Mormons Building Temple in Vatican's Backyard

[KathleenGee]

Eve was not seeking wisdom.

God gave them everything. She knew she was eating that which was forbidden…she named it forbidden…

And what is forbidden cannot be equated with wisdom.

CC 375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original state of holiness and justice. This grace of original holiness was to share in divine life.

Original justice is harmony between man and woman, harmony between the first couple and all creation…where there was no death.

What we were offered in being in the image of God, and sharing friendship with God, rather than becoming as gods ourselves – was that we were to master ourselves.

 

[KathleenGee]

About creation of the universe, God simply willed it…and it is through the Divine Word which is Jesus Christ, that the universe was made.

The Crucified Lord --Who died on the Cross–the symbol of the path we must follow – not being as gods-- are we then able to finally meet union with God in the next life. Heaven is as a banquet table…togetherness, oneness.

The intention of all Catholics is to pray for our separated brethren so we may all be one and heal the divisions within the Body of Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Kathleen did not say that Eve said anything about wanting deification.

Eve did not express any sort of desire for anything except to eat a yummy fruit.

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:1-11[/BIBLEDRB]

It is clear that you are engaging in eisegesis.

Cat Herder,

Kathleen has re-emphasized her point, which was that very point of wanting to “be like God” according to her.

As to the translation you have used from Genesis, I certainly can’t help it if a translation isn’t true to the original Hebrew and thus isn’t true to what was inspired to be written.

 

[zaffiroborant]

KathleenGee,
This is an example of the surface Bible reading I had talked about earlier. Eve doesn’t say anything about “wanting to become as God”. Satan did. So if you believe Satan, then you have been deceived. That is what he wanted–to deceive.

.

Because you see KathleenGee, anyone who doesn’t not hold the same interpretation and come to the same conclusions as ParkerD has only given the bible a cursory read. That their understanding, and the depth of their study of the bible is shallow should be quite obvious. Any serious student of the bible will of course have the same understanding as Parker.

 

[ParkerD]

Because you see KathleenGee, anyone who doesn’t not hold the same interpretation and come to the same conclusions as ParkerD has only given the bible a cursory read. That their understanding, and the depth of their study of the bible is shallow should be quite obvious. Any serious student of the bible will of course have the same understanding as Parker.

Zaffiroborant,

I wasn’t talking about a “cursory read”, nor did I say anything about “quite obvious.” A serious student of the Bible, knowing that translation plays a significant part in the meaning, could look at a Hebrew-English transliteration or translation and would find the following words that were not in the Douay-Rheims evidently ( I don’t know why):

לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל
le·has·kil,
to make wise

and those words became translated into the King James Translation, Genesis 3:6 as regards part of the reason Eve partook of the fruit, “and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat…” (Those words were capturing her thought process.)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Zaffiroborant,

I wasn’t talking about a “cursory read”, nor did I say anything about “quite obvious.” A serious student of the Bible, knowing that translation plays a significant part in the meaning, could look at a Hebrew-English transliteration or translation and would find the following words that were not in the Douay-Rheims evidently ( I don’t know why):

לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל
le·has·kil,
to make wise

The Septuagint has that phrase as “beautiful to contemplate,” hence the DRB has it that way too.

So… which is quoted in the New Testament—the Septuagint or an earlier Hebrew text?

 

[ParkerD]

The Septuagint has that phrase as “beautiful to contemplate,” hence the DRB has it that way too.

So… which is quoted in the New Testament—the Septuagint or an earlier Hebrew text?

If you’re asking me, and if you mean the Old Testament rather than the New Testament, then the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and it would seem best to go back to the original text if at all possible. The following is from a website with the Masoretic Hebrew:

ו וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה-הוּא לָעֵינַיִם, וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל, וַתִּקַּח מִפִּרְיוֹ, וַתֹּאכַל; וַתִּתֵּן גַּם-לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ, וַיֹּאכַל. 6

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof,”

Source (includes copyright) "According to the Masoretic Text

and the JPS 1917 Edition

© 2005 all rights reserved to Mechon Mamre for this HTML version)":

mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

On the several occasions when something about the Catholic belief in the glory of the afterlife has been described to me, it has sounded like the “terrestrial kingdom” to me. So since you have a different view, I would be pleased to understand the specifics of how you describe the situation for faithful Catholics in their afterlife glory. (I haven’t gotten many specifics previously.)

And in every description of the glory of the after life given by Catholics there is something there that is glaringly absent in your description of the “terrestrial kingdom”. The absence is of such magnitude that every Catholic and Protestant’s immediate reaction is “that is not salvation”. If you can’t figure out what this is you have been reading peoples descriptions without even trying to understand them. Eyes processing words, mind putting your spin on what you read.

 

[KathleenGee]

And I reviewed two different site on ancient Hebrew translation of Genesis 3:

The ancient Hebrew translation, Satan speaking to Eve, ‘For Elohim knows in the day both of you eat of it then your eyes will be opened and you will both be like Elohim Who knows good and evil.’

In the 300’s, St. Jerome translated the Hebrew version of the Old Testament – text used by Jews remaining in Israel, into Latin, and translated the 7 Greek Old Testament – Greek the international language used by Jews, into Latin.

CC 397: 'Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart, and abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in His goodness.

God is good and His providence has never failed for those who have trusted Him. How many countless witness of trusting in God’s goodness we have witnessed with our bishops and priests?

Partaking of the forbidden fruit, separating themselves from trusting in God, and wanting to be like Him is placing one’s self on the same plane as God. Forbidden fruit can not be considered true wisdom if it is deemed so by God Himself.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If you’re asking me, and if you mean the Old Testament rather than the New Testament, then the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and it would seem best to go back to the original text if at all possible.

We don’t have the original text (the Masoretic text is not the original, just an older copy).

But the real question, is that what Jesus and His Apostles did? If God Himself has a preference for a particular translation, that trumps all humans.

 

[JeanMichel]

I follow what you say, and am trying to understand the big picture.
I am trying to see if proper authority is required to perform baptism or if it only depends on the faith of the one being baptized. So far it seems that the proper authority is not required.

I have no problem with having to be re-baptized into the faith of another religion, but it is the concept of a Protestant baptism being valid for Catholics, that just doesn’t make sense…if there is a claim that priesthood authority is required to perform sacraments.

So far, if I am following correctly, baptism and marriage are sacraments that either need no authority to preform, or the authority is given to all…except to lds and a few others.

I believe a previous post stated it appropriately; baptism and marriage, as sacraments, may be acceptable when performed by members of the clergy from other churches. I think this was covered in Vatican II, but my memory is going bad. It seems like I want to say Vatican II for all changes; forgive me if I am wrong and if I am, another will be able to provide the correct citation. This acceptance was not always so and is a rather recent change.

The Church is solidly built on the reality of Apostolic Succession; that from Peter until today the keys of the priesthood are held by the Vicar of Christ, the one who still sits on Peter’s chair. That authority is passed on to others by the laying on of hands. This is familiar to you because you use the same method when ordaining a man to the priesthood.

 

[JeanMichel]

JeanMichel,
The only reason I am responding to your last comment addressed to me, is that your comment said I was dealing with “Catholics as a group”, whereas here was my comment to another post:

“As to your point C, I have yet to find a Catholic who has a very deep knowledge of the Bible, at least on this forum. It is always surface level, yielding brief explanations that don’t hold up to close examination when the issues of translation and multiple cross-references (including use of the Old Testament) are brought up. I’ve done that many times on this forum, with the same result time after time.”

I doubt that the scholars studying the Dead Sea scrolls are participating on this forum, particularly on threads dealing with the Mormon church. I don’t know those scholars’ works, so I haven’t “found them”, nor have I interacted with them.

I chose the words I used with a specific group in mind that was perhaps twenty to thirty people with whom I have interacted on this forum dealing with the topics I mentioned to you and other Biblical topics that compare the Mormon church beliefs with the Catholic church beliefs; I showed the Biblical basis of the Mormon church beliefs and in some cases explained translation issues that bring greater clarity to some misunderstood verses.

I stand corrected and you could very easily be right about some of our scholars not being here. However, the comment is still inflammatory and is better left unsaid. There is a time and a place for all things, but on this Catholic forum, the purpose is to teach or explain Catholic thought and doctrine when compared to non-Catholic churches. Some of our number can be quite vocal and condemnation making it too easily to appear that Catholics hate others. Others use language much more softly with the intent to make non-Catholics understand they are God’s children and are loved. They possess doctrinal error and can quickly come to a greater fullness of truth as they come to the Catholic Church.

I would also caution you in your thoughts. Just because some of our members do not make comments does not mean they do not read what is written here. I promise you that there are many with a very deep understanding and appreciation of the Bible here.

 

[JeanMichel]

I have asked myself this question over and over again. My bitterness comes from the fact that the LDS have built there own faith on the so called fall of Christianity. I as a Catholic find my own faith as one fallen yet found to be alive in Christ because of this fall. We are here because of the fall of mankind. When another faith claims its victory because of the fall of the catholic faith it just plain hurts. Especially when you have come to know Christ because of this church, through this faith. We are not the Catholic Church because of the fall of another church, rather we are a Church who has become saved by Christ becauae we are all fallen.

I feel and understand your pain well. Too easily do we who follow Christ get caught up in our zeal to bring others to the same joy we possess. Too often we strike out at them so that they come to see the same perspective we do…after all, it is a glory to behold and has made us joyful, humble, penitent, forgiven, and pure before the Lord Almighty. This is the part of organized relgion that has caused so much pain for me.

I believe that God is the God of every human on the earth. As such, he is active in everyone’s life that seeks him. He blesses each of them in their efforts, even those which a Christian chuches condemn as pagan or false. I have met truly holy men that were Bhuddist, Muslim, Mormon, and members of other churches. I am forced to admit that these men are in communion with the same God that I pray to. There is only one God and holiness only comes from Him and nothing else. I conclude that God is active in their life and is directing them in the best way possible.

I am not tempted to follow their path; I have another one. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, though full of weakness and sin, he is still my Master and Lord. I believe that through his blood I am washed clean of all my sins. I don’t know how all this is going to fit together, but I have to believe that God is in control and that he knows what each of us on earth is doing. He loves each of us equally and is active in all those who look up or seek for meaning of this life. I am left to just do my best, share his love, and at the end of the day leave it all to Him to work out.

 

[ParkerD]

And in every description of the glory of the after life given by Catholics there is something there that is glaringly absent in your description of the “terrestrial kingdom”. The absence is of such magnitude that every Catholic and Protestant’s immediate reaction is “that is not salvation”. If you can’t figure out what this is you have been reading peoples descriptions without even trying to understand them. Eyes processing words, mind putting your spin on what you read.

Zaffiroborant,

I hadn’t given “my description of the terrestrial kingdom”, but had given a few verses describing some of the things about it.

If you want “my description”, I suppose I’ll provide it as best I can:

1. Glory surpassing human understanding and description.
2. Glory in the presence of the Son of God, and in the spirit presence of the Father, feeling their love and loving Them.
3. Love and joy far surpassing the greatest human love and joy on this earth, among those in the terrestrial kingdom as they serve together.
4. Peace and joy in the positive and uplifting eternal work that is to be done as ministering angels.

 

[lax16]

The definitions are found in D&C 107.

Obviously, only a Mormon would read that.

1. I do not agree. It was Jehova/Jesus that gave the priesthood to Aaron and sons to begin with.

What?! You are saying that because God called Aaron and his descendants to the priesthood, they are related to God/Jesus?? Aaron/Moses are *related to *God and Jesus?

From a Jewish website:
Lineage of the Aaronic Priesthood
Levi, one of twelve sons Abraham, had three sons and named them Gershon, Kohath, Merari (Figure 2). Moses and Aaron were also descended from the tribe of Levi through Amram and Kohath (Figure 2).

When the Lord anointed Aaron’s line to the priesthood, he also presented the tribe of Levi to Aaron3. The Levites were commanded to provide Aaron assistance in carrying out the priestly duties4. This included the assignments of taking care of all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting and fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing the work of the tabernacle.

God said, “I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether man or animal.” (Numbers 3:12-13 KJV)

THE PRIESTLY ORDER OF COHANIM

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, God told Moses to have his brother Aaron, and Aaron’s four sons brought before him so they may serve as priests to the people.** God anointed Aaron and his sons so that the priests could only come from Aaron’s lineage. **According to Jewish tradition, Aaron’s family name was HaCohen and the high priest was named the Cohen Gadol5. And God said, “Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priest; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death.” (Numbers 3:10, KJV)

1. okay
2. Where does it say that?

Hebrews 7:23-24

1. John the Baptist did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood, but Peter James and John did. They can pass it on by ordination and the laying on of hands.

No, only Jesus Christ (Hebrews 5:1-10) and Melchizedek himself (Genesis 14:18-20) were called to the priesthood of Melchizedek, and they were called by God not by the laying on of hands and nowhere in the Bible are we told that God called them to the priesthood.
Who gave Peter, James, and John the priesthood? How? It is not done by the laying on of hands. It can be only done by God himself calling them to the priesthood.

1. The priesthood is the authority from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and it is in the Name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost that they were to act.

The Aaronic priesthood comes from the lineage of Aaron and the Melchizedek comes from God Himself.

Again, what proof do you have that the apostles did not ordain new priests in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?.

The time was not right. There had to be changes in the world that would allow the gospel to thrive and not be squelched.

God set the stage for the Messiah for thousands of years, prophesied about it in detail, chose Mary to be His mother, had Jesus walk this earth and preach, call apostles, perform miracles, convert many, die on the cross, rise again, leave the Holy Spirit with his apostles to continue his work, they perform miracles/preach/convert thousands, Jesus promises the HS will stay until the end, goes back to the Father, allows for His Church to grow with the guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years, leaves behind written accounts for us to read 2,000 years later, calls saints and fathers to the Church to fight heresies, allows his followers to be martyrd for their faith as a witness to others, they leave behind written accounts of their faith and works…and you are saying the timing was not quite right?What was happening in 18 whatever that it was the “right” time for the gospel to flourish?

Exodus 20: 18-19. God wanted to talk to the people directly but they could not handle it. So Moses became the go-between and the Law of Moses came about.

I get it from the scriptures, Matthew 18:18. The original name of the Priesthood was the “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God”. It was His priesthood as it is His power and authority to give.
Of course…baptize in the name of God, by the power and authority of God.

It is the priesthood given to administer the Law of Moses, which was prepatory to the gospel of Christ. The decendants of Aaron were given the authority to administer under the Law of Moses, and still have a special place within that priesthood, but as I stated before, at the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, things changed.

Again, only Aaron and his descendants can be of the Aaronic priesthood. Joseph Smith was not of Aaron. The Aaronic priesthood is for those men aged 30 to 50 (Numbers 4:35) and aren’t Mormon men 18+ allowed to become priests?
Read Leviticus 21 and see the list of requirements for the Aaronic priesthood.

You are right in that it does depend on if Joseph Smith was right or wrong.
All throughout the scriptures Prophets were rarely believed…a lot were condemned because they spoke out against the apostacy of the nations. They were villified and and many ended up executed. Why were they not believed at the time? Because their message did not harmonize with the nations were doing…that the nations had it wrong.

The problem is that the Mormons claim to have the only priesthood authority on the face of the earth, it does not match anything in the Bible - that is why people don’t believe.

 

[JeanMichel]

No.

Do not attempt to adjust your monitor.

“Was Jesus once a man?” That question implies that Jesus has ceased to be a man. He was, and still is, fully human. Thus the answer is no.

For Mormonism, humanity is this rotten thing to be escaped from. Jesus didn’t think so. He became man so that man could become like God while remaining man–not so that man could cease to be man and become gods.

I appreciate your honesty.

Without ceasing to be man and without becoming gods ourselves.

You could start by studying astrophysics. Like E=mc[sup]2[/sup] It takes an almighty God to create ex nihilo, i.e. The Big Bang, and if God had a body before that, it would not be an ex nihilo creation.

The LDS view of God, being polytheistic and non-spiritual, doesn’t stand up to scientic scrutiny.

That is quite a bit of splitting hairs and word gymnastic play. I think it completely misses the point of the discussion, but that is also another matter.

Based upon your comment, I apologize for being direct, but you are making grand leaps of logic when it comes to Mormon beliefs. Of all Christian religions they stand alone thinking that man is the off-spring of God. Humanity is not “this rotten thing to be escaped from” but it is, in their beliefs, a necessary period God has designed for his children. This mortal existence is one of sin, unrighteousness, and carnality AND it is one that must be overcome through Christ. This is exactly the same position that Catholicism takes. Mormons believe this life is but a phase, which God has offered to all, to become a co-heirs with Jesus Christ. Although the manner in which you wirte is a way to sensationalize the discussion, it is not helpful because it so easily leads others to false conclusions about Mormon beliefs. That is not becoming of a good Catholic brother or sister.

I am curious, you seem to count yourself among the learned in science on this forum. What degrees have you in this field? If you have no degrees, who is it that you have read that gives you this deep grasp of scientific thought? E=mc[sup]2[/sup] would not be the place to go, rather the theory of Relativity would be a more fruitful venture. Then again, I am not an astro-physicist, but I read broadly.

 

[Marie5890]

(Looks like this thread has run it’s course on the new temple in Rome to me)

 

[flyonthewall]

No problem there—EXCEPT that the LDS Church insists that the Father had a body of flesh and bones BEFORE the Universe was created. Science says the Universe was created from nothing: no material things, and not even time, existed before the creation.

So either Jesus crunched His Father’s body into a singularity while creating the Universe, or the LDS Church is wrong and the Father has no body. I’m going with the latter, especially since all of the new science is pointing towards an open rather than an oscillating universe, proving that there was no Father’s-body-crunching Big Crunch before the Big Bang.

This is one of the key things that distinguishes Catholicism from all other Christian and pseudo-Christian denominations… science. Specifically, the ability to reconcile faith and reason. The LDS Church has no explanation for how the Universe was actually created and many Protestants hold to an unscientific “young Earth” due to their “literal” biblical interpretation techniques (which techniques, of course, inexplicably do not extend to the words “This is My Body.”)

I will let you go down that rabbit hole by yourself. You know as well as I do scientific understanding changes as new evidence is discovered.
We believe true science and true religion go hand in hand.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Of all Christian religions they stand alone thinking that man is the off-spring of God.

Your sentence should read:

Of all Christian religions they stand alone thinking that man is the natural off-spring of God, thus leaving no need for Jesus to raise man to the dignity of adopted children of God.

Humanity is not “this rotten thing to be escaped from” but it is, in their beliefs, a necessary period God has designed for his children. This mortal existence is one of sin, unrighteousness, and carnality AND it is one that must be overcome through Christ. This is exactly the same position that Catholicism takes.

No, it isn’t. Catholicism teaches that the coming of the Kingdom of God began at Christ’s first coming and that it is a spiritual kingdom of living stones–that’s us. We are not here simply to overcome the world. We are here to be Christ to our neighbors.

Mormonism teaches an earthly kingdom ala Dispensationalism albeit centered in Utah. That is completely different.

Mormons believe this life is but a phase, which God has offered to all, to become a co-heirs with Jesus Christ. Although the manner in which you wirte is a way to sensationalize the discussion, it is not helpful because it so easily leads others to false conclusions about Mormon beliefs. That is not becoming of a good Catholic brother or sister.

As a teacher I have a duty to defend the faith against proselytizers. I know you are all for interfaith dialogue. I am too. But let me also emphasize that I am doing the Mormons here a favor. When their children go off to college and they get shellacked by atheist professors, they are going to need to be able to answer the questions I am asking.

I am curious, you seem to count yourself among the learned in science on this forum. What degrees have you in this field?

Were I to disclose my CV you would be intimidated, or perhaps horrified, so I won’t do so.

 

[flyonthewall]

Obviously, only a Mormon would read that.

What?! You are saying that because God called Aaron and his descendants to the priesthood, they are related to God/Jesus?? Aaron/Moses are related to God and Jesus?

No, you misunderstand. The priesthood is the power and authority to act in God’s stead here on earth to perform rites and ordinances as well as administer in His church. Before Aaron and sons received it, it was passed from father to first born son.
The priesthood was changed after the Exodus to be given to Aaron and sons, as well as the Levites. It was given to Aaron because of his faithfulness, not because of them being related to God and Jesus(aside from the fact that we are all children of God).

Hebrews 7:23-24

And this is what you use to say the Melchizedek priesthood is not transferrable? I wonder if we are reading the same words.

No, only Jesus Christ (Hebrews 5:1-10) and Melchizedek himself (Genesis 14:18-20) were called to the priesthood of Melchizedek, and they were called by God not by the laying on of hands and nowhere in the Bible are we told that God called them to the priesthood.
Who gave Peter, James, and John the priesthood? How? It is not done by the laying on of hands. It can be only done by God himself calling them to the priesthood.

Is this statement worded the way you inteded? As I read it, first you say Jesus and Melchizedek were called by God, then you say that no where in the Bible does it say they were.
It stated right in Hebrews 5:4 that a man must be called of God, and that is enough to tell me that anyone with the priesthood was called of God.
Now, Peter, James and John, along with all the other Apostles were called of God. In John 15, Jesus states that He has chosen them and ordained them. Matthew 16 says that He has given them the keys of the kingdom. It is obvious and very plain that Jesus bestowed upon them power and authority, otherwise known as the priesthood.

The Aaronic priesthood comes from the lineage of Aaron and the Melchizedek comes from God Himself.

This may be semantics, but the Aaronic priesthood does not come from the lineage of Aaron…It comes from God and was given to Aaron and his decsendants.

Again, what proof do you have that the apostles did not ordain new priests in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?.

I believe they did ordain leaders of the different congregations. The issue is stewardship. Someone set in place to lead a specific congregation, has stewardship to do so, but does not have the stewardship to lead the entire church.

God set the stage for the Messiah for thousands of years, prophesied about it in detail, chose Mary to be His mother, had Jesus walk this earth and preach, call apostles, perform miracles, convert many, die on the cross, rise again, leave the Holy Spirit with his apostles to continue his work, they perform miracles/preach/convert thousands, Jesus promises the HS will stay until the end, goes back to the Father, allows for His Church to grow with the guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years, leaves behind written accounts for us to read 2,000 years later, calls saints and fathers to the Church to fight heresies, allows his followers to be martyrd for their faith as a witness to others, they leave behind written accounts of their faith and works…and you are saying the timing was not quite right?What was happening in 18 whatever that it was the “right” time for the gospel to flourish?

You left out that there would be a falling away. A famine in the land of hearing the Gospel, that it would not be found.
Let me just ask you this, once the persecution of Christians stopped, and Christianity came to power, what happened to anyone that disagreed with what the church leadership said? They were labled heretics, imprisoned and even put to death. Remember Galileo? How dare the man of science contradict the revealed truth of the religious leaders. He was labled a heretic and his works were considered heresies, and was imprisoned…all for stating scientific fact.

What happened was, inspired men began to cultivate a change…men like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. Also what happened was a country was founded that laid down laws with freedom of religion.

Again, only Aaron and his descendants can be of the Aaronic priesthood. Joseph Smith was not of Aaron. The Aaronic priesthood is for those men aged 30 to 50 (Numbers 4:35) and aren’t Mormon men 18+ allowed to become priests?
Read Leviticus 21 and see the list of requirements for the Aaronic priesthood.

Again, The Aaronic priesthood as given to Aaron was to officiate in the things of the Law of Moses. That law has been fulfilled, and the priesthood was changed…just as it was changed when it was given to Aaron.

The problem is that the Mormons claim to have the only priesthood authority on the face of the earth, it does not match anything in the Bible - that is why people don’t believe.

I disagree. I think it matches perfectly what is in the Bible.