Stephen168
New member
ok…
I still don’t see a Melchizedek Priesthood. If there were, no earthly human would qualify.
- Status
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Neither do I, at least not the Mormon version. The high priest has always been the one who makes atonement on behalf of the people. That is his sole function as high priest. Under the Aaronic priesthood, the high priest makes annual sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple and carries the blood of the lamb into the Holy of Holies (the one time of the year that a human can enter that place). Under the Melchizedek priesthood, Jesus (our Great High Priest) is both high priest and sacrificial Lamb and carries his own blood into the heavenly holy of holies, putting and end to temple worship, animal sacrifice, and opens the holy of holies (the place where God dwells) to all who come to Him (as symbolized by the rending of the temple veil when Jesus died on the cross). The new holy of holies on earth is now open to all (instead of being limited to the high priest, who could enter only once per year) and is the sanctuary in every Catholic church, where Christ’s eternal sacrifice is re-enacted every day (except on Good Friday). As the holy of holies, it is the place where heaven and earth meet. It is the place where Christ, our great High Priest, continually offers us his body and blood in the form of bread and wine. We can receive Him every day if we choose to, and you can too if you become a Catholic. That is His promise to you.
This is the common thread running through all of these verses. They describe the emergence of a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek who offers bread and wine and makes a “once and for all” atonement for sins. Do Mormon high priests do that? No? Why not? Are they not high priests, just like Jesus? Why, then, do they not do what Jesus does with His priesthood? The lower (Aaronic) priesthood was associated with the Old Covenant that brought reconciliation with God through the sacrifice of animals in the Jewish temple and was held by many men (only one of whom could enter God’s presence in the holy of holies); the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood is associated with the one, eternal, and infinite sacrifice and and is held by only One person - Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God and author of the New Covenant in his blood, whose infinite act opened the holy of holies to everyone, so anyone could enter God’s presence. What a wonderful gift!
NS
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Parker, you seem like a really nice person, and I do respect the Mormons in the fact that they are very family oriented, and the husbands on the whole are very good to thier wives and vice versa. I just think Mormonism is very earth-bound in the way they view heaven. Smith and Young decided to try to create heaven on earth, SLC was Zion (or still is?).
But the problem of your theology is that you ALSO want to create earth in Heaven! The endless progression, and marriages in heaven definitely smack of the idea that there will be sex in heaven - (and that’s pretty earthy!)
My point about celibacy in the Catholic Church is that many of the greatest thinkers and best people and saints were and are celibant, because they can devote all of their time and energy to the glorification of God. No one, not even one’s family, goes before God.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Christine,
Thanks for all your comments. When I compare how I was when I was single with how I am now, even though I sought spirituality then (and had no pre-occupation with the “earthy” part of marriage you allude to), there are so many qualities of spirituality that I would have missed if single, that I guess I can comprehend where you’re coming from with your final comment, but I don’t agree with it. Marriage glorifies God in every way, if Christ is at the center of the couple’s lives! They each can still have deep personal spiritual communion, but can also learn from each other.
I suppose your comment about physical intimacy in heaven is an aptly made assumption about LDS beliefs, but as Diana pointed out, spirit children do not have a physical birth, so the assumption is invalid–they do not go together.
Is your idea of heaven kind of like everyone living in convents or monasteries and doing a lot of singing? Why can’t heaven include progression?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I really don’t know what it will be like, and I doubt if you really do either.Christine,
Thanks for all your comments. When I compare how I was when I was single with how I am now, even though I sought spirituality then (and had no pre-occupation with the “earthy” part of marriage you allude to), there are so many qualities of spirituality that I would have missed if single, that I guess I can comprehend where you’re coming from with your final comment, but I don’t agree with it. Marriage glorifies God in every way, if Christ is at the center of the couple’s lives! They each can still have deep personal spiritual communion, but can also learn from each other.
I suppose your comment about physical intimacy in heaven is an aptly made assumption about LDS beliefs, but as Diana pointed out, spirit children do not have a physical birth, so the assumption is invalid–they do not go together.
Is your idea of heaven kind of like everyone living in convents or monasteries and doing a lot of singing? Why can’t heaven include progression?
We all hope we will be reunited with loved ones, but I wonder if they will be like they were on earth - I mean physically. Maybe just the light and energy and love will be there. I sort of see Heaven as in Revelations with all the choirs of angels singing “Holy Holy Holy, and Worthy is the Lamb…Blessings, Honor, Glory…” That may be my bias, but somehow music and singing seems to bring me very close to God. I kind of think it may be the language of God.Anyway, I like you Mormons! You always seem intelligent and educated and great at apologetics! Also, unlike some, I think your history is great, especially the way Brigham Young lead his followers to Utah, and built up the church. That was some feat!
P
ParkerD
Guest
Christine,I really don’t know what it will be like, and I doubt if you really do either.
Anyway, I like you Mormons! You always seem intelligent and educated and great at apologetics! Also, unlike some, I think your history is great, especially the way Brigham Young lead his followers to Utah, and built up the church. That was some feat!
Thanks again for your comments and perspective.
I love singing also. My family sings often together, parts and all, which is enjoyable. I imagine heaven will include a lot of singing–but also a lot of learning. Have a great day.
C
cothrige
Guest
Really?
Let us loook at exactly what was asked, which is “whose wife of the seven shall she be?” That is absolutely what you are talking about. And did he say “[T]he brother who died first… would have the eternal marriage relationship with the woman.” No, not at all. He absolutely denies it. So, you entirely ignore the question being asked, which specifically asks about marriage in heaven, and so ignore the answer the Lord gives, which directly refutes any possible eternal marriage in heaven. What kind of eisegesis is this? With this kind of interpretation one must wonder why you bother to have scriptures at all?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Cothrige,
Here is a Catholic translation (Douay-Rheims) of Luke 20:
33 In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
What does the action “take wives” mean? To me it means an action of doing something, not having done something in the past. He is talking about “that world, and of the resurrection from the dead.” Within “that world” they “that shall be accounted worthy of that world” will not “take wives.” That doesn’t say anything about whether they will have a wife. It says they will not “take wives,” meaning “marry” in “that world”.
But you will try and refute the above paragraph by referring to the words “shall neither be married”. Those words could mean “there is no state of marriage in the resurrection” but those words can just as correctly (and more consistently with the other phrase) mean “shall not have a marriage ceremony in that place, that world”–meaning only that no marriages are performed after the resurrection.
Have you never wondered why the Sadducees would ask the question, if there weren’t a teaching among the Jews that marriages endured past death? Of course they wouldn’t have asked such a question! There would have been no point to such a question if there was no teaching among the Jews at that time about marriage enduring past death.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
That’s funny. I thought it was because the Sadduccees didn’t believe in **resurrection.**from: livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.html
The Pharisees and Christians, on the other hand, believed in the resurrection of the dead. When the Christian teacher Paul had to explain his ideas to a court in which some members were Pharisees and others Sadducees, he found it easy to create division among his judges.
When Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, ‘Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!’
And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, ‘We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.’
[Acts of the apostles 23.6-9]
P
ParkerD
Guest
Christine,
I see that I have been misunderstood. I of course knew that the Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrection. But yet they asked the question, trying to put a question to Jesus that He would have trouble answering. They (the Sadducees) also knew that other Jews (not them) believed in marriage enduring past death. This is why they would ask such a question.
I appreciate your pointing out that I was not making myself clear.
C
cothrige
Guest
No, I will refute any LDS interpretation by simply pointing to the question, which you have continued to ignore. The Lord was not asked will the woman get married in the next world, but which man will be her husband. She had been married seven times already, and they wanted to know which would be her husband. The only way you can go on about whether a word means an action, or whether one can reasonably understand “shall neither be married” as one way or another is by ignoring that he was not asked about getting married, but being married.
No, they wished to catch the Lord in a contradiction. The text itself is prefaced this way: And there came to him some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is any resurrection… Being carnal people, they believed that any resurrection would be entirely carnal and so people’s marriages in this life would have to be dealt with in the next. To their mind this created an obvious contradiction, since she was married to seven men and couldn’t possibly have seven husbands in heaven.
There was no such teaching. The Saducees denied the resurrection altogether, much less eternal marriage. The Lord also didn’t teach it, as is clear, and simply and flatly denied anything even remotely like it. You simply have to accept the facts. The Lord was presented with a clear question which bears directly on marriage in the resurrection, and not only did he refuse to expound any such teaching at all, or even hint at it, he instead denied it. Your readings of these passages are just entirely impossible.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Cothrige,
You win. You get to “have it your way.”
For others who may happen upon this discussion, please refer to the following link that gives several different translations of the text in question:
blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=20&v=1&t=KJV#vrsn/35
Nearly all of the translations use the same tense as the King James,
“But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:”
I like the Spanish translation, which places the reflexive tense on the words: “ni se casan”
The phrase in question does not say “are not married.” It says (in the Spanish back to English “they don’t become married.”)
But as I had said in a much earlier post, the verses are deliberately ambiguous. You get to “have it your way.” That is fine with me, in fact I think it is purposeful. I think it is a deliberate protection of something sacred.
C
cothrige
Guest
No, they are not deliberately ambiguous. The Lord simply gave us credit for having paid enough attention to know what had been asked ten seconds earlier. The fact that a clear question directly answered is “ambiguous” to you is perhaps a bit telling.
And I am so sorry about needing to “have it my way.” You are of course right. I have been so obnoxious. I mean is my face ever red! I think I got confused and lost track of my self. After all, I was acting just like somebody would in, well…, a discussion forum! How absolutely *plebeian *of me. Thankfully you are here to help point it out, because you would never act like that.
Z
zerinus
Guest
P
ParkerD
Guest
Cothrige,No, they are not deliberately ambiguous. The Lord simply gave us credit for having paid enough attention to know what had been asked ten seconds earlier. The fact that a clear question directly answered is “ambiguous” to you is perhaps a bit telling.
And I am so sorry about needing to “have it my way.” You are of course right. I have been so obnoxious. I mean is my face ever red! I think I got confused and lost track of my self. After all, I was acting just like somebody would in, well…, a discussion forum! How absolutely *plebeian *of me. Thankfully you are here to help point it out, because you would never act like that.
I apologize if you thought my comment was a put-down.
I can understand where you’re coming from. You have a valid point of view. I have no issue with your point of view.
For me, “they” was deliberately chosen referring to the particular question that had been asked about certain brothers and a certain woman, all Jews–not about the whole world. If Christ had wanted to make a broader statement, I think He was smart enough to use a different word than “they.” (Of course.) He knew what the words would mean in translation. Peace to you.
C
cothrige
Guest
Apology accepted. I appreciate the clarification.
Are you saying that the answer is only meant to apply to the Jews, and so mormon marriages are not being affected by his answer? If so, then I suppose I can see where you are coming from, though I still cannot see how such could actually be so. His choice of words about those worthy of the resurrection just doesn’t seem to leave an opening for other kinds of marriage. If he saw such existing I am just doubtful he would not make an exception for them.
S
sweetnay
Guest
Hi Christine! It would appear from this quote that you are unaware of true lds history, most notably the bloody reign of Brigham Young (who had 55 wives) head of the Danites. You can find much of this info from their own Journal of Discourses and I would suggest www.utlm.org (unable to post links on my blackberry). Its a real eye opener and I think you’ll come away w a slightly different impressionI really don’t know what it will be like, and I doubt if you really do either.
Anyway, I like you Mormons! You always seem intelligent and educated and great at apologetics! Also, unlike some, I think your history is great, especially the way Brigham Young lead his followers to Utah, and built up the church. That was some feat!
S
Scriptorian
Guest
False teachers sometimes have courage, too. But when you “fill in the blanks” with falsehood, you eventually will be exposed. When you fill in the blanks with truth, the gates of hell cannot prevail against you.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” Mormon history goes back to Father Adam. We do not claim to be a restored version of the Catholic Church any more than you claim a Pope older than Peter.
We claim, and I will tell you it is true, that all righteous men from Adam onward were Christians. Prophets of all ages knew and prophesied of the coming of Christ and rejoiced to see his day. They established his church among the faithful and became heirs of salvation even before that salvation was effected.
God is no respecter of persons and a soul that lived before Christ is just as precious in his sight as those who lived after. God sent angels to those righteous souls to teach them of his coming. They believed on him, and worshiped in his name.
The Catholic Church’s history is actually quite puny in comparison to the true church of Christ. We had Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ as our founders. Who did you have – Roman scribes who hijacked the scriptures?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Cothrige,
I need to clarify further, as I have read back through what I wrote. I had also looked at the Matthew and Mark text for this situation. Those texts refer to “they” (Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25) in the specific way that refers back to only those eight people. The Luke text adds the passage about the “children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:” In my mind, I agree that this is a broader group than just those eight people, but whenever the words “children of this world” appear in scriptural text, I take those words to mean “those who are not the children of light or of the kingdom of God on earth, having not made heavenly covenants.” (see Luke 16:8)
“Children of this world” would have marriages that endure only through this life, since they were not covenant marriages.
So taking the Matthew text or the Mark text, “they” is completely specific, while the Luke text is more general but refers only (in my mind) to the group encompassed by the phrase “children of this world”. Either text does not preclude a select group who make eternal covenants and would thus be “children of light” rather than “children of this world.”
I hope this has made a little bit more sense.
- Status