Jump to content

The Only Priesthood


thatjimguy

Recommended Posts

Hey all.

In GP class, the subject of the Priesthood was the topic. No big problem but this bothered me...

We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a man does not have the priesthood, even though he may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances he performs (see Matthew 7:21-23). These important ordinances must be performed on the earth by men holding the priesthood.

Now there is something I am missing. What exactly does "not recognize" really mean? If a man is to be baptized and is done so through someone else who is not a priesthood holder, why would God hold blessings away from that man? Some people just won't be LDS in this life.

I have heard it said that God has used men before for his purposes. (Martin Luther and such) Could they be priesthood holders? I mean, God can do what he wants right? I understand that his world is a world of order, but somehow it doesn't feel right that it is so strict that he would cause the sincere men not to be recognized.

So what am I missing?

Link to comment

Would Benny Hinn suffice as an example? The Lord is no respector of persons. Do you not think men such as Simon who tried to obtain the PH for money was an affront to the Lord?

Let me give you an example. Oh my brother I can heal you. Father in Heaven bless this man and heal all his ill's. Okay my brother it is done. I have healed you. Now you owe me. That was Simon.

It is always the case that the one who tries to purchase the PH will use such for personal glory and some sort of payment is owed. Christ gave the PH not for his glory and nto for payment but took the debt. It is an offense to HF. The one who asked for such should recognize glory hunters and discard them as false prophets. It's easy to see you only have to watch the false priests in action.

Martin Luther et all...That is why the world we say was in apostasy. They did not have the proper keys of the PH.

Link to comment

Hey all.

In GP class, the subject of the Priesthood was the topic. No big problem but this bothered me...

We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a man does not have the priesthood, even though he may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances he performs (see Matthew 7:21-23). These important ordinances must be performed on the earth by men holding the priesthood.

Now there is something I am missing. What exactly does "not recognize" really mean? If a man is to be baptized and is done so through someone else who is not a priesthood holder, why would God hold blessings away from that man? Some people just won't be LDS in this life.

I have heard it said that God has used men before for his purposes. (Martin Luther and such) Could they be priesthood holders? I mean, God can do what he wants right? I understand that his world is a world of order, but somehow it doesn't feel right that it is so strict that he would cause the sincere men not to be recognized.

So what am I missing?

Reread the lesson...I taught it last sunday. Find your "Line of Authority" and read over it!

Even though some people just won't be LDS in this life doesn't mean God ignores their prayers or their faith or withholds blessings. There are non-LDS people out there who are faithful and truly blessed....and I am lucky enough to have some of them as friends.

Link to comment

Hey all.

In GP class, the subject of the Priesthood was the topic. No big problem but this bothered me...

We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a man does not have the priesthood, even though he may be sincere, the Lord will not recognize ordinances he performs (see Matthew 7:21-23). These important ordinances must be performed on the earth by men holding the priesthood.

Now there is something I am missing. What exactly does "not recognize" really mean? If a man is to be baptized and is done so through someone else who is not a priesthood holder, why would God hold blessings away from that man? Some people just won't be LDS in this life.

I have heard it said that God has used men before for his purposes. (Martin Luther and such) Could they be priesthood holders? I mean, God can do what he wants right? I understand that his world is a world of order, but somehow it doesn't feel right that it is so strict that he would cause the sincere men not to be recognized.

So what am I missing?

Ummm...this is kind of one of the foundational tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But just sit tight; any perceived injustices are dealt with in Lesson 40.

Link to comment
Now there is something I am missing. What exactly does "not recognize" really mean? If a man is to be baptized and is done so through someone else who is not a priesthood holder, why would God hold blessings away from that man?

John 10:1

Some people just won't be LDS in this life.

That's right. One cannot have eternal life without becomming LDS. They will have an opportunity in the next life, but if they don't accept at the first opportunity (God has not defined for us what constitutes an opportunity but I believe it's different for each person), they can only inherit a Terrestial glory.

I have heard it said that God has used men before for his purposes. (Martin Luther and such) Could they be priesthood holders? I mean, God can do what he wants right? I understand that his world is a world of order, but somehow it doesn't feel right that it is so strict that he would cause the sincere men not to be recognized.

So what am I missing?

Matthew 7:21:23

Link to comment

Now there is something I am missing. What exactly does "not recognize" really mean? If a man is to be baptized and is done so through someone else who is not a priesthood holder, why would God hold blessings away from that man? Some people just won't be LDS in this life.

I have heard it said that God has used men before for his purposes. (Martin Luther and such) Could they be priesthood holders? I mean, God can do what he wants right? I understand that his world is a world of order, but somehow it doesn't feel right that it is so strict that he would cause the sincere men not to be recognized.

So what am I missing?

You are missing the whole point of the restoration. In order to have any ordinance valid and of effect it must be done with the authority and in righteousness as the Lord directs. As is stated in the following:
(Hebrews 5:4-6) "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

Now how was Aaron called? Was it because he was a sincere, devout, loving man? Or was it because he was called by revelation through a living Prophet (Moses)?

If these things do not matter to God, then why all the restoring of keys of authority? Why revelations and angels and new scripture? Why wouldn't God just say, well they all did the best they understood so I will accept the good honorable man Luther's baptism, along with the good honorable Catholic Priest, or the good Methodist, or the good Baptist, or even that good Mormon elder!

But the problem is God's house is a house of order, He does things according to His own will, not by the wisdom of man.

The Lord explained why He could not accept unauthorized baptisms or other ordinances not done by His priesthood:

(D&C 22:1-4) "Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning. Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works. For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old. Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."
Link to comment
In light of the references here to Matthew 7:21-23, I will post a portion of my recent online article that responds to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles.

Thanks, Gilderob.

[snipsies]

Frankly, it is obnoxious, as well as erroneous, for the LDS Church to apply Jesus
Link to comment

I do not plan to respond to any posts in this thread that do not seriously engage the issue I raised, which is that Matthew 7:21-23 does not remotely support the statement for which it is cited in Gospel Principles.

And your statement that it "The works they claim to do in his name are supernatural works

Link to comment

Ok, lets look at it simply. One has to be baptised. If not done by an authorised representative, it does not count as fulfilling the condition. God certainly appreciates the faith and devotion involved, but it does not count as a valid baptism. One seeking entrance into the kingdom of God has to be baptised by someone holding proper authority, be it a baptism in person or a baptism by proxy.

Link to comment

I do not plan to respond to any posts in this thread that do not seriously engage the issue I raised, which is that Matthew 7:21-23 does not remotely support the statement for which it is cited in Gospel Principles.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Hi Rob,

Since I believe that even the LDS church has succumbed to Priestcraft until it is set in order, I am not the one to answer you about their Gospel Principles manual.

But looking at the above verse, simple logic does verify that IF Joseph Smith was a true prophet called to teach the will of the Father, then those who reject him and his teachings also reject the will of the Father, at least to some degree. Right?

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The expression "many wonderful works" would include baptisms by most people's word usage. I remain unconvinced that it only would mean supernatural miracles.

When I read the page after page after page of inspiring and uplifting and enlightening revelations written by the Prophet Joseph, why should I think that he obtained all this light and truth from his own thinking? He had precious little formal education, and could not even spell worth beans even in his 20s.

Some day you just might be reading the D&C and suddenly see the light that is there. Maybe like a welder who forgot to tip down his hood.

What you might show to LDS is this verse from D&C 35

3 Behold, verily, verily I say unto My servant Sidney Rigdon, I have looked upon thee and thy works. I have heard thy prayers, and prepared thee for a greater work.

4 Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.

5 Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received not the Holy Ghost;

6 But now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou shalt baptize by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old.

This seems to imply that Sidney Rigdon was doing a work of value for the Lord before he accepted the work of the restoration. But he was then called to the greater work.

We all will have to eventually settle up with Christ and the Father. It is best for all of us not to be harshly judgmental of others, but hope for the best.

I sincerely hope those who have done wonderful works and who were sincere, will receive all the blessings they deserve. If the baptisms they performed have to be redone by proxy with authority, they still will gain the Celestial Kingdom, even by LDS understanding.

I agree that the above verses imply that those who are insincere and deceivers will be those who Christ casts out.

Richard

Link to comment

Mola,

Thanks for your reply. I understand the difficulty!

I didn't say that the alleged prophecies, exorcisms, and other miracles are themselves the works of iniquity or lawlessness that Jesus condemns, although they very well might be. For example, they could be false prophecies spoken presumptuously and falsely in Christ's name; sham exorcisms performed on people who are really not demon-possessed; and pseudo-miracles (e.g., sleight-of-hand) performed to fool people into following the false teacher or prophet. Alternatively, Jesus could be condemning these wicked people for other behaviors that are more common among wicked people.

Sorry, I should have read better. I am juggling between work and the chat room and this thread. It is totally my fault on this one I mis-red the verses and the argument.

I think you have opened up the discussion some. I am curious, why in this case is prophesing and casting out devils in this instance a work in iniquity? What is in this verse that makes it iniquitous? And in other instances not a work of iniquity. When the Apostles and Jesus do it is not iniquitous. They seem sincere as they did these works in His name.

To some extent I agree that Matt 7:21-23 is not a very good example for baptism need proper authority. I think other scritpure does this better. USU and others have brought up one such scripture.

Link to comment

Richard,

Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Both with regard to the usage of the term "wonderful works" and the context, Jesus is referring to miracles. The Greek word dunamei in the plural, when used to refer to things people do or claim to do, always refers to miracles in the NT (Matt. 7:22; 11:20, 21, 23; 13:54, 58; 14:2; Mark 6:2, 14; Luke 10:13; 19:37; Acts 2:22; 8:13; 19:11; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, 29; 2 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 3:5; Heb. 2:4). The context confirms this understanding, since these "wonderful works" are the third item in a series of three actions, the first two of which are supernatural works (prophesying and casting out demons).

Link to comment

All,

Another misunderstood biblical text, ripped from its context:

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Heb. 5:4).

Mormons use this text to support their claim that in order to perform baptisms or other Christian ordinances, a person must "hold the priesthood" by having a human being lay hands on him. Once again, though, just reading the text in context should be enough to show that this is a misuse of the text:

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee" (Heb. 5:1-5).

Again, just pay attention to what the text does and does not say:

  • The text contrasts the presumptuousness of claiming an honor for oneself with the humility of accepting the office from God.
  • The text says nothing about anyone needing to be ordained by a laying on of hands by another human being.
  • The "honor" to which the text refers is the honor of being the high priest, not the honor of baptizing people or performing other Christian ordinances.
  • The text says that Christ became a high priest by the word of the Father, not by any human being laying hands on him.

Thus, it is a misuse of this passage to prove that Christians cannot perform Christian ordinances without the LDS priesthood. The text simply doesn't teach this idea. If you want to insist on this claim, you will have to support it from other scriptures; it isn't here.

Link to comment
I do not plan to respond to any posts in this thread that do not seriously engage the issue I raised, which is that Matthew 7:21-23 does not remotely support the statement for which it is cited in Gospel Principles.

Has anything been given yet showing this? Pure logic itself shows that that this is the case depending of course, upon what type of God you believe in. Can I assume you believe in a God that is neither a liar or a respector of persons? If that is the case, then God IS a liar and a respector of persons if He has more than one authorized denomination/philosophy/baptism.

For example, on denomination teaches that woman can have priesthood and homosexual marriage is fine in the eyes of God. Another one doesn't. There is no reason for God to accept baptism in both as in so doing He is putting His stamp of approval on a doctrine He doesn't agree with in one of those cases unless He is lying to one of those groups.

Link to comment

I didn't say that the alleged prophecies, exorcisms, and other miracles are themselves the works of iniquity or lawlessness that Jesus condemns, although they very well might be. For example, they could be false prophecies spoken presumptuously and falsely in Christ's name; sham exorcisms performed on people who are really not demon-possessed; and pseudo-miracles (e.g., sleight-of-hand) performed to fool people into following the false teacher or prophet. Alternatively, Jesus could be condemning these wicked people for other behaviors that are more common among wicked people.

Or maybe he is in fact condemning them for attempting these things without having been called to such and the Church's interpretation is completely correct.

Link to comment

All,

Another misunderstood biblical text, ripped from its context:

Mormons use this text to support their claim that in order to perform baptisms or other Christian ordinances, a person must "hold the priesthood" by having a human being lay hands on him. Once again, though, just reading the text in context should be enough to show that this is a misuse of the text:

Again, just pay attention to what the text does and does not say:

  • The text contrasts the presumptuousness of claiming an honor for oneself with the humility of accepting the office from God.
  • The text says nothing about anyone needing to be ordained by a laying on of hands by another human being.
  • The "honor" to which the text refers is the honor of being the high priest, not the honor of baptizing people or performing other Christian ordinances.
  • The text says that Christ became a high priest by the word of the Father, not by any human being laying hands on him.

Thus, it is a misuse of this passage to prove that Christians cannot perform Christian ordinances without the LDS priesthood. The text simply doesn't teach this idea. If you want to insist on this claim, you will have to support it from other scriptures; it isn't here.

To respond to your questions, I would ask you "How was Aaron called of God?" THe context of these verse is talking about the office of a priest. With that context we learn that one must be called of God as was Aaron. Now there is nothing specific in the OT that specifically tells us that Aaron had hands placed upon him. But we do know that God spoke to Moses and told Moses to make Aaron a priest.

Exodus 28:1

1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest

Link to comment

BCSpace,

You're trying to change the subject. I am only discussing the way the LDS Church uses specific texts of the Bible to support its claim that no one who has the priesthood is authorized to perform Christian ordinances.

Has anything been given yet showing this? Pure logic itself shows that that this is the case depending of course, upon what type of God you believe in. Can I assume you believe in a God that is neither a liar or a respector of persons? If that is the case, then God IS a liar and a respector of persons if He has more than one authorized denomination/philosophy/baptism.

For example, on denomination teaches that woman can have priesthood and homosexual marriage is fine in the eyes of God. Another one doesn't. There is no reason for God to accept baptism in both as in so doing He is putting His stamp of approval on a doctrine He doesn't agree with in one of those cases unless He is lying to one of those groups.

Link to comment

Mola,

I specifically did not say that Aaron did not have someone (such as Moses) ordain him. This isn't the issue. I am not criticizing ordination. I am criticizing the claim that Hebrews 5:4 proves that only those ordained (by laying on of hands by a human being) with a priesthood can perform Christian ordinances like baptism. Hebrews 5:4 does not say any such thing, and in fact shows that we have one high priest right now, Jesus Christ, who did not attain that office by an act of human ordination.

To respond to your questions, I would ask you "How was Aaron called of God?" THe context of these verse is talking about the office of a priest. With that context we learn that one must be called of God as was Aaron. Now there is nothing specific in the OT that specifically tells us that Aaron had hands placed upon him. But we do know that God spoke to Moses and told Moses to make Aaron a priest.

In other areas we do see that Moses did indeed lay his hands upon others when he ordained them to what ever the Lord told him to do

So it is reasonable to interpret that the laying on of hands is a common thing done when one is called by God through a prophet.

More to the point I think that Heb 5:4 is a nice reminder that even if we throw out hands being laid upon some one it is evident that we need a type or a Moses or a prophet to call people to be a priest. One can't just says "I feel God has called me to be a priest". And then proclaim to be a priest. One must be called of God through a propeht.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

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