Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering

[theplains]

On 4/29/2024 at 12:47 PM, CV75 said:

Is there a specific lineage you have in mind for tracing back to Abraham or Adam? Or is there a question of who the covenant people are in any given time in world history and what constitutes/ed the priesthood among them?

I didn't have any specific lineage in mind.  For the Old Testament, I view the Israelites as the 
covenant people.  In the New Testament, the main covenant people become members of Christ's church. 
But at the same time, God still has some outstanding promises for the Israelites.  The church has 
not assumed all the future blessings and promises due to Israel.

It seems you believe that only males of all lineages, whether through Ishmael or Isaac, with the 
exception of Blacks of African descent before 1978, had [will have] the opportunity to become priests 
in the New Testament.

Are there female priests in Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-58 and Revelation 1:6?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I didn't have any specific lineage in mind.  For the Old Testament, I view the Israelites as the 
covenant people.  In the New Testament, the main covenant people become members of Christ's church. 
But at the same time, God still has some outstanding promises for the Israelites.  The church has 
not assumed all the future blessings and promises due to Israel.

It seems you believe that only males of all lineages, whether through Ishmael or Isaac, with the 
exception of Blacks of African descent before 1978, had [will have] the opportunity to become priests 
in the New Testament.

Are there female priests in Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-58 and Revelation 1:6?

Depending on what religion is using these references I guess.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I didn't have any specific lineage in mind.  For the Old Testament, I view the Israelites as the 
covenant people.  In the New Testament, the main covenant people become members of Christ's church. 
But at the same time, God still has some outstanding promises for the Israelites.  The church has 
not assumed all the future blessings and promises due to Israel.

It seems you believe that only males of all lineages, whether through Ishmael or Isaac, with the 
exception of Blacks of African descent before 1978, had [will have] the opportunity to become priests 
in the New Testament.

Are there female priests in Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-58 and Revelation 1:6?

I beleive only males had  priesthood office in the NT / primitive Church of Christ, and that they had it irrespective of African or any other descent, and that the same goes today.

The 2 scripture references you provided refer directly to a priesthood office context. But women have priesthood power as do men. These 2 references show that the Church of the Firstborn is organized both contexts (offices and power), which are components of the priesthood order. 

[InCognitus]

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Yes.  God also promised to make Ishmael fruitful and greatly increase his numbers (Genesis 16:10, 
17:18-20).  The Arabs and their nations are evidence of this today.

How large is "a multitude of nations" and how do you specifically include Canada or the United 
States as opposed to excluding one or both from your "multitude of nations"?

You already answered this question yourself previously:

On 2/29/2024 at 7:38 AM, theplains said:

Since the prophetic utterance of Ephraim (… and his seed shall become a multitude of nations;
Genesis 48:19), it is technically possible that the tribe of Ephraim would be allotted the 
entire world.

So you already know the answer.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

On February 26 2024, you said

Quote

In verse 13 of chapter 47, it reads, "Thus saith the Lord GOD; This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according 
to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions."

"And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto 
the land of your fathers. Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I 
took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (Genesis 48:21-22).

In your February 26 reply, you said

Quote

"And finally, we have the future re-allotment of the lands to the twelve tribes as described in Ezekiel 47 and 48, where in 
chapter 47:13 the Lord says that "Joseph shall have two portions."

I don't see those two chapters speaking about a re-allotment to land on the other side of the world.

What land do you believe constitutes the two portions for Joseph now or in the future?

The future re-allotment of land in Ezekiel 47 and 48 (and the double portion given to Joseph) pertains to the land inheritance around the land of Israel, and the context of the quote you provided from me (in my post from 2/26/2024) was to prove that Joseph still has the birthright promises in the future (and not simply to his “immediate family” as you had claimed).  The other promises that God gave to the tribes (including Joseph) aren’t included in that context.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

It seems we have a difference of opinion on how large this population is so that the biblical 
promises of returning to the land of their inheritance are not overwhelmed.

How many literal Israelites do you have in mind and does it include all those that have ever 
lived and who did not remain faithful to God in both the Old and New Testaments?

All of their living posterity, which given the promises made to their father Jacob (Genesis 28:14-16, 35:11-12), their numbers would be considerable.  The land inheritance in Israel is only a portion of what God promised them.  I don’t see anywhere that God limits them to that land area alone.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Let's have a look into the Book of Mormon's mentioning of the lands of inheritance.

It says that Lehi (of the tribe of Manasseh) lived in and then left the land of his inheritance 
in Jerusalem (1 Nephi 2:4,11; 3:16,22).

Is all of Israel, all of Judah, all of Jerusalem, or just a small portion of Jerusalem regarded 
as the land of inheritance for Lehi and his seed (of Manasseh)?  Or did it transfer to another 
unknown piece of land?

1 Nephi 13:15 says, "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and 
they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, 
and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain".

What land is the land of inheritance for the Gentiles?  The LDS Church teaches 1 Nephi 13 is 
about Columbus and the discovery of America (or more specifically Central America?).

1 Nephi 13:30 says, "Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of 
captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of 
the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath 
covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, 
thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture 
of thy seed, which are among thy brethren".

What land is the land of inheritance for Lehi's seed (of Manasseh)?

Ether 13:8 says, "Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; 
and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, 
like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when 
the earth shall pass away".

What land is the land of inheritance for the remnant of the house of Ephraim and Manasseh?  Are 
there also multiple New Jerusalems on other lands where the Israelites were scattered to?

2 Nephi 1:7-8 portrays a land (a land that is consecrated, a land of liberty, a land for inheritance) 
that seems so small that knowledge of it "should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" 
so they would not overrun it.

What land do you believe constitutes the land of verse 8?

See my post on February 25 and March 3, we already discussed this.   See also my post on January 11.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

On 5/4/2024 at 8:38 PM, InCognitus said:

First of all, I have never said that verse 10 applies to multiple servants.  I only said that about verse 12, where it says “the Lord” shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.  “The Lord” will do that through his servants.

Second, your interpretation that verse 10 only applies to Christ is problematic from the standpoint that you and I both agree that the gathering of Israel has already begun to some degree (and you didn’t address that portion of my comment above).  Isaiah 11 says (in verse 10) that the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it, and then in verse 11 it says, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  In other words, there is a direct correspondence with the root of Jesse showing up and the gathering of Israel beginning shortly after that.

So I’ll ask the question again:  Since the gathering of Israel has already begun, when did Jesus show up to begin this gathering?  Was it on April 3, 1836, at the Kirtland temple?   Or do you have something else in mind?  How can Isaiah 11:10 be talking about Christ since the gathering of Israel has already begun?

Jesus has been gathering to his church since his earthly ministry began; with the calling of the
twelve and various interactions with the multitude. Then it expanded with the calling of the 
seventy who were commissioned to visit the other places Jesus would visit. Then the Lord continued 
to add to his church on Pentecost and beyond; throughout the centuries.  Jesus never stopped building
his church.

You are repeating yourself again, we have already discussed this.  I already explained how your belief that Jesus started the gathering during his mortal ministry does not fit the timing of the arrival of the “root of Jesse” that shows up for the Gentiles to seek with the gathering of Israel beginning immediately after those events (as described in Isaiah 11:10-16), since it directly contradicts what Jesus said would happen to all of Israel after his departure and the timing of the actual gathering (Luke 21:24, they “shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”)  There were several of my prior posts responding to you on this topic, but see my post on January 27 for the complete summary as to why your interpretation is biblically impossible.  

So again, you aren’t answering the question.  You have never explained how your belief that the gathering of Israel as described in Isaiah 11:10-16 began during the earthly ministry of Christ fits with the timeline I provided in my post on January 27, and avoids contradicting Jesus in Luke 21:24.  

See also my post on February 17.  This has been fully addressed and you have offered no biblical support for your view.

So we are back to the same question.  Since Jesus said (during his mortal ministry) that Israel would be "led away captive into all nations... until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24), and since you and I both agree that the gathering of Israel has already begun, how is it possible for Isaiah 11 to be referring to Christ where it says (in verse 10) that the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it and, "in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” (verse 11)?

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I brought up before that the LDS Church identifies Joseph Smith as both the rod and the root in 
Isaiah.  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-113-isaiah-interpreted?lang=eng

I don't see this as describing Joseph Smith because he is not a descendant of Jesse.

Isaiah 11:11-12 says, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand 
again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, 
and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, 
and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble 
the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the 
earth".

How exactly do you understand the gathering of these two verses to mean?  Is it a physical gathering 
to the land of inheritance (like the biblical texts I provided for the Israelites in the Old 
Testament) or a spiritual gathering into the church of Christ?

I see the reference of "his people" in this context to be the faithful Israelities of the Old 
Testament, not non-Israelites who are adopted into the family of Abraham through faith in Christ.

This is getting old.  Now you are just repeating yourself again.  We’ve already been through all of this.  

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

It seems you believe the birthright blessing to Joseph somehow involves the priesthood.  So how 
and when did Ephraim and Manasseh exercise this priesthood in the Old and New Testaments?

It seems you have been trying to make this birthright blessing to Joseph about the priesthood from the beginning (you have been fishing for this the entire time).  I have never brought that up.  Since you keep bringing it up, please just say whatever it is that you wanted to say about it.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Normally or abnormally does not include the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood for Joseph's lineage 
however.

But let's proceed with what I think you believe: Ephraim the individual received the birthright. 
This birthright included the priesthood.  This priesthood extended to all worthy males in Ephraim's 
lineage.  

The Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual teaches, "It is Ephraim, today, who 
holds the priesthood. It is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the 
fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the ordinances 
in them for both the living and for the dead".

Does Manasseh lack these blessings because they do not hold the priesthood because they do not have 
the birthright?  Do all the other tribes in New Testament times also lack these blessings because 
they do not have the birthright?

It is in Ephraim that the gathering begins (Deuteronomy 33:16–17), and that’s why Ephraim was the first to hold the priesthood in the latter days (beginning with Joseph Smith).  It’s their “right” because of being the seed of Abraham (Abraham 2:9-11).

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

While women did not serve in the Old Testament temple in roles comparable to the Levitical priests, 
there are four female prophets specifically named in the Bible.

Deborah - Judges 4:4-5
Miriam - Exodus 15:20-21
Huldah - 2 Kings 22:14-20
Anna - Luke 2:36-38

It is also worth noting the existence of women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting 
mentioned briefly in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22. This would allude to them holding some form 
of priestly role.

In the New Testament, the four daughters of Philip the evangelist are identified as prophesying, 
thus showing their role as prophets (Acts 21:9).

Consideration could extend to a few others too.

Abigail. In her appeal to David in 1 Samuel 25:24–31, she predicts his military victory over his 
enemies and his future as king over Israel. This can be perceived as prophecy.

From what I know, there is no such equivalent for women in the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, 
and the Doctrine and Covenants.

I’ve already addressed your claims above, and I discussed how the gift of prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and not specifically an office of the priesthood or an indication of holding the priesthood (see my post on July 4, 2023, and July 18, 2023).  Don’t confuse the gifts of the Spirit with holding the priesthood.

You are just repeating the things you said before that have already been addressed.  And you still haven’t found a single reference in the Bible to indicate that women held the priesthood.  So how can you claim that Exodus 19:5-6 extends to women?

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

From an Old Testament prospective, there is one land of inheritance for the Israelites. Here are 
a few:  Jeremiah 3:16; 7:5-7; 10:16; 11:5; 12:14-17; 16:14-15; 23:8; 32:37; 51:19; Ezekiel 11:17; 
20:40,42; 28:25; 36:24,28; 47:13-14; 48:7-29.

Your forgot Psalm 37 again, where it says they will inherit the earth.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Yes, I see what you're saying.  

But by the same token, the meek who are not of the tribes of Israel will inherit the same earth.  
There is nothing to indicate that meek Christians (non-Israelites) will be designated their own 
countries like the special case where the saved Israelites are gathered to their land of inheritance.

They all have a land inheritance (“the earth”), and the tribes of Israel are not excluded from that inheritance (“the earth").  Thus the Bible shows us that the tribes of Israel are not limited to the land assignment near the land of Israel.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

The references I provided in my previous reply were to the temple in Jerusalem, for the Old 
Testament.  The place where God placed his name in the Old Testament (the temple / the city of 
Jerusalem; never said of the temples in the Book of Mormon) becomes individuals who join the 
church.  They are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  That is why New Testament Christians do not 
build physical temples like Latter-day Saints do.

The New Testament Christians never really had an opportunity or the resources to build physical temples like Latter-day Saints do.  

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

2 Nephi 3:23-24 says, "Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall 
not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book. And there shall rise up one 
mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the 
hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in 
the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto 
the seed of thy brethren".

The LDS Church equates the one mighty as Joseph Smith.  But the phrase "among them" is identifying 
a specific group of people - the seed of Lehi's son Joseph.  That is why father Lehi is telling 
his son that his (Joseph's) seed would not be destroyed.

To be "raised up somewhere by people who already existed in this land, whether by Polish or German 
people" does not convey the same meaning as "rise up among the descendants of Joseph [of Manasseh]".

The problem with your interpretation is revealed in what you say above:  “To be ‘raised up somewhere by people who already existed in this land’”.  2 Nephi 3:23-24 doesn’t say the “one might among them” is raised up by them, it says he rises up “among them”, which means that he was raised up in the land where the seed of Lehi’s son dwelt, so that he could “write” the words from Lehi and his family (the Book of Mormon) that should go forth unto the seed of Lehi’s son.  So the verses do not say that Joseph Smith is a descendant of Lehi in any way shape or form.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I remember seeing some commentary about this before and after covenant breaking incident.

God had called both the men and women for two purposes: a treasure above all people AND a kingdom 
of priests, a holy nation.  It does not classify them as high priests (Exodus 19:3-6, 10).

Except you still haven’t found a single biblical reference demonstrating that women were priests or held the priesthood in Bible times.

As for the men in Exodus 19:3-6 and 10, they clearly functioned as high priests (and therefore they were high priests) given the fact that later on only high priests could enter into the Holy of Holies where God’s presence appeared.  In Exodus 19 and 24 these priests of Israel were sanctified and prepared to go up to the presence of God with Moses, which they did in Exodus 24:9-11.  So yes, they were high priests in that regard.

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

The Israelites did not want to deal with God directly but instead asked Moses to be their 
intermediary. I think it was at this time that women lost some participation in the animal 
sacrifices and only a specific lineage was chosen to serve the Lord in the temple (Exodus 20:18-21).

Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, or the seventy elders are not referred to as high priests (Exodus 24:9). 
The same for the apostles and the 70 Jesus commissioned during his earthly ministry.

There was only one active high priest at a time in the sacrificial system which developed later. I 
think there is only one case where 2 concurrent high priests are mentioned (Luke 3:2).

Through the atonement, females become members of a royal priesthood; offering up spiritual sacrifices 
and showing forth the praises of Christ (1 Peter 2:5,9). 

We don't need earthly high priests like the Israelites did in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, 
we have a High Priest over the house of God that servers as our mediator (Hebrews 10:19-21).

It's not the place of worship that Jesus emphasizes in the New Testament. It's who and how we 
worship that matters (John 4:20-24).

Just because there was only one active high priest at a time in the sacrificial system that was developed later doesn’t mean Jesus must be the one and only high priest today.  That kind of reasoning is ignoring the big picture.  The later system was limited because of the broken covenant (it became more limited as time went on).  And clearly there was more than one high priest at various times in the Old Testament as I previously showed, and especially prior to the time that Israel broke their covenant.  And Peter’s recall of Exodus 19:6 in 1 Peter 2:9 is an indication that he was teaching us that Jesus allows us to go back to the covenant relationship that God was trying to establish with Israel prior to them breaking their covenant, where there can be many high priests (because there were many high priests prior to them breaking their covenant).

Furthermore, offering up “spiritual sacrifices” isn’t a function of the priesthood alone (it has a much broader application, see Romans 12:1-2 and Psalms 51:16-17).  And you still haven’t found a single biblical reference demonstrating that women were priests or held the priesthood in Bible times.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You already answered this question yourself previously:

So you already know the answer.

The future re-allotment of land in Ezekiel 47 and 48 (and the double portion given to Joseph) pertains to the land inheritance around the land of Israel, and the context of the quote you provided from me (in my post from 2/26/2024) was to prove that Joseph still has the birthright promises in the future (and not simply to his “immediate family” as you had claimed).  The other promises that God gave to the tribes (including Joseph) aren’t included in that context.

All of their living posterity, which given the promises made to their father Jacob (Genesis 28:14-16, 35:11-12), their numbers would be considerable.  The land inheritance in Israel is only a portion of what God promised them.  I don’t see anywhere that God limits them to that land area alone.

See my post on February 25 and March 3, we already discussed this.   See also my post on January 11.

You are repeating yourself again, we have already discussed this.  I already explained how your belief that Jesus started the gathering during his mortal ministry does not fit the timing of the arrival of the “root of Jesse” that shows up for the Gentiles to seek with the gathering of Israel beginning immediately after those events (as described in Isaiah 11:10-16), since it directly contradicts what Jesus said would happen to all of Israel after his departure and the timing of the actual gathering (Luke 21:24, they “shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”)  There were several of my prior posts responding to you on this topic, but see my post on January 27 for the complete summary as to why your interpretation is biblically impossible.  

So again, you aren’t answering the question.  You have never explained how your belief that the gathering of Israel as described in Isaiah 11:10-16 began during the earthly ministry of Christ fits with the timeline I provided in my post on January 27, and avoids contradicting Jesus in Luke 21:24.  

See also my post on February 17.  This has been fully addressed and you have offered no biblical support for your view.

So we are back to the same question.  Since Jesus said (during his mortal ministry) that Israel would be "led away captive into all nations... until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24), and since you and I both agree that the gathering of Israel has already begun, how is it possible for Isaiah 11 to be referring to Christ where it says (in verse 10) that the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it and, "in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” (verse 11)?

This is getting old.  Now you are just repeating yourself again.  We’ve already been through all of this.  

It seems you have been trying to make this birthright blessing to Joseph about the priesthood from the beginning (you have been fishing for this the entire time).  I have never brought that up.  Since you keep bringing it up, please just say whatever it is that you wanted to say about it.

It is in Ephraim that the gathering begins (Deuteronomy 33:16–17), and that’s why Ephraim was the first to hold the priesthood in the latter days (beginning with Joseph Smith).  It’s their “right” because of being the seed of Abraham (Abraham 2:9-11).

I’ve already addressed your claims above, and I discussed how the gift of prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and not specifically an office of the priesthood or an indication of holding the priesthood (see my post on July 4, 2023, and July 18, 2023).  Don’t confuse the gifts of the Spirit with holding the priesthood.

You are just repeating the things you said before that have already been addressed.  And you still haven’t found a single reference in the Bible to indicate that women held the priesthood.  So how can you claim that Exodus 19:5-6 extends to women?

Your forgot Psalm 37 again, where it says they will inherit the earth.

They all have a land inheritance (“the earth”), and the tribes of Israel are not excluded from that inheritance (“the earth").  Thus the Bible shows us that the tribes of Israel are not limited to the land assignment near the land of Israel.

The New Testament Christians never really had an opportunity or the resources to build physical temples like Latter-day Saints do.  

The problem with your interpretation is revealed in what you say above:  “To be ‘raised up somewhere by people who already existed in this land’”.  2 Nephi 3:23-24 doesn’t say the “one might among them” is raised up by them, it says he rises up “among them”, which means that he was raised up in the land where the seed of Lehi’s son dwelt, so that he could “write” the words from Lehi and his family (the Book of Mormon) that should go forth unto the seed of Lehi’s son.  So the verses do not say that Joseph Smith is a descendant of Lehi in any way shape or form.

Except you still haven’t found a single biblical reference demonstrating that women were priests or held the priesthood in Bible times.

As for the men in Exodus 19:3-6 and 10, they clearly functioned as high priests (and therefore they were high priests) given the fact that later on only high priests could enter into the Holy of Holies where God’s presence appeared.  In Exodus 19 and 24 these priests of Israel were sanctified and prepared to go up to the presence of God with Moses, which they did in Exodus 24:9-11.  So yes, they were high priests in that regard.

Just because there was only one active high priest at a time in the sacrificial system that was developed later doesn’t mean Jesus must be the one and only high priest today.  That kind of reasoning is ignoring the big picture.  The later system was limited because of the broken covenant (it became more limited as time went on).  And clearly there was more than one high priest at various times in the Old Testament as I previously showed, and especially prior to the time that Israel broke their covenant.  And Peter’s recall of Exodus 19:6 in 1 Peter 2:9 is an indication that he was teaching us that Jesus allows us to go back to the covenant relationship that God was trying to establish with Israel prior to them breaking their covenant, where there can be many high priests (because there were many high priests prior to them breaking their covenant).

Furthermore, offering up “spiritual sacrifices” isn’t a function of the priesthood alone (it has a much broader application, see Romans 12:1-2 and Psalms 51:16-17).  And you still haven’t found a single biblical reference demonstrating that women were priests or held the priesthood in Bible times.

Dear Father, please help me be as organized as this brother.

Truly impressive.

I would have given up long ago!

[theplains]

On 5/14/2024 at 12:15 PM, CV75 said:

I beleive only males had  priesthood office in the NT / primitive Church of Christ, and that they had it irrespective of African or any other descent, and that the same goes today.

The 2 scripture references you provided refer directly to a priesthood office context. But women have priesthood power as do men. These 2 references show that the Church of the Firstborn is organized both contexts (offices and power), which are components of the priesthood order. 

How do LDS women get their priesthood power?

How do male LDS high priests serve those in the LDS Church who do not hold either the priesthood
office or power?

[theplains]

On 5/19/2024 at 10:11 AM, mfbukowski said:

Truly impressive.

Yes. Though I wish there was a way to highlight the text when someone refers to a previous
post so I don't have to read the entire post for context 🙂

I appreciate that he treats me with respect too.   ( @InCognitus )

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, theplains said:

How do LDS women get their priesthood power?

How do male LDS high priests serve those in the LDS Church who do not hold either the priesthood
office or power?

Priesthood power is the power of God and it is manifest in a woman in many ways, beginning with a girl's faith and growing as covenants are made and kept from baptism at age 8 and temple ordinances as and adult, and as she fulfills callings and assignments given her from youth onward.

Men who are High Priests serve everyone in and out if the Church. By "everyone" I mean people with and people without priesthood office and/or priesthood power.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Yes. Though I wish there was a way to highlight the text when someone refers to a previous
post so I don't have to read the entire post for context 🙂

I appreciate that he treats me with respect too.   ( @InCognitus )

But WHAT is his TRUE IDENTITY?

I have heard he is an apostle, but you know how that goes.   🤨

 

 

 

 

Just kidding- I have never heard of such a thing....   

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Priesthood power is the power of God and it is manifest in a woman in many ways, beginning with a girl's faith and growing as covenants are made and kept from baptism at age 8 and temple ordinances as and adult, and as she fulfills callings and assignments given her from youth onward.

Men who are High Priests serve everyone in and out if the Church. By "everyone" I mean people with and people without priesthood office and/or priesthood power.

Just to stir the pot.....

Suppose women could be ordained.

Then we would become Protestants, with their Priesthood of everyone who is "saved".

If everyone has the priesthood, no one has the priesthood. 😲

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to stir the pot.....

Suppose women could be ordained.

Then we would become Protestants, with their Priesthood of everyone who is "saved".

If everyone has the priesthood, no one has the priesthood. 😲

Imagine! All you need to possess the power of God is an ordinance to an office! Where are the lines?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

If everyone has the priesthood, no one has the priesthood. 😲

I can’t tell if this is a joke (pop culture reference for fun) or serious, so responding to serious.  
 

Would it be like that though?  If everyone has food, no one has food…obviously false, perhaps not in a comparable category.

A closer analogy….If everyone has a driver’s license, no one has a driver’s license is still false.  Everyone could have permission to drive but still is required to have id to drive (though if this ever happens, I hope we have self driving cars).

Even closer, if everyone has the Spirit of Christ, no one has the Spirit of Christ.

It only worked for “special” because of the definition of “special”.

Edited May 21, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Imagine! All you need to possess the power of God is an ordinance to an office! Where are the lines?

Don't ask me!?!?

THAT was my point.   So what IS the "Priesthood of All Believers"?   If all believers have it, why even see it as a "priesthood"?   Or maybe that is the point of it- priesthood authority as a special thing disappears, and so you have a different "denomination/domination  on every street corner!

And golly!  LOOK! That's exactly what we have today.

Catholicism actually could get around the paradox because they have what we outsiders call "nuns"- women who have devoted their lives to God's service 24-7, as well as men who are called "Priests" for the men who make the same decision.

But that doesn't work for a "lay ministry" 

Don't get me wrong- this is just talk.   I am fine with the LDS approach- I definitely think it is set up as it is for a reason, which I have mentioned before, but don't feel like getting into the whole shebang   now. 

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would it be like that though?  If everyone has food, no one has food…obviously false, perhaps not in a comparable category.

Correct, imo

I am speaking about categories of authority, not the necessities of life.

If everyone is a cop, no one is a cop.   THAT would be within the same category.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

How do male LDS high priests serve those in the LDS Church who do not hold either the priesthood
office or power?

I don't see the connection- to me that is like asking how people with authority can serve anyone who doesn't have authority.   How do police serve those who are not police?

It's a different question entirely.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Imagine! All you need to possess the power of God is an ordinance to an office! Where are the lines?

Don't see the analogy.

All you have to do to drive legally is to get a license.  Where are the lines?

Having a license.   So....?

Someone you BELIEVE has authority (DMV) gives YOU authority.   Suddenly YOU also have authority.

Edited May 21, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Correct, imo

I am speaking about categories of authority, not the necessities of life.

If everyone is a cop, no one is a cop.   THAT would be within the same category.  

Why not?  Why couldn’t the government assign everyone in their nation the authority?  It would be a mass of confusion, but that is because of the type of authority it is.  Priesthood is not that type of authority and some understandings of priesthood do not require even an organization for it to exist in.

If priesthood was not hierarchal, then why couldn’t God give all who have faith in him authority to act in his name, at least in limited ways.

(not a challenge, just exploring the idea)

Edited May 21, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't see the analogy.

All you have to do to drive legally is to get a license.  Where are the lines?

Having a license.   So....?

Someone you BELIEVE has authority (DMV) gives YOU authority.   Suddenly YOU also have authority.

It was a JOKE! OK, not a very clear joke.

Edited May 21, 2024 by CV75

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't ask me!?!?

THAT was my point.   So what IS the "Priesthood of All Believers"?   If all believers have it, why even see it as a "priesthood"?   Or maybe that is the point of it- priesthood authority as a special thing disappears, and so you have a different "denomination/domination  on every street corner!

And golly!  LOOK! That's exactly what we have today.

Catholicism actually could get around the paradox because they have what we outsiders call "nuns"- women who have devoted their lives to God's service 24-7, as well as men who are called "Priests" for the men who make the same decision.

But that doesn't work for a "lay ministry" 

Don't get me wrong- this is just talk.   I am fine with the LDS approach- I definitely think it is set up as it is for a reason, which I have mentioned before, but don't feel like getting into the whole shebang   now. 

It was a JOKE!  OK, not a very clear joke.

Edited May 21, 2024 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It was a JOKE!  OK, not a very clear joke.

I don't know where that came from but ok.

I don't know what encourages you conclude it was a joke.

If there is nothing to differentiate one class of people from another then there is nothing describable to separate the groups.

It sounds like very simple logic to me,

You have group A who claims that they are members of Organization X.

You have another group B who claim they are also members of Organization X, and there is no discernable reason for believing they are not, other than claims from group A that says they are not the same.

Sounds something like racial discrimination or sexism excuses to me.

The church's present position is that men and women are in fact different.  I agree with that.   No joke.

"Just talk", to me does not define a "joke".  What else IS it?  A philosophical paper?  A statement under oath?  A fictional passage in a book?

A serious and important question?

Nope, it's just talk.  Not a joke, not a serious problem.   Discussion about an alleged logical error, that's all.

Edited May 21, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why not?  Why couldn’t the government assign everyone in their nation the authority?  It would be a mass of confusion, but that is because of the type of authority it is.  Priesthood is not that type of authority and some understandings of priesthood do not require even an organization for it to exist in.

If priesthood was not hierarchal, then why couldn’t God give all who have faith in him authority to act in his name, at least in limited ways.

(not a challenge, just exploring the idea)

I have no idea what you mean.

Of course Protestants believe exactly what you have described.  Is that what you see as a "mass of confusion"? What "type of authority" did you mean that makes it "Different"?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no idea what you mean.

Of course Protestants believe exactly what you have described.  Is that what you see as a "mass of confusion"? What "type of authority" did you mean that makes it "Different"?

It would be a mass of confusion if everyone could issue tickets, use handcuffs and guns to arrest people, break into houses if warrants were issued (can any cop in the jurisdiction use a warrant or are they assign to only a certain group?).

Priesthood of all believers is different as there would supposedly be no enforcement needed.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It would be a mass of confusion if everyone could issue tickets, use handcuffs and guns to arrest people, break into houses if warrants were issued (can any cop in the jurisdiction use a warrant or are they assign to only a certain group?).

Priesthood of all believers is different as there would supposedly be no enforcement needed.

To explore the idea along with you:   I'm not sure I see the difference.  Wouldn't it be (or isn't it?) just as much a mass of confusion if there is no enforcement and it is assumed that anyone who believes has authority to do (X, Y, Z, or whatever) in the name of God?   

Just consider this clip from the Wikipedia article on Baptism: 

Quote

Certain schools of Christian thought (such as Catholic and Lutheran theology) regards baptism as necessary for salvation, but some writers, such as Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), have denied its necessity.[19] Though water baptism is extremely common among Christian denominations, some, such as Quakers and The Salvation Army, do not practice water baptism at all.[20] Among denominations that practice baptism, differences occur in the manner and mode of baptizing and in the understanding of the significance of the rite. Most Christians baptize using the trinitarian formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"[21] (following the Great Commission), but Oneness Pentecostals baptize using Jesus' name only.[22] The majority of Christians baptize infants;[a] many others, such as Baptist Churches, regard only believer's baptism as true baptism.[23] In certain denominations, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the individual being baptized receives a cross necklace that is worn for the rest of their life, inspired by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Synod) of Constantinople.[24][25]

This is a rhetorical question (not necessarily for you to answer, Calm):   Is all of the above done by God's authority and according to God's will in the priesthood of all believers?  Or is all of the above a completely separate issue from the priesthood of all believers?

Edited May 22, 2024 by InCognitus

[manol]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Even closer, if everyone has the Spirit of Christ, no one has the Spirit of Christ.  [I realize you are using this to illustrate a mistaken line of reasoning]

 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If priesthood was not hierarchical, then why couldn’t God give all who have faith in him authority to act in his name, at least in limited ways.

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Priesthood of all believers is different as there would supposedly be no enforcement needed.

 

Even if the bigger circles you draw are hypothetical at this stage, I think they are the future.  (Actually I think they are the present, but there isn't a preponderance of supporting evidence yet.)

 

 

Edited May 22, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure I see the difference.  Wouldn't it be (or isn't it?) just as much a mass of confusion if there is no enforcement and it is assumed that anyone who believes has authority to do (X, Y, Z, or whatever) in the name of God?   

I think it would likely matter a great deal on how priesthood and priesthood authorized behaviours were defined. If the behaviour were on par with faith but were defined as drawing on the power and authority of God rather than hope for blessings from him, I don’t see why a priesthood blessing would cause any confusion.  Other ordinances would depend on what their purpose was.
 

Assuming the priesthood authority was real, would there be a problem with anyone deciding to perform a sacrament or baptism?  Now organize and lead a congregation…Protestants function fine with such an approach.  Is there an inherent reason the church needs to be organized top down by priesthood hierarchy outside of revelation?  It couldn’t function any other way?

The biggest problem I see is with record keeping of membership and ordinance work, but this is an LDS view of what being a believer is.

Edited May 22, 2024 by Calm