Giving the MP to 12 year olds

[Franklin Bluth]

I’m not sure I follow. Baptism can be performed by a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, as can all other Aaronic Priesthood ordinances. As mentioned, the Aaronic Priesthood did not exist separately from the Melchizedek Priesthood until the time of Moses, but we know baptism did exist prior to Moses. Similarly, we know baptism existed in the Book of Mormon prior to the Aaronic Priesthood being introduced in 3 Nephi. 
 

Ultimately I’m trying to learn what people think about the necessity of the Aaronic Priesthood in our time when it wasn’t required in dispensations past.

[Franklin Bluth]

Super weird response, I think. The topic is about whether 12 year olds should get the Melchizedek Priesthood. My point is that may have precedent since the Aaronic Priesthood as we know it didn’t exist for thousands of years, and there are certainly scriptural examples of children younger than 12 having that Priesthood conferred upon them. 
 

I will also say I completely disagree with your interpretation that prior to the Law of Moses baptism wasn’t an ordinance. Just a quick perusal of the Bible Dictionary topic ‘Baptism’ should set that straight, “ Baptism has always been practiced whenever the gospel of Jesus Christ has been on the earth and has been taught by men holding the holy priesthood who could administer the ordinances.“ 

 

[Franklin Bluth]

Just a few more quotes about baptism from churchofjesuschrist.org:

 

Baptism is an eternal ordinance that has been practiced in all gospel dispensations.

1. Adam was baptized in water by the Spirit of the Lord (see Moses 6:64–66).

2. Enoch was commanded to baptize (see Moses 7:11).

3. Noah preached repentance and baptism (see Moses 8:23–24).

4. Baptism was practiced among the ancient Israelites (see D&C 84:25–27; 1 Nephi 20:1).

5. Baptism was taught and practiced among the righteous Nephites and Lamanites (see Mosiah 18:12–16; Alma 6:2; 7:14; 19:35–36; 3 Nephi 11:21–28).

Clearly baptism is taught by the church to have been a necessary ordinance since Adam. And since Adam didn’t hold the Aaronic Priesthood it is wrong to say that we need the Aaronic Priesthood in order to be baptized. To come full circle, why not give 12 year olds the Melchizedek Priesthood if for much of the history of God’s covenant people the Aaronic Priesthood did not exist as a separate thing from the Melchizedek Priesthood? 
 

To be clear, I’m not advocating for that. I’m simply responding to the original post that I see a certain logic to the question, and I’m asking the members of this forum to give their thoughts and share their knowledge of why it is even necessary to have the Aaronic Priesthood. If mfbukowski can’t see the nexus, then you can simply stop reading this particular thread. As for me, I’m still interested to get other people’s thoughts on it.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Franklin Bluth said:

To be clear, I’m not advocating for that. I’m simply responding to the original post that I see a certain logic to the question, and I’m asking the members of this forum to give their thoughts and share their knowledge of why it is even necessary to have the Aaronic Priesthood. If mfbukowski can’t see the nexus, then you can simply stop reading this particular thread. As for me, I’m still interested to get other people’s thoughts on it.

Ok, I am signing off this thread.

I think it's perfectly clear that John the Baptist took a common practice demonstrating repentance and over time, turned it into an ordinance through which one entered the Church Of Jesus Christ.

I am not in any way claiming expertise in this area, I just see this as just my opinion.

Forgive the source, but a wikipedia entry also sees it this way imo, and I think this time, it makes sense.

Bro Bluth is new and cannot start a thread until he reaches a certain number of posts, but I can do that for him if he desires.

Here's Wikipedia on "Baptism", bolding added:

"The practice of baptism emerged from Jewish ritualistic practices during the Second Temple Period, out of which figures such as John the Baptist emerged. For example, various texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) corpus at Qumran describe ritual practices involving washing, bathing, sprinkling, and immersing. One example of such a text is a DSS known as the Rule of the Community, which says "And by the compliance of his soul with all the laws of God his flesh is cleansed by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and being made holy with the waters of repentance."^[40]

The Mandaeans, who are followers of John the Baptist, practice frequent full immersion baptism (masbuta) as a ritual of purification.^[41] According to Mandaean sources, they left the Jordan Valley in the 1st century AD.^[42]

John the Baptist, who is considered a forerunner to Christianity, used baptism as the central sacrament of his messianic movement.^[43] The apostle Paul distinguished between the baptism of John, ("baptism of repentance") and baptism in the name of Jesus,^[44] and it is questionable whether Christian baptism was in some way linked with that of John.^[45] However, according to Mark 1:8, John seems to connect his water baptism as a type of the true, ultimate baptism of Jesus, which is by the Spirit. Christians consider Jesus to have instituted the sacrament of baptism.^[20]"

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Franklin Bluth said:

Ultimately I’m trying to learn what people think about the necessity of the Aaronic Priesthood in our time when it wasn’t required in dispensations past.

It was first identified as the Aaronic/Levite Priesthood at the time of Moses, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before, just wasn’t labeled with that name or any other besides “priesthood” or that culture’s equivalent.  Priesthood is not something I have paid attention to the details about, so perhaps there is something out there specifying it wasn’t needed in dispensations past.

Maybe there was no need to separate the two before and therefore no need to call them by separate names.  It could have been required in past dispensations in the sense its offices were needed for holders to move up through in order to develop to better handle the higher offices of the Priesthood. Is there information detailing what offices of the Priesthood have been around in deed if not in name since Adam?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It was first identified as the Aaronic/Levite Priesthood at the time of Moses, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before, just wasn’t labeled with that name or any other besides “priesthood” or that culture’s equivalent.  ....

Maybe there was no need to separate the two before and therefore no need to call them by separate names.  

 

I think this is it.

Maybe religion in general was more about what you believed and did than an organization you "joined".

Today many see themselves as "spiritual" but are not part of an organized "religion", with leaders and ideas about what is "doctrine" and what is not.

Many religions today are like that, even Christianity, as demonstrated by our friend @Navidad, in having a "general priesthood", or no organized leadership beyond someone deciding to start a church and and teach generic Christianity, with flexible "doctrines"

Worldwide that is a very common pattern, as in Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism etc.  There may be local "pastor figures" preaching their personal blend of beliefs.

These folks see no need for "priesthood" leaders or "Doctrines" beyond their own beliefs.

Even in our COJCLDS we find large differences in beliefs, in say, the literalism of scripture or a 6 day creation, and evolution, and if women should have the priesthood, polygamy, etc etc.

[Boanerges]

On 10/18/2023 at 6:30 PM, Rain said:

Drives me nuts when people make "goals" for other people. This is a want, a wish for someone else. You can only make a goal for yourself.

 

It is amazing to me how many people in the church don't understand this simple concept.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

It is amazing to me how many people in the church don't understand this simple concept.

I think the problem is 2 fold:

1. We don't teach it any other way. 

2. The assumption is that you are doing it through prayer/the Spirit so it must be a goal because it has the assumed Lord's stamp of approval.  But those are 2 separate things. 

[marineland]

On 10/26/2023 at 6:26 PM, Dario_M said:

Huh?? Is it not the parent who decide about what is good for his/her child?

Maybe the father who already holds the Melchizedek Priesthood knows that it is 
best for him.  In the end the child must decide for himself.

[Navidad]

On 10/31/2023 at 11:53 AM, mfbukowski said:

I think this is it.

Maybe religion in general was more about what you believed and did than an organization you "joined".

Today many see themselves as "spiritual" but are not part of an organized "religion", with leaders and ideas about what is "doctrine" and what is not.

Many religions today are like that, even Christianity, as demonstrated by our friend @Navidad, in having a "general priesthood", or no organized leadership beyond someone deciding to start a church and and teach generic Christianity, with flexible "doctrines"

Worldwide that is a very common pattern, as in Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism etc.  There may be local "pastor figures" preaching their personal blend of beliefs.

These folks see no need for "priesthood" leaders or "Doctrines" beyond their own beliefs.

Even in our COJCLDS we find large differences in beliefs, in say, the literalism of scripture or a 6 day creation, and evolution, and if women should have the priesthood, polygamy, etc etc.

Hi my friend. A "general priesthood?" Not sure what you mean by that. "No organized leadership beyond someone deciding to start a church?" "Generic Christianity?" You are certainly not describing my beliefs. If I am demonstrating those things on this forum, then I am misrepresenting my own beliefs. Or perhaps, you don't understand mine, any better than I understand yours?

In the first place as I have said on a number of occasions on this forum, I believe in three distinct priesthoods, none of the three are "general" in my understanding of that term. The first is the Melchizedek priesthood, held by Christ - the only priest-king since the Genesis Melchizedek. It is the high priesthood held only by Christ today and in perpetuity. In that capacity, He will judge all of humanity and He holds that priesthood by virtue of His ultimate and final sacrifice - once for all.

Second, I believe in the ministerial priesthood. This is a narrowly held priesthood and is delegated to those who perform ordinances, exert leadership, both spiritual and organizational in a specific religious group. It is granted to someone by the Holy Spirit via the ministerial priesthood leaders of a specific group. It is valid and recognized only within that group, or within affiliate groups. You have the ministerial priesthood within the LDS church. I do not. As I sit here, I have ministerial priesthood within the Baptist community. You do not. Years ago, I was granted ministerial priesthood within the Mennonite church for a specific time and purpose (role). I am now retired and not in that role any longer, so I no longer hold that ministerial priesthood. My ministerial role in the Baptist church could be taken away from me via the same assembly that granted it to me. You currently have no ministerial authority that is valid (as far as I know) within any Baptist group. Your LDS priesthood is valid within your LDS community. Nowhere else. Different groups acknowledge different levels of that priesthood as authoritative. That again is group specific. Pope Francis holds the highest ministerial priesthood in the Catholic church. I don't deny him that. It wouldn't matter if I did. Ditto for the leadership of the LDS church which has ministerial priesthood for certain males at certain times for certain purposes.

Third, I believe in the "royal priesthood." This may be what you are referring to as a "general" priesthood. It is the priesthood of all believers which provides all Christians (in this day and age) equal and similar access to the Godhead, regardless of specific group. This is because it is not granted by a group. Neither is it maintained by any group. It transcends specific groups within Christianity. It is granted by the Holy Spirit to all who genuinely and sincerely individually seek to follow the atonement as the sufficient sacrifice. Can it ever be taken away once granted? This is a great debate among broader Christianity. I am of the perspective that yes, it can be taken away by the Spirit, but only by the Spirit. No declaration of any human can take away the royal priesthood from a believer. No human can declare that someone else is absent that priesthood. It (that priesthood) grants us the right to petition and praise the Godhead via the Holy Spirit. Part of that petitioning is of course to seek specific revelation from the Spirit. When my LDS friends say that non-LDS Christians do not believe in further, modern, or new revelations, they are incorrect.

Yes, I guess anyone can start a church with some incorporation papers. Like both the LeBarons and Joseph Smith did. But that doesn't mean they can join or align themselves to a larger, expanded or different group unless they conform to the bylaws and doctrines of that group.

So, you may misunderstand my beliefs because you see them through your own lens to an equal degree that I misunderstand yours. We must both acknowledge humility in our understanding of the others' beliefs. I also believe we must strive for a more perfect understanding of others' beliefs. Our own experiences may simply represent a bad or incomplete microcosm of those beliefs. I acknowledge I am struggling with that very experience right now. Thanks and very best wishes.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. A "general priesthood?" Not sure what you mean by that. "No organized leadership beyond someone deciding to start a church?" "Generic Christianity?" You are certainly not describing my beliefs. If I am demonstrating those things on this forum, then I am misrepresenting my own beliefs. Or perhaps, you don't understand mine, any better than I understand yours?

In the first place as I have said on a number of occasions on this forum, I believe in three distinct priesthoods, none of the three are "general" in my understanding of that term. The first is the Melchizedek priesthood, held by Christ - the only priest-king since the Genesis Melchizedek. It is the high priesthood held only by Christ today and in perpetuity. In that capacity, He will judge all of humanity and He hold that priesthood by virtue of His ultimate and final sacrifice - once for all.

Second, I believe in the ministerial priesthood. This is a narrowly held priesthood and is delegated to those who perform ordinances, exert leadership, both spiritual and organizational in a specific religious group. It is granted to someone by the Holy Spirit via the ministerial priesthood leaders of a specific group. It is valid and recognized only within that group, or within affiliate groups. You have the ministerial priesthood within the LDS church. I do not. As I sit here, I have ministerial priesthood within the Baptist community. You do not. Years ago, I was granted ministerial priesthood within the Mennonite church for a specific time and purpose (role). I am now retired and not in that role any longer, so I no longer hold that ministerial priesthood. My ministerial role in the Baptist church could be taken away from me via the same assembly that granted it to me. You currently have no ministerial authority that is valid (as far as I know) within any Baptist group. Your LDS priesthood is valid within your LDS community. Nowhere else. Different groups acknowledge different levels of that priesthood as authoritative. That again is group specific. Pope Francis holds the highest ministerial priesthood in the Catholic church. I don't deny him that. It wouldn't matter if I did. Ditto for the leadership of the LDS church which has ministerial priesthood for certain males at certain times for certain purposes.

Third, I believe in the "royal priesthood." This may be what you are referring to as a "general" priesthood. It is the priesthood of all believers which provides all Christians (in this day and age) equal and similar access to the Godhead, regardless of specific group. This is because it is not granted by a group. Neither is it maintained by any group. It transcends specific groups within Christianity. It is granted by the Holy Spirit to all who genuinely and sincerely individually seek to follow the atonement as the sufficient sacrifice. Can it ever be taken away once granted? This is a great debate among broader Christianity. I am of the perspective that yes, it can be taken away by the Spirit, but only by the Spirit. No declaration of any human can take away the royal priesthood from a believer. No human can declare that someone else is absent that priesthood. It (that priesthood) grants us the right to petition and praise the Godhead via the Holy Spirit. Part of that petitioning is of course to seek specific revelation from the Spirit. When my LDS friends say that non-LDS Christians do not believe in further, modern, or new revelations, they are incorrect.

Yes, I guess anyone can start a church with some incorporation papers. Like both the LeBarons and Joseph Smith did. But that doesn't mean they can join or align themselves to a larger, expanded or different group unless they conform to the bylaws and doctrines of that group.

So, you may misunderstand my beliefs because you see them through your own lens to an equal degree that I misunderstand yours. We must both acknowledge humility in our understanding of the others' beliefs. I also believe we must strive for a more perfect understanding of others' beliefs. Our own experiences may simply represent a bad or incomplete microcosm of those beliefs. I acknowledge I am struggling with that very experience right now. Thanks and very best wishes.

Guess I used the wrong words, sorry.  I think it is called the "Priesthood of all Believers" or "Universal Priesthood". 

Honestly, to me, if everyone has the priesthood, TO ME,there is no priesthood practically speaking, at all.

 It is my belief that many Evangelical Christian churches are begun by Christians who are not ordained in any denomination, nor does it matter if one IS an ordained Baptist, yet might minister to members of possibly any denomination.  I have no understanding how authority operates for Evangelicals, nor have I done ANY research on it.

Am I wrong on all of this?

Further, frankly, I believe that the LDS insistence on priesthood authority has caused you to see us as being "exclusive", precisely because of the notion that ours is THEE, (as you might say ) true Priesthood.

So to you we are snobs, and to us y'all are priests, so no priest at all. 🤔

Yes, I think this could be a good discussion if we finally tack this down !

Wikipedia:

"The priesthood of all believers or universal priesthood is a biblical principle in Protestant branches of Christianity which is distinct from the institution of the ministerial priesthood (holy orders) found in some other branches, including the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Derived from the Bible and elaborated in the theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin, the principle became prominent as a tenet of Protestant Christian doctrine, though the exact meaning of the belief and its implications vary widely among denominations.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Guess I used the wrong words, sorry.  I think it is called the "Priesthood of all Believers" or "Universal Priesthood". 

Honestly, to me, if everyone has the priesthood, TO ME,there is no priesthood practically speaking, at all.

 It is my belief that many Evangelical Christian churches are begun by Christians who are not ordained in any denomination, nor does it matter if one IS an ordained Baptist, yet might minister to members of possibly any denomination.  I have no understanding how authority operates for Evangelicals, nor have I done ANY research on it.

Am I wrong on all of this?

Further, frankly, I believe that the LDS insistence on priesthood authority has caused you to see us as being "exclusive", precisely because of the notion that ours is THEE, (as you might say ) true Priesthood.

So to you we are snobs, and to us y'all are priests, so no priest at all. 🤔

Yes, I think this could be a good discussion if we finally tack this down !

Wikipedia:

"The priesthood of all believers or universal priesthood is a biblical principle in Protestant branches of Christianity which is distinct from the institution of the ministerial priesthood (holy orders) found in some other branches, including the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Derived from the Bible and elaborated in the theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin, the principle became prominent as a tenet of Protestant Christian doctrine, though the exact meaning of the belief and its implications vary widely among denominations.

Good early morning my friend and brother. I have been an Evangelical for most of my 74 years. I don't know I have ever heard of a non-ordained person starting an Evangelical Christian church (individual) or new group (collective). Most Evangelical Christian churches that are started are, as my LDS friends would say, "branches" or as I would say "missions" of a larger stable church or group. I have often thought and sometimes prayed about started a new church (individual) right where I am now. I would do so as an ordained Baptist minister. However, it would not truly be a Baptist church until approved by some Baptist group as to its statement of faith and polity procedures. If I were to start a church here I would have to decide whether or not to maintain it as an independent church with no group affiliation (not something I would be inclined to do), or select and apply to a group with which to identify it. If I were to do so, I would most likely apply to a Moravian, Mennonite, or seek to align it with a formalized non-denominational group. Any one of the three would provide oversight and connectedness to a broader Evangelical group which I think would be a healthy thing.

I stipulate to the fact that I do believe the LDS church is an exclusive body. I believed that four years ago. Today that belief is something I hold with more certitude (yikes! Have you ever heard that from me before?) than ever. That is my belief ( believe it to be truth), now based on my personal experience over the past six months.

I will never interpret LDS beliefs based on a Wikipedia article. I will never interpret history based on a Wikipedia article. So I guess it is clear I am not a fan of Wikipedia.

Snobs? No, I don't think my LDS friends are snobs. I think they are all over the barn (a good old Mennonite phrase) when it comes to exclusivity. I have had too many faithful members of the LDS church who I respect tell me in a personal situation, "I don't believe that" about certain exclusive LDS doctrines. My LDS friends on this forum like to remind us of the ubiquity of diversity of beliefs within the non-LDS Christian world as something that, in their interpretation and in some way, discredits that same non-LDS Christian world.

I would simply suggest that as an observer from the edge of inside, I see a pretty wide diversity of beliefs within the LDS faith as well, especially in terms of interpretation of specific terms and doctrines. My experience with LDS bishops has taught me that. So has my experience with home teachers, members of MHA, and other leaders and professors within the Church. I also read it daily on this forum. I don't condemn anyone within the Church for that. I find it reassuring and refreshing in an uncertain way. Now that I have come to expect it, I can relax a bit more about being the recipient of its impact.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good early morning my friend and brother. I have been an Evangelical for most of my 74 years. I don't know I have ever heard of a non-ordained person starting an Evangelical Christian church (individual) or new group (collective). ...

...I have often thought and sometimes prayed about started a new church (individual) right where I am now. I would do so as an ordained Baptist minister. However, it would not truly be a Baptist church until approved by some Baptist group as to its statement of faith and polity procedures. If I were to start a church here I would have to decide whether or not to maintain it as an independent church with no group affiliation (not something I would be inclined to do), or select and apply to a group with which to identify it. If I were to do so, I would most likely apply to a Moravian, Mennonite, or seek to align it with a formalized non-denominational group. Any one of the three would provide oversight and connectedness to a broader Evangelical group which I think would be a healthy thing.

  I have added the underlining.

Thanks for the clarification, but the portion ABOVE the portion I underlined, SEEMS to me to contradict the rest.

Hebrews 5 speaks of men being "called of God as was Aaron" ie Moses called Aaron to the priesthood - and that "no man taketh this honor upon himself", (meaning to me/us, deciding for himself that he wants to become a minister, - without being called by someone else with authority- ) and then going out to FIND someone WITH authority to ordain him- how do you square that with you saying literally :

"I have often thought and sometimes prayed about started a new church (individual) right where I am now."

and then admitting you would then have to seek authority from:

"If I were to start a church here I would have to decide whether or not to maintain it as an independent church with no group affiliation "

 

... "I don't know I have ever heard of a non-ordained person starting an Evangelical Christian church (individual) or new group (collective). ..."

So YOU decide you are called to the ministry, YOU find some group to ordain you, and YOU decide to organize YOUR " independent" Evangelical church. 

I am having trouble seeing a difference between this and

1. Being called of God as was Aaron, and

2. "Starting your own church".

The ordination seeking strikes me as a desire to get into a business. 

I was a real estate broker, among other licenses, so I got authority from my state, and started my own independent brokerage.

I hope it's not what others do, ineffect to become a pastor, and I know you would not do that.

 

 

[Navidad]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

  I have added the underlining.

Thanks for the clarification, but the portion ABOVE the portion I underlined, SEEMS to me to contradict the rest.

Hebrews 5 speaks of men being "called of God as was Aaron" ie Moses called Aaron to the priesthood - and that "no man taketh this honor upon himself", (meaning to me/us, deciding for himself that he wants to become a minister, - without being called by someone else with authority- ) and then going out to FIND someone WITH authority to ordain him- how do you square that with you saying literally :

"I have often thought and sometimes prayed about started a new church (individual) right where I am now."

and then admitting you would then have to seek authority from:

"If I were to start a church here I would have to decide whether or not to maintain it as an independent church with no group affiliation "

 

... "I don't know I have ever heard of a non-ordained person starting an Evangelical Christian church (individual) or new group (collective). ..."

So YOU decide you are called to the ministry, YOU find some group to ordain you, and YOU decide to organize YOUR " independent" Evangelical church. 

I am having trouble seeing a difference between this and

1. Being called of God as was Aaron, and

2. "Starting your own church".

The ordination seeking strikes me as a desire to get into a business. 

I was a real estate broker, among other licenses, so I got authority from my state, and started my own independent brokerage.

I hope it's not what others do, ineffect to become a pastor, and I know you would not do that.

 

 

You are missing one important piece in your reply. I didn't decide on my own to become either licensed or ordained. It was not my idea at all. I went through that process from around 20 years of age through 23 years of age. I was called by the elders of my church who informed me they had prayed about, and had decided to have me undergo a time of testing, learning, and questioning to consider licensing and then ordaining me to the gospel ministry. I was tested by local elders and then by the religion and theology faculty at Baylor University (a Baptist school).

Each member of the ordaining council and examination team had to vote to approve me after prayer and the results of both were known. I believe it had to be unanimous to be considered as from the Holy Spirit. Only after all of that did they lay hands on me and ordain me. Ditto for the two times as well that I was licensed.

Ever since then, in the Baptist tradition, I have the God-given ministerial authority to start and lead a church within that tradition. If I started such a church and then decided to brand it a Moravian, or a Methodist, or an LDS church, I would have to go through the elders of that group and perhaps undergo the same process all over again. Or they might approve my prior ordination and then go to the next step. The LDS bishop would, without hesitation say no. The Methodist or Moravian leaders might say whatever they wanted to say and would require a rather complicated process. A Baptist authority would probably check out my prior process, examine me again, and would probably say "Yes," but he or she might also say "no."

I hope that helps.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I hope that helps.

Pretty much- I had no clue.

But I am an ordained LDS bishop, though I am no longer CALLED to serve, but we believe that ordinations are forever.  We usually serve for 5 years, which I did; it was another 40 hour per week over making a living.

I will do it again if called- but that is highly unlikely.

Thanks for the explanations!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If I started such a church....

THAT is the difference though.

I suppose theoretically I could be a Baptist though....

That possibility for me doesn't exist, because of Hebrews 5.

Even Christ did not call Himself!

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

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

THAT is the difference though.

I suppose theoretically I could be a Baptist though....

That possibility for me doesn't exist, because of Hebrews 5.

Even Christ did not call Himself!

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

 

Joseph Smith was ordained, I guess when he received the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829. He started the new church on April 6, 1830, less than a year later. I was ordained on August 23, 1973, a little over fifty years ago. I guess that is enough time lapse for me to be able to start a new church, especially with the blessing of some Baptist elders! BTW, I don't believe the office of high priest is active today. Christ is/was the last high priest forever. At judgment day He will add the last of these offices to himself: king, high priest, and judge!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Joseph Smith was ordained, I guess when he received the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829. He started the new church on April 6, 1830, less than a year later. I was ordained on August 23, 1973, a little over fifty years ago. I guess that is enough time lapse for me to be able to start a new church, especially with the blessing of some Baptist elders! BTW, I don't believe the office of high priest is active today. Christ is/was the last high priest forever. At judgment day He will add the last of these offices to himself: king, high priest, and judge!

Interesting autobiography, but it says nothing about Hebrews.

What does getting old have to do with the validity of your ordination?

🐪🐥

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting autobiography, but it says nothing about Hebrews.

What does getting old have to do with the validity of your ordination?

🐪🐥

 

Good point. I guess we will see in seven years when the church celebrates its 200th year. Do you think there will be any statements about that milestone affirming the church's validity? If we are both still here on the forum, I will remind you when someone makes that point. OK? If I can still keyboard! 😃

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Do you think there will be any statements about that milestone affirming the church's validity?

Huh?

Like what, and why? Because it is 200 years old, they admit that it has been a fake all this time?

We should just quit this thread, there is something wrong in our communication.

I will anyway

 🙂

[Dario_M]

On 11/1/2023 at 2:50 PM, marineland said:

Maybe the father who already holds the Melchizedek Priesthood knows that it is 
best for him.  In the end the child must decide for himself.

As a child a lot of thinks get decided for you though. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

Thank you Calm. 💙

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:16 PM, mfbukowski said:

but we believe that ordinations are forever.

An indelible mark on the soul, eh?  

Just a clarifying question. Does an excommunicated bishop need to be reordained, like an excommunicated person needs to be rebaptized?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

An indelible mark on the soul, eh?  

Just a clarifying question. Does an excommunicated bishop need to be reordained, like an excommunicated person needs to be rebaptized?

That's me, indelibele Mark, and infallible too!   😜

I have never heard of that happening but I am sure it happens all the time, possibly even to someone on this board, but I definitely feel you have to be right.

I know you have to be re-ordained to the priesthood, so that would imply of course it would be the same.