The Restored Priesthoods

[PacMan]

David,

Now, it sure makes sense that Jethro baptized Moses before he gave him the priesthood; right?

Certainly it makes sense...but to simply question the efficacy of JS's and OC's baptism by the fact that they had yet been baptised before baptising one another is leveraging ignorantium on the basis of the Mosaic account. The orthodox Christian would believe that clearly Moses had yet been baptised because the account does not provide it, and Moses would certainly be included as one of the children of Israel--whom were baptised via the red sea according to Paul.

Now, in using the Times and Season, let's be sure what else was said:

...hence I infer that Moses after he fled from Egypt to escape his persecutors, was ordained by Jethro to the holy priesthood, and subsequently preached the Gospel to his people Israel, and taught them faith in Christ who should come, and baptized those who believedâ?¦

Within the context of mormon thought, no inconsistency exists. If you accept, therefore, via the T&S that Moses was previously baptised, it's critical to also accept that JS&OC were also baptised...the baptism (indirectly) giving authorization for the publication sited in the T&S.

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Hello again Pac,

You said:

>> Certainly it makes sense...but to simply question the efficacy of JS's and OC's baptism by the fact that they had yet been baptised before baptising one another is leveraging ignorantium on the basis of the Mosaic account.>>

Me: Your assertion that I am employing ad ignorantium is not accurate, for an important ingredient is missing in all of my posts: I have not claimed that lack of evidence to the contrary PROVES that Josephâ??s and Oliverâ??s baptisms were invalidâ??I merely stated that they were â??oddâ?.

Further, I maintain that it is odd (abnormal), for the order of the event is not to be found anywhere else (i.e. priesthood given before baptism).

>>The orthodox Christian would believe that clearly Moses had yet been baptised because the account does not provide it,>>

Me: This would be true of non-LDS Christians only.

>>and Moses would certainly be included as one of the children of Israel--whom were baptised via the red sea according to Paul.>>

Me: The Greek does not allow this interpretation; Moses was not baptized by/unto/into (Greek: eis) himself.

So, once again, I wonder how many Latter-day Saints would argue that Moses received the priesthood prior to baptism? (Next Tuesday, a retired CES Institute teacher who is currently serving a mission in my area will be stopping by; I will present the question to him.)

Grace and peace,

David

[PacMan]

David,

Me: Your assertion that I am employing ad ignorantium is not accurate, for an important ingredient is missing in all of my posts: I have not claimed that lack of evidence to the contrary PROVES that Josephâ??s and Oliverâ??s baptisms were invalidâ??I merely stated that they were â??oddâ?.

Grrrâ?¦ thatâ??s true.

I now get the notion that youâ??re LDSâ?¦I got the impression previously you were not. If you were making a passing observation, rather than stating a positionâ?¦I apologize.

Ciao,

PacMan

[redwave]

Redwave,

Untrue. His wasnâ??t done until he had gone to speak to the souls in prison and been resurrected. Thatâ??s when the old law was fulfilled and not before.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Dale,

I don't see anything in Hebrews that say's the Aaronic priesthood was totally abolished. The type of priesthod Jesus held was changed while the Aaronic priesthood still existed.

I actually take it a step further, and suggest that the Aaronic is separate from the Levitical. The question posed in Hebrew is why when there was a Priesthood under Levi, did Christ become a priest after the order of Melchizedek and NOT the order of Aaron? The interesting issue, is that Jesus COULDNâ??T have the Levitical priesthood because he was of Judah, not of Levi. But Paul expressly allows the possibility of being of the order of Aaron.

Certainly, nothing says that the Levitical Priesthood endedâ?¦but it does make sense that as the priesthood of Aaron, it is extended.

I don't see Paul as a High Priest in the Melchizedek order because he seem's to recognize only Jesus as High Priest.

And considering that Melchizedek was such a High Priest, that doesnâ??t make sense. On the contrary, Paul is emphasizing that Christ is THE High Priestâ?¦the highest of the high.

Redwave,

Souls in prison? Iâ??m guessing that is Mormon doctrine.

It certainly is, taken straight from 1 Peter.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:18 - 20)

One of the most deceptive doctrines of Babylon is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. This doctrine more than any other opens the door to spurious views regarding the afterlife, and it has permeated the religious world with its false promises and claims.

Iâ??ll let Peter know next time I see him.

Are you a JW?

PacMan

[Dale]

PacMan I have been following the comments. Thank you.

[Maidservant]

Throw this into the mix, may or may not be applicable. When Alma the Elder was baptizing in the waters of Mormon -- and there is no explicit mention of priesthood except that he already was a priest of Noah (wicked) -- anyway, he baptized himself and the first man and the very same moment. He immersed himself and the man. Thereafter, he only immersed the candidate.

Also . . . haven't I heard that Noah received the priesthood when he was 8 days old?

[PacMan]

Dale,

Today doing some OT study, I stumbled upon a verse that I think is most interesting. I think it really throws a wrench into it all...

13 The sons of Amram; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever.

(Old Testament | 1 Chronicles 23:13)

[Also check Exodus 40:15 and Deut 18:5]

For one that believes in the OT, it is expressly stated here that the lineage of Aaron is to "for ever" continue such practices that "sanctify the most holy things." Clearly, this a most temporal practice but most definitely needed today (hence, "for ever" or as in Exodus, "everlasting"). Interestingly, they are those of Aaron's lineage (or more importantly, those with the Priesthood after the order of Aaron) that to such sanctification, ministering, and blessings of His name are effectuated. How else is the scripture to be fulfilled if truly, there is no priesthood by which the sons of Aaron can fulfill their responsibilities? Moreover, what indicates the notion that this priesthood was done away when the OT expressly refers to an "everlasting priesthood?"

PacMan

[Droopy]

I have a series of anti-Restored Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood tracts I thought I would see what different persons on the message board thought of. I am interested in seeing if anybody had any new ideas on how to respond to the content. These tracts were written to witness to a Reorganized LDS membership, so references in the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants won't match the LDS editions.

LDS apologists are not always in touch with Evangelical scriptural objections to LDS belief. The author Paul Trask seem's to present the objections to the Restored Church idea of priesthoods quite simply. If anybody here is a volunteer in writing articles for FairWiki these tracts objections will be a good idea for future articles.

Here are the links to the two tracts:

The Melchizedek Priesthood----a Biblical analysis

http://help4rlds.com/melchizedek_priesthood.htm

So, if I may ask, why was this post not immediately locked since it mentions the author of the tract, Paul Trask? Why is Kevin Graham untouchable?

What was the difference between this post asking for ideas on some arguments, and mine asking the same regarding Graham's criticism's of the BofA?

Any help would be appreciated.

The Aaronic Priesthood

http://help4rlds.com/aaronic_priesthood.htm

I am not persuaded to disbelieve in the restored priesthood based on anything the author wrote. But I like improving my arguments as much as I can. So I thought it would be fun to see if my LDS apologist friends could come up with any new apologetic answers. I may not have thought of something others had. My Evangelical friends, or other non-LDS are welcome to discuss the content also.

[PacMan]

Droopy...

Umm....I think you forgot something. Like your post?

PacMan

[Dale]

It's hard to escape the OT idea that the Aaronic priesthood was supposed to continue. But if it did cntinue in order to not conflict with the New Covenant it would have to be changed.

[redwave]

Redwave,

It certainly is, taken straight from 1 Peter.

Iâ??ll let Peter know next time I see him.

Are you a JW?

PacMan

[PacMan]

Redwave,

A spiritual Jew? What movement is that?

It was also through the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ worked for the salvation of people in the past. Dead people in the past. Not some souls floating around in some prison.

Certainly you can have any interpretation that you'd like, but this one doesn't cut it. Peter says that Christ went to "preach to the spirits in prison," so I don't understand how you dismiss both the verb and the objects via interpretation. He either did, or did not. Peter says He did...so I think the case is closed.

Now, who are these spirits in prison? The righteous dead...those from the times of Noah and the like. Those who were bonded by death and waited to receive their resurrection.

Ecc. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Sounds like there IS a spirit with the capability of returning. It says nothing about not existing. This scripture certainly doesn't prove your point, and does very little to help it.

Iâ??m glad you quoted from Peter. It has opened the door for this question Iâ??ve had for Mormons. How do you guys feel about Acts 5:29 â?? then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men.

Both Masonry and Mormonism refer to the Melchizedek Priesthoodâ?¦In Scottish Rite Masonry, the 19th degree is called the â??Grand Pontiff.â? It is during this ceremony that the â??candidate is anointed with oil, is made and proclaimed a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.â? Hebrews 5: 5,9 tells us, however, that â??Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priestâ? but was â??called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek.â? But Mormons and Masons glorify themselves and take on the honor of this priesthood that was given to Christ.

Masonry uses a false Priesthood...they haven't the authority to do what they think they're doing. They can call it anything they want, but that's the reality of it. Now, I don't know how "correct" masonry was, or if it was a template the Joseph used for other purposes. But the fact remains that the Melchizedek Priesthood is meant for man, and that's provable. I'm indicated on other thread the everlasting state of the Aaronic Priesthood. But if it was fulfilled (according to orthodox Christiantity) or to be fulfilled (according to LDS theology), how can it therefore be an eternal, everlasting, and "for ever" Priesthood as indicated in Exodus 40:15, Chronicles, and Deut? It is simply that within the scope of the Melchizedek Priesthood, it includes all the authroity of the Aaronic (Levitical). In other words, the only way for these scriptures to be fulfilled that the priesthood will remain to the sons of Aaron as an eternal Priesthood is if they some day receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. The LDS believe that it can be held now...orthodox Christianity hasn't the vaguest idea of how to answer this conundrum.

But Mormons and Masons glorify themselves and take on the honor of this priesthood that was given to Christ.

Just like Melchizedek himself 'glorified himself and took the honr of this priesthood that was given to Christ.' The better question is, what the heck is the Melchizedek Priesthood and want does it authoritze someone to do? What power does it bring? I have a hard time taking people seriously for condemning me for holding it, when they themselves haven't the foggiest notion of it it actually does! Interesting, huh?

Best,

PacMan

PacMan