Mormons Building Temple in Vatican's Backyard

[flyonthewall]

There is nothing in the Bible to back this up. The priesthood did not exist before God bestowed it upon Aaron then said it would be for his offspring only.
Please show where it was in existence before it was given to Aaron.
How and when was the priesthood changed?

Moses’ father in law was a priest of Midian, which was before Aaron received his priesthood.
Melchizedek held the priesthood, he too was before Aaron.
In Numbers 3:12 the Lord states that He has take the Levites instead of the firstborn…yes, Aaron and Moses were Levites.

Hebrews 7:23-24:And the others indeed were made many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing: But he, because he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood.
commentary (Douay-Rheims) The apostle notes this difference betwwen the high priests of the law, and our high priest, Jesus Christ; that they being removed by death, made way for their successors: whereas our Lord Jesus is a priest for ever, and hath no successor; but liveth and concurreth for ever with his ministers, the priests of the New Testament, in all their functions.

There is indeed a difference between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood, but nowhere does it say that Jesus Christ will not bestow upon others the priesthood. In fact, without a priesthood holder, noone can officiate in the ordinances of the Lord. The scriptures are very specific that Jesus chose and ordained the Apostles, and gave them power and authority to bind on earth and in heaven.

Yes, but not the Aaronic priesthood because one must be of Aaron’s lineage and there is no mention of the apostles being called to the Melchizedek priesthood!

You are stuck on the priesthood of Aaron can only be held by the lineage of Aaron. What priesthood did Jethro hold?
What was the bestowal of the keys of the kingdom if not the priesthood? What was the power to bind on earth and in heaven if not the priesthood?

Semantics!? It is stated very clearly that only Aaron and his descendants can hold the Aaronic priesthood. Show me where it states this otherwise.

Under the Law of Moses that was true, but when that law was fulfilled there was a change.

Time is short, so I will try to reply more later.

 

[lax16]

Moses’ father in law was a priest of Midian, which was before Aaron received his priesthood.
Melchizedek held the priesthood, he too was before Aaron.
In Numbers 3:12 the Lord states that He has take the Levites instead of the firstborn…yes, Aaron and Moses were Levites.

Hi flyonthewall - Sorry for the delay in responding to your post, but I have been doing more reading on the subject to see if I can follow what you are saying.
Yes, Moses’ father-in-law was a priest of Midian. It is only mentioned in the OT without further explanation. Can you please explain the relevance of this?
Yes, Melchizedek is mentioned as a priest and a king…so???
No, Melchizedek lived before Aaron, therefore he could not be of the Aaronic priesthood. Also, he would have to be one of Aaron’s descendants.

There is indeed a difference between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood, but nowhere does it say that Jesus Christ will not bestow upon others the priesthood. In fact, without a priesthood holder, noone can officiate in the ordinances of the Lord. The scriptures are very specific that Jesus chose and ordained the Apostles, and gave them power and authority to bind on earth and in heaven.

Obviously as Catholics we believe in the priesthood and know that Jesus left the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and all of the new priests and leaders. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention Jesus establishing a Melchizedek priesthood!
There is NO MENTION in the Bible of the priesthood as it is known to Mormons.

You are stuck on the priesthood of Aaron can only be held by the lineage of Aaron. What priesthood did Jethro hold?
What was the bestowal of the keys of the kingdom if not the priesthood? What was the power to bind on earth and in heaven if not the priesthood?

Funny how you say I am stuck on the idea that only one of Aaron’s lineage can be of the Aaronic priesthood. The fact that you don’t know this shows that you have not read the many scriptural references to the Aaronic priesthood. In fact, there are so many that I can’t understand how anyone could miss it!
We know that the priesthood was passed on to the apostles and that they went out and baptized thousands before their deaths. You are the one that doesn’t seem to think that was enough. Catholics know that the priesthood authority was passed on!
Remember, Mormons believe that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John came to restore the priesthood even though they were never of the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood.
Please explain this using biblical references.
Is the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Under the Law of Moses that was true, but when that law was fulfilled there was a change.

Please tell me where in the Bible you find this. What change?

When?

Time is short, so I will try to reply more later.

 

[KathleenGee]

Melchizedek was a past distant figure of irreputable spiritual figure to the Hebraic people coming up to the age of Saul, the father of David.

The Levite priesthood was chosen for its fidelity to God…but when Moses saw the Golden Calf, he threw down the tablets of the Decalogue…because the Jewish people already broke their covenant of the Law with God.

It was only until Jesus Christ that the Law was restored and fulfilled in Christ.

Furthermore, the Levite priesthood was connected and part of the existence and practice of the Jewish temple. When it was destroyed, so was the Levite priesthood, but the veil was torn, God had now come face to face with us through Jesus Christ, and a new temple was now in formation, its place in our hearts to become tabernacles for the living Eucharist.

 

[T_Hope]

I wouldn’t worry about it. First of all, there are plenty of equally resplendent, and superior, Catholic basilicae and other churches in Rome and the surrounding area. Secondly, a Mormon temple is not used for regular worship but rather for administration of endowments (Mormon “sacraments”). Thus, that building will be empty most of the time. Third, Brighamite Mormon temples are closed to the public. Only LDS with temple recommends can get in. It’s kind of hard to be drawn in to a locked building.

On that third point—who do you think would be drawn to Mormonism on account of a temple? Modernists, secularists, and the lapsed will walk up to the door, see that it is locked, ask an attendant and leave with the impression that Mormons are closed-minded and engaged in bigotry, or worse, that they have something to hide. Uninformed Catholics will not be wowed by the temple for the above reasons. Protestants… well… it’s Rome, so there aren’t a lot of them. Jews will not be interested, nor will Muslims… who does that leave?

So this begs the question of what exactly the point of that temple is. Frankly, I don’t think there is a point beyond nose-thumbing.

P.S. In case you are wondering where the LDS church gets the money to put up temples like that one… well… here you go.

As a former mormon, I can assure you, that if a temple is being built, there are a great many mormons in the area who will frequent it or the location would not have been chosen. You are correct, mormons receive their endowments (gifts necessary to enter heaven) in their temples, and to mormons, the temple ceremony is the ultimate form of worship. After receiving their own endowments, they return again and again to do the work (receive endowments) for the dead. What takes place inside is considered sacred to mormons. They believe it is the place where things on earth are bound to things in heaven. For instance, they believe in eternal marriage, and since eternal means that the marriage continues into eternity, an eternal marriage cannot be performed outside the walls of the temple. Baptisms for the dead are also done inside the mormon temples. There are also solemn assemblies (meetings) held in the temples on occasion.

So, this temple will be a very busy place. It will also have a visitor’s center which will be open to the public, for as you are also correct, the temple is not open to non-mormons nor is it open to mormons who do not hold a current temple recommend. Make no mistake, the mormon temples and visitor centers at temple sites are buzzing with mormon missionaries.

 

[flyonthewall]

lax16:

Please explain this more.

Stewardship is simply the sphere of authority. The Apostles had authority over the whole church, but those they put in as leaders of individual congregations, only had authority for that congregation. An example would be a local Catholic congregational leader (not sure of the term you use…Priest maybe?) cannot take it upon himself to preside at another congregation without being given that authority. Niether can he take on the role of a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope, without first being given that authority.

Jesus knew that there would be great opposition, that is why He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail (despite their efforts to tear down the Church) and that the Holy Spirit would always remain with His Church (and it has, unless you would like to claim otherwise?)

You and I do not interpret “the gates of hell would not prevail” the same way. I do not believe the gates of hell have prevailed or ever will prevail.
The Holy Spirit stays with people but does not force them to do anything. They can wander away if they so choose or are led.

Like I have stated before, if you want to claim that any church that has problems with people not hearing the message, then the mormon church had a great apostasy in its beginnings as well.

Do you consider it a total apostacy when Judas turned away? I don’t. Those who had authority to lead were still there so there was no apostacy. Same thing with the early church. There may have been some early leaders that fell away, and some of them returned later in life, the that did not change the fact that the leadership was still intact.

When did the persecution stop?
When did Christianity come to power?
Who was put to death?

I would say the persecution stopped around the time of Constantine, and later in the 4th century, Christianity became the official religion of the empire is when it came to power.
A simple search of the internet turns up Giordano Bruno. It does not matter how many were actually put to death, the point is that there were real consequences for believing something the church did not approve of.

I thought that the apostasy happened after the last apostle died?
What Church was Luther fighting against?

The apostacy was complete after the Apostles died, how long after I do not know…it was not instantaneous.
Martin Luther was protesting against the what he belived was corruption and apostacy in the Catholic church. What he did was start the wheels of change turning. I am not saying that his beliefs were correct, they did not have to be, but he did start a movement of change.

Who changed the priesthood and when?

Hebrews states the priesthood was changed because the Law was changed. Salvation was not to come thru the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood, but the Melchizedek priesthood.
Just as the Law of Moses was to teach and prepare the House of Israel for Christ and His Gospel, the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood was prepatory for the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi flyonthewall - Sorry for the delay in responding to your post, but I have been doing more reading on the subject to see if I can follow what you are saying.
Yes, Moses’ father-in-law was a priest of Midian. It is only mentioned in the OT without further explanation. Can you please explain the relevance of this?
Yes, Melchizedek is mentioned as a priest and a king…so???
No, Melchizedek lived before Aaron, therefore he could not be of the Aaronic priesthood. Also, he would have to be one of Aaron’s descendants.

The relevance to Jethro being a priest is that to be a priest, you must have the priesthood. The priesthood did exist before Aaron. Melchizedek holding the priesthood is further evidence and proof that the priesthood did indeed exist before it was given to Aaron.
I suppose I can deduce that since you believe the priesthood did not exist before Aaron, offering burnt offerings did not require the priesthood before then…

Obviously as Catholics we believe in the priesthood and know that Jesus left the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and all of the new priests and leaders. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention Jesus establishing a Melchizedek priesthood!
There is NO MENTION in the Bible of the priesthood as it is known to Mormons.

I believe the priesthood is power and authority from God to act in God’s stead here on earth, and as such, there is no need for the Bible to mention that the priesthood was established by God, as that would be a given.
I believe there is mention in the Bible of the priesthood as it is known to mormons…We believe it is the power and authority from God to officiate and lead His church, which is exactly as it is presented in the Bible. We also believe the Melchizedek priesthood has the power to bind on earth and in heaven, as is described in the Bible…Jesus gave that power to the Apostles.

Funny how you say I am stuck on the idea that only one of Aaron’s lineage can be of the Aaronic priesthood. The fact that you don’t know this shows that you have not read the many scriptural references to the Aaronic priesthood. In fact, there are so many that I can’t understand how anyone could miss it!

Oh I know that the priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons forever, but that does not mean that it will never be given to anyone else. I submit that under the Law of Moses, it was so, but as the change of priesthood came with the change of the Law, practices changed too. I know you do not believe in modern day revelation, but that is where it was clarified.

We know that the priesthood was passed on to the apostles and that they went out and baptized thousands before their deaths. You are the one that doesn’t seem to think that was enough. Catholics know that the priesthood authority was passed on!

There is a difference between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood. The keys of the priesthood is the authority to officiate in the leadership of the church…the keys of the kingdom. One can hold the priesthood but not hold the keys. So while I agree that the Apostles did go about baptizing and setting up congregations, they did not pass on the keys to lead the whole church. When the keys were removed or taken from the earth so to was the authority to bestow the priesthood on others.

Remember, Mormons believe that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John came to restore the priesthood even though they were never of the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood.
Please explain this using biblical references.

Matt. 17: 11
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
John the Baptist was said to be Elias, and he did indeed come and restore the lesser priesthood, and Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood, or higher priesthood.

Is the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

While not mentioned by name they are referred to as the priesthood and higher priesthood.

Please tell me where in the Bible you find this. What change?

See Hebrews 7 - it explains there was a change of priesthood.

 

[KathleenGee]

Much change from Mormon take in regards to Melchizedek…there is not much of what Scripture teaches us else about him…and so his background can be up for grabs to create concepts about him…

He was set aside.

The Apostles appointed their bishops and successors…the Apostles were the ones who set up churches throughout the world at that time. And there was constant work to define the precepts of faith found in the Apostles Creed. Heresies were always present even in the times of Christ. That is presumptive and wishful thinking.

But to say that all the churches were isolated and on their own does not hold up to documented historical fact. The final word or authority on an issue always came back to Rome…it taking some time considering the conditions people lived in during those times.

I recall reading a story about a Protestant scholar who spent 27 years trying to disprove the Apostolic succession but after doing pain staking research he found that the succession was never broken. It does not mean each succession was perfect…but the transmission of faith through the Holy Spirit in the teaching Magesterium of the Church, Scripture intertwined with Tradition – how we understand Christ and what He intended – through the Apostles.

Christ is indeed God and He did not make junk or make a mistake. He had the Holy Spirit come after His ascension into heaven…The Holy Spirit did not reject the Apostles’ successors…Rome has always been the center of authority or final word and the representation of the universal faith since the beginning of Christianity.

 

[flyonthewall]

Much change from Mormon take in regards to Melchizedek…there is not much of what Scripture teaches us else about him…and so his background can be up for grabs to create concepts about him…

He was set aside.

Isn’t it interesting that a man like Melchizedek, whose priesthood is what is written Jesus Christ held, has very little written about him in scripture. I wonder why that is…

The Apostles appointed their bishops and successors…the Apostles were the ones who set up churches throughout the world at that time. And there was constant work to define the precepts of faith found in the Apostles Creed. Heresies were always present even in the times of Christ. That is presumptive and wishful thinking.

It is evident by the epistles written to the various churches that corrections were needed to be made. If corrections needed to be made that means mistakes in belief were present. Those mistakes in belief are called heresies. They were indeed present and not just wishful thinking.

But to say that all the churches were isolated and on their own does not hold up to documented historical fact. The final word or authority on an issue always came back to Rome…it taking some time considering the conditions people lived in during those times.

Who said they were isolated and on their own? The Apostles appointed congregational leaders, who were still under the authority of the Apostles.

I recall reading a story about a Protestant scholar who spent 27 years trying to disprove the Apostolic succession but after doing pain staking research he found that the succession was never broken. It does not mean each succession was perfect…but the transmission of faith through the Holy Spirit in the teaching Magesterium of the Church, Scripture intertwined with Tradition – how we understand Christ and what He intended – through the Apostles.

Christ is indeed God and He did not make junk or make a mistake. He had the Holy Spirit come after His ascension into heaven…The Holy Spirit did not reject the Apostles’ successors…Rome has always been the center of authority or final word and the representation of the universal faith since the beginning of Christianity.No one but you(generically) is saying that God made junk or a mistake. Just because the people God has chosen goes into apostacy does not mean He made a mistake. God chose the Israelites and established His religion with them…look how many times they went into apostacy…look how many times a prophet was needed to be called to call them to repentance. Are you saying that was all God’s fault? I certainly am not.

I understand your belief is that there was continuous succession from the time of Christ until now. That is great and wonderful. There are those that disagree.
I am not trying to shake your faith about it. When I am asked about why I believe a certain way, I answer the question. I know my answers will not be acceptable by many if not all, but I stand by my belief, just like you stand by yours.

It is enlightening to try and understand things through your eyes.

God bless.

 

[KathleenGee]

What you are denying yourself, Flyonthewall, is discerning truth from falsehood…and common sense.

The figure of the priesthood is none other than Jesus Christ and He instituting His priesthood, blameless, pure and holy…but this not of themselves but the living reality of Christ working within them. Why should there be something else 1830 years later with such a gap?

The corruption is found in our priesthood, is it not? The Catholic/Orthodox priesthood is founded on Jesus Christ.

I do not mean to be offensive. but when I read the Mormon responses to historical documents, it appears to be sheer rejection. I do not have the time now, but I can share with you more on how the Mass was said in Rome and the surrounding countryside of Rome where the Temple will be built; and how this form of Mass was being practiced throughout the entire Christian world at the time – and only within 60 years after the death of the last Apostle.

This unity of practice of worship in the general Christian world, without telecommunications, printing press, and so on is remarkable because of the consent and uniformity of understanding and practice, evidently reflecting of the desire Christ prayed for when He was on earth – that we would all be one with Him. This unity is no other than that of the Holy Spirit. It is not based on anything extraordinary, but people coming together to hear the Word of God and to come to the Sacred Banquet Table to the Breaking of Bread.

God calls every person to HImself. Our souls contain the reflection of the Lord Himself. Isn’t that enough???

Again as St. John of the Cross said in regards to Hebrews 1:1-2…"In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke to everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say…because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.’

St. John of the Cross was a Carmelite priest. I see no corruption in him or his writings.

Christ is the final Word of Revelation. There is no human being who can be a new word, there are no other angels we should recognize than those identified in Sacred Scripture because Satan can come as an angel of light.

To not be open to historical truth and anthropolgy, you are denying yourself the grace to find faith in Chirst, in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, given to us since the Last Supper. There is no interpretation when you see how faith was implemented with the Apostles. There is no attaching to a phrase here or there in the Scriptures and then making an entirely new belief system to it.

The Lord has already come. His kingdom is already here. The Pearl of Great Price is the Kingdom of Christ…and when you enter into the sacraments of baptism, penance, Holy Eucharist, confirmation, healing, and those pertaining to one’s vocations…here in the mystical Body of Christ – you are indeed entering into His kingdom.

Christ completed His work on earth with His glorious Ascension into Heaven. And then the Church began with the Apostles, their followers and the indwelling or confirmation and empowerment of the Holy Spirit…who did not die out or pass away or blow out, but continues to work in every generation.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I wish we’d just let the Mormons be. They have a right to build there. I guess I’m friends with a lot of Mormons and that makes me defensive, but when people claim the historical anti-Catholic nature of Mormonism, it seems that they fail to recognize their own hostility toward Mormons.

 

[KathleenGee]

Someone thought it was a Mormon disguised as Catholic to break the news…this is the second thread calling for Catholic response.

Please note that our conversations and sharings are actually being used to develop further arguments to deny our faith as the true church of Christ.

Certainly we are called to mutual charity.

 

[lax16]

Stewardship is simply the sphere of authority. The Apostles had authority over the whole church, but those they put in as leaders of individual congregations, only had authority for that congregation. An example would be a local Catholic congregational leader (not sure of the term you use…Priest maybe?) cannot take it upon himself to preside at another congregation without being given that authority. Niether can he take on the role of a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope, without first being given that authority.

Hi flyonthewall -

1. Who were the leaders, chosen by the apostles, that were put in charge of the congregations?
2. Do you know their names, and if so, where did you get them from?
3. How do you know that the leaders chosen did not have authority?
4. What did the apostles do wrong so that their authority was not passed on?
5. You are right, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy of structure. And it always has!

You and I do not interpret “the gates of hell would not prevail” the same way. I do not believe the gates of hell have prevailed or ever will prevail.

If you believe that the Church established by Jesus Christ was torn down by the workings of evil people, then you believe that the gates of hell prevailed - even if you say you don’t, that is exactly what that means!

The Holy Spirit stays with people but does not force them to do anything. They can
wander away if they so choose or are led.

Obviously. However, just as it is true today, it was true 2,000 years ago, that good people can move forward with the help of the Holy Spirit. Mormons claim that they could not. Obviously, you are choosing to believe that the HS left his people.
btw - when do Mormons say that the HS returned?

Do you consider it a total apostacy when Judas turned away? I don’t. Those who had authority to lead were still there so there was no apostacy. Same thing with the early church. There may have been some early leaders that fell away, and some of them returned later in life, the that did not change the fact that the leadership was still intact.

No, I don’t consider anything a total apostacy because Jesus promised there wouldn’t be one - if He didn’t make that promise, sure I could believe what you are selling.
However, with Jesus’ promise comes the knowledge that His Church would survive.

I would say the persecution stopped around the time of Constantine, and later in the 4th century, Christianity became the official religion of the empire is when it came to power.
A simple search of the internet turns up Giordano Bruno. It does not matter how many were actually put to death, the point is that there were real consequences for believing something the church did not approve of.

The apostacy was complete after the Apostles died, how long after I do not know…it was not instantaneous.
Martin Luther was protesting against the what he belived was corruption and apostacy in the Catholic church. What he did was start the wheels of change turning. I am not saying that his beliefs were correct, they did not have to be, but he did start a movement of change.

Yes, but obviously there was a Church for him to protest against. I had two missionaries tell me that they knew that ML fought against “something” but wasn’t sure what “it” was. I informed them that there was a Catholic Church and ML was protesting against some parts of the teachings of the Church and they were astonished! You mean, there was a Catholic Church back in the time of Luther? they gasped.
Then, more recently, I had a man in his 30’s (a RM) tell me that Martin Luther wrote the Bible!
Anyway, I think the Mormons are very unclear about their definition of apostasy.

Hebrews states the priesthood was changed because the Law was changed. Salvation was not to come thru the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood, but the Melchizedek priesthood.
Just as the Law of Moses was to teach and prepare the House of Israel for Christ and His Gospel, the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood was prepatory for the Melchizedek priesthood.

I will say it again, Mormons are not related to Aaron, therefore cannot hold the Aaronic priesthood. Period. (Before you say I am stuck on it, remember it is not my opinion but it is clearly written in scripture).
You can say what you say about “prepatory” and “the Law was changed” but it means nothing until you can show where in the Bible it tells us how Jesus wanted us to start a Melchizedek priesthood!
No offense, but this way of talking with such broad statements and no scriptural backing is really frustrating. We will go round and round about this and you will not be able to provide any scriptural basis for the Mormon priesthood. None.

 

[lax16]

I wish we’d just let the Mormons be. They have a right to build there. I guess I’m friends with a lot of Mormons and that makes me defensive, but when people claim the historical anti-Catholic nature of Mormonism, it seems that they fail to recognize their own hostility toward Mormons.

And I believe we are all called to be missionaries and spread the Good News of the Holy Catholic Church!

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi flyonthewall -

1. Who were the leaders, chosen by the apostles, that were put in charge of the congregations?
2. Do you know their names, and if so, where did you get them from?
3. How do you know that the leaders chosen did not have authority?
4. What did the apostles do wrong so that their authority was not passed on?
5. You are right, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy of structure. And it always has!

1. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, are some names that come to mind
2. I have heard the names referred to in dialogue.
3. I believe they were given authority specific to their stewardship.
4. I don’t know that they did something wrong, but may simply not had the opportunity to assemble and select other Apostles.
5. Then you should understand that, if the Apostles only selected congregational leaders before their deaths, then there would be no one with the authority to lead the church. Oh, sure the congregational leaders could have gotten together and selected someone to lead them, but that authority would not be theirs to give, and not legitimate.

If you believe that the Church established by Jesus Christ was torn down by the workings of evil people, then you believe that the gates of hell prevailed - even if you say you don’t, that is exactly what that means!

That is what you believe it means. The gates of hell, contain the dead. Both physical and spiritual death have been defeated. Physical death was defeated universally, spirital death is defeated by the Atonement.

Obviously. However, just as it is true today, it was true 2,000 years ago, that good people can move forward with the help of the Holy Spirit. Mormons claim that they could not. Obviously, you are choosing to believe that the HS left his people.
btw - when do Mormons say that the HS returned?

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired and led many good people, but that is different than having the proper authority to lead the church.

No, I don’t consider anything a total apostacy because Jesus promised there wouldn’t be one - if He didn’t make that promise, sure I could believe what you are selling.
However, with Jesus’ promise comes the knowledge that His Church would survive.

I agree with you on this…if there was no apostacy, then Joseph Smith is not needed. Joseph Smith himself said as much.

Yes, but obviously there was a Church for him to protest against. I had two missionaries tell me that they knew that ML fought against “something” but wasn’t sure what “it” was. I informed them that there was a Catholic Church and ML was protesting against some parts of the teachings of the Church and they were astonished! You mean, there was a Catholic Church back in the time of Luther? they gasped.
Then, more recently, I had a man in his 30’s (a RM) tell me that Martin Luther wrote the Bible!
Anyway, I think the Mormons are very unclear about their definition of apostasy.

I think you are right about that…there could be many differing views on what exactly is the definition of the apostacy. That may be because we do not dwell on the apostacy but the restoration.

I will say it again, Mormons are not related to Aaron, therefore cannot hold the Aaronic priesthood. Period. (Before you say I am stuck on it, remember it is not my opinion but it is clearly written in scripture).
You can say what you say about “prepatory” and “the Law was changed” but it means nothing until you can show where in the Bible it tells us how Jesus wanted us to start a Melchizedek priesthood!
No offense, but this way of talking with such broad statements and no scriptural backing is really frustrating. We will go round and round about this and you will not be able to provide any scriptural basis for the Mormon priesthood. None.

Not everything is spelled out in the Bible. You rely on the traditions of the Catholic church to arrive at some of your beliefs. I rely on modern day prophets and extra biblical scripture. Your traditions don’t carry much weight with me and I’m sure my sources don’t carry any with you.
I can toss Biblical scriptures out there that allude to what I say, but since it is not spelled out it will not satisfy you.
Here is another try:
Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
John had the Aaronic priesthood and could only baptize with water. Jesus Christ held the Melchizedek priesthood and could confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Now, if no one else could hold the Melchizedek priesthood, then no one else could confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone else.
Now I can tell right now that you will think this is a leap in logic and dismiss this without much thought.

 

[lax16]

1. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, are some names that come to mind
2. I have heard the names referred to in dialogue.
3. I believe they were given authority specific to their stewardship.
4. I don’t know that they did something wrong, but may simply not had the opportunity to assemble and select other Apostles.
5. Then you should understand that, if the Apostles only selected congregational leaders before their deaths, then there would be no one with the authority to lead the church. Oh, sure the congregational leaders could have gotten together and selected someone to lead them, but that authority would not be theirs to give, and not legitimate.

**I am not sure if I am following what you are saying, but found this information on Polycarp interesting and may address the issue:

We now come to the passage in St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III,3) which brings out in fullest relief St. Polycarp’s position as a link with the past. Just as St. John’s long life lengthened out the Apostolic Age, so did the four score and six years of Polycarp extend the sub-Apostolic Age, during which it was possible to learn by word of mouth what the Apostles taught from those who had been their hearers. In Rome the Apostolic Age ended about A.D. 67 with the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the sub-Apostolic Age about a quarter of a century later when St. Clement, “who had seen the blessed Apostles”, died. In Asia the Apostolic Age lingered on till St. John died about A.D. 100; and the sub-Apostolic Age till 155, when St. Polycarp was martyred. In the third book of his treatise “Against Heresies”, St. Irenæus makes his celebrated appeal to the “successions” of the bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against heretics who professed to have a kind of esoteric tradition derived from the Apostles. To whom, demands St. Irenæus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches? In order then to know what the Apostles taught, we must have recourse to the “successions” of bishops throughout the world. But as time and space would fail if we tried to enumerate them all one by one, let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them (“for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must needs agree”, etc.).

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, “who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles”. From the Roman Church, representing all the churches, the writer then passes on to two Churches, that of Smyrna, in which, in the person of Polycarp, the sub-Apostolic Age had been carried down to a time still within living memory, and the Church of Ephesus, where, in the person of St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till “the time of Trajan”. Of Polycarp he says, “he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna”. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome, where he converted many heretics. He then continues, "there are those who heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words ‘Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within’. Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said ‘Recognise us’, replied, ‘Ay, ay, I recognise the first-born of Satan’ ". **

That is what you believe it means. The gates of hell, contain the dead. Both physical and spiritual death have been defeated. Physical death was defeated universally, spirital death is defeated by the Atonement.

This is a unique perspective.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired and led many good people, but that is different than having the proper authority to lead the church.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, how can you say for sure that these good people did not have the proper authority to lead the church?

INot everything is spelled out in the Bible. You rely on the traditions of the Catholic church to arrive at some of your beliefs. I rely on modern day prophets and extra biblical scripture. Your traditions don’t carry much weight with me and I’m sure my sources don’t carry any with you.

However, what you are saying is strictly Mormon. If you have the only priesthood authority for the whole world, shouldn’t it be universal in its message?

John had the Aaronic priesthood and could only baptize with water. Jesus Christ held the Melchizedek priesthood and could confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

**John’s father was a priest, but was he of the lineage of Aaron? John the Baptist was not a priest. Where did you get that from? He did not perform the priestly duties of the Bible. **

Now, if no one else could hold the Melchizedek priesthood, then no one else could confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone else.
Now I can tell right now that you will think this is a leap in logic and dismiss this without much thought.

What makes you think anyone could hold the Melchizedek priesthood?
The Book of Hebrews tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is the only High Priest after the order Melchizedek.
And, I know that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were not of Aaronic lineage.

 

[KathleenGee]

Flyonthewall,

Lax just gave you in this previous post some good references…members of the post apostolic age— successors or pupils of the apostles or of their pupils…I think we all need to go back to early Christian history and look at the documented facts, as well as how the Nazarene Jews who followed Christ evolved and how Gentile Christians evolved…but the work of the Holy Spirit was always at work to bring about unity.

Regarding Melchizedek…his is a distant figure, one who is idealized and as a prophet foretelling when the perpetual and perfect sacrifice will satisfy…and that is found in the Daily Sacrifice.

My other concern is that when you have been indoctrinated to oppose the history of faith, it is very hard to see the objective documented history.

 

[flyonthewall]

I am not sure if I am following what you are saying, but found this information on Polycarp interesting and may address the issue:

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the authority to lead God’s church must come from above, not from below. And by “below”, I mean lower level leaders cannot select higher leaders. Apostles can select other congregational leaders, and other Apostles because they have that authority. When the Apostles all died out, and there were no more Apostles, that authority died with them. Yes, there were those in place to govern local churches(congregations) but not the church as a whole.

This is a unique perspective.

I don’t know how unique it is, but that is the straight forward meaning. Gates are inanimate objects and don’t DO anything of themselves. They can be opened and closed, locked and unlocked, but those actions are done by others. The only way a gate can prevail, is if someone else cannot open them.
And of course hell, as used in the context of that verse is the place of the dead.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, how can you say for sure that these good people did not have the proper authority to lead the church?

I say it in hind sight and the fact that the Lord said so.

However, what you are saying is strictly Mormon. If you have the only priesthood authority for the whole world, shouldn’t it be universal in its message?

I am not quite sure I follow. LDS are attempting to preach the restored gospel to the world. We invite all to the gospel as it is for everyone…How is that not universal?

John’s father was a priest, but was he of the lineage of Aaron? John the Baptist was not a priest. Where did you get that from? He did not perform the priestly duties of the Bible.

You are the one that keeps telling me that only the descendants of Aaron could hold the priesthood and be a priest. John’s father was a priest, so you tell me…was he a descendent of Aaron? and what priesthood did he hold?

Since John’s father was a descendent of Aaron, how could John not also be one? John was prophecied of by OT prophets, announced by Gabriel of his role, and even Jesus Christ mentioned his authority…he asked the pharisees where John’s authority came from, and in the context is saying that John’s authority and his own come from the same place.
Baptism was and is an ordinance, and all ordinances required the proper authority to perform. Authority is priesthood

What makes you think anyone could hold the Melchizedek priesthood?
The Book of Hebrews tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is the only High Priest after the order Melchizedek.
And, I know that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were not of Aaronic lineage.

You and I read Hebrews and come away with different understandings.
Jesus gave the Apostles the power and authority to preach the gospel and baptize. He also gave them the keys to the kingdom to bind on earth and in heaven. By definition this is the priesthood. It may not have been labeled “Melchizedek” priesthood at the time, but then why would Jesus Christ, the owner of that priesthood, call it by someone else’s name?
The priesthood is the power and authority to officiate in the Lord’s church, without it, the Lord’s church cannot exist. So if you are saying that no one on earth holds the Melchizedek priesthood, then I take that as an admission that there is no one on earth that can lead the Lord’s church.

Hebrews does not say he was the only priest after the order of Melchizedek, but that He was a priest.
Now with that said, are you stating or implying that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, originated with Melchizedek? or did it come from somewhere or someone else?
The priesthood that Melchizedek held, where did it come from? It came from God, Jehova, otherwise known as Jesus Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the authority to lead God’s church must come from above, not from below. And by “below”, I mean lower level leaders cannot select higher leaders. Apostles can select other congregational leaders, and other Apostles because they have that authority. When the Apostles all died out, and there were no more Apostles, that authority died with them. Yes, there were those in place to govern local churches(congregations) but not the church as a whole.

Tthe First Presidency of the LDS is always selected from lower authority.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Our Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. Bishops select Bishops. There is no problem with this, only in that of a person who wants to find fault, where there is none. But it is a Pharisee’s argument, of no substance, and completely lacking in acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit.

But that is the only way for one to be a Mormon. (I think of it as a sign of Mormonism.)

 

[KathleenGee]

Flyonthewall,

In the universal, Catholic, apostolic church, authority always comes down from the Lord. All appointments are a calling by the higher authority of Rome…given to it from the Lord HImself at the Last Supper.

And if you want to read some of the same comments I read in the first century of Mormonism (and compare it to the writings of the apostles, their appointed bishops and successors, the teachers who studied under St. John the Evangelist and his pupils) compare the ideology and verbage with Lax’s post #138 on ‘Either Catholics or Mormons are right’…I read even more than statements like that when I was at the LDS bookstore…

Because Mormonism says Catholicism is apostate and corrupt, it focuses on our faith most intensely. It has changed its way of expressing itself, and has been studying how we do things…that it is no accident today that the Mormon church has a number of things similar to ours.

But the clincher is the priesthood.

I got so many hits when I first responded to the other thread on the LDS building a temple in the countryside of Rome, because the thread looked like a plant to see our reaction.