LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[ParkerD]

Zerinus,

The Mormon doctrine of the Great Apostasy depends upon a crucial misunderstanding of divine covenants, which can be formally identified: it treats the Levitical covenant as if it were a treaty covenant, which can be lost due to human transgressions, when it is in fact a grant covenant without any stipulations that could cause the covenant to be forfeited by the people as a whole. Jeremiah understands the Levitical charter as a grant covenant, and he interprets the messianic kingdom in light of that understanding.

That the Levitical covenant has a grant form can be seen from the Torah alone. In Ex 16-24, before the Levite become priests, all the covenantal terms are conditional, treaty-type terms; Israel then violates those conditions in the episode of the Golden Calf and forfeits the covenant. Prior to the Calf, sacrifices were offered by the youths of Israel, the firstborn sons, who are set apart unto the Lord (Exod 13:2, 12-15; 22:29) Yet it is these youths who end up making offerings to the Golden Calf. For this reason, they lose their rights under the treaty covenant, and God cuts a new covenant with the Levites: “Behold I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb among the sons of Israel.” (Num 3:11) God renews the violated covenant with Israel by establishing a new priestly covenant with the Levites. That is why St. Paul can later say, “For the priesthood being transferred, there is necessarily a change of the Law as well.” (Heb 7:12; no other Biblical grounds for this claim exists.)

Because the Levites were faithful to God, dissented from worshipping the Golden Calf, and executing justice upon the perpetrators, God rewards them saying, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day.” As result this new covenant has the form of a reward to them, a pure blessing, and hence, it is now an unconditional grant covenant, a gift in response to past good actions. Notice its similarity, as well, to the Abrahamic grant, “Because you have not spared you son…”. Part of the blessing that God covenants to the Levites is the perpetuity of their priesthood on earth forever (Num 18:8, Lev 7:34).

What Jeremiah 33 does is confirm the covenantal status of this blessing on the Levites and then apply it to the Christian Church. Contrary to the wild claims of many theologians of the Second Great Awakening in early nineteenth-century New England, the restoration of Israel that ends the famine prophesied by Amos and other prophets is not a restoration that occurs in the future or the recent past but is clearly taught in the New Testament as consisting in the extension of the Church beyond Israel’s borders, grafting in the Gentiles among whom the Jews are dispersed, with no similar loss or dispersion to ever occur again. (Amos 9:11-12, 15; Acts 15:14-16). They don’t need to go back to Israel physically, because the New Israel comes to them spiritually. Jeremiah is writing about the same restoration of Israel. He begins with a Messianic prophesy of Christ’s coming Kingship, as then shows the power with which that Kingship will be established: by the very power and certainty of God’s covenant oaths, which entail a persistent, unbroken presence of the Levitical priests as servants of the Davidic King ruling in Zion.

Yet, Mormonism claims that the Levitical priesthood was taken from the earth, with no Levites left to minister, after the time of the Messiah. On what grounds? Because of human agency. But that is nothing in comparison to God’s own covenanted life-oath. Freedom can account for why individuals fall away, but the entire body of the Church as a whole is established by divine covenant. In the case of the perpetuity of priesthood, it is ensured by an unconditional grant, and hence cannot be lost even if men sin. If it were God would have violated his oath to the Levites, dissolving his own sovereignty as a false-swearer. Rather than accept this blasphemous claim, we must trust in God’s power to bring all his promises to pass even when men sin. That is what Paul means when he says, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Rom 3:4)

Here is the other post I was wanting to respond to. Perhaps there is a third, as I’m looking at the conversation.

 

[ParkerD]

Soren1,
As I have noted earlier, I would like to explore answers to your three posts including this one:

Originally Posted by soren1
The Mormon doctrine of the Great Apostasy is devoid of biblical evidence. They have about twenty or twenty-five proof texts for it, none of which come close to establishing a total apostasy, and many, such as Amos 8:11-12 and 2 Thess 2:3-4, if carefully examined, teach the opposite. A good review of the Mormon Biblical arguments can be found in Isaiah Bennett’s book Inside Mormonism. He lists each of the prominent proof-texts used by the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sainst and gives an exegesis of each that proves devastating for the Mormon position. I do have some criticism for other parts of Bennett’s book, and he does miss a spot here and there. But he is almost exhaustive, and the two or three Mormon proof-texts that he overlooks can be easily answered by anyone who has read and thought through the verses that he does cover.

Catholics are sometimes surprised that Mormons are not easily impressed by some of the Biblical passages that we use to demonstrate the error of the Great Apostasy. One (but not the only) reason for this is that Catholics are not always know the right details of LDS Apostasy doctrine, and therefore do not clearly show the Mormons how the relevant verses connect point-for-point with LDS teaching.

A crucial feature of the Great Apostasy, which Catholics need to be aware of and actively engage in their discussions with Mormons, is that the falling away of the Church entailed a removal of priesthood authority from the earth. No matter how a plain a given text may seem to a Catholic, it will not look convincing to a Mormon unless the Catholic shows what it has to do with the priesthood as Mormons conceive of it. Catholics are so used to responding to Protestants by arguing that the Church cannot fail, they do not realize that for Mormons the winning thesis is that the priesthood cannot be removed from the earth. This is a costly oversight, particularly because the perpetuity of the priesthood is actually more explicit in Scripture than is the perpetuity of the Church.

Many texts prove this, but the one that I think takes the least skill to argue is a prophecy in Jer 33. Before showing this passage to a Mormon, it is helpful but not necessary to review a few key points:

(1) the Church is Zion, the Kingdom of God;
(2) Christ inherits the Kingdom as the Son of David;
(3) God is absolutely faithful to his covenants even in the case of human failure. For instance, when he swear to give Abraham innumerable descendants as a reward for his faith fidelity, then it is a done deal. Even if Abraham’s descendants sin, and are rejected by God, then God will still find a way to make good on his pledge.

Mormons are not likely to disagree with any of these points. It is important to bring them up, however, because having these points explicitly on the table will help them see the significance of the following words from Jeremiah:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them. Jer 33:14-26

The Mormons claim that Smith the Restoration returned the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood to the world. But how could it have ever been gone in light of the covenants outlined above?

By contrast, this text is no problem for Catholics, as we believe all the powers and sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood are present in fulfillment in the Catholic priesthood, who have always been present to serve the New David, who is Christ.

 

[SirThomasMore]

the word should have been “victor” I am awful at typing

 

[ParkerD]

Soren1,
I have read the three posts that I placed successively earlier today, and agree with much of what you wrote, but I think the major points of disagreement are–

1. Whether the prophecy in Jeremiah 33, given the context of the prophecies also of Hosea in the entire book of Hosea, can be considered to be completely fulfilled at the time of the apostles or even today. I don’t think they can be considered to be completely fulfilled. If so, many, many Jews would be believers in Christ and would have joined together with a recognized and known tribe of Ephraim into one united group with a leader to lead both covenant groups as one (that eventual leader will be Christ).
2. Whether the words of the following statement from you are correct (and which I disagree with):

Part of the blessing that God covenants to the Levites is the perpetuity of their priesthood on earth forever (Num 18:8, Lev 7:34).

Numbers 18:8 talks about an “anointing” “by an ordinance forever.” The ordinance is what lasts forever–the anointing ordinance. The LDS would of course say that this is similar to the temple ordinance wherein there is an anointing that takes place, and that anointing begins a forever covenant. So for the Levites and Aaron and his sons to have such an anointing ordinance comes as no surprise at all to LDS.

Leviticus 7:34 is talking about the “wave breast” and the “heave shoulder” that come from animal sacrifices, and says that those offerings “have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron … and his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel.” That statute is stated in verse 36 to be “in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.”

So as long as the children of Israel are offering sacrifices that include animal sacrifice, then that statute applies–yet even that must be done in righteousness, for you will recall that the sons of Eli were doing all sorts of wrong things with the animal sacrifices, and they lost all covenant blessings and were slain. (1 Samuel 2-4). That ought to give someone pause about whether the “covenant blessings” and the “covenant Levitical priesthood” are guaranteed or whether they are conditioned on righteousness.

 

[Returning_Home]

Numbers 18:8 talks about an “anointing” “by an ordinance forever.” The ordinance is what lasts forever–the anointing ordinance.

It’s odd that this, to LDS, means ‘forever,’ but D&C 132:4 being a ‘new and everlasting covenant’ actually means 47 years.

So as long as the children of Israel are offering sacrifices that include animal sacrifice, then that statute applies–yet even that must be done in righteousness, for you will recall that the sons of Eli were doing all sorts of wrong things with the animal sacrifices, and they lost all covenant blessings and were slain. (1 Samuel 2-4). That ought to give someone pause about whether the “covenant blessings” and the “covenant Levitical priesthood” are guaranteed or whether they are conditioned on righteousness.

It’s also been made clear that animal sacrifices are necessary to complete the 'restoration:“Now in the nature of things, the law of animal sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things whch were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therfore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifies anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 3:94)

Is that what you’re doing in the secret temple ceremonies?

Since animal sacrifices were a substitute for the then-coming Jesus Christ, why on earth would you go backward? And if the prophet, seer, and revelator said it must be so, why haven’t you done it?

 

[ParkerD]

It’s odd that this, to LDS, means ‘forever,’ but D&C 132:4 being a ‘new and everlasting covenant’ actually means 47 years.

It’s also been made clear that animal sacrifices are necessary to complete the 'restoration:“Now in the nature of things, the law of animal sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things whch were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therfore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifies anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 3:94)

Is that what you’re doing in the secret temple ceremonies?

Since animal sacrifices were a substitute for the then-coming Jesus Christ, why on earth would you go backward? And if the prophet, seer, and revelator said it must be so, why haven’t you done it?

Returning Home,
I’ll go ahead and answer the question about the sons of Levi, even though I only pulled up your post because it seemed you might be referring a question to me.

I suppose that when the true descendants of Levi begin to join the LDS church, then that will be the point in time to decide whether a sacrifice needs to be done to fulfill their Levitical responsibilities in Israel.

I certainly agree that for all intents and purposes, the Savior’s sacrifice Himself was the “great and last sacrifice, infinite and eternal” as the Book of Mormon says and fulfilled the law of sacrifice–so if an ordinance of sacrifice is restored, it would be to fulfill Levitical responsibilities by righteous direct descendants of either Aaron or the Levites, and would be under the direction of Christ, and would probably be just for a short time to show that the Levites had accepted Christ and the new covenant gospel, and to bridge the two covenants–the old covenant under the law of Moses which would thus be being re-enacted as symbolic of those earlier ordinances and covenants, and the new and everlasting covenant under Christ which is the perfecting covenant.

 

[ParkerD]

Returning Home,
I suppose I should add that if such a restored ordinance takes place (and it may or may not be by means of an animal sacrifice, but it will definitely have to do with a temple), it would occur as a fulfillment of Malachi 3:1, 3 where it talks about the Lord coming to his temple, and the “sons of Levi” being purged as gold and silver, “that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

 

[SirThomasMore]

Parker, why would you even want a God that was so weak, dishoneat and cruel that he allowed an Apostasy?

 

[ParkerD]

For those following this thread:

It’s hard for many people to accept that God allows free will choice, even to the point of having allowed there to be so many different religions with the result (from the people’s choosing) that there is the opportunity for continuous free will choice even as regards the choice of a religion. But I am grateful for that free will choice among humankind, and can see the great wisdom in it’s having been allowed.

Within the context of having the Bible as the great guide to come unto Christ, then many people of many different religions can come unto Christ as closely and with as much of His guidance as they will earnestly seek. I am very grateful for that, also. It is a blessing to the world practically all over the world.

 

[SirThomasMore]

For those following this thread:

It’s hard for many people to accept that God allows free will choice, even to the point of having allowed there to be so many different religions with the result (from the people’s choosing) that there is the opportunity for continuous free will choice even as regards the choice of a religion. But I am grateful for that free will choice among humankind, and can see the great wisdom in it’s having been allowed.

Within the context of having the Bible as the great guide to come unto Christ, then many people of many different religions can come unto Christ as closely and with as much of His guidance as they will earnestly seek. I am very grateful for that, also. It is a blessing to the world practically all over the world.

I knew a drug user who also praised free choice. Just because you have free chpoice does not mean you should use it. To follow a false prophet who needs a weak, dishonest, cruel Jesus to justify his faith is NOT a good choice

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home,
I suppose I should add that if such a restored ordinance takes place (and it may or may not be by means of an animal sacrifice, but it will definitely have to do with a temple), it would occur as a fulfillment of Malachi 3:1, 3 where it talks about the Lord coming to his temple, and the “sons of Levi” being purged as gold and silver, “that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

Your own prophet clearly said that animal sacrifices would be reinstated. Remember that the president of the church cannot lead it astray. (Gospel Principles, p 50)

 

[Returning_Home]

I suppose that when the true descendants of Levi begin to join the LDS church, then that will be the point in time to decide whether a sacrifice needs to be done to fulfill their Levitical responsibilities in Israel.

I certainly agree that for all intents and purposes, the Savior’s sacrifice Himself was the “great and last sacrifice, infinite and eternal” as the Book of Mormon says and fulfilled the law of sacrifice–so if an ordinance of sacrifice is restored, it would be to fulfill Levitical responsibilities by righteous direct descendants of either Aaron or the Levites, and would be under the direction of Christ…

Since we have no idea who the descendants of Levi or Aaron are, your argument is thoroughly undermined. And since the bloodline of Aaron was corrupted, the priesthood was no longer needed; it had already fulfilled its purpose.

I also see you dodged the point about celestial marriage as it pertained to polygamy. I guess we both know that’s a black eye for Joseph Smith and the church.

 

[ParkerD]

Since we have no idea who the descendants of Levi or Aaron are, your argument is thoroughly undermined. And since the bloodline of Aaron was corrupted, the priesthood was no longer needed; it had already fulfilled its purpose.

I also see you dodged the point about celestial marriage as it pertained to polygamy. I guess we both know that’s a black eye for Joseph Smith and the church.

Returning Home,
The Jews of today have among them many people who say they are direct descendants of the tribe of Levi, and this is prominent among their beliefs. So evidently they differ with what you thought you understood.

If you’re saying that John the Baptist fulfilled the need for the Levitical priesthood and after him the priesthood was no longer needed, then I disagree and I assume Soren1 would disagree with that understanding also.

As to your other point which is completely a misunderstanding, I had decided that since my entry into this thread was for the purpose of a conversation with Soren1 about some points he had made, I wouldn’t divert the topic into a discussion of the eternal marriage contract relating to the “new and everlasting covenant”.

I suppose that since Soren1 had brought up the everlasting nature of the anointing ordinance received by the sons of Aaron, I might as well since you have insisted, tie the two ideas and teachings together to show how they relate to the so-called “Great Apostasy”.

Here are the pertinent verses from Doctrine and Covenants 132:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

Those verses relate to the sealing power and the keys of sealing power that were given to Peter. (The other apostles were also given the keys of sealing power, but the keys are only to be used under the direction of the presiding key-holder, who would have been Peter in the days he was alive after the ascension of Christ. Thus when Peter was killed, the keys were still on the earth and remained on the earth with John.)

The presiding key-holder in the days after Joseph Smith received those keys from Peter, James and John and from Elijah and Elias, was only Joseph Smith until he was killed; thereafter it was Brigham Young; thereafter John Taylor; thereafter Wilford Woodruff. Wilford Woodruff received the “revelation and commandment” that plural marriage was no longer either required or even allowed by revelation at the point in time the revelation was voted upon by the members of the LDS church; this provision and change at the time Wilford Woodruff announced the change, was fully in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 132.

The keys of sealing power have much to do with the eternal nature of the marriage covenant when properly done under the authority of the presiding key-holder, and must be done under the authority of the presiding key-holder in order for marriage to be an eternal marriage and thus be binding after this life if the people involved are faithful to all their covenants having to do with the “new and everlasting covenant”.

Otherwise, marriage for a person is not binding after this life, so those keys are very important–distinctly so.

 

[Javl]

On the subject of the LDS priesthood, my LDS friends should read all of Heabrews, chapter 7, and pay heed to verse 24. The Melchizedek priest hood belongs to Jesus alone, and as such is NON-TRANSFERABLE. Also, according to “Doctrine and Covenants”, section 84, verse 17, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are considered to be but one. Therefore, in light of Heb 7:24, the LDS priesthoods are invalid and irrelevant.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SirThomasMore]

Since we have no idea who the descendants of Levi or Aaron are, your argument is thoroughly undermined. And since the bloodline of Aaron was corrupted, the priesthood was no longer needed; it had already fulfilled its purpose.

I also see you dodged the point about celestial marriage as it pertained to polygamy. I guess we both know that’s a black eye for Joseph Smith and the church.

I am gonna start a thread on this…this is good conversation

 

[Returning_Home]

The Jews of today have among them many people who say they are direct descendants of the tribe of Levi, and this is prominent among their beliefs. So evidently they differ with what you thought you understood.

By the same token, I say that I’m the queen of England. It really doesn’t mean anything, does it? No, it’s just hot air without any substantial backing to support it.

If you’re saying that John the Baptist fulfilled the need for the Levitical priesthood and after him the priesthood was no longer needed, then I disagree and I assume Soren1 would disagree with that understanding also.

You have every right to be wrong. There are allegedly some 14 million among you who share your erroneous interpretations and that doesn’t stop you from defending those incorrect beliefs.

As to your other point which is completely a misunderstanding, I had decided that since my entry into this thread was for the purpose of a conversation with Soren1 about some points he had made, I wouldn’t divert the topic into a discussion of the eternal marriage contract relating to the “new and everlasting covenant”.

I didn’t change the subject; instead, I only illustrated the fact that you take words at face value when it suits you. Since the entire point of D&C 132 was to justify Joseph Smith’s polygamy. ‘Celestial marraige,’ as it was then defined by Joseph Smith, was one part polygamy and one part temple marriage. Since your god’s words don’t change, there should’ve been no reason why he’d roll over and play dead in the face of mere mortal man’s laws, and then allow the church to break the rules it had just set down for itself.

I suppose that since Soren1 had brought up the everlasting nature of the anointing ordinance received by the sons of Aaron, I might as well since you have insisted, tie the two ideas and teachings together to show how they relate to the so-called “Great Apostasy”.

Since Israel had been occupied by a succession of powers (Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome), the priesthood became a series of political appointees instead of real descendants of Aaron. The destruction of Herod’s temple, their deportation, and finally their being sold as slaves by the Romans meant the end of the priesthood. Since Mormons are big on geneology, you’ll understand that it would be impossible under those conditions for anyone to rightfully claim to be part of Aaron’s bloodline with all of those records likely lost. That’s the reason that Jews are now regulated by rabbis instead of priests.

Hebrews 10:9,10 illustrates the point that Old Testament sacrifices were simply in anticipation of the sacrifice of the messiah: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.”

Not only that, but since your version of the Aaronic priesthood cannot trace its lineage to Aaron, doesn’t perform the functions layed out in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and doesn’t have anything to do with the God of the Bible, it’s utterly meaningless.

The way this ties into the Alleged Apostacy is that the LDS misunderstanding of the lack of formal priesthoods is mistaken for a lack of correct belief in God.

There’s no reason to restore something that’s already been fulfilled.

Here are the pertinent verses from Doctrine and Covenants 132:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Can you tell me where the term ‘everlasting’ is defined as 47 years? That’s what it must mean, since this revelation was first committed to paper in 1843 and The Manifesto was given in 1890. This, of course, doesn’t count the fact that the church continued to promote and practice polygamy anyway.

It can also be argued that ‘everlasting’ actually means 14 years since D&C 132 wasn’t printed until 1876.

Your quotes show no reason that this is, in any way, null and void because if your church is of Jesus Christ, surely it must’ve met all of the conditions laid out in the revelation. Since you’re not likely a polygamist, your fate is already sealed according to verse six.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

And yet the church lies or obscures the truth about polygamy. Is that how your god maintains order, through misinformation?

 

[Returning_Home]

The presiding key-holder in the days after Joseph Smith received those keys from Peter, James and John and from Elijah and Elias, was only Joseph Smith until he was killed; thereafter it was Brigham Young; thereafter John Taylor; thereafter Wilford Woodruff. Wilford Woodruff received the “revelation and commandment” that plural marriage was no longer either required or even allowed by revelation at the point in time the revelation was voted upon by the members of the LDS church; this provision and change at the time Wilford Woodruff announced the change, was fully in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 132.

I don’t recall reading where Peter, James, and John were priesthood holders. Can you cite those verses, please?

I also don’t recall the apostles voting on anything Jesus ever said so I don’t see the relation to the LDS way of doing things versus the way Jesus did. Cite those as well, please.

It must also be coincidental that there were four pieces of anti-polygamy legislation and that Woodruff’s ‘revelation’ came on the virtual eve of the Federal Government seizing the temples, right? Ignore the fact that he cited exactly that in writing his Manifesto and that there wasn’t any further anti-polygamy legislation that I know of after that. In fact, Utah even attained statehood a mere five years and three months later, didn’t they?

The keys of sealing power have much to do with the eternal nature of the marriage covenant when properly done under the authority of the presiding key-holder, and must be done under the authority of the presiding key-holder in order for marriage to be an eternal marriage and thus be binding after this life if the people involved are faithful to all their covenants having to do with the “new and everlasting covenant”.

I understand what you’re saying, only that it doesn’t apply to the God of the Bible. You’re free to believe whatever tripe you choose, just as I choose to believe that here are leprechans protecting pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

 

[ParkerD]

On the subject of the LDS priesthood, my LDS friends should read all of Hebrews, chapter 7, and pay heed to verse 24. The Melchizedek priesthood belongs to Jesus alone, and as such is NON-TRANSFERABLE. Also, according to “Doctrine and Covenants”, section 84, verse 17, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are considered to be but one. Therefore, in light of Heb 7:24, the LDS priesthoods are invalid and irrelevant.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
Of course those priesthoods are irrelevant to you or to any Catholic.

The point of Paul in Hebrews 7 is that Melchisedec, who was a familiar person for the Hebrews to whom Paul was writing, held the priesthood and thus received tithes from Abraham, yet he was not called “after the order of Aaron” or in other words, did not hold the Levitical priesthood. So his point is that there was another priesthood besides the Levitical priesthood on the earth, which Melchisedec held and which Christ also held–thus Christ could perform the perfect sacrifice and did not have to first perform a sacrifice “for his own sins” (v. 27), but instead “offered up himself.” (v. 27) Christ had the priesthood authority to do that, even though He was from the tribe of Judah rather than from the tribe of Levi. This was the major point of Hebrews 7.

The notion that Christ was the only holder of the priesthood that Melchisedec also held, has not any indication from Hebrews 7. Hebrews 7:11 speaks of an “order of Melchisedec” and an “order of Aaron”. So the idea of two priesthoods, an order of Aaron and an order of Melchisedec, is able to be understood directly from the New Testament text. (But would be missed probably by Catholics.)

 

[Javl]

Those surnamed Cohen are supposedly the only ones that can claim descent from Levi and therefore the priesthood. But, without the temple in Jerusalem, the priesthood is irrelevant.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
Of course those priesthoods are irrelevant to you or to any Catholic.

Yes, and also to all Christians, for we all are priests when we offer our various sacrifices to God.

The point of Paul in Hebrews 7 is that Melchisedec, who was a familiar person for the Hebrews to whom Paul was writing, held the priesthood and thus received tithes from Abraham, yet he was not called “after the order of Aaron” or in other words, did not hold the Levitical priesthood. So his point is that there was another priesthood besides the Levitical priesthood on the earth, which Melchisedec held and which Christ also held–thus Christ could perform the perfect sacrifice and did not have to first perform a sacrifice “for his own sins” (v. 27), but instead “offered up himself.” (v. 27) Christ had the priesthood authority to do that, even though He was from the tribe of Judah rather than from the tribe of Levi. This was the major point of Hebrews 7.

The notion that Christ was the only holder of the priesthood that Melchisedec also held, has not any indication from Hebrews 7. Hebrews 7:11 speaks of an “order of Melchisedec” and an “order of Aaron”. So the idea of two priesthoods, an order of Aaron and an order of Melchisedec, is able to be understood directly from the New Testament text. (But would be missed probably by Catholics.)

Jesus IS the only holder of that priesthood ( Heb.7:14-17 ). Can any LDS meet the same requirement? And what about Heb. 7:25-28? Only one priest of the order of Melchizedek is needed and that one is Jesus ( Heb.8 ). And no, we Catholics did not miss it. We acknowledge that only Jesus can be our “Melchizedec”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem