S
shazirah
Guest
You just made me spit chai all over my screen from laughing. As a Muslim, I can attest that LDS theology is just as incomprehensible to most of us as it seems to be to many Christians.
- Status
G
gazelam
Guest
@FrDavid96 Bear with me here. I’ll post 4 verses from LDS scripture about the priesthood and then I’ll ask a couple of questions based on those verses and your comment.
D&C 107:1-4
1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
D&C 107:1-4
1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Agreement from an LDS POV that the Priesthood does not start with Melchizedek.
The LDS POV would be that the Melchizedek priesthood was instituted in Old Testament times (see verse 3 above), but I’m not debating this at this time
If I knew more about the Catholic Priesthood I’d probably agree with you, but I’m not debating this point at this time.
If my understanding of what you said is correct, Catholics may occasionally refer to the Priesthood of Christ as the “Order of Melchizedek”. And LDS refer to what they believe to be the “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God” as the “Melchizedek Priesthood”. So I think there are similarities in the way the Priesthood of Christ is referred to in both faiths, even if the understanding of the Priesthood itself maybe significantly different. Is that fair?
po18guy
Well-known member
I am speaking of similarities, not sameness. i.e. a single prophet, revelation that changed existing theology and beliefs about God’s nature, permissibility of polygamy, a struggle bewteen the prophet’s family members and his followers over control of the religion after his death, and a few other similarities.
You are correct that LDS beliefs strike me as absolutely bizarre.
You are correct that LDS beliefs strike me as absolutely bizarre.
S
shazirah
Guest
Well, the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t read his message out of a hat or fake translations of Egyptian papyri, at least. 
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Thank you very much for the response!
As Gazelam noted the term “order of Melchizedek” is not the real issue here. I am also not trying to make the Catholic priesthood into the LDS priesthood or vice versa.
I am trying to respond to a common argument offered against Catholics (and LDS). Namely that Christ’s priesthood is not transferable and thus there is one (or two if you included Melchizedek) holders of Christ’s priesthood.
It is my position that when Catholic speak of the priesthood of their Bishops and Priests they speak of the “priesthood of Christ.” While there are many ways in which Christ is unique and all Catholics must acknowledge that there is a sense in which, “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.” That does not change the fact that when a Catholic says there are about 400,000 priests in the world (2005) they mean there are thousands of men who have/exercise Christ’s priesthood (poetically called the Order of Melchizedek).
Thus, the response to the Protestant argument that there are absolutely no priests after Christ because His priesthood is “non-transferable" is and has been made by Catholic apologists for centuries. That response explains why the “priesthood of Christ” (which in a poetic way has been given another name the “order of Melchizedek”) is validly given during Catholic Holy Orders and does not contradict the Bible.
This is actually all I am asserting. Not equivalence between the Catholic and LDS priesthood.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
He shows that he is the true priest, because the others were prevented by death from continuing, because all must die. Hence, when Aaron died, Eleazar succeeded, as is clear from Numbers (20:28) and so on. For as we notice in natural things, which are signs of spiritual things, incorruptible things are not multiplied under the same species; hence, there is but one sun: so in the spiritual things in the Old Testament, which was imperfect, the priests were multiplied. This was a sign that the priesthood was corruptible, because incorruptible things are not multiplied in the same species. But the priest who is Christ is immortal, for He remains forever as the eternal Word of the Father, from Whose eternity redounds an eternity to His body, because ‘Christ rising from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. Therefore, Christ alone is the true priest, but others are His ministers: ‘Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ’ (1 Cor. 4:1).
The Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood claims to be an Old Testament priesthood. Thomas Aquinas would say it is imperfect and corruptible.
While no analogy is perfect I am reminded of how my motorcycle is a lot ‘like’ my bicycle (or ‘similar’ to use the King James Version) but in the species of personal transportation it is different from my horse. Authors may talk about how their motorcycle is made on the ‘order of a bicycle,” and different from their horse, none would believe they are the same as a bicycle. I believe Mormons are riding bicycles not even aware of the existence of a motorcycle.
Authors may talk about how Melchizedek is like the priesthood of Christ and not like the priesthood of Aaron, but they are not claiming that Christ and Melchizedek had the same priesthood. “Order of Melchizedek“ will never mean the same as Melchizedek. Mormons seem to be unaware of the unique priesthood of Christ.
Christ does not have a Melchizedek Priesthood authority to “restore.” It seems the Mormon priesthood, like the Mormon baptism, claims to predate Christ and can not be truly Christian.
The Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood claims to be an Old Testament priesthood. Thomas Aquinas would say it is imperfect and corruptible.
While no analogy is perfect I am reminded of how my motorcycle is a lot ‘like’ my bicycle (or ‘similar’ to use the King James Version) but in the species of personal transportation it is different from my horse. Authors may talk about how their motorcycle is made on the ‘order of a bicycle,” and different from their horse, none would believe they are the same as a bicycle. I believe Mormons are riding bicycles not even aware of the existence of a motorcycle.
Authors may talk about how Melchizedek is like the priesthood of Christ and not like the priesthood of Aaron, but they are not claiming that Christ and Melchizedek had the same priesthood. “Order of Melchizedek“ will never mean the same as Melchizedek. Mormons seem to be unaware of the unique priesthood of Christ.
Christ does not have a Melchizedek Priesthood authority to “restore.” It seems the Mormon priesthood, like the Mormon baptism, claims to predate Christ and can not be truly Christian.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
This is still a “yes, but…” answer.
Yes, there is a similarity in vocabulary.
I just cannot stress enough the notion that “Order of Melchizedek” is just a nickname. It is Christ’s priesthood.
It’s not a real name, but merely a poetic or literary one.
Normally, when we give something a name, the name signifies the reality. This is an exception.
That is why I’m trying to be very careful here. What we name something is what-that-something-is. If we want to know what something is, we ask “what do we call it?” I’m getting into philosophy here, not just the everyday sense of naming something.
If someone asks “what is a bottle-opener?” the answer is “look to the name. It is what we name it. It is a tool for opening a bottle.” However, we also have a nickname “church-key” that we apply to a bottle-opener. That’s a nickname. It doesn’t mean that one can use a bottle-opener to unlock the doors of a church.
Same with the “Order of Melchizedek.” It is not, in reality, his order. Instead, it is the Christian priesthood.
Stephen168
New member
The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years—six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ—a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here.
The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. - President Spencer W. Kimball, Acting President of the Council of the Twelve; April 1971
H
Horton
Guest
It is. Went to the top of the bell tower of St. Mark’s. Amazing beautiful views and perfect weather.
Stephen168
New member
Very nice. We were there for 4 days in March 2016. I couldn’t get my wife up the Bell Tower, but we did attend Mass at St. Marks on Palm Sunday.
G
gazelam
Guest
Thank you again for enlightening us! And to reiterate Tom’s point, all Catholic priests are part of the Christian priesthood (which in a poetic way is sometimes referred to as the Order of Melchizedek).
G
gazelam
Guest
My wife and I were in Venice 6 months ago and she wants to go back sooooo bad!
G
gazelam
Guest
OK, I’ll help out here.gazelam:
The Pearl of Great Price
In verse 34 of his history, Joseph Smith recounts what Moroni said when he told Joseph for the first time about the gold plates.
Joseph Smith - History 34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.
The American Indians are current inhabitants of the American continent. The Book of Mormon talks of Nephites and Jaredites who have since all died off. So they would be some or all of the former inhabitants of the American continent referred to in the Pearl of Great Price.
Therefore, in the Pearl of Great Price there is no claim the Book of Mormon was a history documenting the source of all the American Indians, just former inhabitants.
I hope this helps…
G
gazelam
Guest
Do Muslims not extend to other religions the respect they request for their prophet?
S
shazirah
Guest
One can be respectful of a religion’s practitioners and still be critical of the religion. If I got shirty every time someone criticized the Prophet (peace be upon him), I’d never get any peace. If you believe it to be true beyond a doubt, then there’s no reason to be troubled by a little mild ribbing about prophecy through a hat, which is kind of objectively funny to imagine.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, that is the quote from Pearl of Great Price. According to Joseph Smith, there were two groups; the Jardites and the Israelites. He said the Jardites, from babel, were the first settlers of America. The Jardites were destroyed about the time the Israelites arrived from Jerusalem. He said the main group of Israelites fell in battle and the remnant group is the American Indians.
In 1971, Spencer Kimball said all the American Indians are Lamanites, which I understand are the remnant group of Israelites that Joseph Smith wrote about. I assume the Nephites were the main group that fell in battle that Joseph Smith talked about.
So the current inhabitants are the same people as the former inhabitants which is why Mormonism use to teach that the American Indians were bad Israelites. Sciences as proven Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon to be false.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes, except you insist on calling it “the Order of Melchizedek”FrDavid96:
Thank you very much for the response!
As Gazelam noted the term “order of Melchizedek” is not the real issue here. I am also not trying to make the Catholic priesthood into the LDS priesthood or vice versa.
I am trying to respond to a common argument offered against Catholics (and LDS). Namely that Christ’s priesthood is not transferable and thus there is one (or two if you included Melchizedek) holders of Christ’s priesthood.
It is my position that when Catholic speak of the priesthood of their Bishops and Priests they speak of the “priesthood of Christ.” While there are many ways in which Christ is unique and all Catholics must acknowledge that there is a sense in which, “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.” That does not change the fact that when a Catholic says there are about 400,000 priests in the world (2005) they mean there are thousands of men who have/exercise Christ’s priesthood (poetically called the Order of Melchizedek).
Thus, the response to the Protestant argument that there are absolutely no priests after Christ because His priesthood is “non-transferable" is and has been made by Catholic apologists for centuries. That response explains why the “priesthood of Christ” (which in a poetic way has been given another name the “order of Melchizedek”) is validly given during Catholic Holy Orders and does not contradict the Bible.
This is actually all I am asserting. Not equivalence between the Catholic and LDS priesthood.
Charity, TOm
We Catholic do not see it that way. We only call it that in a poetic or literary sense–that is all and nothing more. I keep saying this, but that does not seem to be getting across.
It is NOT in reality the priesthood of Melchizedek.
It doesn’t matter that you put it in parenthesis.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
A literary device and NOTHING MORE.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It is a real issue.
When we give something a name, the name signifies the reality behind it. This is a literary device which is an exception to that.
In reality, there is no such thing as the “Order of Melchizedek” No such reality exists. Only the poetic line “Order of Melchizedek” exists. There is no reality behind the name.
NO. Melchizedek did not hold Christ’s priesthood. That is what I keep saying.
I understand what you’re aiming at here. Truly I do.
The Melchizedek event in Genesis was merely a hint or foreshadowing of the Christian Priesthood to show us that this Christian Priesthood has been part of God’s plan from the beginning of time.
This is what I just cannot seem to get across no matter how many times I say it. It is nothing more than a literary device.
There is no reality of the “Priesthood of Melchizedek” No such order or priesthood actually exists.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
No, Stephen, as Gazelam showed LDS have never suggested that the Melchizedek Priesthood “predates Christ.” This is because the priesthood we call “Melchizedek Priesthood” has ALWAYS been the priesthood of Christ.
As to your second comment, a few things.
- The ministry of John the Baptist predates Christ. I generally believe that this Baptism to which Christ submitted Himself is a Christian baptism, but this is not the Catholic view. St. Jerome was so exercised by this that he taught that Christ baptized John the Baptist, but few folks have followed him in this assertion.
- LDS do believe that baptism pre-dated John the Baptist’s ministry, but LDS would say that these Baptisms were Christian Baptisms at least in their initial inspiration from God.
- The Qumran community practiced cleansing that had great similarity to baptism. The Manual of Discipline even quotes the same passage from Isaiah that John the Baptist did leading non-LDS scholars to speculate that John the Baptist might have been a member of the Qumran community (including Gary Michuta a popular Catholic Apologist).
Atheist claim that Baptism was copied and not a unique Christian practice because it has numerous Jewish and Gentile forerunners.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
- Status