The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[Stephen168]

Can you show the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood in the Bible like I did earlier for Catholics?

Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always.

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was superior to the Levitical priests.

Hebrews 7:11-14 A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

 

[gazelam]

Please provide the link to the bushman podcast you reference

 

[TOmNossor]

Horton:

In reality all TOm wants to do is:

TOmNossor:

I can correct Stephen168 when

We can fill in any name here. He has no interest in discussing his own LDS beliefs, only what he sees as flaws in the Church. If we were to look at his ongoing desire to prove the Church is wrong, one could say he does so out of fear. He is afraid we are correct and the LDS may be wrong.

The thing is, it is the facts of Mormon historian Richard Busman that he has to correct.

Stephen, I am not aware of where Richard Bushman claims that the “Melchizedek Preisthood” was invented by xyz. But I am almost positive he didn’t say what you said:

Yes Cowdery repeated the story for many years after he invented it. Yes, historians believe the Melchizedek Priesthood invention may have been mostly Cowdery’s idea.

This of course is what I claim I have corrected for you. I know of zero historians who claim Oliver Cowdery “invented” the Melchizedek Priesthood (in its Mormon form or otherwise). My correction of you was harmless I thought even though you and Horton seem to have been put out. Some critics of the CoJCoLDS claim that Sidney Rigdon (not Oliver Cowdery) invented the Melchizedek Priesthood. If you do mean Oliver Cowdery, I think you are the only anti-Mormon with this view.

Stephen168:

Yes, and he [Richard Bushman] does not try to cover up the facts as you do. John Whitmer records Joseph Smith being made a high priest by Lyman Wight in 1831. Joseph Smith wrote about receiving a holy priesthood FROM ANGELS, in 1832, was, according Richard Bushman, “a glancing reference at best.” In 1834, Cowdery was the first to talk about the appearance of John. The receiving of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John, through John the Baptist, was not a fully formed story until 1838.

And my summary:

The receiving of priesthood authority that Mormons claim was required to start the Mormon Church in 1830 was received from Lyman Wight in 1831, Angels in 1832, and John the Baptist in the name of Peter, James and John sometime before 1838 and published in 1842.

And we saw no response. But I don’t think there can be much of one because those are the facts.

Stephen,

I am not sure what in your presentation I have not acknowledged. Richard Bushman states that Joseph may have limited his explanation of PRIESTHOOD partially because “The radical religious traditions from which many Mormons converts came denounce priesthood as popish, emphasizing preaching rather than sacraments administered by priests…. Because the idea of priesthood was an alien concept to Yankee Christians, Joseph may have considered it prudent to say nothing about priesthood in the early years, or possibly he did not understand it himself.”

This is precisely what I claimed for William McCellin.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

1.I have shown that folks other than LDS see Melchizedek Priesthood in the Bible (including Catholics).

2.I have shown that the Alma 13 has more Melchizedek Priesthood than the Bible and speaks of the priesthood of the son of God (“translated” 1829).

3.I have shown that authority was being claimed in 1830 and 1831.

4,I will now add that in 1831 Joseph Smith in the JST received the truth that Melchizedek was “ordained a high priest” (so was Enoch). And this was after the “order of the Son of God.” And that it was to be bestowed upon, “as many as believed on his name.”

5.The reception of the Holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels in 1832.

1. Record of Joseph Smith claiming to have seen apostles and conversed with them.

Concerning your ordained to the high priesthood in 1831. The most orthodox explanation is that this was ordination to the office of “High Priest” within the Melchizedek Priesthood,” but Bushman is not convinced this aligns with all the data.

Peter is an Angel and an Apostle in LDS thought so that “inconsistency” is not too great.

LDS believe the John the Baptist and Peter appeared so that is not really a great inconsistency.

My view is that the ordination in 1831 is a minor problem as Joseph Smith believed he possessed priesthood before this, but Bushman explains this as an attempt to have a Pentecostal experience. I do not think Joseph Smith’s concepts of ordination at this time were very sophisticated and I think this is quite possible.

The gap in time before the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” appears and William McLellin’s respond to it is well explained by Bushman’s appeal to the anti-preisthood sentiment that exists.

All that being said, this period of turmoil for 5 years pales in comparison to the 150 years it takes before anyone has any idea that the Bishop of Rome has unique Peterine authority. How can you make a big deal about this and not blink an eye when it comes to the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

1.I have shown that folks other than LDS see Melchizedek Priesthood in the Bible (including Catholics).

2.I have shown that the Alma 13 has more Melchizedek Priesthood than the Bible and speaks of the priesthood of the son of God (“translated” 1829).

You have SHOWN nothing ever. You just repeat these claim. This SHOWS nothing. This is so dishonest. This is beyond your usual sophistry. Is this “lying for the lord” that I hear about?

 

[TOmNossor]

The problem here is that you are saying the dead must accept the lds ordinances for God to accept them. … So what about the pagans that died before the invention of the lds church? So what happened with them? God made them wait for 1700 years? So where did they wait? I brought this up earlier but did not get an answer (Purgatory). Its very clear that you wont or cant answer questions directed towards you or your church but would rather worry about the Catholic Church and the problems you seem to think exist. I’m now done with this thread.

First, you should read what I have been saying here rather than repeat the fact that I will not answer. I will comment on Catholic teaching, but first I will give you a LDS answer.

The “dead must accept them?” God does not force anyone to accept anything. LDS really reject double and single predestination. We are largely Arminian in that we believe Christ died for the sins of ALL and this leaves everyone with enough freedom to accept or reject the gospel.

If you were there on the day of Pentecost and your friend came to you and said, I believe all Peter said and I desire with all my heart to follow God, but I refuse to be baptized. What would you say to him? Would you approach Peter and say, “You suggest my friend must accept baptism, what kind of man of faith are you? He wants salvation without Baptism you scoundrel.”

Those who want to follow God can choose to accept the vicariously performed ordinance of baptism or they can reject it. I am confident that God will force no one.

Where do they wait?

Well, we know that Alvin Smith was in paradise before vicarious ordinances were performed for him because Joseph Smith saw that this was the case (and then later the ordinances were performed). Some might be learning the gospel in what LDS call “Spirit Prison” (which actually includes Paradise too). There is no solid time reference for this evolution, but we can know that Alvin Smith didn’t have to WAIT for his vicarious baptism to happen on earth.

So, God didn’t make anyone wait 1700 years. That they understand and accept vicarious ordinances is sufficient. Those ordinances will be performed before or during the millennium. LDS are taught an urgency in doing our work, but I think that urgency if for us not so much for them.

Spirit Prison is a temporary place like Purgatory, but it is not a place of suffering. Like those who do not know God on the earth, those in Spirit Prison are not at peace, but far more than those who know God on the earth, those post mortal saints who know God are in paradise (though they are in the same place teaching the souls who do not know God).

You should stop reading now.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I know what you are going to say to counter this. That we have our sacraments and if people don’t participate or accept them then they go to hell. We also believe in Gods infinite mercy.

As I have already explained on this thread, there has been a radical development in Catholic thought. Until the 20th century most (almost all) Catholic thinkers taught that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church and by this they meant no salvation for those who were not visibly connected to the Catholic Church.

You can read above in this thread where I talk about (and about the fact that LDS have from the beginning had answers for the unevangelized). Since Lily asked, here is a fun article (it mostly traces Protestant understandings, and it speaks of post-mortal evangelization not the 20th century Catholic development):

http://byustudies.byu.edu/article/are-christians-mormon/

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm, I cringe at the lack of charity and kindness you are being subjected to here.

Thank you. Passion is better than no passion. I hope for passion with some other virtues, but I know I fail at this.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The Mormon belief in a Melchizedek Priesthood, as Mormon scripture calls it, is clearly not biblical. Whether the Bible references are read as literary (Catholic) or literal (Mormon), it is not there.

TOM claiming but NEVER proving:

I just think those who can read the Bible will see that my position that the “Order of Melchizedek” is a real thing mentioned in the Bible is obvious enough that I didn’t need to response.

Yes, and that would be step One in claiming Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Priesthood; prove there was ever such a thing.

Asking LDS to prove it is evidence of bald polemics or profound misunderstanding (probably both).

I said I couldn;t “prove” that there was a Melchizedek Priesthood. It is impossible.

……

The Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not discussed in Hebrews because it is not discussed in Hebrews.

My position was that the evidence I provided was sufficient to demonstrate that it is SOLIDLY Biblical to point to a Melchizedek Priesthood.

You have provided zero evidence; just claims. I know that claims can be evidence in Mormonism, but not in the real world. When I say you have provided zero evidence, I mean you have not even attempted to provide it. You got nothing.

Mark Shea believes the Melchizedek Priesthood is real.

And again you got nothing for the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood.

I also challenge some incorrect criticisms of my church directly like "the idea of Melchizedek priesthhood is not in the Bible.

You may challenge the claim that the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not in the bible, but you have never proven it is there.

The “Mormon Melchizedek priesthood” is a product of revelation to Joseph Smith that is CONSISTENT with the Bible as evidenced by so many folks seeing “Melchizedek priesthood” in the Bible.

To summarize:

Joseph Smith made it up but it is biblical.

I can show that “Melchizedek Priesthood” is clear in the BOM in 1829 and VERY DESCERNABLE in the Bible so much so that Catholic priests and apologists claim it is there.

But notice he doesn’t show the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is in the bible.

……

My argument is that the LDS view is solidly Biblical, not that it is impossible to read the Bible in the Catholic way.

 

[TOmNossor]

This post is particularly insulting and is being reported to the moderators.

Horton,

I didn’t mean to offend you (or Lily for that matter). I am sorry if I did.

I have mentioned on this thread that I am not “nuerotypical” (and I do not mean that I am not the poster who is called Nuerotypical; I am also not the poster called Nuerotypical). Perhaps I am very offensive and I do not see it.

I hope to maintain my level of respect and criticism, but if I am banned then I am banned.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

TOmNossor:

Catholic: Claims of unique Peterine authority for the Bishop or Rome don’t happen for >150 years after the death of Peter. Peter’s presence in Rome is of so little importance that some scholars actually question if he was there because it was scarcely recorded (I lean towards the view he was). 4th century invented documents purporting to describe the passing of authority from Peter to Clement (because the Roman church didn’t believe Linus and Cletus were “Bishops of Rome” for many centuries), but nobody today believes these are real or describe a real event. When the claims of Peterine authority does APPEAR, the historical record evidences that those outside of Rome (Firmilian, Cyprian, Tertullian) rejected this Roman authority when they first heard about it. Catholic’s now believe that the Peterine authority DEVELOPED somehow within the Bishop or Rom, but there is no empirical evidence of this authority.

The Catholic Church has claimed Apostolic Authority from its beginning in 33AD at Pentecost. Apostolic Succession (authority) protects the faith (responsibility). The Twelve were apostles who were to teach, baptize, make disciples, forgive sins, preside at the Eucharist, proclaim the gospel, and be witnesses to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Christ said he would be with them until the end of the age. Only Christ could be the lamb of God, so Apostles were not Christ, but Christ could share the rest of his ministry with the Twelve. Only The Twelve could be a witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, but they could share the rest of their ministry. The Bible tells use the story of them laying hands on the seven, but there were many others. This manifested itself as Bishops in some cities (mostly in the east), and presbyters in others (mostly in the west). The cities with presbyters were not void of principle leaders even though they may not have the title of Bishop. About 120 years after Christ’s resurrection, Apostolic Authority was universally held by the Bishops. This system was created by the Holy Spirit as the best way to maintain the deposit of Christian faith; and celibacy was the preferred life style.

 

[Stephen168]

Doesn’t your line of attack on the LDS authority we claim DECIMATE Catholic claims?

Catholicism/Orthodoxy has Apostolic Authority as a historical fact in the same way that Mormons believe Nelson has the authority that Brigham Young had. But we know that Brigham Young never had Christian Apostolic Authority, because he never received it from someone who had Christian Apostolic Authority to give.
What most Mormons believe today is not true at all when compared to what really happened in Mormon history. What most Catholics believe today is a simplistic version of what really happened. As I said, Catholicism is not simple. You have to be kinda smart to be a Catholic.

 

[Stephen168]

Doesn’t your line of attack on Joseph Smith’s character DECIMATE Catholic truth claims?

Joseph Smith claimed to receive divine authority from a non-Christian process. Then he used the same process to cover up his sins. Catholic Bishops have done neither. The New Testament and early church writings warn us about “prophets” making up stuff contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. It says they are false prophets.

 

[Horton]

Well, I will start by pointing out that so far no Catholic on this thread has been willing to discuss the biggest problem for the Catholic Church in their opinion.

Maybe because we aren’t focused on any problems. Any problem there may be has to do with the flaw of man, not the Church.

Now before you go off on a tangent, take the time to truly understand what I am saying. Jesus Christ handed Peter a perfect Church, he left behind the 12 Apostles to spread the word. Some of them, along with other followers of Jesus Christ wrote down much of what they knew of the time of Christ and the very early years of the Church.

Jesus left a perfect Church that could not fail. To believe the Church failed (the great apostasy) is to say Jesus did NOT leave a perfect Church is to say Jesus Christ is not who we Christians believe him to be. This is how the LDS overcome that little detail left in the bible. They dismiss the very Christian nature of Jesus, fully divine, fully human. He is just another prophet, therefore His words are not binding.

So if we are talk about problems in theology, we will need to return to discussing the LDS.

 

[TOmNossor]

I thought I was done but will soon be. So you said you gave up smoking but yet you say you never smoked. So where you lying to these folks in your lds class?

I know a lot about thinking I am done and then … I may be disciplined enough to take a break in a bit.

No, I lied to myself when I believed that giving up smoking was sufficient because I knew others did. I was kind of young, but I really didn’t know what I should be doing for Lent. Giving up smoking was easy because I never smoked. I used this as a BAD example of sacrifice in my class and I was completely honest. I hope your faith in me is restored!!!

Why wont your own church us LIDAR to show that the book of Mormon is true about the great battle at Hill Cumorah?

Every profession archeologist I have ever met who is also a member of the church believes that the Hill Cumorah where final battles in the BOM took place is somewhere in MesoAmerica. I suspect when it comes to funding LIDAR surveys one of the first things you do is work with professional archeologist and one would be directed to do LIDAR surveys in MesoAmerica, not upstate NY. My daughter babysits for a lady who is a PhD Archeologist, if I get to know her better I will ask.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

1. Do you believe Joseph Smith is a god? Do you think God had a father and he had a father and so on? Do you believe you will become a god after your death? Do you believe that Joseph Smith can only let the dead enter heaven?

~I would guess that Joseph Smith is a god. That would be judging his eternal soul and I shy away from doing this AND I know that I do not know his heart, but I believe the final state of some humans is deification and I would lean towards such a position for Joseph Smith. That is between him and God, but it seems possible. This is a solid LDS view. I have never mentioned this in my class and cannot fathom why I would.

~I do not believe that God the Father had a father and so on. I have said this on this board a handful of times. The number of folks who believe God the Father had a father within my church is decreasing for two reasons. First, we do not teach that regularly (maybe never) so many people have never heard of the idea. And second, there is an increasing number of folks who question the former teaching. I am among this latter group as I have faced this question for a long time. My view here is less of a solid LDS view. This is also something that I do not talk about in my class.

~I would not say that I will become a god after my death, but I have some form of hope. As I said earlier, I may be in a wine glass being drunk up by devils. I think God desires to make me a god and if I can surrender my will to His, I can have faith that He has started a good work within me and will finish it. Christ became man and died so that I can enter into the union He and His Father enjoy and become god. This view is a solid LDS view that I mention in my class on rare occasions.

~I would say I generally do not believe that Joseph Smith is the only one who can let the dead enter heaven. I think it possible that some anti-Mormon will one day die, will discover that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and refuse to become united to God and Joseph Smith in the Celestial kingdom. But I hope not and I suspect if there are any it will be very few. I am aware of this teaching, but I think the way I described it is solid LDS thought (among those who know to what you refer). I never mention this in my class.

Now, can I ask you my gotcha questions most of which are related to what you asked?

1.Do you believe that Son of God became man so that you can become God?

2.Do you believe you and Christ are consubstantial?

3.Do you believe you will be a Saint? Do you want to be a Saint?

4.Do you believe St. Peter is the only one who can let the dead enter heaven?

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s just one opinion. Who Mechizedek was and the nature of his priesthood is based on what has been revealed, via scripture. You’ve fixated on one opinion, which is not a Catholic doctrine. Other Catholic opinions can be found. And then you have your Mormon opinion, which is not a Catholic opinion.

What is doctrine, is that Jesus’ priesthood, and himself, is preconfigured in the mysterious person of Melchizedek. That he was a priest by nature, not by ordination. His priesthood was without beginning or end, and so did not “expire”, so to speak, at age 50 or at death. He offered a bloodless sacrifice. He was the King of Peace (as his title translates). Jesus fulfills the priesthood preconfigured in Melchizedek, forever…He is OUR High Priest forever.

Melchizedek is a title, which is why it is poetically viewed. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, crowned in the Father’s glory, is our King, High Priest and Prophet. A Catholic priest is configured to Christ, he is not Christ, nor does he take a priesthood “power” that is wielded like magic, from Christ. He shares in the High Priesthood of Christ.

David also took on the title of Melchizedek: King of Peace, but it is not a priesthood that he was ordained to.

Neither are Catholic men ordained to a Melchizedek priesthood, the are configured to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, which is after the order of Melchizedek…which is a priest by nature not by ordination. In other words one cannot be ordained as a Melchizedek priest.

So we see again, the Catholic doctrine of sharing in the nature of Jesus, always with the understanding we don’t become that nature ourselves. And always understood in light of the Eucharist, which is also made clear in the Letter to the Hebrews.

Mormonism has an interpretation of the Bible, that makes sense only when using Mormon extra-Biblical sources. Which is fine if that is what you believe, but like Stephen has been saying, it isn’t strictly speaking, Biblical. It is Mormon.

 

[anon65111186]

~I would guess that Joseph Smith is a god.

Wait hold up, I’m new to this thread and to mormonism. There is only one God and you can’t become Him. He is infinite and we are creatures.

Define god as you were using it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, I will start by pointing out that so far no Catholic on this thread has been willing to discuss the biggest problem for the Catholic Church in their opinion.

Eh, problems according to whom? Atheists, Mormons, Protestants or Muslims?

Having been an atheist, FAITH is the biggest problem. I mean, why have faith in non-scientific claims. Ie, Can you lay the Holy Spirit out on a table and do lab tests?

Mormons, it’s the Great Apostasy, which at it’s base is a matter of FAITH. Catholics have faith in Jesus, and believe Him when He said He would never leave us as orphans. Mormons have faith in a grand divine scheme to bring Mormonism about in the “last days”.

Protestants, it’s a small list compared to the lists that Mormons have, and there are similarities in criticism coming from both in some areas, and with some Protestants.

Muslims are similar to Mormons with extra-Biblical sacred texts used to interpret the Bible, and so the criticisms have a few similarities but then diverge to encompass unique teachings, coming from the respective religions.

Personally, I don’t have any theological conundrums going on. Your pet peeve of developing doctrine, is one of the beautiful things of Catholicism to me. The Church is not a static museum, it is dynamic, as it must be. Guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth. Truth being a Person, Jesus Christ.

My pet peeve with Mormonism is this absolute truth claim idea, that is not a Person, but a set of ever changing morals. I’m not a fan of moral pragmatism, which Mormonism has as its foundation. It sets it up for failures that are impossible to overcome, IMO.

BTW, th hope for infant baptism is NOT baptism of desire, it is entrusting th souls of unbaptized infants to the Mercy of God, who has shown us through Jesus, that God’s Mercy is bountiful, and unearned. It did not replace limbo of infants, but offered a view of hope. Hope has a name, “Jesus Christ”.

The Mormon idea that everyone has to become a Mormon in this life or the next, Or Else, places God under restrictions.

PS: I recommend the book “The Religious Sense”, by Msgr. Luigi Giussani, and then read Pope Benedict XVI’s Encyclical “Spe Salvi”, and then re-read, the hope for infants who die without baptism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Horton:

This post is particularly insulting and is being reported to the moderators.

Horton,

I didn’t mean to offend you (or Lily for that matter). I am sorry if I did.

I have mentioned on this thread that I am not “nuerotypical” (and I do not mean that I am not the poster who is called Nuerotypical; I am also not the poster called Nuerotypical). Perhaps I am very offensive and I do not see it.

I hope to maintain my level of respect and criticism, but if I am banned then I am banned.

Charity, TOm

Once upon a time, former Catholics who came to CAF with their criticisms of the Pope, were banned PDQ. Not saying I want to see you banned, just saying, your posts regarding Pope Francis would not have been tolerated in times past. Now, you have a free pass.