Prophets in the LDS Church

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As Hebrews [7:16-19] states, Jesus "become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

[cdowis]

Not recognized by whom? God? Sure doesn't say that in the Biblical text.

You have us confused with some other church.

The Bible was not meant to be a complete and exhaustive source of doctrines by simply reading it. It was meant to support and reinforce the words of the living prophets. The epistles were written to believers to answer specific questions and reinforce what the apostle taught them verbally. It is similar to trying to understand a play by only reading act two of a three act play. You can only guess what happens in the first and last act.

What is missing/confusing in the Bible does not mean that it is not true doctrine. So your comment is meaningless to a member of the LDS church.

That is another purpose for living prophets. To be a spokeman for Christ, teaching true doctrines. We then read the scriptures to reinforce those teachings.

priesthood of believers

The "other church" has theologians and Bible scholars who read the Bible and give their interpretation of what it is teaching. One example is the doctrine of "priesthood of believers". Peter is speaking to a "LDS" group of believers who have received the priesthood through proper authority. He is not teaching that one gets the priesthood by simply reading/believing on the scriptures.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You have us confused with some other church.

That is another purpose for living prophets. To be a spokeman for Christ, teaching true doctrines. We then read the scriptures to reinforce those teachings.

I would also point out that the scriptures are not for private interpretation and that only a prophet is the one to give an interpretation on the text.

[Hughes]

There is no such thing as the priesthood of believers. Another naked assertion by you not found in scripture. (#104)

Peter says nothing about the priesthood of all believers. Try again. (#105)

1 peter 2:9

Sorry, but this verse speaking snothing about "a priesthood of all believers". Or all you need to do is believe and you have the priesthood. (#107)

Which would mean that even Demons have the priesthood...

Matthew 8:29

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? (#109)

There is no "Priesthood of all believers" in that verse. You do understand that that idea is a Protestant construct created to justify their separation from the Catholic Church??? This ideology did not exist at all within Christianity until then. The "royale priesthood" being spoken of is spiritual and adoptive in nature, not an "actual" Priesthood of God which is only given by the laying on of hands. (#111)

The "priesthood of all believers" is a Reformation-era heresy invented by desperate Protestants frantic to preserve their authority/legitimacy following their very public apostacy from the Catholic Church.

It has no historical or doctrinal precedent or support, and is a 'modern' attempt to wrest the Scriptures and justify their revolt by undermining Catholic authority.(#112)

The "priesthood of all believers" or "priesthood of believers" is a concept FABRICATED by Martin Luther.

It didn't exist prior to Luther. (#119)

When we believe, are we a royal Priesthood? Seems Peter says yes.

Does Paul instruct us to "offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God."? Yup.

Did Priest offer sacrifices to God in the OT? Yes.

Are believers admonished to offer ourselves as a sacrifice to God?

Seems to me that it says all believers are priests.

Does that mean that the devil is a priest? Only if you're a simpleton. Because everyone knows that the devil isn't a believer in Christ (as in trusting in him for salvation). He understands that Christ is the savior, but doesn't trust him as savior.

Was this just fabricated to justify breaking away from the Catholic church? You may believe that. I don't. What I think is a more accurate description, is that for centuries the Catholic church didn't let everyone read and understand the biblical text. It wasn't until the Gutenberg Press, that people started to read and understand the bible for themselves and see that the Church was abusing their authority. The reformation was the result of more and more people learning the Bible for themselves.

[nicolasconnault]

Was this just fabricated to justify breaking away from the Catholic church? You may believe that. I don't. What I think is a more accurate description, is that for centuries the Catholic church didn't let everyone read and understand the biblical text. It wasn't until the Gutenberg Press, that people started to read and understand the bible for themselves and see that the Church was abusing their authority. The reformation was the result of more and more people learning the Bible for themselves.

Which Bible, obviously, only has one possible interpretation which you happen to possess, and with which the rest of Christendom agrees...