Christ Is Not Our Only High Priest, According To Mormon Theology?

[Tacenda]

What think ye of this statement? It seems to be the wedge that is between our church and the rest of the christian world....

Thus, by denying that Jesus Christ is the ONLY High Priest of the New Covenant, Mormons make many other humans mediators between them and God. And this is blasphemy against Christ. Mormons have accepted the humans whom their leaders appointed priests as mediators between them and God. They have been deceived to refuse Christ as the ONLY Savior.

From this website: On the page there is a conversation between Steven who is LDS and this man from The Disciples of Jesus Christ....which one makes the better argument?

http://jdisciple.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/christ-is-not-our-only-high-priest-according-to-mormon-theology/

[bluebell]

I didn't look at the website, but that idea that Christ employs (for lack of a better term) mediators for Him is right in the NT, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Besides that, Hebrews 5 discusses the duties and calling of high priests, so even the NT doesn't support the idea that Christ is the only one.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'd like a citation where the Bible claims that Christ is the "ONLY High Priest."

What it actually says is that Christ is the "great high priest" (Heb. 4:14), which is precisely what LDS believe.

[Bill Hamblin]

One of the earliest post-New Testament Christian documents, the Didache has this to say:

“Thou shalt take the firstfruit of the produce of the winepress and of the threshingfloor and of the oxen and sheep, and shalt give them as firstfruits to the prophets (profetais), for they are your high priests (archiereis).” (Didache 13.3)

Clearly the earliest Christians believed in prophets who were "high priests" (plural).

[longview]

this link is under control of the anti-mormon. Stephen probably will point out some misrepresentations.

[Bill Hamblin]

It is also worth noting that the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions 7.29.1 paraphrases this passage in the Didache in and interesting way.

The Didache 13.3 reads:

"So when you take any first fruits of what is produced by the winepress and the threshing floor, by cows and by sheep, you shall give the first fruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests"

The Apostolic Constitutions 7.29.1 rewrites this passage as follows:

All the first-fruits of the winepress, the threshing-floor, the oxen, and the sheep, shalt thou give to the priests

I have bolded the part of the Didache that is preserved, and underlined the part that is taken out. Note how the prophets and high priests have been removed from the text.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Tacenda]

this link is under control of the anti-mormon. Stephen probably will point out some misrepresentations.

It's totally obvious that it's anti, my question is do I need to worry about my salvation? Do we all need to worry? I'm a struggling LDS who got sideswipped by a barage of anti sentiments. But is there a reason for it? Do we need to take a better look or if you all here have an answer I'd like to hear and keep my footing in the church. And btw, I didn't serve a mission and I'm not a scholar of scripture as if you didn't already know. I come to the defenders humbly asking these questions, I'm not anti, just a person that feels like a deer in headlights. And there is no other place like the MD&D board!

Edited August 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

It is also worth noting that the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions 7.29.1 paraphrases this passage in the Didache in and interesting way.

The Didache 13.3 reads:

The Apostolic Constitutions 7.29.1 rewrites this passage as follows:

I have bolded the part of the Didache that is preserved, and underlined the part that is taken out. Note how the prophets and high priests have been removed from the text.

I do and appreciate your pointing to this.

[CASteinman]

It's totally obvious that it's anti, my question is do I need to worry about my salvation? Do we all need to worry?

Not really - depending upon how you mean that. Your salvation from death is more or less assured. What you should be concerned about is entrance into the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation. You have already said you are not interested in exaltation so your focus should be on entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.

Do we need to take a better look or if you all here have an answer I'd like to hear and keep my footing in the church.

It looks to me like this is a case of a so-called "Christian" establishing their own word as the word of God. There is no reason to believe that Jesus is the only High Priest. Indeed, since HE told Joseph Smith to call High Priests there is good reason to believe He has no problem with it.

[teddyaware]

If Christ is the only High Priest after the order of Melchizedec permitted to hold that priesthood, then what right did Melchizedec have to hold it?

[teddyaware]

Tacenda,

One point as an addendum to my above comment: The folks who bring up all these anti-mormon arguments proudly admit there haven't been any iving apostles and prophets to guide the church for almost two thousand years. Therefore, most anything these antagonists come up with to counter the claims of the LDS Church is nothing more than assumption, supposition, speculation or private interpretation. It's to aviod controversies like this one that the Apostle Paul declared the following in Ephesians 4:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

¹²For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

¹⁴That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What think ye of this statement? It seems to be the wedge that is between our church and the rest of the christian world....

Thus, by denying that Jesus Christ is the ONLY High Priest of the New Covenant, Mormons make many other humans mediators between them and God. And this is blasphemy against Christ. Mormons have accepted the humans whom their leaders appointed priests as mediators between them and God. They have been deceived to refuse Christ as the ONLY Savior.

From this website: On the page there is a conversation between Steven who is LDS and this man from The Disciples of Jesus Christ....which one makes the better argument?

http://jdisciple.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/christ-is-not-our-only-high-priest-according-to-mormon-theology/

The Bible does not teach Christ is the only High Priest...but "our High Priest forever"...

[theplains]

Besides that, Hebrews 5 discusses the duties and calling of high priests, so even the NT doesn't support the idea that Christ is the only one.

This is a reference to the Old Testament priestly system - where there was only one high priest at a time. Only he could

enter the Holiest of Holies on the Day of Atonement.

Regards,

Jim

[teddyaware]

Here's a point of interest for you: We know that there is only one Jesus Christ, yet everyone who joins the Church is commanded to take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ at baptism. We are even told that at the last day the Lord will call us by that name. So we can see the Lord is willing to share with us all things he himself possesses, among them both his Royal Priesthood (1 peter 2:9)and even his very name:

And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.

[ANACO]

What think ye of this statement? It seems to be the wedge that is between our church and the rest of the christian world....

Thus, by denying that Jesus Christ is the ONLY High Priest of the New Covenant, Mormons make many other humans mediators between them and God. And this is blasphemy against Christ. Mormons have accepted the humans whom their leaders appointed priests as mediators between them and God. They have been deceived to refuse Christ as the ONLY Savior.

From this website: On the page there is a conversation between Steven who is LDS and this man from The Disciples of Jesus Christ....which one makes the better argument?

http://jdisciple.wor...ormon-theology/

Tacenda, I suggest you quit worrying about these anti-mormon sites and start studying up on your newly-found Mormon Faith. This was the counsel given by the Lord to Hyrum Smith as recorded in D&C 11.21. Once you know His word, you can go forth confidently through life being able to recognize truth from error.

Regarding the Priesthood office of High Priest: The Priesthood belongs to the Lord. It's His Priesthood. The Priesthood at one time was called after the Order of the Son of God. But to reverence his name, it's called the Melchizedek Priesthood, named after one of the greatest High Priests who magnified his calling. This is explained in the Book of Mormon in Alma Chapter 13. Melchizedek was the King of Salem which later was called Jerusalem. He called his people to repentance, and they did so which brought peace to them, thus Melchizedek was called "the prince of peace."

This is why the Priesthood was called after the Order of the Son of God. Jehovah, or Christ, was also called The Prince of Peace. See Isaiah 9:6. This is what every holder of the Priesthood should be doing - declaring righteousness, obedience, faith on the Lord, etc. - the very thing Our Lord and Savior did. This is his Order. This Order is conferred by the Son of God, upon or to his righteous Sons of God, us his children. And by doing his works, we become like him, by participating in the salvation of his children and thus qualify, through his mercy, to inherit the blessings prepared by Him. Thus our Creator, Jesus Christ is the High Priest over all, with a calling in His Priesthood called High Priest, allowing his sons to represent him and to do his works - after His Order.

Do not worry about the Apostolic Constitutions etc, being quoted here.

Study the LDS Scriptures. Go to www.LDS.org/scriptures and search by subject matter, if need be.

Regards

Edited August 17, 2012 by ANACO

[Tacenda]

Here's a point of interest for you: We know that there is only one Jesus Christ, yet everyone who joins the Church is commanded to take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ at baptism. We are even told that at the last day the Lord will call us by that name. So we can see the Lord is willing to share with us all things he himself possesses, among them both his Royal Priesthood (1 peter 2:9)and even his very name:

And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.

I believe that for sure. But the counter argument that the christians are saying is that only one is a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood according to Hebrews.

• 
  
• 7:1-2 he was called 'king of righteousness' and 'king of peace'
  
• 7:3 his genealogy is unknown - 'without beginning of days',' without end of life', 'a priest forever'
  
• 7:4-10 he was greater than Abraham, and therefore greater than Levi (the priestly tribe)
  
• 7:13 he was from a different tribe than the priests of Israel
  
• 7:16 his role as priest was on the basis of his conformation to regulations about ancestry
  

[altersteve]

The Bible also says Jesus is an apostle, but I doubt other Christians would deny that He's the ONLY apostle.

[teddyaware]

Tacenda,

I ask my first question again -- If Jesus is the only Melchizadek Priesthood holder, why then did the Old Testament prophet Melchizedek hold it before the Lord made his appearance in the flesh? After all, this priesthood is named after this man Melchizedek.

These enemies of the Church are not speaking as prophets; they don't believe in living prophets. Their opinions have no claim of apostolic authority -- they are just opinions and suppositions, thats all. Living prophets are needed to settle such controveries, as Paul said.

[volgadon]

One of the earliest post-New Testament Christian documents, the Didache has this to say:

“Thou shalt take the firstfruit of the produce of the winepress and of the threshingfloor and of the oxen and sheep, and shalt give them as firstfruits to the prophets (profetais), for they are your high priests (archiereis).” (Didache 13.3)

Clearly the earliest Christians believed in prophets who were "high priests" (plural).

Archiereus is still an important rank and title among the Eastern Orthodox.

[urroner]

Some questions:

1. Were the duties of the high priests of the OT equivalent to the duties of the high priests in the Church today?

2. Were the high priests in the OT, especially before 600 B.C. also part of the Melchizedek priesthood of that time?

3. What was the role of the MP before the Exile as opposed to it's role after the Exile, especially with regards to the temple?

[livy111us]

A smart man showed this to me a while back:

Dom B. Botte, “Holy Orders in the Ordination Prayers,” in The Sacrament of Holy Orders. Some papers and discussions concerning Holy Orders at a Session of the Centre de Pastorale Liturgique 1955 (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 1962; 1st Les Editions du Cerf, Paris 1957): 5-29.

“The contribution which I have to make at the beginning of this session is of rather a factual nature. I do not propose to construct a theological synthesis form the liturgical texts but simply to collect the data which might prove helpful to the discussions of this gathering. And I cannot quote all the texts, much less comment on them—they are far too numerous. Some choice must be made and as I would not wish it to be capricious I shall confine myself to the texts which concern the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate, and to the earliest examples of these in the three great patriarchates of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria…. It seemed to me preferable to keep to those representing the most ancient and universal tradition” (5).

“I shall, therefore, deal first with the earliest Western texts and then with those of the East” (5).

He first begins by paraphrasing Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition. He then concludes about this text: “In Hippolytus the priesthood and the diaconate are therefore defined by reference to the episcopate. The bishop is the pastor and the high priest. The priests participate in his priesthood and form a sacerdotal body which acts with him in governing the Church just as much as in celebrating the eucharist, and we see that immediately after their ordination they concelebrate with him. The deacon is the servant of the bishop—he assists the bishop at the altar by bringing up the gifts; and he is under his orders” (7-.

“We have to wait several centuries from the time of the apostolic tradition before we meet fresh liturgical documents on ordination. The pure Roman rite is represented by the Leonine sacramentary and the Gregorian sacramentary…. Let us briefly consider three well-known prefaces. Only a single idea is retained in the preface for an episcopal consecration—the bishop is the high priest of the new testament. The ordination of Aaron required two rites—he was clothed with sumptuous vestments and he was anointed. This was the figure of what happens at the consecration of the Christian high priest in a spiritual manner” (8; the two texts are: Sacramentarium Leonianum, ed. C. L. Feltoe (Cambridge 1896): 119-122; The Gregorian Sacramentary, ed. H.A. Wilson (London 1915): 5-.

“We now pass from the patriarchate of Rome to that of Antioch. The earliest document from this area is to be found in the Apostolic Constitutions [viii. 4-5; 16-7], an apocryphal compilation dating from the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. The ordination ritual is only an amplification of that in Hippolytus” (13).

“In the consecration of a bishop, the elements which appear to me to be early, apart form the imposition of the gospels, are an indicatory formula and a deprecatory formula, this latter being afterwards duplicated in a second, perhaps more recent, prayer. The indicatory formula is: Divine grace which heals all that is infirm and supplies what is wanting chooses N. as bishop of N. Let us pray for him, that the grace of the Most Holy Spirit may come upon him. That is actually the Byzantine formula but it is almost identical with the other rites.” (13-4).

“The Byzantine deprecatory formula runs: ‘O Sovereign Lord and our God, who by thine apostle Paul didst set up the hierarchy of degrees and orders for the service of thy most pure mysteries at thy holy altar—first apostles, then prophets, then doctors; do thou strengthen, O sovereign of the universe, by the coming, power and grace of thy Holy Spirit, him whom thou hast judged worthy to receive the yoke of the gospel and the dignity of the high priesthood by the hand of me, a sinner, and of those who celebrate with me, as thou didst strengthen the apostles and prophets, as thou didst anoint kings and sanctify high priests. Make him to be a high priest without reproach and adorned with all dignity; make him to be holy so that he may be worthy to intercede for the salvation of the people and to be heard by thee’ [J. Goar, Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum (Venice 1730): 250]” (14).

Among his conclusions is this: “The bishops are the successors of the apostles. This is strongly asserted by all the rites. The gift of the Holy Spirit, necessary for ruling the Church and continuing apostolic work, is conveyed from age to age through the imposition of hands. It is the bishops who are the mediators of the divine gifts, as the ritual of the East Syrian rite says. They are the true high priests of the new covenant as well as the successors of the apostles” (20-21).

During the discussion following his presentation, another participant (Father Lecuyer) quoted a passage from Severian of Gabala (died 408, according to Quasten, Patrology 3: 484; Bishop of Gabala, in Syria, near Laodicea), at page 24. Lecuyer reads his own paper later in the symposium [”The Mystery of Pentecost and the Apostolic Mission of the Church” 131-167], where he quotes this passage at greater length, part of which includes the following: “But why [is the Gospel (i.e., Bible) placed] upon the head? Because the apostles were ordained to be doctors of the whole world; now ordination is always performed only on the head. The presence of the tongues on their heads is therefore the sign of an ordination. It is in fact right that ordination is performed on the head as custom has required down to our own times. For, since the descent of the Holy Spirit is invisible, the book of the gospel is laid on the head of him who is to be ordained high priest…. ‘ (137, giving the source as Catena on Acts attributed to Theophylact (PG 125.. 533ab)).

“In the homily De Legislatore which J. Zellinger attributes to Severian, we find in fact an extremely interesting passage in which the orator asks why Aaron wore a mitre, and what it signified; he replies that the head of the people must have his head covered as a reminder that, although he is a leader and lawgiver, there is a Law above him: ‘It is for this reason that in the Church also, at the ordination of priests the book of the gospel is placed on the head of the ordinand, that he may know that he is receiving the true crown of the gospel, that he may also know that, although he is our head, he is none the less subject to these laws; ruling all, but himself ruled by the law; a legislator for all, yet himself under the legislation of the Word (of God)…. Consequently the imposition of the gospel upon the high priest means that he is subject to an authority’ [PG 56. 404]” (137-.

Hegesippus (-180?) provides a lengthy account of James’ martyrdom and role as a high priest. (HE 2.23.4-18)

Clement of Alexandria (-215?) emphasizes James’ primacy is receiving the post-resurrection gnosis and selection as first bishop by Christ and P,J,J. (HE 2.1.3-4)

Eusebius puts Christ’s appearance to James after the others (HE 1.12.4), puts his ordination after Stephen’s death (HE 1.2.1-2), has John wear high priestly HE 3.31.3), and describes James’ successors He 3.11, HE 4.5, HE 3:32)

Another orthodox account is from Epiphanius (-402 Panarion 29-30 see page 113 — ??) is late, but it elaborates Jesus and James’s role as Davidic priest-kings.

From Barry Bickmore (Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity)

Both Ignatius and Hippolytus called bishops "high priests": "And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God--of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest." "Grant unto this Thy servant whom Thou has chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest . . . ." Clement of Alexandria called each man who had been entrusted with the mysteries of God a "truly kingly man; he is the sacred high priest of God." Likewise, the Didache referred to prophets and Apostles, as "high priests." "Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests."

Origen called the Apostles and their successors "priests after the great High Priest." "In the same way the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest . . . ." On the other hand, Origen insisted that only Christ can be a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek:

But to this we reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about the Christ, "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God

It is clear from the foregoing citations, however, that bishops and others were considered "priests" after the order of Melchizedek, if not "high priests." We have also seen that the New Testament Church may not have made a distinction between offices corresponding to the Aaronic priesthood. Therefore, if there were no office of Aaronic priest, there may not have been a need to distinguish priests of the higher priesthood by calling them "high priests." That is, the office of "priest after the order of Melchizedek" in the early Church may have been equivalent to the office of "high priest after the order of Melchizedek" in the Restored Church.

From James Leo Garrett Jr. "The Pre-Cyprianic Doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers" in Church, Ministry and Organization in the Early Christian Church edited by Everett Ferguson. Garrett was a Protestant at Baylor University

From the Didache usually dated around 90 AD +/- 50 years

Every genuine prophet who wants to settle with Similarly, a genuine teacher himself, just you "has a right to his support." like a "workman, has a right to his support." Hence take all the first fruits of vintage and harvest, and of cattle and sheep, and give these first fruits to the prophets. For they are your high priests.

From Clement of Rome about 95 AD

For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

[i think that JLG is correct that Clement is "liken[ing]" the OT priesthood hierarchy to his day.]

And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God--of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest.

[note:JLG refers to Ignatius but doesn't use this quote. Perhaps because it refers specifically a bishop, and not all believers, as a high priest. Leo is more interested in following the concept that Christ's sacrifice and then Christian sacrifices inherited the role of Judaic priestly sacrifices.]

Gospel of Phillip

If some are in the tribe of the priesthood, these shall be able to enter within the

veil of the Temple with the high priest.

[JLG points out this is a gnostic text]

From Justin Martyr vs Trypho

"Moreover, the prescription that twelve bells be attached to the [robe] of the high priest, which hung down to the feet, was a symbol of the twelve apostles, who depend on the power of Christ, the eternal Priest; and through their voice it is that all the earth has been filled with the glory and grace of God and of His Christ.

Justin again

For just as that Jesus (Joshua), called by the prophet a priest, evidently had on filthy garments because he is said to have taken a harlot for a wife, and is called a brand plucked out of the fire, because he had received remission of sins when the devil that resisted him was rebuked; even so we, who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God the Maker of all, have been stripped, through the name of His first-begotten Son, of the filthy garments, i.e., of our sins; and being vehemently inflamed by the word of His calling, we are the true high priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well-pleasing and pure. Now God receives sacrifices from no one, except through His priests.

Melito of Sardis (contemporary of Irenaeus)

He is the One who brought us out of slavery into freedom out of darkness into light, out of death into life, out of tyranny into an eternal kingdom; who made us a new priesthood, a people chosen to be his own for ever. He is the Passover that is our salvation.

[JLG notes that Melito is drawing on 1 Pet. 2:9 with its royal priesthood]

Irenaeus

"Have ye not read this, what David did, when himself was an hungered; how he went into the house of God, and ate the shew-bread, and gave to those who were with him; which it is not lawful to eat, but for the priests alone?" justifying His disciples by the words of the law, and pointing out that it was lawful for the priests to act freely. For David had been appointed a priest by God, although Saul persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.

Clement of Alexandria

Such is the vision attainable by "the pure in heart." This is the function of the Gnostic, who has been perfected, to have converse with God through the great High Priest, being made like the Lord, up to the measure of his capacity, in the whole service of God, which tends to the salvation of men, through care of the beneficence which has us for its object; and on the other side through worship, through teaching and through beneficence in deeds. The Gnostic even forms and creates himself; and besides also, he, like to God, adorns those who hear him;

....

He [the gnostic or spiritual Christian] is, then, the truly kingly man; he is the sacred high priest of God.

....

So the high priest, putting off his consecrated robe (the universe, and the creation in the universe, were consecrated by Him assenting that, what was made, was good), washes himself, and puts on the other tunic--a holy-of-holies one, so to speak--which is to accompany him into the adytum; exhibiting, as seems to me, the Levite and Gnostic, as the chief of other priests (those bathed in water, and clothed in faith alone, and expecting their own individual abode), himself distinguishing the objects of the intellect from the things of sense, rising above other priests, hasting to the entrance to the world of ideas, to wash himself from the things here below, not in water, as formerly one was cleansed on being enrolled in the tribe of Levi. But purified already by the gnostic Word in his whole heart, and thoroughly regulated, and having improved that mode of life received from the priest to the highest pitch, being quite sanctified both in word and life, and having put on the bright array of glory, and received the ineffable inheritance of that spiritual and perfect man, "which eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man;" and having become son and friend, he is now replenished with insatiable contemplation face to face. For there is nothing like hearing the Word Himself, who by means of the Scripture inspires fuller intelligence.

[USU78]

Huh . . .

It seems only a protestant would make such an argument. No RC or GO would do so.

I would like an Evie Protestant to address the issue of why, should priesthood have been fully abolished, why then do they need pastors and deacons and elders in their denominations? Why not do as the Friends do and have a true "priesthood of all believers," with none particularly presiding?

[Sevenbak]

"Mormons make many other humans mediators between them and God."

Tacenda, other humans being mediators between us and God is a common occurrence in the New Testament. The antis would have us believe that Joseph judging us instead of Christ is blasphemy. However, Christ appointed others to help in that work. His servants and particularly heads of dispensations. It will be righteous judgement. Here's some examples.

• saints shall judge the world, 1 Cor. 6:2
  
• Know ye not that we shall judge angels, 1 Cor. 6:3
  
• 
  

  ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

  Matt. 19:28

  
  

• 
  

  I saw thrones … and judgment was given unto them

  Rev. 20:4

  
  

Edited August 20, 2012 by Sevenbak

[djholmess]

Huh . . .

It seems only a protestant would make such an argument. No RC or GO would do so.

I would like an Evie Protestant to address the issue of why, should priesthood have been fully abolished, why then do they need pastors and deacons and elders in their denominations? Why not do as the Friends do and have a true "priesthood of all believers," with none particularly presiding?

I'm not well versed in the priesthood issues relating to Mormonism but from an evangelical perspective we do not see elders/pastors as a continuation of the priestly class of Israel. Rather they are a continuation of the elders/leaders of the people of Israel we see in the OT - with some obvious differences in their roles due to the differences between the people of Israel and the Church as a body of believers.

As to why do we need them? Because it is the clear organizational structure of local congregations that we see in the NT.

Regarding priests we believe in the priesthood of all believers, no longer do Gods people need a priest to lead them in worship or service to God - all believers can worship and serve God wherever the are. Obviously we also believe that Jesus is our own high priest and that there can be no others.

[altersteve]

Regarding priests we believe in the priesthood of all believers, no longer do Gods people need a priest to lead them in worship or service to God - all believers can worship and serve God wherever the are. Obviously we also believe that Jesus is our own high priest and that there can be no others.

You do indeed display a lack of knowledge about the LDS concept of the priesthood. Please read this article and the linked sources to get an introduction to our beliefs on this matter. But I have to ask, where does the Bible teach the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers"?