LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[KathleenGee]

The Jews still had their synagogues…and the early Christian Jews met with them, and then later formed their gatherings in their own synagogues…the Gentiles evolved differently in some ways…

But there was always the sense of authority coming through the Holy Spirit regarding the primacy of Peter…and this authority has existed down through the ages, even surviving the confusing times of St. Catherine of Siena who called the rightful Holy Father back to Rome.

The Church is made up of human beings and to go forward in faith is following a small light through the darkness.

 

[Stephen168]

John did indeed see that there were twelve gates into the city of the Lamb, and at the gates “twelve angels”, and “names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.” (Rev. 21:12) The original twelve apostles, less Judas who was replaced by Matthias as you noted, will indeed be the very twelve apostles noted in Rev. 21:14 who will be at the twelve gates to be the judges of the twelve tribes of Israel as taught by Christ in Matthew 19:28. All these things tie together, but that doesn’t mean Paul was not a valid apostle with valid authority and a valid witness of the resurrection and testimony of Jesus Christ. Paul became an apostle after James the brother of John had been killed.

Paul was never one of The Twelve, because he was not qualified. James the brother of John was never replaced as a member of The Twelve because there are only to be The Twelve (Revelation 21:14), and their names are: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias. There were never polygamous Apostles with a Melchizedek Priesthood in Christianity. Joseph Smith made it all up.

 

[Xavierlives]

JMJ4,
I am answering to acknowledge your question, but no the Catholic Church was not begun until after 100 AD, and then not fully formed until the Council of Nicea. I agree that Catholics began calling Peter a pope and subscribing to an unsubstantiated claim that Peter was bishop of Rome and that where he died needed to be where the next supposed “pope” received his authority. But John was still alive, so there was no need for such a supposition after Peter had been killed.

Authority comes from the God of heaven, whose it is. The most important authority of the priesthood is the power to “bind” and “loose” on earth that which will be bound or loosed in heaven, which also ties to judgment day, but those terms would need to be understood in order for them to be applied correctly, and the only way they can be applied correctly is by the divine mandate and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and by the keys of the authority being on earth as directed by Jesus Christ and given to the original twelve apostles and their successors as apostles.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

Just an odd thought but I wonder what heaven would look like if, here on Earth the Catholic bind up Mormons and the Mormons bind up the Catholics. The Protestants will be frolicking in a field of lillies in Heaven all alone!

 

[ParkerD]

Just an odd thought but I wonder what heaven would look like if, here on Earth the Catholic bind up Mormons and the Mormons bind up the Catholics. The Protestants will be frolicking in a field of lillies in Heaven all alone!

Xavierlives,
To “bind on earth” is to “seal on earth”. It is why the books are going to be opened on judgment day, as described in Revelation 20:12. It is to record on earth that which will be recorded in heaven, as to whether a person has taken upon themselves the covenants of the new covenant gospel, and then lived them so that the Holy Spirit can ratify their claim of having been “sealed”.

To “bind on earth” is also to gain a celestial marriage that will endure in the resurrection. Two people bound in that sealing are no longer two, but “one flesh” meaning that they would be incomplete without the other, and know it, and God acknowledges their covenant just as He gave the covenant of marriage to Adam and Eve.

Those who choose to make less meaningful covenants, can indeed “frolic in fields” in the resurrection and I suppose they will be as happy as they had desired to be in life. It will be through Christ that they are resurrected and through Christ that they are redeemed to the condition of happiness that they earnestly desired and prepared themselves to receive.

 

[paul_c]

Xavierlives,
To “bind on earth” is to “seal on earth”. It is why the books are going to be opened on judgment day, as described in Revelation 20:12. It is to record on earth that which will be recorded in heaven, as to whether a person has taken upon themselves the covenants of the new covenant gospel, and then lived them so that the Holy Spirit can ratify their claim of having been “sealed”.

To “bind on earth” is also to gain a celestial marriage that will endure in the resurrection. Two people bound in that sealing are no longer two, but “one flesh” meaning that they would be incomplete without the other, and know it, and God acknowledges their covenant just as He gave the covenant of marriage to Adam and Eve.

Those who choose to make less meaningful covenants, can indeed “frolic in fields” in the resurrection and I suppose they will be as happy as they had desired to be in life. It will be through Christ that they are resurrected and through Christ that they are redeemed to the condition of happiness that they earnestly desired and prepared themselves to receive.

this celestial marriage thing is yet another innovation of Joseph Smith that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Do you not recognize this from Luke 20:

27 Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to him,
28 saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless.
30 Then the second
31 and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.
32 Finally the woman also died.
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her.”
34 Jesus said to them, “The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
36 They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise. 9
37 That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

AS you can see, Jesus clearly states that there will be no marriage in heaven.

 

[Jay53]

this celestial marriage thing is yet another innovation of Joseph Smith that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Do you not recognize this from Luke 20:

27 Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to him,
28 saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless.
30 Then the second
31 and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.
32 Finally the woman also died.
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her.”
34 Jesus said to them, “The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
36 They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise. 9
37 That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

AS you can see, Jesus clearly states that there will be no marriage in heaven.

Parker believes this passage and teaching only applied/applies to those Sadduccees asking the question.

 

[evanfaust]

I agree. He did not restore anything, but he did invent a totally new religion, then used the name of Jesus to sell it. Joseph Smith made up the Melchizedek Priesthood, Apostles, and polygamy. As I pointed out twice (733 & 826) from the New Testament- Apostles were send by Christ and The Twelve, The Twelve were never meant to be an ongoing position in the Church therefore neither were Apostles. Polygamy has never been a part of Christ’s Church, and only Christ has priesthood like Melchizedek. There were never polygamous Apostles with a Melchizedek Priesthood in Christianity. Joseph Smith made it all up.

Stephen168

You are wrong on all counts above!

**Restoration **– Jesus was to be sent again to restore or restitute all things. If everything needs to be restored, logically these things got lost or corrupted. Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith many times and sent other celestial messengers to restore all things.

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive* until the times of restitution of all things*, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. “ Acts 3:19-20

The Twelve Apostle meant to be the ongoing position because it is the foundation…Catholics don’t have the foundation, which is the Apostles and Prophets.

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; *And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, *Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; ” Eph 2:19-20

The Catholic church is build upon the foundation of bishops, which is not in conformity with the scriptures. Bishops have the Aaronic priesthood and NOT the Melchizedek.

What kind of priesthood did Jesus have? We know he had the Melchizedek. “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedek.” Heb 5:10

Who ordained the apostles? Jesus Christ did, see John 15:16.

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you…”

That implies the Apostles received the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the higher priesthood.

The Melchizedek Prieathood is “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days.” Heb 7:3

What kind of Priesthood Melchizedek, king of Salem had? How about Abraham, Moses and other Prophets? They had the Melchizedek Priesthood! And many of them practiced Polygamy!

 

[JMJ4]

The Jews still had their synagogues…and the early Christian Jews met with them, and then later formed their gatherings in their own synagogues…the Gentiles evolved differently in some ways…

But there was always the sense of authority coming through the Holy Spirit regarding the primacy of Peter…and this authority has existed down through the ages, even surviving the confusing times of St. Catherine of Siena who called the rightful Holy Father back to Rome.

The Church is made up of human beings and to go forward in faith is following a small light through the darkness.

I recently read on Biblical Archaeology Review online that the early Christians actually met in homes, then in their own churches. It is very interesting reading - I think I put in the search box “early Christian churches” on the website and the info came up.

I had never heard that the early Christians met in synogogues - where did you read that? I have a book that touches on the subject, I’ll have to read more about it.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
To “bind on earth” is to “seal on earth”. It is why the books are going to be opened on judgment day, as described in Revelation 20:12. It is to record on earth that which will be recorded in heaven, as to whether a person has taken upon themselves the covenants of the new covenant gospel, and then lived them so that the Holy Spirit can ratify their claim of having been “sealed”.

To “bind on earth” is also to gain a celestial marriage that will endure in the resurrection. Two people bound in that sealing are no longer two, but “one flesh” meaning that they would be incomplete without the other, and know it, and God acknowledges their covenant just as He gave the covenant of marriage to Adam and Eve.

Those who choose to make less meaningful covenants, can indeed “frolic in fields” in the resurrection and I suppose they will be as happy as they had desired to be in life. It will be through Christ that they are resurrected and through Christ that they are redeemed to the condition of happiness that they earnestly desired and prepared themselves to receive.

Geez… a guy can’t even tell a joke, it is so tense on this thread. (I was even including Mormons in Heaven for the joke, which … well, I don’t think things will be as favorable for all of them).

 

[evanfaust]

*I’m just curious with regard to this post: If you are not a new member, then why did/do you believe that the Mormon “Heavenly Mother” refers to the Blessed Virgin *Mary?

Jay53,

I am well aware of the “heavenly mother” that is spoken of in the LDS Church and yes you are right the Virgin Mary is not the “Heavenly Mother” that Mormons refer to as the mother of our spirits. When you asked me about it I could not resist the idea to trace a parallel between the Virgin Mary with our “Heavenly Mother.” Mary is a mother, the mother of the savior, which is in heaven and therefore is also a “heavenly Mother.” My intent was to show you that the term “heavenly mother” should not sound so strange to Catholics.

 

[Xavierlives]

Parker believes this passage and teaching only applied/applies to those Sadduccees asking the question.

No.They believe it applies to those of us who are not sealed in the Mormon Temple. We will not have spouses. But what they seal in their Temple is sealed in Heaven.

They could seal anything and God is required to honor it.

It is more laws, more requirements, more man-made limitations on God’s very simple plan.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No.They believe it applies to those of us who are not sealed in the Mormon Temple. We will not have spouses. But what they seal in their Temple is sealed in Heaven.

They could seal anything and God is required to honor it.

Sounds like their god holds one’s family hostage.

 

[Xavierlives]

Sounds like their god holds one’s family hostage.

Well the way I understand the story, it goes like this: The men know their wives “secret name” so that when the time comes, he can call up them. Say he doesn’t like wife number 3 with the name Sarah, well he can… err… just not call her and they are no longer sealed.

I don’t know if she becomes a free agent at that point or what.

 

[evanfaust]

You are using a very weak argument. Polygamy must be okay because it was declared as such by Joseph Smith, who declared himself a prophet. According to this claim, the only time in the last 2000 years that polygamy was allowed was conveniently right when the person claiming it was allowed could benefit. I’m sorry Evan, the fact that polygamy was only allowed when it suited Joseph Smith leads me to say that he lied about it so that he could have sex with 33+ women and this puts his whole credibility severely in question. And by the way, not only did Joseph Smith practice polygamy, marrying multiple wives, but he also practiced adultery, having sex with the wives of others. This has been against God’s rules since he issued the 10 commandments. Surely you must be starting to recognize this.

And by the way, the prophesy you quoted above is not the least bit impressive. When you create a new religion that gives you the benefit of sex and money from your followers, it is easy to prophesy that most people won’t believe you. Its suprising to me that any one does.

Paul C,
Your opinion does not change the fact that Joseph is a Prophet of God. You don’t have to be sorry and you don’t have to accept what we tell you. But I trully believe that the scriptures back him up. We see things differently, but I do feel very strongly that Joseph was a true Prophet of God! May God bless him!

As far as the prophecy that I quoted, I find it impressive. That prophecy was made on Sept 21, 1823 to a 17 year old farmer. What are the chances of that happening? How could he have predicted something like that? The church had not yet been organized, the Book of Mormon had not been translated or even seen by Joseph Smith at that time. He was an unlearned boy living in a farm.

 

[ParkerD]

No.They believe it applies to those of us who are not sealed in the Mormon Temple. We will not have spouses. But what they seal in their Temple is sealed in Heaven.

They could seal anything and God is required to honor it.

It is more laws, more requirements, more man-made limitations on God’s very simple plan.

Xavierlives,
I see that you are joking again, but since it is important that others understand rather than misunderstand as you evidently do, this is for the others reading:

Jay53 was correct. The passage as rendered in Matthew is clearer than in Luke.

The notion that “God is required to honor it” is silly. The Holy Spirit honors truthfulness and truth and goodness–not sloppy thinking. Not one LDS marriage in a temple will be sealed in heaven if those entering into the covenant do not honor their covenant–of course. How difficult is that to understand?

God does have a very simple plan. It involves receiving the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can be one’s guide in life, and seeking marriage as a part of what God gave as a gift and a privilege to Adam and Eve. This is not very complicated at all. Simple plan–simple to live by and honor.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
I see that you are joking again, but since it is important that others understand rather than misunderstand as you evidently do, this is for the others reading:

Jay53 was correct. The passage as rendered in Matthew is clearer than in Luke.

The notion that “God is required to honor it” is silly. The Holy Spirit honors truthfulness and truth and goodness–not sloppy thinking. Not one LDS marriage in a temple will be sealed in heaven if those entering into the covenant do not honor their covenant–of course. How difficult is that to understand?

God does have a very simple plan. It involves receiving the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can be one’s guide in life, and seeking marriage as a part of what God gave as a gift and a privilege to Adam and Eve. This is not very complicated at all. Simple plan–simple to live by and honor.

Well, I was only partially joking.

I think you are absolutely right that God honoring it is silly… oh hold on, you said, required to honor it. Well, that is is silly too.

But, although I jest, I am not wrong am I? You believe that Non-Mormons, will experience the non-marriage that Christ describes, but because you are “sealed” you are escaping that statement made by Christ?

As for the not honoring the covenant, this would be where the man decides not to honor it, right? Or can a woman also say, Hrrmph…, I’ve changed my mind. I don’t want to be sealed to Joseph Smith?

See, and when you say things like "God does have a very simple plan. It involves receiving the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can be one’s guide in life, and seeking marriage as a part of what God gave as a gift and a privilege to Adam and Eve. This is not very complicated at all. Simple plan–simple to live by and honor." I almost want to believe you are there.

 

[ParkerD]

Well, I was only partially joking.

I think you are absolutely right that God honoring it is silly… oh hold on, you said, required to honor it. Well, that is is silly too.

But, although I jest, I am not wrong am I? You believe that Non-Mormons, will experience the non-marriage that Christ describes, but because you are “sealed” you are escaping that statement made by Christ?

As for the not honoring the covenant, this would be where the man decides not to honor it, right? Or can a woman also say, Hrrmph…, I’ve changed my mind. I don’t want to be sealed to Joseph Smith?

See, and when you say things like "God does have a very simple plan. It involves receiving the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can be one’s guide in life, and seeking marriage as a part of what God gave as a gift and a privilege to Adam and Eve. This is not very complicated at all. Simple plan–simple to live by and honor." I almost want to believe you are there.

Xavierlives,
OK–I suppose that the idea of actual covenant making and covenant keeping is not as clear to you as I would have assumed. The essence of those covenants is staying worthy through personal righteous living (a must), staying faithful to the marriage (a must), loving each other (a must), and only through those aspects of covenant keeping does it make a difference whether the people were married in an LDS temple (or sealed in a temple whether in life or by proxy after those two people’s life on earth)–for only then will the Holy Spirit ratify to God and the angels that such a marriage covenant, sealed by the power of the Holy Priesthood and by the Holy Spirit, is bound in heaven.

Free personal choice is always part of such a covenant at any point. These are not forced situations–no covenant that includes God should be nor can be (by definition since God requires free personal choice in covenant making) forced. Again, simple plan, simple to live by.

Those who experience the “non-marriage” in heaven and become angels as described by Christ, will be those whose choices in life placed them where they wanted to be. Heaven is a place and condition where the “law of restoration” has come into full effect, and everyone will have “restored” to them that condition of living which they lived for by their actions, choices, thoughts, and desires in life and in the spirit world before their resurrection. One who has decided they want to be an angel, or want to not have marriage in heaven, will have their choice honored when they are resurrected.

 

[Jay53]

*I’m just curious with regard to this post: If you are not a new member, then why did/do you believe that the Mormon “Heavenly Mother” refers to the Blessed Virgin *Mary?

Jay53,

I am well aware of the “heavenly mother” that is spoken of in the LDS Church and yes you are right the Virgin Mary is not the “Heavenly Mother” that Mormons refer to as the mother of our spirits. When you asked me about it I could not resist the idea to trace a parallel between the Virgin Mary with our “Heavenly Mother.” Mary is a mother, the mother of the savior, which is in heaven and therefore is also a “heavenly Mother.” My intent was to show you that the term “heavenly mother” should not sound so strange to Catholics.

The term, “Heavenly Mother” does not sound strange. What sounds strange is the whole concept of God the Father being married to a “Heavenly Mother” and somehow having spirit children in the same way that earthly fathers and mothers have earthly children. :dts:

 

[paul_c]

I agree. He did not restore anything, but he did invent a totally new religion, then used the name of Jesus to sell it. Joseph Smith made up the Melchizedek Priesthood, Apostles, and polygamy. As I pointed out twice (733 & 826) from the New Testament- Apostles were send by Christ and The Twelve, The Twelve were never meant to be an ongoing position in the Church therefore neither were Apostles. Polygamy has never been a part of Christ’s Church, and only Christ has priesthood like Melchizedek. There were never polygamous Apostles with a Melchizedek Priesthood in Christianity. Joseph Smith made it all up.

Stephen168

You are wrong on all counts above!

**Restoration **– Jesus was to be sent again to restore or restitute all things. If everything needs to be restored, logically these things got lost or corrupted. Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith many times and sent other celestial messengers to restore all things.

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive* until the times of restitution of all things*, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. “ Acts 3:19-20

The Twelve Apostle meant to be the ongoing position because it is the foundation…Catholics don’t have the foundation, which is the Apostles and Prophets.

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; *And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, *Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; ” Eph 2:19-20

The Catholic church is build upon the foundation of bishops, which is not in conformity with the scriptures. Bishops have the Aaronic priesthood and NOT the Melchizedek.

What kind of priesthood did Jesus have? We know he had the Melchizedek. “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedek.” Heb 5:10

Who ordained the apostles? Jesus Christ did, see John 15:16.

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you…”

That implies the Apostles received the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the higher priesthood.

The Melchizedek Prieathood is “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days.” Heb 7:3

What kind of Priesthood Melchizedek, king of Salem had? How about Abraham, Moses and other Prophets? They had the Melchizedek Priesthood! And many of them practiced Polygamy!

On what basis to you make the claim that the Catholic Church is not founded on the apostles?The Apostles named the bishops to carry on their teaching. We can clearly show the ordination path from apostle to bishop and from then on bishop to bishop. we can also show continuity of doctrine. You on the other hand have an 1800 year gap from Joseph Smith to the apostles and the only proof you offer that Joseph smith is the rightful heir to the Apostles is his own unsubstantiated claims. And your doctrines are very different than that taught by the Apostles. Joseph Smith claimed the right to polygamy and adultery in complete disagreemetn with Apostolic teaching, because it met his particular needs. He made up this who concept of Celestial marriage, again in direct contradiction to Christian teaching, to justify his personal desires. He denied the trinitarian nature of God, he denied the real presence in the Eucharist. He claimed God has a physical body, when Jesus said he was spirit. He denied the virgin birth. He claimed that Adam was God. He claimed that the families of people sealed to him would become gods. and this only touches the surface of the differences in Joseph Smith religion and true Christiankity as taught by the real Apostles. Please, read the Bible and understand that Joseph Smith could not have been from God because truth is eternal and doesn’t change.

 

[Stephen168]

**Restoration **– Jesus was to be sent again to restore or restitute all things. If everything needs to be restored, logically these things got lost or corrupted. Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith many times and sent other celestial messengers to restore all things.

The Twelve Apostle meant to be the ongoing position because it is the foundation…Catholics don’t have the foundation, which is the Apostles and Prophets.

The Catholic church is build upon the foundation of bishops, which is not in conformity with the scriptures. Bishops have the Aaronic priesthood and NOT the Melchizedek.

What kind of Priesthood Melchizedek, king of Salem had? How about Abraham, Moses and other Prophets? They had the Melchizedek Priesthood! And many of them practiced Polygamy!

Joseph Smith made all this up. It has no historical or biblical basis.

The Melchizedek Prieathood is “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days.” Heb 7:3

What kind of priesthood did Jesus have? We know he had the Melchizedek. “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedek.” Heb 5:10

Like I said, Christ has a priesthood like Melchizedek, which no Mormon can have. Humans have Mothers and Fathers.

Genesis 14:18-20 - A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram.

Psalm 110:4 - King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest: 1) A King-Priest bringing bread and wine and 2) A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 4:14-16 thru Hebrews 5:1-10 - Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:1-3 – Reminds us Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Melchizedek is compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without earthly parents, or children, and was a priest always.

Hebrews 7:4-10 - Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was a superior priesthood than the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-14 - If the Levitical priesthood was good enough, there would be no need for another priest as prophesied by King David. A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 - Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law. They were abolished because the law did not bring man into close communication with God.

Hebrews 7:20-25 - Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26-28 - There is no need to offer sacrifices daily like the Levitical priesthood. Christ offered himself one time for all people’s sins forever.

John 6:31-69 - Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 14:22-24
Luke 22:19-20
1 Corinth 11:23-25 - Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 - We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 - Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

I still don’t see a Melchizedek Priesthood. If there were, no earthly human would qualify.

Jesus Christ did, see John 15:16.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the Mormon Church. Because the position of Apostle was never meant to continue after The Twelve.