American).

And then I suggest you think about what you are saying, and if you would say it to Jesus’ himself, or to a man such as Bishop Perry.

I read through it I don’t see how it relates to the issue of people calling a behavior a sin when done by some people, but not a sin when done by others.

 

[teancum79]

Who said that Jesus Christ was wrong?
Joseph Smith was no prophet, he got too many things wrong.

Js was, but that is a separate issue. LDS church leaders are being condemned for behaviors done (in many cases in questionable records) that are very similar to behaviors done by Christ.

You don’t see the double standard?

 

[PaulDupre]

I guess I’m confused. For some reason I got it into my head that you were previously LDS. From your questions, it looks like I was wrong.

I was indeed LDS, but I can never assume that they still teach and believe what they did when I left in 1986. Their doctrines seem to be changing at breakneck speed. I just want to be sure. Also, some of my questions are, of necessity, rhetorical.

LDS still believe in the authority of the Levitical priesthood but it is a lower priesthood than the Melchezidek priesthood. The LDS understanding of Melchezidek (mostly from Hebrews 7) is that he held a higher priesthood and it is the same priesthood that Jesus restored.

So you don’t believe that Melchizedek (“King of Peace and Priest of the Most High God”) is the pre-existent Jesus Himself? We do.

So do RC believe their priests hold the Melchezidec priesthood?

Yes, the clergy share in a special way in the one priesthood of Christ.

And that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was done away with?

Yes.

Or did only Jesus hold this priesthood and RC priests hold an unnamed priesthood and the layity no priesthood at all?

No. Jesus is the only true Priest of the Most High God. RC Priests, as I’ve said, share in a special way in the priesthood of Christ, empowered to administer the sacraments and to govern the whole Church.

The Laity, male and female, also share in the priesthood of Christ. They bear the common priesthood of the baptized. They are empowered to bless and pray for all within their personal domain and church and civic duties. This priesthood also brings us to full and active participation in the mass.

This thread is getting to be a mess, I appreciate your perseverance.

You too.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I read through it I don’t see how it relates to the issue of people calling a behavior a sin when done by some people, but not a sin when done by others.

It relates, in that it shows you how Jesus was not acting as you are interpreting.

As has already been stated, Christ fulfilled prophecies found in the OT. He was Jewish, and came as the Jewish Messiah,in fulfillment of scripture.

Before His death He clearly indicated to the Apostles that He brought a New Covenant. He changed the feast of the Passover to teaching the Eucharist, with instructions to continue this Sacrament forever. At the time of His death, a great earthquake occurred and the veil in the temple was broken. Clearly He taught that He fulfilled Jewish prophecy, yet his Redemption is for ALL. He never degraded any one group of people, quite the opposite, He clarified the greatest commandment of all, to love our neighbor as our self.

How do you show love for neighbor?

What we are saying here, is that the teachings of Brigham Young, someone who you believe was a prophet, are not an indication of Christ’s teachings. They are the opposite. Bigotry is not love.

And there is nothing in your doctrine that explains why it was changed. Christ fulfilled prophecy and broke the chains of death. Where, your prophet Brigham Young taught that a person with the curse of Cain, dark skin, was doomed from before birth to never be with God and in the hereafter, was doomed to never reach godhood, and the highest a person of color could hope for was to be servant to those who were righteous and exalted.

This goes along with your BoM and teaching that people who are righteous have fair skin, and those cursed by God have dark skin.

You can try to explain it away now, but I grew up a Mormon, before the 1978 change. I know what I was taught. I am actually very glad that your church works at coming out this, but as long as there are these beliefs such as you are showing here, that racism and bigotry have to placed at the feet of Christ in order to justify your doctrines; it is only and indication that you haven’t made it out of darkness and into the light, not yet.

 

[rmcmullan]

So you don’t believe that Melchizedek (“King of Peace and Priest of the Most High God”) is the pre-existent Jesus Himself? We do.

See what you made me do? Bring out a smiley! What you are saying does make sense–about Jesus being the high priest and all. It is indeed a very different view of priesthood than the LDS view. The layity shares the priesthood and the priests share that too but are empowered to perform sacraments. But that empowerment is not a priesthood. Yes, very different.

Okay so the big question is if there is no pre-existence how could Jesus be Melchizedek? Or was there a pre-existence for Jesus as in John 1?

 

[PaulDupre]

See what you made me do? Bring out a smiley! What you are saying does make sense–about Jesus being the high priest and all. It is indeed a very different view of priesthood than the LDS view. The layity shares the priesthood and the priests share that too but are empowered to perform sacraments. But that empowerment is not a priesthood. Yes, very different.

Where did I say it was not a priesthood? You are putting words in my mouth. Of course it is a priesthood - the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Jesus)!

Don’t the Mormon “elders”, bishops, stake presidents and apostles all hold the same Melchizedek priesthood, but just have different spheres of influence? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Did you think the Mormons were the first to think of this? Yes, you probably did.

Okay so the big question is if there is no pre-existence how could Jesus be Melchizedek? Or was there a pre-existence for Jesus as in John 1?

What would pre-existence (Mormon-style) have to do with this? Jesus is God, therefore he is eternal (no beginning, no end as Hebrews says). That is what John 1:1 means. So of course he always existed as God the Son before his incarnation.

 

[rmcmullan]

So Melchezidek is Jesus pre-existence name. Okay!

And Jesus is eternal but we are not.

It’s not too clear about the difference between the priests and the layity. The priests can perform ordinances and they use their priesthood to do that but the layity shares in that priesthood. Am I getting any closer here?

When a Catholic priest finishes his, uh, I dunno for sure here what it’s called, divinity school? When he finishes his studying and is allowed to say a mass and hear confession, what gives him the authority to do this but forbids the layity from it?

If you saw the Incredibles, there’s a scene there where the bad guy Synchros says he has a plan to give everybody super powers through his clever inventions and when that happens, when everybody has super powers, then nobody has super powers.

 

[PaulDupre]

So Melchezidek is Jesus pre-existence name. Okay!

No, Melchizedek is a name that Moses gave the figure who appeared to Abraham. It has several possible meanings, including “King of Peace”. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. That is a common LDS tactic. Cut it out.

And Jesus is eternal but we are not.

Correct. He is God, we are creatures.

It’s not too clear about the difference between the priests and the layity. The priests can perform ordinances and they use their priesthood to do that but the layity shares in that priesthood. Am I getting any closer here?

The priests administer sacraments, not ordinances. It is their ordained priesthood that authorizes them to do that (in the area in which they are incardinated).

The laity do not share in the priesthood of the priest - they share in the priesthood of Christ through their baptism. It is called the common priesthood of the baptized. The Early Church Fathers wrote about it quite a bit. I don’t know how many times or how many different ways I can say it. And I don’t understand why it confuses you so.

When a Catholic priest finishes his, uh, I dunno for sure here what it’s called, divinity school? When he finishes his studying and is allowed to say a mass and hear confession, what gives him the authority to do this but forbids the layity from it?

When a Catholic seminarian satisfactorily completes his seminary training and his diaconate, he is ordained a priest by his bishop through the laying on of hands. This authorizes him to administer the sacraments and to minister to anyone in the area in which he is incardinated (usually a specific diocese) under the direction of his bishop and his pastor.

If you saw the Incredibles, there’s a scene there where the bad guy Synchros says he has a plan to give everybody super powers through his clever inventions and when that happens, when everybody has super powers, then nobody has super powers.

Is that an allusion to the LDS priesthood?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Correct. He is God, we are creatures.

[sign]AMEN[/sign]
And let he who denies this be anathema!

 

[rmcmullan]

I have been thinking long and hard on this. I guess the only part I am still confused about is what you call the common priesthood of the baptised. It sort of sounds like the authority to mind your own business which everybody already has.It doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry, but if you can point me somewhere to read about it, I’d appreciate it.

Also, I was wondering why RAR keeps insisting there needs to be a ***total ***apostacy. I am thinking that as long as there is nobody to ordain to the priesthood–the one that the priests hold, that include (in LDS terms) the keys of church government–then there is an apostacy. It sounds like he is thinking along the lines that as long as there is someone to share in this common priesthood of the baptised, then there is no apostacy. Or am I stilll wrong on this?