Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Gervin]

In Sacrament meeting today, I came home afterwards since the young man I help wasn't there.  There were some youth speakers that gave talks and bore testimony of the church being true, and Pres. Monson was a true prophet.  But did I hear that they had a relationship with the Saviour?  Hardly ever, that is what I worry about.  Did JS have the right spirit/spirits visit him in the grove that day? I do believe that good institutions can be guided by the Lord however, and maybe that's how it's suppose to be.  I believe that the body of Christ is many faiths.  So I guess I'm far from having the full faith that we are the only true church.  Or Christ's only church.           

I work with and around a fair number of youth (hs - college) in the context of missions and their testimony, in both formal and informal settings, is always first and foremost that Christ lives in them.  It's sort of where it starts and ends.  Bearing testimony of the Prophet and Church would probably be perceived by our kids as an unholy trinity of Son, Prophet, and Church.  Your example might imply the Son might be in second or third place.  But I take no glee in saying that.  

 

I hope people of all faiths and none might take a moment of silence this weekend and just meditate or pray about peace.  

Edited July 19, 2014 by Gervin

[boblloyd91]

I like what you said Gervin, when I went on my mission to Iowa I realized that Christ needed to be the center of my focus, not a church program. I think that when LDS youth grow up, they sometimes equate Christ with the church, though I don't think that is always bad, it is a stage they need to move on from. Having said that, our leaders have addressed this, comparing the church and it's programs to a tool to help. I have yet to read or watch a general conference where members are not encouraged to gain a testimony of Christ. One of my favorite talks was Bruce R. McConkie's final testimony of Christ. In April 1985.

[Gervin]

I like what you said Gervin, when I went on my mission to Iowa I realized that Christ needed to be the center of my focus, not a church program. I think that when LDS youth grow up, they sometimes equate Christ with the church, though I don't think that is always bad, it is a stage they need to move on from. Having said that, our leaders have addressed this, comparing the church and it's programs to a tool to help. I have yet to read or watch a general conference where members are not encouraged to gain a testimony of Christ. One of my favorite talks was Bruce R. McConkie's final testimony of Christ. In April 1985.

I agree re stages. One perspective is the book Stages on Life's Way. It talks about 3 existence spheres [stages].

[Kind Debater]

To answer the original question, my personal opinion is that it's possible for a Mormon to be Christian. It would depend on the individual and their beliefs and relationship with God.

I remember hearing a story about missionaries preaching to Hindus. The Hindus were happy to believe that Christ died for their sins, but instead of converting to orthodox belief they simply added Christ to their large group of gods/idols. Can you accept Christ as your Savior, continue to worship idols and still be saved? I'm thinking the answer is "no."

OTOH, no one has 100% accurate theological beliefs and even people who are saved continue to sin to some extent. Since I believe at least some people will be saved, I conclude that we don't need to have perfect beliefs or practice in order to be saved.

Where is the dividing line -- at what point are someone's beliefs or actions so wrong that they can't be saved, even though they profess to believe in Christ? At what point is someone believing in a different God/Jesus than the God/Jesus described by the Bible? These questions don't have clear-cut answers. In some specific cases, though, like the example above, the answer seems pretty clear.

I'm debating a Mormon who has said he regards the evangelical God as a monster because he condemns so many people to hell. If the evangelical view of God is correct, what's going to happen to him when he dies and confronts that God? How can he go to heaven if he refuses to worship a God who sends a majority of people to hell? It's one thing to get some theology wrong; as I said, we all have errors in our theologies and I don't think that having the wrong view of the afterlife is in itself going to keep someone from being saved. But this guy is essentially saying that he will regard God as good if the LDS view of the afterlife is correct but not if the evangelical view is correct. If your views are such that you would refuse to worship the God who actually exists, how can you be saved?

[coolrok7]

Ellen, in your post #168 you make this observation to blooit:

 

 

Frankly, that non-Mormons would say that Mormons are not Christians should be of minor concern to you because those who say so speak from profound ignorance.

 

 

I answered not from profound ignorance but from years of studying after having been asked to do so, attending the classes offered by the church, observing Conference with the missionaries, reading the books/tracts, etc.. I'm not ignorant of what Mormonism teaches.

 

I've even attended the local mosque (I understand you converted from Islam to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) where a Dr. Muzamil Siddiqui is the spiritual leader (Garden Grove, Ca. Years ago I was leading a Bible study in a home near the mosque). It was during the Lenten season in which I invited him to come watch a PBS program on Islam with us was how I first met him.

 

Both Muhammad/Joseph Smith are lacking of Biblical truth at critical points and teaches against what the Bible says, especially the Gospel.

 

[Tacenda]

Ellen, in your post #168 you make this observation to blooit:

 

 

 

 

I answered not from profound ignorance but from years of studying after having been asked to do so, attending the classes offered by the church, observing Conference with the missionaries, reading the books/tracts, etc.. I'm not ignorant of what Mormonism teaches.

 

I've even attended the local mosque (I understand you converted from Islam to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) where a Dr. Muzamil Siddiqui is the spiritual leader (Garden Grove, Ca. Years ago I was leading a Bible study in a home near the mosque). It was during the Lenten season in which I invited him to come watch a PBS program on Islam with us was how I first met him.

 

Both Muhammad/Joseph Smith are lacking of Biblical truth at critical points and teaches against what the Bible says, especially the Gospel.

I'm listening to a Mormon Matters podcast that touches on many points in this thread.  http://mormonmatters.org/2014/07/16/239-243-jesus-christ-within-mormonism/

 

The intro to the podcast:

 

We Latter-day Saints “talk of Christ . . . rejoice in Christ . . . preach of Christ . . . prophesy of Christ . . . and write of Christ, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:26). But have we always been consistent in our understanding of Christ? What are the evolutions in thought about Christ that we have undergone in the nearly two centuries since the church’s founding? How did earlier Latter-day Saints understand certain terms in ways that are different from today’s views? We Mormons also speak regularly of the importance of “coming unto Christ,” “taking his name upon us,” “standing as a witness for Christ,” and “becoming perfect in Christ.” What do we mean by these terms? Do they have multiple layers that can reveal great richness when we examine them deeply?

 

In this five-part episode, Charley Harrell, Jody England Hansen, and Phil McLemore join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in an extensive dive in both doctrinal and devotional aspects related to our Christian beliefs and experiences.

 

Me:  I've just listened to a 1/4 of the first podcast so far.  Apparently a lot of what LDS teach isn't even in the New Testament.  Or many teachings we say Jesus taught, really isn't in the bible anywhere.  So it's all through revelation or added LDS scripture. 

[Storm Rider]

yet, Joseph taught the things you mentioned above.  Are we talking cultural practices or doctrines focused on Jesus the Son of God?  What did you not find in the NT?  Or what teachings do we say Jesus taught that are not in the Bible?

[Tacenda]

yet, Joseph taught the things you mentioned above. Are we talking cultural practices or doctrines focused on Jesus the Son of God? What did you not find in the NT? Or what teachings do we say Jesus taught that are not in the Bible?

In the very beginning of the podcast they discuss "The Living Christ" put out during Pres. Hinckley's presidency, to help you get an idea of what they're talking about. One is the teaching of a spirit world, or pre existence. Christ never taught that in the New Testament, so in a sense they said LDS impose their own theology on the words of Christ. But they also mention that many different religions might put their own spin on the New Testament, but not something that significant.

[phi39]

Hello Phi,

 

Good to have you here.  What seminary are you attending?  Just curious.

 

. . . Based upon what you have said it would seem clear that the first apostles could not properly be called Christians because their discussions (the gospels) that address Christ, salvation, Bible, Sin, and Grace are quite different from what you would believe today.  However, Jesus and the first Apostles made no such qualifiers that you could only be a disciple of Christ if you believed these specific things. No where does Christ provide any kind of list as you have done above.

 

What it would appear you are saying is that it is not really interpretation of the Bible, but your traditions of the teachings of the Bible with a special focus on Romans.  

 

. . .  What is clear to me is that based on the words of Christ or even the entire Bible, it is impossible to come of with a specific list of beliefs that Jesus or the first Apostles taught that a follower must believe to be a Christian.  So they either need to excluded from the list of true Christians or we need to qualify these types of statements.  It is valid to state LDS have no part in the historical Christian Church.  . . .

 

Finally, what I am most grateful for is that none of us need to judge our fellow man on his merit or degree of Christianity; that belongs to our Master, Jesus Christ.  

 

Best of luck in your studies,

I am (hopefully) in my last year at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Thanks for asking!  I have always had a penchant for talking to Mormons, I find it very interesting.  I only mention my education up front because I have found that people feel trapped or cheated if they only find out halfway through the conversation that I'm working on a degree in this stuff.

 

Responding to your last line, I believe we actually do have a responsibility judge the merit of another's faith or the genuineness of their Christianity.  If I actually thought you were going down the wrong path and had a chance to say something, but didn't, then I would be a horrible person.   

 

As for the list of categories I mentioned, those are key points of disagreement between Mormons and Evangelicals, and that is why they made the list.  You are correct that you will not find Jesus, Paul or any of the other 12 apostles writing out lists saying "thou must believe this, or thou are not a Christian."  Instead they take it peace-meal, addressing issues as they came up and teaching authoritatively.  There are many points where to disagree with them is to simply be outside the faith because what they teach is fundamental.  If you put their teachings together you will come out with a list of non-negotiables that are the essence of Christianity.  The LDS Church has a list too: I have read GOSPEL PRINCIPLES.

 

So I would certainly consider the apostles to be Christians, I am trying to understand and adhere to what they taught and then repeat it faithfully.  You would have to show where my beliefs differ from what the Apostles, or the Bible as a whole teaches.  My contention is that my faith/interpretation is in line with their teaching and yours is not.  Of course, you believe the same as well.

 

So my earlier post only established that we are too different to be the same thing at the same time.  The further step which are now taking it seems is to ask: "who has right?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks for asking!  I have always had a penchant for talking to Mormons, I find it very interesting.  I only mention my education up front because I have found that people feel trapped or cheated if they only find out halfway through the conversation that I'm working on a degree in this stuff.

Rofl, that is some what funny.

[Anakin7]

    I just wanted to add this site to the conversation - www.evangelicalsandmormonsforjesus.com

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Vance]

I didn't intend any question begging.  I only meant to mark where this issue ends: we both claim authority

Again, the elephant question in the room is "How and where do YOU get your authority?"

From this point it is jousting match to to prove/disprove Joseph Smith's validity against the witness of scripture as we have received it.

What you really mean is against the witness of scripture as YOU have interpreted it.

And that gets us back to that elephant question again.

But that is another thread,. . .

It doesn't have to be.

. . . and I believe someone else has it covered right now (I read something about how Smith should be regarded as a fallen prophet, yet still a conduit of truth from God(?).

A fringe element of thought doesn't really cover it at all.

[ERayR]

Responding to your last line, I believe we actually do have a responsibility judge the merit of another's faith or the genuineness of their Christianity. 

 

 

I would have respected you more if you had it like this: I believe we actually do have a responsibility judge the merit of another's our own faith or the genuineness of their our own Christianity and leave the judgement of others to Jesus Christ. Enter something here about motes and beams.

[phi39]

I would have respected you more if you had it like this: I believe we actually do have a responsibility judge the merit of another's our own faith or the genuineness of their our own Christianity and leave the judgement of others to Jesus Christ. Enter something here about motes and beams.

Yes, I thought about quoting that passage (Matthew 7:1-5).  It is not a call to not judge anyone for anything.  Rather it is a call to judge your brother and help him so long as you are no hypocrite in the process.  If you ever desire to win someone to your faith you implicitly judge their religion to be wrong at some level.  You judge me by what you say in the post above, but without hypocracy because I am sure you have indeed judged the merit of your own faith.  We have both done so, only we come out with different answers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I thought about quoting that passage (Matthew 7:1-5).  It is not a call to not judge anyone for anything.  Rather it is a call to judge your brother and help him so long as you are no hypocrite in the process.  If you ever desire to win someone to your faith you implicitly judge their religion to be wrong at some level.  You judge me by what you say in the post above, but without hypocracy because I am sure you have indeed judged the merit of your own faith.  We have both done so, only we come out with different answers.

The judgement spoken of in the scriptures is about casting a final judgment. Such as Mormons are not Christians and as such will go to hell.

[phi39]

Again, the elephant question in the room is "How and where do YOU get your authority?"

What you really mean is against the witness of scripture as YOU have interpreted it.

...

Okay, let's talk about authority then.  I have authority to interpret scripture like any Christian, and I believe my interpretation is correct, that it accurately represents the teachings of scripture.  I can say this because any Christian has authority directly from Christ, because he has given us his righteousness, his status as sons of God and his Spirit who leads us to the truth.  The King sends each of us out as his emissaries with varied gifts and training.

 

You claim (I would assume) the Aaronic priesthood, but you do not understand that that priesthood was fulfilled and ended on the Cross (Hebrews 7 - .  I also understand you would claim the Melkizedeck priesthood, but isn't Christ the only mediator between God and man (Hebrews 9:15, 12:24, 1 Timothy 2:5)?  I cannot accept the authority of the First Presidency because I find that neither its teachings nor its revelations are in harmony with the revelation that has gone before.  I can demonstrate through history that the original teaching and wording of the scriptures have endured since the days of the apostles, through all the controversies, apostasies and upheavals.

 

So those are my reasons for thinking I have any right to say anything in Christ's name.  We can keep harping on this if you like, or we can simply accept upfront that we both think we come from the true church and have a better authority than the other.  From there we can talk theology and hope to win each other over.

 

And I do hope you come to accept the gift of righteousness and sonship that comes through faith in Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

You claim (I would assume) the Aaronic priesthood, but you do not understand that that priesthood was fulfilled and ended on the Cross (Hebrews 7 - . 

Um no, it is unending, it is with out end with out mother or father. The priesthood is not something that needed to be full filled. There are no scriptures that allude to that idea.

[Vance]

Okay, let's talk about authority then.  I have authority to interpret scripture like any Christian, and I believe my interpretation is correct, that it accurately represents the teachings of scripture.  I can say this because any Christian has authority directly from Christ, because he has given us his righteousness, his status as sons of God and his Spirit who leads us to the truth.  The King sends each of us out as his emissaries with varied gifts and training.

Well that is interesting.

Let's see if I understand you correctly.

You have authority simply by virtue of being a Christian (or at least you claim to be one).

I am also a Christian, and therefore have as much authority as you to interpret scripture correctly. I believe my interpretation is correct, that it accurately represents the teachings of the scriptures.

Do I have it right?

 

You claim (I would assume) the Aaronic priesthood, but you do not understand that that priesthood was fulfilled and ended on the Cross (Hebrews 7 - 8 ).

Except for the fact that priests were found in the New Testament church (Acts 6:7). These priests would have been Aaronic priests, so, obviously this priesthood continued AFTER the Cross.

 

I also understand you would claim the Melkizedeck priesthood, but isn't Christ the only mediator between God and man (Hebrews 9:15, 12:24, 1 Timothy 2:5)?

You are incorrectly interpreting those scriptures. And I as a true Christian have the correct interpretation. Christ was not the only one. No where does it say that He was the only one, in fact, the word "order" is used to describe this priesthood. An "order" MUST be more than one, otherwise it is not an "order" at all.

I cannot accept the authority of the First Presidency because I find that neither its teachings nor its revelations are in harmony with the revelation that has gone before.

Where as, I, as a true Christian, with correct interpretation find that its teachings and its revelations ARE in harmony with the revelation that has gone before.

 

I can demonstrate through history that the original teaching and wording of the scriptures have endured since the days of the apostles, through all the controversies, apostasies and upheavals.

And yet, what you can not demonstrate is that the correct understanding of those scriptures has endured.

 

So those are my reasons for thinking I have any right to say anything in Christ's name.

Well then, since I can make the same claim for the same reason I can also authoritatively (with as much authority as you have any way) officially declare that you are in error.

 

We can keep harping on this if you like, or we can simply accept upfront that we both think we come from the true church and have a better authority than the other.

Not at all. I can honestly claim that I have the same authority as you and because of the same means, therefore, you can NOT claim to have more authority than me.

 

From there we can talk theology and hope to win each other over.

You HAVE won me over. You have convinced me that I have, at the very least, as much authority as you. And for that I thank you.

 

And I do hope you come to accept the gift of righteousness and sonship that comes through faith in Christ.

Been there, done that, even though I, using the same authority that you have, declare that you are misinterpreting the scriptures that mention the righteousness of Christ.

So, now that we have established that I have as much, if not more, authority than you to interpret scripture, if there is anything you really want to know, feel free to ask.

I will be glad to help you out.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Vance

[phi39]

. . . priests were found in the New Testament church (Acts 6:7). These priests would have been Aaronic priests, so, obviously this priesthood continued AFTER the Cross.

 

You are incorrectly interpreting those scriptures. And I as a true Christian have the correct interpretation. Christ was not the only one. No where does it say that He was the only one, in fact, the word "order" is used to describe this priesthood. An "order" MUST be more than one, otherwise it is not an "order" at all.

Where as, I, as a true Christian, with correct interpretation find that its teachings and its revelations ARE in harmony with the revelation that has gone before.

 

And yet, what you can not demonstrate is that the correct understanding of those scriptures has endured.

 

...

You HAVE won me over. You have convinced me that I have, at the very least, as much authority as you. And for that I thank you.

 

Been there, done that, even though I, using the same authority that you have, declare that you are misinterpreting the scriptures that mention the righteousness of Christ.

So, now that we have established that I have as much, if not more, authority than you to interpret scripture, if there is anything you really want to know, feel free to ask.

I will be glad to help you out.

Good, now that we got that out of the way we can debate as equals.  

 

The presence of Aaronic priests after Christ and up to 70 A.D. at least, does not a valid priesthood make.  The writer of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant of sinai, making the priesthood which was instituted to administer that covenant of sacrifices is therefore obsolete.  Jesus is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Again, this is mainly taught in Hebrew 7- 8, but it is also the main thrust of Hebrews. "Mola Ram" said the Aaronic priesthood is eternally held by God, but the writer of Hebrews is clear that the Aaronic priesthood began at sinai, is held by levite men, and is only valid as long as that old covenant is valid.  But again, that was done at the cross.  

 

It is possible to have to have an order of priesthood and to only have one priest in it.  Jesus is named as a priest after the order Melkizedek in Hebrews, which is ministry of being a mediator between God and man. In 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is named as the only one who does that.

 

I continue on this line not because I want to keep talking about authority, but because it has major implications for how salvation is accomplished and our understanding of what a Christian is.  I like to call the new covenant which Jesus mediates the covenant of Calvary, fulfilling and ending the covenant of Sinai.  In both the new and old covenant, Paul especially would tell you that righteousness has always come through faith (Romans 3-4).  And the writer of Hebrews would tell you that none of the sacrifices ever made actually atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4, 9:11-14).

 

So I will ask you then: you say I am wrong about how righteousness is received.  What does it mean to receive the righteousness of Christ, and how is it received?

[Storm Rider]

And after you deal with the Church of Jesus Christ you will also have to deal with your mother church, the Catholic Church, whose pope claims a direct lineage from Peter.  Both of us would state and ask:  There is no record of Southern Baptists being around, in fact, no Baptists being around as a group from the time just after Christ's crucifixion.  By what authority did your church claim to set up its own church under new doctrines?  The NT is clear that this authority cannot be assumed independently, but by laying on of hands by those already in authority.

 

When talking about authority you open up a can of worms for yourself and you will find yourself in a very small minority that think likewise.

[teddyaware]

Good, now that we got that out of the way we can debate as equals.  

 

The presence of Aaronic priests after Christ and up to 70 A.D. at least, does not a valid priesthood make.  The writer of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant of sinai, making the priesthood which was instituted to administer that covenant of sacrifices is therefore obsolete.  Jesus is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Again, this is mainly taught in Hebrew 7- 8, but it is also the main thrust of Hebrews. "Mola Ram" said the Aaronic priesthood is eternally held by God, but the writer of Hebrews is clear that the Aaronic priesthood began at sinai, is held by levite men, and is only valid as long as that old covenant is valid.  But again, that was done at the cross.  

 

It is possible to have to have an order of priesthood and to only have one priest in it.  Jesus is named as a priest after the order Melkizedek in Hebrews, which is ministry of being a mediator between God and man. In 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is named as the only one who does that.

 

I continue on this line not because I want to keep talking about authority, but because it has major implications for how salvation is accomplished and our understanding of what a Christian is.  I like to call the new covenant which Jesus mediates the covenant of Calvary, fulfilling and ending the covenant of Sinai.  In both the new and old covenant, Paul especially would tell you that righteousness has always come through faith (Romans 3-4).  And the writer of Hebrews would tell you that none of the sacrifices ever made actually atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4, 9:11-14).

 

So I will ask you then: you say I am wrong about how righteousness is received.  What does it mean to receive the righteousness of Christ, and how is it received?

The Latter-day Saints believe after the resurrection of Christ the Aaronic Priesthood was changed in function and subsumed as an appendage into the Melchizedek Priesthood, with all the functions of the Aaronic Priesthood now being functions that are part and parcel of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In the LDS Church, all Priesthood is of the Melchizedek order. So the Aaronic Priesthood, as it exists today, is not at all the same as when it functioned in the performances of the ordinances under the Mosaic Law. For instance, among the many things that are no longer required or valid, there are no animal sacrifices performed by Aaronic priests taking place in the temples of the LDS Church.

Because today's changed Aaronic Priesthood is Melchizedek in authority and nature, it's primary function is to serve as a preparatory or apprentice priesthood to train boys and young men who will in due time be ordained to the office of elder. In this, today's Aaronic priesthood serves as an indispensable training program for boys and young men who are trained to fulfill the duties and perform the ordinances pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the ordinances pertaining to a Mosaic Law that is no longer in force.

What we have here is something analogous to the ranking system of US army: All are soldiers are members of the US army, whether they be privates, corporals, sergeants, majors, captains or generals. So it is with the Melchizedek Priesthood in the LDS Church: All offices are Melchizedek in nature and authority, whether one be ordained to the office of a deacon, teacher,priest, elder, high priest, patriarch or prophet. Your mistake is in thinking that just because the Aaronic Priesthood of the LDS Church has the same name/title as that held by Priests of Aaron, who officiated and functioned under the Mosaic Law, they must be one and the same -- they are not.

"The Aaronic Priesthood is not a different priesthood; rather, it is the lesser portion of the priesthood, dealing with the introductory ordinances and the preparatory commandments." (LDS Bible Dictionary)

"All priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it." (Joseph Smith)

 

The faulty line of argumentation you espouse here is an example of what happens when misinformed critics of the LDS Church -- who haven't bothered to study things from an LDS point of view and who are too eager to find fault -- think they've got a devastating point to make when, in reality, what they're actually wielding has all the convincing power of a rhetorical wet noddle. 

Edited July 23, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

Good, now that we got that out of the way we can debate as equals.  

 

The presence of Aaronic priests after Christ and up to 70 A.D. at least, does not a valid priesthood make.

Well, it certainly does not invalidate the priesthood either.

The writer of Hebrews is very clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant of sinai, making the priesthood which was instituted to administer that covenant of sacrifices is therefore obsolete.

Sorry, but the word "obsolete" is not used. The word "changed" is used. The priesthood was "changed" it was not invalidated.

Jesus is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

True, but that does not mean that the priesthood was eliminated.

Again, this is mainly taught in Hebrew 7- 8, but it is also the main thrust of Hebrews. "Mola Ram" said the Aaronic priesthood is eternally held by God, but the writer of Hebrews is clear that the Aaronic priesthood began at sinai, is held by levite men, and is only valid as long as that old covenant is valid.

No where does it state that it was eliminated. It does say that it was "changed". "Changed" is inconsistent with "eliminated" or "invalidated".

But again, that was done at the cross.

You are reading more into it than is there. Which, of course, you HAVE to do to maintain a consistency. But consistency does not mean correct. 

 

It is possible to have to have an order of priesthood and to only have one priest in it.

ONLY by invalidating the meaning of the word "order". To have any "order" at all requires more than one.

Jesus is named as a priest after the order Melkizedek in Hebrews, which is ministry of being a mediator between God and man. In 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is named as the only one who does that.

Again, reading something that isn't there. The word "only" is not found in 1 Tim 2:5.

 

I continue on this line not because I want to keep talking about authority, but because it has major implications for how salvation is accomplished and our understanding of what a Christian is.

Absolutely. And, whereas I have as much authority as you, based upon your own criteria, I can safely declare that your interpretation is in error.

I like to call the new covenant which Jesus mediates the covenant of Calvary, fulfilling and ending the covenant of Sinai.  In both the new and old covenant, Paul especially would tell you that righteousness has always come through faith (Romans 3-4). And the writer of Hebrews would tell you that none of the sacrifices ever made actually atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4, 9:11-14).

On this we can agree. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God was to be the last and ultimate sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And yet other types of sacrifice (associated with the priesthood) are and were to remain.

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

1 Pet 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

So I will ask you then: you say I am wrong about how righteousness is received.  What does it mean to receive the righteousness of Christ, and how is it received?

I see no indication that righteousness is "received", at least not in the way you seem to be implying.

I do see this,

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

1 Jn 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

. . .

3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

[Calm]

"Jesus is named as a priest after the order Melkizedek in Hebrews, which is ministry of being a mediator between God and man. In 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is named as the only one who does that."

Why is it called after the order of Melchizedek if he did not hold the Priesthood himself?

[ERayR]

Yes, I thought about quoting that passage (Matthew 7:1-5).  It is not a call to not judge anyone for anything.  Rather it is a call to judge your brother and help him so long as you are no hypocrite in the process.

 

How can a sinner (and all men are sinners) judge someone else without being a hypocrite?  Matthew 7:1-5 warns us that the judgement with which we judge others is the judgement we will receive.  It is a warning to concentrate on our own sins. 

 

 

 If you ever desire to win someone to your faith you implicitly judge their religion to be wrong at some level.

 

I don't look at in in terms of right or wrong but in terms of complete or incomplete.  When I offer what I have it is in terms what it can add to their lives.

 

 You judge me by what you say in the post above, but without hypocracy because I am sure you have indeed judged the merit of your own faith.  

 

I did/do not judge you.  I do not even know you.  I compared your approach to Matthew 7:1-5 which admonishes to look to improving oneself not your neighbor. Now I guess if you have reached the perfection of Jesus you can ignore Matthew 7:1-5.

 

We have both done so, only we come out with different answers.

 

I am where I am at today because of many manifestations of the Holy Ghost.  I don't know how you got to where you are.  What is obvious is we did not take the same route.

[teddyaware]

"Jesus is named as a priest after the order Melkizedek in Hebrews, which is ministry of being a mediator between God and man. In 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is named as the only one who does that."

Why is it called after the order of Melchizedek if he did not hold the Priesthood himself?

In Hebrews 7, we are told the name/title of Melchizedek means "King of righteousness" or "King of peace." In the same chapter we also learn that this same Melchizedek, to whom Abraham paid tithes, was also a "priest of the most high God."

So Melchizedek was most assuredly a king and a priest. And we Latter-day Saints are confident to say he was a priest after the same order of priesthood as that held by the Son of God. Else why does Hebrews declare Christ's priesthood to be after the same order of priesthood held by Melchizedek? What else could "the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek" mean? After all, Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God and who can deny it? It's also important to understand that in this instance the word order refers to "a group of people holding a specific honor for service or merit, conferred on them."

And do any of we Latter-day Saints think it's just a coincidence when no less than three times in the Book of Revelation men are promised they will rule and reign forever as priests and kings unto God?

"10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev 5)

Sure sounds a whole lot like the Melchizedek Priesthood to me. You know, the whole kings and priests thing.

But believe it or not Cal, when some of our non-LDS friends get pinned against the wall with this powerful line of irrefutable logic they come up with an amazing explanation: They will tell you Melchizedek was the preincarnate Christ! This they must do, otherwise the whole line of argumentation that postulates "Christ is the one and only Melchizedek Priesthood bearer who ever lived" falls flat on its face.

Edited July 23, 2014 by teddyaware