LDS priesthood Part 2

[LDSYep]

Well I think that there are clear differences between Catholic/Orthodox and LDS understandings of the priesthood. One important one is that Catholics/Orthodox believe that the primary purpose of the priesthood of God is to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. In Old Testament times, we know that the priests offered sacrifices in the temple in similitude of the sacrifice of Christ. Catholics/Orthodox believe that now, priests offer (or “re-present”) the once and for all sacrifice of Christ at Mass/Divine Liturgy. Yes, priests are believed to also be able to perform other sacraments/mysteries, perform blessings, etc, however their principle function is to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. LDS do not share that sacrificial understanding of the main purpose of the priesthood.

I believe the following would be an accurate statement: The true purpose of the priesthood is the “sacrifice” of self and possession in the service of our fellow Man. Would this fit what you are referencing here?

I am not stating that there are not clear differences, I believe that in this discussion the most beneficial method of gaining understanding of each other and gaining the ability to intelligently discuss differences would be to begin with similarities and then slowly move to differences, thus having a common point of reference.

Then of course there’s the LDS understanding of the priesthood being divided into two priesthoods: the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, and the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood, an understanding not shared with Catholicism. Catholics believe that there is only one priesthood, with different offices.

Which in a manner is what we believe. We speak of two priesthoods, but what we really believe is that the organization of the priesthood has two parts. One superseding the other. The Melchizedek Priesthood has all the authority of the Aaronic, but has greater authority. Basically, from an LDS position, there is only one priesthood with different offices.

Handbook 2, 2 Priesthood Principles, 2.1 Priesthood Authority

The priesthood is divided into two parts: the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Aaronic Priesthood is the lesser priesthood and is “an appendage to … the Melchizedek Priesthood”

 

[LDSYep]

See post #33

This doesn’t address the question of why the transition was not included in the Bible. Also, this requires extra Biblical statement and interpretation to conclude the end of the Apostles. How do you justify Paul, given your statement in post #33? Paul does not meet the requirement of Acts 1:21-22. Given Paul’s Apostleship, Biblical precedent conflicts with the explanation offered.

 

[TexanKnight]

My personal view is that the writers of the Gospels felt that it was redundant to include the statement as it was common knowledge that the Apostles held such.

A similar question to yours: If a transition from Apostle to Bishop truly occurred, why was such not included in the NT? Especially as this would have been one of the major ecclesiastical acts of Peter? Is there any evidence of support from the rest of the Apostles?

First, IF it was that important and so redundant, it WOULD have been mentioned. Prayer was redundant, but mentioned. Loving God was redundant, but mentioned. The fact is, it was not mentioned because IT WAS NOT DONE. Nowhere was it done. In fact, nowhere in the Bible was this conferring of the MP mentioned. How was it redundant when it started? It never happened.

As to your question, conferring and calling others IS mentioned. Paul, Silas, and many others were called by the Apostles. The problem is, the historical part of the Scriptures ended in Acts…

 

[RebeccaJ]

The problem is, the historical part of the Scriptures ended in Acts…

But the acts of the Apostles did not.

This is one of the problems I see with how LDS think, and thus how they believe. They think that because all of Christian history is not canonized, that God ceased to act and that Christians ceased to follow Apostolic teachings.

 

[TexanKnight]

But the acts of the Apostles did not.

This is one of the problems I see with how LDS think, and thus how they believe. They think that because all of Christian history is not canonized, that God ceased to act and that Christians ceased to follow Apostolic teachings.

exactly

 

[TexanKnight]

But the acts of the Apostles did not.

This is one of the problems I see with how LDS think, and thus how they believe. They think that because all of Christian history is not canonized, that God ceased to act and that Christians ceased to follow Apostolic teachings.

the idea Jesus would tell the apostles that the church would last forever and not put anything in place to accomplish is ludicrous

 

[Stephen168]

This doesn’t address the question of why the transition was not included in the Bible. Also, this requires extra Biblical statement and interpretation to conclude the end of the Apostles. How do you justify Paul, given your statement in post #33? Paul does not meet the requirement of Acts 1:21-22. Given Paul’s Apostleship, Biblical precedent conflicts with the explanation offered.

Paul was never one of The Twelve. See post 33.

 

[Stephen168]

I believe the following would be an accurate statement: The true purpose of the priesthood is the “sacrifice” of self and possession in the service of our fellow Man. Would this fit what you are referencing here?

No that is not what Melchizedek did. See post #30.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I believe the following would be an accurate statement: The true purpose of the priesthood is the “sacrifice” of self and possession in the service of our fellow Man. Would this fit what you are referencing here?

All Christians are called to do what you describe here. Since LDS women do not hold any priesthood office at all but are required to make this kind of sacrifice it really makes no sense to say this is the true purpose of the priesthood.

 

[Stephen168]

This doesn’t address the question of why the transition was not included in the Bible. Also, this requires extra Biblical statement and interpretation to conclude the end of the Apostles. How do you justify Paul, given your statement in post #33? Paul does not meet the requirement of Acts 1:21-22. Given Paul’s Apostleship, Biblical precedent conflicts with the explanation offered.

The Bible is not a history book or a catechism. What the Bible does tell us as I explained in post 33 is that the Bible lists about 82 Apostles who were sent by Christ and The Twelve, who were alive at the same time. The Bible also tells us that The Twelve (John 6:67-71, John 20:24, Act 6:2, 1 Cor 15:5, Rev 12:14) were special and not replaceable by definition. (Act 1:21-22). The Twelve were so important that the Bible tells us about the only time The Twelve required a replacement. Paul was never one of The Twelve because he did not qualify and the Bible would have told us of something so important.

………Joseph Smith never believed Apostles were required to have priesthood authority. St. Peter said the Apostles unique role was to be a witness to the resurrection. Catholic Bishops have all the authority Christ gave to the Apostles.

If there really was a Melchizedek Priesthood, and it HAD to be passed on, it would have been described in the Bible. What the Bible does tell us, as I described in post #30, is there was a King-Priest called Melchizedek, and Christ is like him. NOBODY can ever be like them. The sacrifice offered by Christ is himself in the Eucharist.

The Catholic Priesthood shares in this sacrifice; the Mormon invention of a Melchizedek priesthood does not. The Catholic Priesthood has the authority to do this, the Mormon ‘priesthood’ does not.

 

[TexanKnight]

The Bible is not a history book or a catechism. What the Bible does tell us as I explained in post 33 is that the Bible lists about 82 Apostles who were sent by Christ and The Twelve, who were alive at the same time. The Bible also tells us that The Twelve (John 6:67-71, John 20:24, Act 6:2, 1 Cor 15:5, Rev 12:14) were special and not replaceable by definition. (Act 1:21-22). The Twelve were so important that the Bible tells us about the only time The Twelve required a replacement. Paul was never one of The Twelve because he did not qualify and the Bible would have told us of something so important.
If there really was a Melchizedek Priesthood, and it HAD to be passed on, it would have been described in the Bible. What the Bible does tell us, as I described in post #30, is there was a King-Priest called Melchizedek, and Christ is like him. NOBODY can ever be like them. The sacrifice offered by Christ is himself in the Eucharist.

The Catholic Priesthood shares in this sacrifice; the Mormon invention of a Melchizedek priesthood does not. The Catholic Priesthood has the authority to do this, the Mormon ‘priesthood’ does not.

As you can see, Mormons claim they are a replica of the early church, but when pressed to show proof of a "Melchizedek Priesthood, they grow strangely silent…

 

[Stephen168]

As you can see, Mormons claim they are a replica of the early church, but when pressed to show proof of a "Melchizedek Priesthood, they grow strangely silent…

Yes, because their claim is irrational and unbiblical. I’ve observed this sudden silents many times on this subject.

 

[lynnettejane]

Hi everyone back from hols. I see the original post was closed. And this post seems to have covered the topic, but my question to those LDS who have taken part, is this. The priesthood as ordained by God was Aaronic, Aaron being a Levite, and that priesthood was conferred on that tribe only I believe. So how do LDS qualify for that priesthood, how many of them are of the tribe of Levi, or Jewish at all?