Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

D&C section 2


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you’re looking for a concession that Joseph made it all up as opposed to having the knowledge revealed from God,  I don’t think you’re going to get that from any faithful, believing Latter-day Saint. You can’t impose a paradigm of unbelief in our theology and expect to get anywhere in a discussion. It’s the fallacy of the loaded question as in “Are you still beating your wife?”  

I don't know what to say about these types of posts Scott.  I don't see the need to get so defensive.  I didn't suggest anything near this. 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, snowflake said:

Where do you get the idea Abraham and other families held the Melchizedek Priesthood?.....sources please. 

Yeshua was baptized by John the baptist who was from the Levitical line, Yeshua was from the line of David, but baptism doesn't ordain Priesthood according to LDS theology correct? 

Also after Moses, do you have any examples of non Levites having the priesthood in the Bible? 

 

Well for one there was no Aaronic Priesthood yet. He held a priesthood as a high priest. (Abr 1:3) Most Mormons admittedly read back into that the division of offices in he Melchezedek Priesthood but I'm dubious about this. Joseph actually spoke on this quite a bit. The main reason people believe Melchezedek gave Abraham the Melchezedek Priesthood is because the revelation in the JST for Genesis 14 states it.

"And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram. Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire. And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch, it being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;"

So we have Abraham 1:3 stating Abraham is a high priest and the JST Gen 14 (only part of which I quoted) explaining what that meant. While JST Gen 14 doesn't explicitly state Abraham was a priest of this order it strongly infers it. In the August 27, 1843 sermon Joseph states clearly that Abraham was ordained to this priesthood by Melchezedek and then expands on the doctrine of the priesthood a bit.

To your second point it gets to the history of the sons of Moses (Gershom and Eliezer). How to deal with them is theologically controversial in mainstream Christianity. Obviously by D&C 84 alone Mormons think the Sons of Moses held priesthood. There's plenty of scholars who think something similar - typically thinking such teachings were repressed by the Priestly and Deuteronomist traditions by the post-exilic period and possibly as early as the Josiah reforms. (This assumes the Documentary Hypothesis of course) Wikipedia has a surprisingly adequate discussion of the topic. Anyway if you reject most contemporary scholarship and just want a Biblical reference Judges 18:30 is explicit that they are priests. Textually there are reasons to think this referred to Gerson the son of Moses rather than Manasseh. Again a quick Google will find the discussion of the textual issues of Judges 18:30.

I'd add that the story of Elijah where he battles counterfeit priests also demonstrates not Levite priesthood. Typically those opposing the idea of non-Levitical priesthood (and often Deuteronomist redactions) argue that it was God, not Elijah, who makes the sacrifice. That seems a pretty dubious claim though IMO.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Really dig into Hebrews 7 and 8, a new covenant and a new Priesthood are restored

Yes.

Quote

, all in Jesus, he is the only High priest in the new covenant.

No.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

Really dig into Hebrews 7 and 8, a new covenant and a new Priesthood are restored

Yes.

Quote

, all in Jesus, he is the only High priest in the new covenant.

No

 

So am I to believe that (According to Joseph) the 16 year old non-Levite LDS kids from Salt Lake have the "authority" to be an "Aaronic Priesthood" holder? :lol: 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, snowflake said:

So am I to believe that (According to Joseph) the 16 year old non-Levite LDS kids from Salt Lake have the "authority" to be an "Aaronic Priesthood" holder? :lol: 

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; ;) 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; ;) 

This is an interesting insertion considering it is likely the young who will confound the wise leaders to changing their tune on many things within the Church.  I can't wait until this chosen start confounding those wise ones. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This is an interesting insertion considering it is likely the young who will confound the wise leaders to changing their tune on many things within the Church.  I can't wait until this chosen start confounding those wise ones. 

How is it likely that young folks will confound God’s ordained prophets? How do you envision that change being forced on the Church leadership? A coup, of sorts? Threatening to hold their breath until they die? Walking out and slamming the door behind them? All those youngsters will have to climb Fools Hill first. The Parable of the Prodigal Son comes to mind. 

Or maybe that’s not what the scriptures are referring to. 

I remember when we younguns were admonished to “trust no one over thirty.” Well, those who admonished us are all over 70 or dead now. I didn’t trust them then and, mirabile dictu, considering the mess they created, I don’t have to trust them now.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
8 hours ago, snowflake said:

Who received the priesthood, from whom, where?

This is a major weakness in the Protestant position. Bishops and deacons were offices - see 1 Timothy 3 - followers did not automatically receive this office. We know from early records that there were also priests. Descriptions of the bishops showing up at Nicene speak of priests and deacons coming with them. Yet, Protestants want to make every follower a priest by default. It is neither scriptural nor historical. I guess Protestants can claim the early Church or the bishop of Rome made up these early records or they can claim followers had already perverted the priesthood, yet, they turn around and profess belief in the Nicene Creed these bishops ultimately approved after much debate, which I believe was jostling to isolate Arius. Anyway, on the one hand Protestants profess a belief in the Nicene Creed then they turn around any deny the obvious priesthood offices at the time there to vote on it - it just seems very inconsistent - not everyone was a bishop, priest or deacon.

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This is an interesting insertion considering it is likely the young who will confound the wise leaders to changing their tune on many things within the Church.  I can't wait until this chosen start confounding those wise ones. 

I don't think this verse has anything to do with age specifically, but it is a good reminder that God often does not do things how we think they should be done.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, snowflake said:

So am I to believe that (According to Joseph) the 16 year old non-Levite LDS kids from Salt Lake have the "authority" to be an "Aaronic Priesthood" holder? :lol: 

Are you here to engage us in discussion and dialogue, or are you here simply to mock us?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

This is a major weakness in the Protestant position. Bishops and deacons were offices - see 1 Timothy 3 - followers did not automatically receive this office. We know from early records that there were also priests. Descriptions of the bishops showing up at Nicene speak of priests and deacons coming with them. Yet, Protestants want to make every follower a priest by default. It is neither scriptural nor historical. I guess Protestants can claim the early Church or the bishop of Rome made up these early records or they can claim followers had already perverted the priesthood, yet, they turn around and profess belief in the Nicene Creed these bishops ultimately approved after much debate, which I believe was jostling to isolate Arius. Anyway, on the one hand Protestants profess a belief in the Nicene Creed then they turn around any deny the obvious priesthood offices at the time there to vote on it - it just seems very inconsistent - not everyone was a bishop, priest or deacon.

This is a good point. From the very beginning of the ancient Christian church there were bishops, deacons, presbyters etc. In fact I believe new Catholic priests are ordained by the laying on of hands and Melchizedek is mentioned but I will need to study this more. Furthermore as any Catholic apologist could tell you the ancient church had a priesthood hierarchy. The burden of proof is on Evangelicals to prove that the early Church was without a priesthood or church hierarchy and was a priesthood of believers (as Luther argued). As the Cardinal John Henry Newman said to go back in history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, snowflake said:

So am I to believe that (According to Joseph) the 16 year old non-Levite LDS kids from Salt Lake have the "authority" to be an "Aaronic Priesthood" holder? :lol: 

You can make rude and snide comments about LDS teenagers all you want, (which continues to give us insight into your true motivations for posting here). The fact of the matter is this is more than just a novel interpretation Joseph made up on the fly. It is based off of experiences both he and Oliver Cowdery had with John the Baptist and Peter James and John in answer to prayer and a desire to know how to be obedient and faithful to God's will, as recorded in Joseph Smith history.

Edited by boblloyd91
Link to comment
On 11/7/2017 at 1:52 PM, snowflake said:

Where in the OT was Elijah (or any other Prophet) using priesthood authority to "seal families" in the temple like the modern LDS sect does?

It seems to me like section 2 of the D&C clearly identifies Elijah as the restorer of the Priesthood....Not Peter, James and John and John the Baptist, that's all.

In 1 Kings 17:1 we find Elijah sealing up the heavens from the rains, so I take it one purpose of sealing is for families and another is for other purposes

Link to comment
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 1:52 PM, stemelbow said:

This is an interesting insertion considering it is likely the young who will confound the wise leaders to changing their tune on many things within the Church.  I can't wait until this chosen start confounding those wise ones. 

you dont. have to wait. I am willing to confound you if it helps. I'm not as young as I used to be, but I qualify as weak and foolish. Boy do i

but wouldn't it be easier just to be humble and let the spirit act.upon you then to need to be confounded?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...