Priesthood of All Beleivers

[Hick Preacher]

One or both may be completely made up. It's hard to prove when their isn't sufficient documentation.

If the situation is actually a dichotomy then it would have to be one or the other.

But it appears that there is flexibility in this matter. It takes several kinds of authority coming from different roots in order to have a person who can act with authority as a priesthood holder. There must be the authority that comes for God (Charismatic)and the culture ( a rite of passage of sorts or even just a reputation, and the Church community needs to understand that that person is qualified, and why. This may include some sort of training, and certificate from some regulatory agency in some social settings.

[cdowis]

There are those who can also say that the LDS Priesthood was invented, because no priesthood that is LDS-like is revealed in the New Testament. The organisation of Mormonism is not explicitly in the New Testament.

Actually the NT does not explicitly explain it. This is "invented" in the sense that the organization has been explicitly detailed in modern revelation (D&C) and nowhere else.

The Bible was never intended to give a detailed explanation of church organization, except where Paul tells us that certain offices, apostles and prophets, were a permanent part of the church. For example, the keys of sealing given to Peter by Christ are not explained -- what they do, how they are used, etc until modern revelation.

[Vance]

If the situation is actually a dichotomy then it would have to be one or the other.

But it appears that there is flexibility in this matter.

Apparently, not as much as you seem to think.

Here for your "prima scriptura" pleasure.

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

So, how was Aaron called.

[Hick Preacher]

Actually the NT does not explicitly explain it. This is "invented" in the sense that the organization has been explicitly detailed in modern revelation (D&C) and nowhere else.

The Bible was never intended to give a detailed explanation of church organization, except where Paul tells us that certain offices, apostles and prophets, were a permanent part of the church. For example, the keys of sealing given to Peter by Christ are not explained -- what they do, how they are used, etc until modern revelation.

I think this is an honest expression of the LDS claim and view.

Thanks cdowis,

Hick-

[Hick Preacher]

Apparently, not as much as you seem to think.

Here for your "prima scriptura" pleasure.

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

So, how was Aaron called.

Hi Vance,

Aaron was called directly by God. That is how he got his calling, God commanded Aaron to got to work for Moses.

But here is that call you asked about and that Hebrews 5:4 refers

Exodus 4: 27 And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.

28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.

[Vance]

Hi Vance,

Aaron was called directly by God. That is how he got his calling, God commanded Aaron to got to work for Moses.

But here is that call you asked about and that Hebrews 5:4 refers

Exodus 4: 27 And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.

28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.

Well, you almost got it right.

The Lord speaking to Moses, the prophet, said,

Ex. 28:1 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

[Zakuska]

Well, you almost got it right.

The Lord speaking to Moses, the prophet, said,

Ex. 28:1 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

[Hick Preacher]

So hick... who poured oil on you and dressed you in the robes of the Holy Priesthood?

As all Christians, I was anointed by the Holy Ghost from God, and thus also clothed.

Ac 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;

Luke 24:49-- We are endued or "clothed" by the Holy Spirit-

[Hick Preacher]

Well, you almost got it right.

The Lord speaking to Moses, the prophet, said,

Ex. 28:1 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

[seriously honestly]

Is the Priesthood of all beleivers biblical?

The following verses sure seem to argue against the notion.

Acts 8

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[Zakuska]

As all Christians, I was anointed by the Holy Ghost from God, and thus also clothed.

There again going against the scriptures...

Acts 8

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

...

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[LeSellers]

The LDS Church has its system of Priesthood so that it can manage a highly structured organisation that has a tall multiple tiered vertical organisational profile. This being said, having such a system is NOT the only way to run a Church where leaders have authority and are inspired of God.

The scriptures don't bare out what you say hick.

Acts 18

24

[Hick Preacher]

There again going against the scriptures...

Acts 8

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

...

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[Hick Preacher]

One of the problems with the Bible (and the Book of Mormon, too) is the artificial chapters and verses. Luke did not divide his narrative where chapter 19 begins. Let's look at the full passage:

Apollos, without full knowledge and without the Priesthood, taught in Ephesus, and even converted twelve families. He even baptized them. But Paul, finding these disciples, and discovering they had not been baptized by one holding the Priesthood of God, rebaptized them, and then, and only then, did he lay hands on them and bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Without the authority of the Priesthood, their earlier baptism by a well meaning, well instructed man was null and void. Paul had to redo it.

An authority in the example the preacher raises is, in effect, the very reason for the necessity of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Just because one is learned does not mean he has legitimate authority.

Lehi

As I have pointed out over and over there are a number of factor that come into play related to authority, and recognized authority. Having knowledge alone is not enough. One must have the knowledge, the right heart, be anointed by the Spirit, and a whole number of factors.

Various organisations screen people, and label them as 'Priesthood', with the intent that others will not confuse them with phony authority.

The example above may explain why Paul laid hands on the individuals after their second baptism. It may well have been to outwardly demonstrate that he had all the attributes of authority. In some other cases the LOH many not have been required or even done.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You have bypassed what I have emphasized three times already. See above.

One obvious factor with Aaron was that he was the Brother of Moses. This bonded the two men in a relationship. There was a factor with the Apostle Paul and his overall authority. Paul was an Educated Jew who had Roman citizenship. Simon did not have the right heart so he did not receive the specific gift.

But according to what you and other Christians have said... all he needed was the Holy Ghost. That gave him all the Authority he needed. And it does not explain Pauls Redo.

[LeSellers]

Various organisations screen people, and label them as 'Priesthood', the intent that others will not confuse them with phony authority.

It's so much easier in The Church of Jesus Christ where those holding the Priesthood are called of God, as Aaron was, by revelation, through existing Priesthood authority.

Who, one is left to wonder, authorized these organizations of which you speak?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The example above may explain why Paul laid hands on the individuals after their second baptism. It may well have been to outwardly demonstrate that he had all the attributes of authority.

"May well have been" is not a good enough reason to accept this position.

There is no legitimate authority to base the belief of a "Priesthood of all believers". It simply is not there. To presume the authority of God is a dangerous stance. Remember what happened to Miriam and even Aaron when they overstepped and insisted they were as honorable as Moses. Leprosy is not a pleasant condition. There are other examples, too.

I can trace my authority to Jesus Christ Himself. No Baptist minister can. No Anglican can. Catholics can only through a series of highly questionable Popes, and the beginning (Linus , et al.) is more than a bit vague.

And, if baptism is not an absolute requisite for salvation, why did Paul bother to rebaptize at all? If baptism is nothing more than an outward sign of commitment, these twelve men and their families had already done that. Paul, the Apostle of God, wouldn't have wasted his time rebaptizing people who'd already demonstrated their commitment unless it was much more than that. As he did, we are left to conclude that baptism is required, and that every Tom, D|ck, and Apollos are not authorized to perform this sacred rite: they must be called of God, as was Aaron.

We have Simon to thank for knowing this. He offered money to buy the Priesthood (and one is compelled to think of people buying their priesthood through tuition at various seminaries across the world) so he could bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter rebuked him.

Act 8:16 (For as yet [the Holy Ghost] was fallen upon none of [the people Philip had baptized]: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Peter's reference to the "gift of God" in this context is a reflection of "this power", i.e., the Priesthood. So Peter affirms that there is a requirement that whosoever bestows the Gift of the Holy Ghost must have power (Priesthood) to do it.

Moreover, notice that here, as opposed to the example of Apollos in Ephesus, Peter did not rebaptize the believers. Phillip had been ordained correctly (see Act 6:5~6). He was authorized to baptize, whereas Apollos was not and his converts had to be rebaptized.

Today, there is no one outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who holds that power. Only the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Thomas S. Monson) has the authorization to ordain other priesthood holders, and only when he delegates others to act for him, in the name of Jesus Christ, can that Priesthood be conferred to others.

Lehi

[Hick Preacher]

It's so much easier in The Church of Jesus Christ where those holding the Priesthood are called of God, as Aaron was, by revelation, through existing Priesthood authority.

Who, one is left to wonder, authorized these organizations of which you speak?

Lehi

The truth claims of an organisation must be compared to the Word of God, and to the whisperings of the Spirit. A person who wears a label, or official ordination is a way that people can know who that said organisation has certified or ordained.

Its not rocket science-

[Hick Preacher]

"May well have been" is not a good enough reason to accept this position.

There is no legitimate authority to base the belief of a "Priesthood of all believers". It simply is not there. To presume the authority of God is a dangerous stance. Remember what happened to Miriam and even Aaron when they overstepped and insisted they were as honorable as Moses. Leprosy is not a pleasant condition. There are other examples, too.

I can trace my authority to Jesus Christ Himself. No Baptist minister can. No Anglican can. Catholics can only through a series of highly questionable Popes, and the beginning (Linus , et al.) is more than a bit vague.

And, if baptism is not an absolute requisite for salvation, why did Paul bother to rebaptize at all? If baptism is nothing more than an outward sign of commitment, these twelve men and their families had already done that. Paul, the Apostle of God, wouldn't have wasted his time rebaptizing people who'd already demonstrated their commitment unless it was much more than that. As he did, we are left to conclude that baptism is required, and that every Tom, D|ck, and Apollos are not authorized to perform this sacred rite: they must be called of God, as was Aaron.

We have Simon to thank for knowing this. He offered money to buy the Priesthood (and one is compelled to think of people buying their priesthood through tuition at various seminaries across the world) so he could bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter rebuked him.

Peter's reference to the "gift of God" in this context is a reflection of "this power", i.e., the Priesthood. So Peter affirms that there is a requirement that whosoever bestows the Gift of the Holy Ghost must have power (Priesthood) to do it.

Moreover, notice that here, as opposed to the example of Apollos in Ephesus, Peter did not rebaptize the believers. Phillip had been ordained correctly (see Act 6:5~6). He was authorized to baptize, whereas Apollos was not and his converts had to be rebaptized.

Today, there is no one outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who holds that power. Only the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Thomas S. Monson) has the authorization to ordain other priesthood holders, and only when he delegates others to act for him, in the name of Jesus Christ, can that Priesthood be conferred to others.

Lehi

Sorry for the rude delay I see you have made several posts and now, you summarized the LDS view, so perhaps I should reciprocate a summary of a Reformation/Restorationist view. I anticipate being able to post this at about 11 am Mountain Time- Thursday.

[Mudcat]

Is the Priesthood of all beleivers biblical?

The following verses sure seem to argue against the notion.

Acts 8

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It's so much easier in The Church of Jesus Christ where those holding the Priesthood are called of God, as Aaron was, by revelation, through existing Priesthood authority.

Who, one is left to wonder, authorized these organizations of which you speak?

Lehi

I want to make sure I have this correct...

Is the "by revelation" part the policy of advancing boys in the Priesthood according to age?

Or does that only pertain to offices like Bishop, Stake President, Seventy, etc...?

[LeSellers]

I want to make sure I have this correct...

Is the "by revelation" part the policy of advancing boys in the Priesthood according to age?

Or does that only pertain to offices like Bishop, Stake President, Seventy, etc...?

It's the whole thing. Not all young men are "advanced ... according to age". Each Bishop has the authority and responsibility to determine whether one received the next higher office or not.

Lehi

[ELF1024]

I want to make sure I have this correct...

Is the "by revelation" part the policy of advancing boys in the Priesthood according to age?

Or does that only pertain to offices like Bishop, Stake President, Seventy, etc...?

Perhaps I am just reading a "mocking" tone in your response in my head. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The answer would be "YES" to both.

It was by Revelation that created the guildline for young men, **who are worthy and willing**, are given the Preisthood offices at specific ages. The Bishop, the president of the Aaronic Preisthood, still has to interview them, find them worthy, and decide if they should get it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Perhaps I am just reading a "mocking" tone in your response in my head. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The answer would be "YES" to both.

It was by Revelation that created the guildline for young men, **who are worthy and willing**, are given the Preisthood offices at specific ages. The Bishop, the president of the Aaronic Preisthood, still has to interview them, find them worthy, and decide if they should get it.

I have a feeling that you and Ahab will see any posting of mine as purposely contentious- so I will not take the misunderstanding personally...

Is the revelation authorizing advancement by age after a worthiness interview available somewhere where I could read it?

Someone who is better history hound then me can perhaps answer the next question... Did Joseph Smith begin the policy of advancing worthy boys according to age or did that come about later on?

Thanks in advance.

[LeSellers]

Did Joseph Smith begin the policy of advancing worthy boys according to age or did that come about later on?

As I recall, it was late in Brother Brigham's ministry.

Lehi