X
Xavierlives
Guest
Why isn’t the president just called the High Priest?
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Catholic20064 and Xavierlives,
If you carefully read Hebrews 8 and think about it, Christ is certainly the “high priest” who made the last sacrifice that was required under the Mosaic law, which fulfilled the Mosaic law of sacrifice and was the great and last sacrifice, even Himself being offered as an offering for all our sins. So that function of “high priest” in terms of offering animal sacrifices was completely fulfilled when He had given His great and last sacrifice.
But there was still a need for a priesthood organization, and for shepherds to guide the sheep on the earth. The use of the term “presiding high priest” came by revelation through the Holy Spirit to Joseph Smith, and matches the principle that was apparent within the basic Jewish religion at the time of the apostles, as shown by the functions of Annas and Caiphas. Even though they didn’t accept Jesus Christ or the message of the apostles, if they had been doing what they were ordained to do in presiding among their people, they would have presided by teaching truth and would have embraced the full message of Christ’s gospel, and it would have fit in exactly with what they understood from their Old Testament knowledge–had they not lost the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit and gotten caught up in forms and outward appearances that was prevalent in their Jewish faith.
S
SteveVH
Guest
When I started this thread is was with the intention of addressing the claim that the LDS church had “restored” the original Christian faith. This purportedly is the reason for the existence of the Mormons, the one legged stool upon which the entire organization is precariously balanced.
If one decided to “restore” an antique car he would research everything he could get his hands on in order to determine how it looked, what were its orignal parts and what were they made of. Knowing that adding new or “modern parts” would invalidate it as a restored original he would search the country for original parts in order to maintain its authenticity. If he had to add “modern parts” it would loose its value as a true restoration. While it might be beautiful in appearance to some, and while someone may even desire to buy it, an honest man would not try to pass it off as a “restored” original. If he did, he would be considered a fraud.
From what I can determine, the LDS church has rejected the most basic of Christian dogma, from the virgin birth, to the nature of the one true God as Trinity, to denial of the Holy Eucharist, to polytheism. In other words, they did not even try to come close to the original. While being free to create whatever religion they choose, they have chosen instead to paint their own picture over the masterpiece and call it a restoration. That very action makes it a fraud.
With all due respect to those Mormons who have posted here, I have seen nothing of substance, nothing in history, in the witness of the early Church, that even comes close to the doctrines espoused by by the LDS.
My intention in starting this thread was to make sure that my suspicions were correct as to this claim of “restoration”, not to begin a Mormon bashing session. I’m not interested in debating newly invented doctrines which are based upon nothing more than an active imagination by Joseph Smith and his successors. It seems that you begin with the very false assumption that activities and beliefs in the early Church happened so long ago that no one really knows, therefore it is open to specualtion as to what the original Church believed. Sorry, the evidence is not in your favor. I think I have the answer for which I was looking.
I would invite you to explore the claims of the Catholic Church, the unbroken line of apostolic succession, the 2000 years of documented history, not supposition. Tear it apart, look at everything, both its beauty and its flaws. That is when you will find the original that you say you are looking for.
God bless all of you.
If one decided to “restore” an antique car he would research everything he could get his hands on in order to determine how it looked, what were its orignal parts and what were they made of. Knowing that adding new or “modern parts” would invalidate it as a restored original he would search the country for original parts in order to maintain its authenticity. If he had to add “modern parts” it would loose its value as a true restoration. While it might be beautiful in appearance to some, and while someone may even desire to buy it, an honest man would not try to pass it off as a “restored” original. If he did, he would be considered a fraud.
From what I can determine, the LDS church has rejected the most basic of Christian dogma, from the virgin birth, to the nature of the one true God as Trinity, to denial of the Holy Eucharist, to polytheism. In other words, they did not even try to come close to the original. While being free to create whatever religion they choose, they have chosen instead to paint their own picture over the masterpiece and call it a restoration. That very action makes it a fraud.
With all due respect to those Mormons who have posted here, I have seen nothing of substance, nothing in history, in the witness of the early Church, that even comes close to the doctrines espoused by by the LDS.
My intention in starting this thread was to make sure that my suspicions were correct as to this claim of “restoration”, not to begin a Mormon bashing session. I’m not interested in debating newly invented doctrines which are based upon nothing more than an active imagination by Joseph Smith and his successors. It seems that you begin with the very false assumption that activities and beliefs in the early Church happened so long ago that no one really knows, therefore it is open to specualtion as to what the original Church believed. Sorry, the evidence is not in your favor. I think I have the answer for which I was looking.
I would invite you to explore the claims of the Catholic Church, the unbroken line of apostolic succession, the 2000 years of documented history, not supposition. Tear it apart, look at everything, both its beauty and its flaws. That is when you will find the original that you say you are looking for.
God bless all of you.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
If there is anything fun to talk about, especially in religion, is the use of words. Words are power and for the most part define intention. While I have heard the use of the tent stakes before as an explanation of the Mormon use of the same, I never really asked for a scriptural reference for it. So, it is interesting that the Isaiah reference is used. I always thought the reference would be Exodus 35:18 (of course the only problem with its use would be, who would want to be called Pin President?).
J
Jay53
Guest
Jay53,
Thanks for the warm wishes! Yes, the LDS apostles are similar to Paul and Barnabas. That is correct. (I see no reason to look for miracles as a standard for identifying apostles.
Why not? I thought the LDS apostles were a “restoration” of the Apostleship from Jesus. Why are they not subject to the same criteria?
I do see having a fervent and sure testimony of Jesus as the living Christ as a standard, through the perfect witness of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised there would be.)
Which exists in the Catholic Church! There is no need to look to the LDS Church for this.
What the several passages in the New Testament show about the apostles’ involvement, is that they were continuously monitoring, teaching, calling leaders who called others, but then the apostles were still monitoring how the resulting local leadership was doing, and they would give (name removed by moderator)ut by letters or by visiting, and they would bring encouragement and love and sometimes forceful instruction. There was a line of authority that was always in place.
There is nothing there to suggest that the Apostles did not give authority to those they ordained. Again, I think you are reading things into Scripture that are not there. There is still no evidence for what the LDS Church claims. I’ve honestly tried to look at this from your perspective, but all I’ve seen is twisted Scripture/misinterpretation to fit what Joseph Smith was teaching.
R
rinnie
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Catholic20064 and Xavierlives,
If you carefully read Hebrews 8 and think about it, Christ is certainly the “high priest” who made the last sacrifice that was required under the Mosaic law, which fulfilled the Mosaic law of sacrifice and was the great and last sacrifice, even Himself being offered as an offering for all our sins. So that function of “high priest” in terms of offering animal sacrifices was completely fulfilled when He had given His great and last sacrifice.
[SIGN]
Hi Parker, bet you miss meBut I agree with you Parker there is a need for a Priesthood organization here on earth. That is why Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles that they have the authority from God to forgive sin, and teach in the Church until Jesus comes again in Glory. He promised them death would never prevail, that the Holy Spirit would guide them until he comes again in glory.
That is why you and I disagree so much on the church failing. If the church failed the HS failed and if the HS failed Jesus failed and if Jesus failed God failed. The Trinity failed. And that would mean Jesus lied to us all. The Trinity is again our big problem. Jesus Christ is God. The Holy Spirit is God. 3 persons 1 in being.
P.S Hope you had a good Thanksgiving. And hope the Holiday Season is bringing you alot of joy!
X
Xavierlives
Guest
I’m merely saying, the use of the term “priest” is not new to the Bible and the LDS uses the term priesthood without problem, so the introduction of a presiding officer seems anticlimatic for its use now. Especially since the etymology of the word comes from Latin,* praesidens* where it is composed from prae ‘before’ and sedere ‘sit’. But priest comes from Latin presbyter which is basically elder or leader of a local church.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Happy Advent ParkerD.
I know for a fact all your priesthood ordinations are not approved by your Apostles. 12 year old “deacons”? 16 year old “priests”? seriously.
Your LDS centric view is keeping you from comprehending. Our Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. No one is ordained to the Priesthood without the knowledge/permission/formation of their Ordinary…the Bishop. This is every ordination. Deacon and Priest. You seem to be against the idea that Bishops are ordaining Bishops…ummm…please show me in the NT where Apostles ordained Apostles. It has been shown to you more than once the Apostles ordained Bishops (presbyters). You can put your strawman back in the closet.
Making make stuff up and calling it “restored” is not a form of truth.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
One of the insurmountable problems Mormons (other other “total apostasy” advocates) have to face is the “problem of the dog that did not bark”
from Silver Blaze by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
"…Colonel Ross still wore an expression which showed the poor opinion which he had formed of my companion’s ability, but I saw by the inspector’s face that his attention had been keenly aroused
“You consider that to be important?” he asked.
“Exceedingly so.”
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes"
As Begining Apologetics 2.0 (Burnham and Chacon) brings up, one of the greatest weapons opponents of early Christianity (eg the Catholic Church) could have used would have been the fact that the Church they were persecuting had almost nothing in common with what had been founded by Jesus and th Apostles. Yet that arguement was never used by the Romans or the Jewish authorities. In all the patristic, Early Church Father writings, there is no mention of the charge of total apostasy being brought against the Catholic Church. The ECF’s were constantly writing about all sorts of heretical teachings, in great (sometimes numbing) detail–but never that lynchpin of Mormon apologists. LDS “historian” James Talmudge trys to claim it in his The Great Apostasy–but he has to VERY selectively (and out of context) quote the one ECF he cites (Eusbesius of Alexandria).
from Silver Blaze by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
"…Colonel Ross still wore an expression which showed the poor opinion which he had formed of my companion’s ability, but I saw by the inspector’s face that his attention had been keenly aroused
“You consider that to be important?” he asked.
“Exceedingly so.”
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes"
As Begining Apologetics 2.0 (Burnham and Chacon) brings up, one of the greatest weapons opponents of early Christianity (eg the Catholic Church) could have used would have been the fact that the Church they were persecuting had almost nothing in common with what had been founded by Jesus and th Apostles. Yet that arguement was never used by the Romans or the Jewish authorities. In all the patristic, Early Church Father writings, there is no mention of the charge of total apostasy being brought against the Catholic Church. The ECF’s were constantly writing about all sorts of heretical teachings, in great (sometimes numbing) detail–but never that lynchpin of Mormon apologists. LDS “historian” James Talmudge trys to claim it in his The Great Apostasy–but he has to VERY selectively (and out of context) quote the one ECF he cites (Eusbesius of Alexandria).
R
rinnie
Guest
You also hit a very very good and important point. Look at the years of Study a priest must do, then the years a Bishop must do. What they all must do to move up. It does not happen over night, and it takes constant study, prayer and faith and obedience to our Lord to get there. A few very few will ever get to be the Rock. There are many Bishops but very few Peters.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
I’ll save Parker the time. He is going to say the priesthood of the LDS is on a gradual, graded scale. They, like the Catholic Church, start young and work their way up through the ranks. You would never find a 16 year old Prophet just as you would never see a 16 year old Pope.
R
rinnie
Guest
Oh I gotta ya. So it would be like a kid in ccd teaching the Church and forgiving sins, and giving out the Eucharist and having the authority to marry people etc.
Could you imagine the shape the RCC would be in!But I still love Parker. I think he’s still awesome! Parker:christmastree1::kiss4you:
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
Hope this helps. Its some of the things I found as I was looking in to the Catholic Church
***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in 165 at Rome Italy ***
*“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”
*
***St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)
***He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist **(Jn 6:66) **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
It is the Mass that has brought Christ into the present. It is the sign given as you contemplate all of chapter 6 in John’s gospel.
In Scripture and the words of the early Church Fathers
(See Luke 24:30-31, 33, 35 )
When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. Then they told what had happened on the road, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
No matter what Christian sect one might attend there is no mistaking the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass in scripture and in the Early Church Fathers own words. It is the Christian Mass from the time of the Last Supper that has brought Christianity into the here and now. It is the sign given as you contemplate Johns Gospel Chapter 6. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except for Good Friday. The connection that is made between the Cross then and the Cross now is breathtaking when one connects the dots softly hidden amongst the 7 Sacraments. Did not Jesus take on the sins of the world, past present and future, once for all, for what we have done and for what we have failed to do? Do we not proclaim His death until He comes again? Jesus showed us what he could do with a little bread and a few fish by feeding the multitudes (Jn 6:23-27). Jesus was constantly showing us His power over nature herself to prepare our hearts and our minds for the food that was to nourish each of us on our journey. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1Cor 10:16-17)
When He spoke of this food from heaven to be given many of His disciples left because what he was saying was to hard for them to believe (John 6:66). But the Apostles stayed and were rewarded with the last supper, along with His Spirit at Pentecost (Jn 20:19, 22-23)., Him to be with them, in them. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, Jesus showed himself to his apostles. It’s easy to put up resistance to the Most Holy Eucharist when one is looking from the outside in, but one can not argue that it is at the very center of the “why and reason” Christianity has survived the attacks from the outside as well as the inside for 2000 years.
“We cannot separate our lives from the Eucharist; the moment we do, something breaks. The Eucharist involves more than just receiving; it also involves satisfying the hunger of Christ. He says “come to me”. He is hungry for souls. Nowhere does the Gospel say: “Go Away” but always “Come to Me”….The Eucharist is connected with the passion. If Jesus had not established the Eucharist we would have forgotten the crucifixion….To make sure that we do not forget, Jesus gave us the Eucharist as a memorial of His love.”
…………Mother Teresa
***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in 165 at Rome Italy ***
*“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”
*
***St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)
***He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist **(Jn 6:66) **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
It is the Mass that has brought Christ into the present. It is the sign given as you contemplate all of chapter 6 in John’s gospel.
In Scripture and the words of the early Church Fathers
(See Luke 24:30-31, 33, 35 )
When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. Then they told what had happened on the road, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
No matter what Christian sect one might attend there is no mistaking the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass in scripture and in the Early Church Fathers own words. It is the Christian Mass from the time of the Last Supper that has brought Christianity into the here and now. It is the sign given as you contemplate Johns Gospel Chapter 6. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except for Good Friday. The connection that is made between the Cross then and the Cross now is breathtaking when one connects the dots softly hidden amongst the 7 Sacraments. Did not Jesus take on the sins of the world, past present and future, once for all, for what we have done and for what we have failed to do? Do we not proclaim His death until He comes again? Jesus showed us what he could do with a little bread and a few fish by feeding the multitudes (Jn 6:23-27). Jesus was constantly showing us His power over nature herself to prepare our hearts and our minds for the food that was to nourish each of us on our journey. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1Cor 10:16-17)
When He spoke of this food from heaven to be given many of His disciples left because what he was saying was to hard for them to believe (John 6:66). But the Apostles stayed and were rewarded with the last supper, along with His Spirit at Pentecost (Jn 20:19, 22-23)., Him to be with them, in them. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, Jesus showed himself to his apostles. It’s easy to put up resistance to the Most Holy Eucharist when one is looking from the outside in, but one can not argue that it is at the very center of the “why and reason” Christianity has survived the attacks from the outside as well as the inside for 2000 years.
“We cannot separate our lives from the Eucharist; the moment we do, something breaks. The Eucharist involves more than just receiving; it also involves satisfying the hunger of Christ. He says “come to me”. He is hungry for souls. Nowhere does the Gospel say: “Go Away” but always “Come to Me”….The Eucharist is connected with the passion. If Jesus had not established the Eucharist we would have forgotten the crucifixion….To make sure that we do not forget, Jesus gave us the Eucharist as a memorial of His love.”
…………Mother Teresa
R
rinnie
Guest
Oh no, I just thought of something. Excuse me for my ignorance but do the Mormons celebrate Christmas. If not Parker I am sorry, never meant to hurt you.Oh I gotta ya. So it would be like a kid in ccd teaching the Church and forgiving sins, and giving out the Eucharist and having the authority to marry people etc.
But I still love Parker. I think he’s still awesome! Parker:christmastree1::kiss4you:
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Well, I am not Mormon, so I am only guessing. Maybe Parker will say.Oh I gotta ya. So it would be like a kid in ccd teaching the Church and forgiving sins, and giving out the Eucharist and having the authority to marry people etc.
But I still love Parker. I think he’s still awesome! Parker:christmastree1::kiss4you:
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Parker is very nice. So are all the Mormons I met. I have alot of respect for them.
It is the lingo…and the great big gap between the early Christians up to 1830 years Christ had in establishing His church…
If we go by their book, He did a pretty bad job establishing anything but chaos. Inspite of His perfection, he couldn’t get it right starting His church with all these people, generation after generation, but Voile!..Joseph Smith got it right with the glasses…but after he found the sacred books, he went back out and tried to join the Methodist church.
The Methodists wouldn’t accept him…so he went back to start his own…seduced a number of married women as well…He was hot!
I used hyperbole about the airplane loosing its pilot to the Rapture while the Catholics an everybody else become a new missle…
But true about the Prozac…the stakes made me think of staking tents…staking the land for themselves…and the pillars of Islam on St. Sophia look like stakes…a form of edificio bondage.
True about the Prozac…even the dentist I worked with talked about it for women.
It is the lingo…and the great big gap between the early Christians up to 1830 years Christ had in establishing His church…
If we go by their book, He did a pretty bad job establishing anything but chaos. Inspite of His perfection, he couldn’t get it right starting His church with all these people, generation after generation, but Voile!..Joseph Smith got it right with the glasses…but after he found the sacred books, he went back out and tried to join the Methodist church.
The Methodists wouldn’t accept him…so he went back to start his own…seduced a number of married women as well…He was hot!
I used hyperbole about the airplane loosing its pilot to the Rapture while the Catholics an everybody else become a new missle…
But true about the Prozac…the stakes made me think of staking tents…staking the land for themselves…and the pillars of Islam on St. Sophia look like stakes…a form of edificio bondage.
True about the Prozac…even the dentist I worked with talked about it for women.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The mormon view of this is much different. They think studying for serving as a clergy is a idea that comes from apostasy. ParkerD, if he is coming back, will most likely point out they have a lay clergy that are not paid. This too is an idea of their “restoration”.
Pretty much, every discussion in this area has two responses from a mormon. “The Catholic Church messed it up so bad it had to be restored”. Or, in the cases where we have similarities, “some things the Catholic Church didn’t mess up so bad”.
In short, the Mormon religions (and all other restoration religions) are based on one thing first…Christ’s Church failed. It is just yet one of the many unbelievable, and falsifiable, things that mormonism proposes as “truth”.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Hmm… other restoration religions. Is this like Restoration Movement of the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Most originate in the Stone-Campbell movement. Mormon religions, SDA, JW, multiple split-offs, including the ones you list.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Stone Campbell movement…I never heard of it…is this what caused such thinking to come about around the 1830’s in America that led to these cults and sects?
I think some of the fundamentalists emotionally draw on some of the imagery…but publicly don’t use it…
I think some of the fundamentalists emotionally draw on some of the imagery…but publicly don’t use it…
- Status