Are Mormon males called by God as Levitical priests just like Aaron was?

Mormonism claims that most of its male members are Aaron/Levitical priests. How does this claim hold up?

Quoting Hal Hougey from “Latter-day Saints—Where Did You Get Your Authority?”:

  1. Qualifications for the Aaronic Priesthood:
    1. Limited to Aaron and his sons only Ex 28:1; 29:9; 29:44; Num 18:1-7; Lev 6:19-23; Ex 28:43; Neh 7:61-65
      1. The Levites helped – Num 3:5-6, 9-10; Heb 7:5
      2. Punishment for non-Levites who tried to become priests:
        1. Dathan and Abiram Num 16: 1-35
        2. King Uzziah – 2 Chron 26:1-3, 16-21
        3. Jeroboam’s priests- I Kings 13:33-34
      3. But Joseph Smith, of English stock, was not a Jew, a Levite, or a son of Aaron
      4. The Aaronic priesthood was hereditary, but not so in the LDS church
    2. Physical qualifications – Lev 21:16-23
      1. LDS ignore these qualifications today
      2. Joseph Smith had a leg operation when he was young, in which part of the bone was removed. He was, therefore, physically disqualified to be a priest (Lucy Mack Smith: Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and His Progenitors for Many Generations Liverpool: 1853, p. 65)
    3. Other qualifications which LDS ignore: Lev 21:1-15: Num 4:35
  2. How Were the Aaronic Priests Ordained in the Bible? – Exodus 29; Lev. 8
    1. Were washed with water v. 4
    2. Were dressed in the priestly robes – v. 5-6 (These robes were for “glory and beauty”-Ex 28:2-but the holy garments of the LDS are neither glorious nor beautiful.)
    3. Were anointed with oilv. 7
    4. Laid hands on the head of a bullock – v. 10
    5. The bullock was killed, and its blood was poured out at the altar, while the fat and the kidneys were placed on the altar, and the rest was burned outside the camp, as a sin- offering v. 11-14
    6. Laid hands on the head of a ram V.I 5
    7. The ram was killed, its blood was sprinkled about the altar, and the body was offered as a burnt offering on the altar-v. 16-18
    8. Laid hands on the head of another ram v. 19
    9. This second ram was killed, and some of the blood was put on the tip of the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe of Aaron and his sons, while the rest of the blood was sprinkled upon the altar v. 20
    10. Some of the blood on the altar and some anointing oil was then sprinkled on the priests and their garments – v. 21
    11. Were given parts of the ram and three kinds of bread, and these were waved as a wave offering, then they were burnt on the altar – v. 22-25
    12. The breast of the ram was given to the one who ordained them v. 26
    13. The shoulder was given to them v. 27
    14. They were to eat of the ram and the bread, but no one else was allowed to do so-v. 30-33
    15. For the next seven days, one bullock and two lambs were offered daily v. 35-44
  3. How Do LDS Ordain to the Aaronic Priesthood?
    1. They lay hands on the priests being ordained and speak the words that are specified by the LDS church to confer the priesthood
    2. Nowhere in the Bible account do we find hands laid on the priests hands were laid only on the bullock and the rams!
    3. The LDS ignore completely the Biblical method of ordaining Aaronic priests
    4. It will not do to say these ordinances do not apply today; if the Aaronic priesthood exists today, the method for ordaining priests into that priesthood apply today
    5. LDS often apply Hebrews 5:4, “. . .as was Aaron,” to refer to the ceremony by which one is ordained to the priesthood, but they do not follow that ceremony in any way

Under a subsequent section (“F. The Mormon Priesthood Is an Assumption – Not a Restoration”), Hougey goes on to say:

  1. There Is No Biblical Authority for the Aaronic Priesthood Today
    1. The Aaronic priesthood was part of the religious system under the Law of Moses. This law and its ordinances came to an end when Christ died on the cross Gal. 3:19, 23-25; Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 10:1-10.
    2. Christ’s will or testament came into effect after his death – Heb. 9:15-17
    3. There was a change in the priesthood; the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood was taken away – Heb. 7: 1 1-12
    4. Even Christ could not be a priest of Aaron because he was of the wrong tribe Heb. 7:13-14. (How can non-Jewish LDS qualify if Christ could not qualify?
    5. If Christ were on earth he would not be a priest at all – Heb. 8:4
    6. There is no example of Aaronic priests in the church anywhere in the New Testament, amazing if such priesthood existed in the church. Rather, the New Testament teaches the universal priesthood of all believers I Peter 2:5, 9


This entry was posted in Priesthood and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Are Mormon males called by God as Levitical priests just like Aaron was?

  1. Michael P says:

    Chuck, a question for you: do you not think you have followed wisdom of men? Who was Joseph Smith? A man. Brigham Young? A man. Who wrote your doctrines? Men. Who teaches your Sunday school? Men. Who leads your church? Men.

    Here’s the point: no matter who you go through to get insight on faith, you go through men.

    What you have left when you study Christianity is the text of the Bible itself, and in the case of Mormonism, the BoM and the others books. So, to get men out of it, you have to look at what the documents say.

    So, when you look at the Bible, you find a book that is historically reliable and theologically consistent. This is not to say all answers are easy, but they are there. Further, the Bible contains many prophecies which have come true. Its safe to say you can trust the Bible in all aspects. If you doubt something, remember, you are a man. This was the point of the pilot story above.

    But when you look at the BoM, you find it lacking, historically and find it really quite problematic. Your faith tells you to rely on feelings– as a man. And per your own admission, men are not always reliable.

    I’d put my bets on the book that is consistent and much more verifiable.

  2. Arthur Sido says:

    Chuck, I answered your question. Men will be JUDGED on their works, but they will be JUSTIFIED by the faith in Christ. Judging doesn’t mean you are are 50.1% good and so you get in. You have to be 100% good, and no one meets that standard so all fail. Be ye therefore perfect is not a call to becoming perfect but to be made perfected in Christ’s perfect sacrifice. You don’t seem to get the difference between judging and justifying. You claim to believe and study the Scripture but you seem to be missing the big picture.

  3. Lautensack says:

    Hey Chuck5000,
    I do enjoy how Mormons and other religious groups appeal to Matthew 18 asserting that we should neglect our God given intelligence. For those of you who are not familiar with this passage:

    1At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

    Note what this passage is talking about, humility not knowledge, this actually does not fit with the Mormon gospel because to you do not become like a little child humbling yourself a fully relying on God’s grace in the Mormon Gospel, rather you must work to attain your exaltation trusting in your self-worth to attain Glory. It is funny that you submit to 1 Corinthians 1 to prove your point when the Mormon belief rejects this very argument. Mormons as Jews demand a sign, a burning in the bosom, but we preach Christ and Him crucified “a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to Gentiles,” because in the mindset of the natural man to be wholly reliant on the value of another is utter foolishness. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” This is why every religion in the world outside of biblical Christianity relies wholly or partially on the works of the person rather than wholly on the work of our Beautiful Savior, Jesus Christ.


  4. David says:


    If you want me to take you seriously you need to interact with the points I have made instead of just saying . . . listen to the recording. I have listened to your recordings; the scriptures and church tradition do not expilicitly name the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods for New Covenant believers.

    Your “evidence” is merely a reiteration of your claims. If you had a quote by Cyprian or Athanasius where a priesthood was actually named and one of those names was either Aaron or Melchizedek, you can bet you would bust that right out. But you can’t.

    Both the OT and the NT show men who were simply raised up. Apollos and the unnamed guy in Mark 9 are just a few examples. You make an unwarranted distinction and emphasis between “apostle” and “disciple” as in scripture they are used readily and at times interchangeably.

    I have convered this before Chuck. You are giving us reasons to be Coptic, Orthodox, etc. but this thread is not simply about apostolic succcession or ordnation. It is about the Aaronic priesthood (Melchizedek too because it seems like a natural and logical add-on). Neither the Aaronic priesthood nor the priesthood of Melchizedek are seen in early Christianity. You do not see these terms being applied to ordnation until the 1800’s. Again, ZERO evidence Chuck for either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods being a part of primitive Christianity.

  5. Thanks for pressing the point, David. 102 comments on this thread and there is still no evidence provided that delegated Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were part of primitive Christianity.

  6. falcon says:

    Here’s a couple of thoughts that I gleaned from the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. It goes on for several pages talking about the OT priesthood and the Jewish priests around the time of the primitive Christian Church.

    “The process of separation of the church from all association with the priestly and sacrifcial institutions of Judaism began at a very early time…..Christianity made a positive and creative development of the concept of priesthood, however, in its transferal to Christ himself of the role of perfect and great High Priest……..In no instance, however, does any NT writer ascribe the title of priest to any individual member or order of ministry in the church.”

    In order to buy into the Mormon concept of the priesthood, it would have to be believed that the NT writers purposely left out (the priesthood) from their writings or the writings, through some type of conspiracy, were altered. One would also have to believe the tale of apostles and John the Baptist appearing to JS and ordaining him. I wouldn’t call believing in such a thing “faith”. In the end it all rests on Joseph Smith, his character and veracity. His track record is not good.

  7. chuck5000 says:

    Micheal P, who wrote the bible? Men. Who translated the Bible? Men. Who reads the bible and provides their interpretations? Men. So looking at the documents leaves me in the same position I am currently. But I have been told not to listen to men, but to the word of God. So where is there distinction between what you all are telling me and what I am doing?

    I’m not sure why you do, but I do not find the Book of Mormon lacking historically or otherwise.

    Arthur, we are not talking about being justified. I understand that point. But you are specifically saying works are not necessary, yet we will be judged by them. There is still a big disconnect between the two regardless of the justification issue. If works are not important, then how can we be judged by them? You are right, I don’t understand the difference, please point it out.

    Lautensack, I agree 100%. It’s about humility not knowledge! So why is everyone telling me to rely on intelect? Now you are contradicting what falcom said, “God expects you to use your intellect”… correct me if I am wrong, but intellect is acquired through knowledge. Can you see how confusing you guys are?

    You continue to say that “Mormons as Jews demand a sign”. What?! This blog is smothered in requests for “evidence” the priesthood exists. That is exactly what is being requested, a sign. I’m sorry Lautensack, but you are contradicting everything everyone else has been saying.

  8. chuck5000 says:

    David, you say the scriptures do not explicitly name the priesthoods. But that does not disprove the evidence I have provided. “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec” (Heb. 7:17) or “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.”(Heb. 5:10) does not say specifically priesthood, but after the order of, when taken in context of what is being discussed, refers to the priesthood. Try being a little less obtuse.

    As for ordination, then what exactly did Jesus mean then when he said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you” (John 15:16) Or in Matt. 3:14 “And he ordained twelve” or in Acts 1:22 “must one be ordained to be a witness with us”?

    And you continue to call that Zero evidence? I call it turning a blind eye. Anyone reading this can see that.

    And to top it all off, Aaron, you show favoritism when it comes to the rules of this blog, showing you are not seeking “conversation” but a simple outlet to rant against mormons. This is evidenced by not removing the link mikeb provided without a summary of the content being linked to.

    In summary, I have provided the evidence required, I walked through Hebrews as requested (without rebuttal I might add). But you all chose to believe in the philosophies of men while all the time accusing me of the same thing you are all guilty of. And you call this a desire to communicate?

  9. Michael P says:

    Why it is historically lacking is another topic, one fully covered prior.

    The distinction is when you forgo logic to support your beliefs. Issue of after issue, Mormons need to change their story mid way through. The priesthood is a good example. See this article:

    Would you like me to give other examples of you changing your story?

    But see, this is the dividing point. When what you say goes beyond the Bible because it “feels good”. Now, you ask how are we to know what the Bible says. Well, you have that information yourself, as you’ve got the Bible, right? Differing interpretations do exist, no doubt, but that is a pretty narrow reason to dismiss it all. First of all, there are a myriad of sources to get a good overview of it all. Secondly, you can confuse the heck out of yourself if you get too much into some of the smaller differences. In other words, the method of baptism is less important than what it signifies (picking an issue there are some differences between denominations as an example). Third, you need to go through it and pick out the major and most important themes, such as the nature of God and his plan for us. The Bible is really pretty clear when taken as a whole, and all the major denominations agree on these themes. Fourth, you’ve got prayer– I would be remiss to not mention it as, yes, we evangelicals do take it seriously.

    So, to answer your questions: if you go beyond the Bible based on feelings you have gone too far and you can figure out what the Bible says by reading it, to borrow a phrase, for all its worth, and not for what you want it to be.

  10. Michael P says:

    The article posted, btw, talks about how the priesthood issue was brough up after teh church was founded, not at or before.

  11. Lautensack says:

    I do not see how by my asking you to use your God given gifts is asking you not to be humble? I really wish people would actually read what I write and not simply assume I mean things. Therefore allow me to quote myself:

    “I do enjoy how Mormons and other religious groups appeal to Matthew 18 asserting that we should neglect our God given intelligence…Note what this passage is talking about, humility not knowledge, this actually does not fit with the Mormon gospel because to you do not become like a little child humbling yourself a fully relying on God’s grace in the Mormon Gospel, rather you must work to attain your exaltation trusting in your self-worth to attain Glory.”

    I used the verses and tangent to explain that neglecting our God given intelegence was not what Jesus meant in this passage.
    Now as to your assertion that I am demanding a sign, that is not the case, I trust, have faith in the testimony of Scripture, and do not require the sign that Mormons do, a burning in the bosom. I am in no way contradicting what everyone else is saying. To use your expression “What?!” I was stating that you were using the verse out of context, it would have been more scriptural to state that we are more like the Greeks perhaps, however demanding evidence that either the scriptures have been changed, God did not inspire that which was inscribed, contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, or even extra-biblical sources from the Church in any century prior to the nineteenth. As for me I demand no sign that God perserved His Word and actually meant it when He said “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” That is not to say that I cannot give a reason for the hope that lies within me, and why I do believe these things. Clearly giving reasons which stand to scrutiny, and needing reasons are two entirely different things. Also it might be good to note that if you cannot give reasons then perhaps there are none.


  12. falcon says:

    Michael P.
    I tried to link to the article, but I got a “file not found”.
    I know the burning in the bossom is a little off the priesthood topic here, but I remember my salvation experience some 36 years ago. I was alone. I had been seeking after God for about a year. I won’t go into the details of what prompted me to do it, but I prayed and told God that I did believe that Jesus was who He said He was and that I received Him as my Savior. No “burning in the bossom”, no crying, not even any big or even little emotional high. Just coming to grips with who Jesus was and what He had done for me. It was me surrendering. I didn’t need an emotional reward to testify to the truth of who Jesus was and what He did. I simply believed it.

  13. Ralph says:

    With all this talk about the Priesthood being/not being in the Bible or the ‘early’ Christian church – one thing to remember the Israelites were the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS and their religion was the ORIGINAL CHURCH. They believed in the coming Messiah (Christ) and looked forward to His coming. But during the years they apostasised. So the original church did have the priesthood.
    As for being called “as was Aaron’, if you read the LDS teachings you will find that we teach it means that the calling needs to come from God through His appointed authority as Aaron was called by God through Moses. All the ritual sacrafices were done away with by Jesus’s sacrafice. Its like the Law of Moses. Jesus fulfilled this law and was the final sacrifice of intercession between God and man. There are still aspects of the Mosaic Law that are covered under the new law that Jesus instituted but all the sacrifices and ritualistic cleansings were done away with. That there was 2 (actually 4) seperate priesthoods in the OT and then the Melkesidek Priesthood being referred to in the NT with Jesus Christ being a High Priest can be an indication that this priesthood is still alive/available.

  14. falcon says:

    Do you have some sort of reference for the nation of Israel being the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS or are you just being creative again? I think you need a good course in Old Testiment history and theology. We all know what LDS teaches about the priesthood, and within the confines of Mormonism it makes sense. But as orthodox Christians we don’t buy the Joseph Smith had some Biblical characters appear to him and impart the priesthood story. It all begins and ends with the prophet Smith and his propensity for having heavenly visitors reveal things to him. So you’re not basing your priesthood arguments on solid Biblical exegesis. You’re basing it on Joseph Smith’s tales.

  15. Ralph says:

    Falcon, Do you mean to tell me that the Israelites worshiped another God? That the God of the OT is totally different to the God of the NT?
    If not then it stands to reason that the Israelites were/had the original Christian church as they were waiting for their Messiah, which is another word for Christ.
    But if you want scripture then how about Gal 3:23-25 – But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
    The Mosaic Law was there to bring ancient Israel unto Christ. I am at work and do not have much time to look things up but there is at least one scripture in the NT that says that all of the prophecies in the OT are about Christ and His coming. So the Israelites were the original Christian church, else the OT is about another God and should not be in the Bible at all – and all who believe the OT are believing false scripture and in a false God.
    Is this creative enough for you?

  16. mikeb says:

    Did anyone look up the scriptural references given at the beginning of this thread? The bottom line is…as non Jewish people we do not qualify for this priesthood even if it still existed. We’re arguing about something that should be a non issue unless you’re in the linage of Aaron. Maybe the question should be, does anyone qualify according to what the requirements are stated in the Bible?

    If you asked any Jewish person they would laugh at the thought of a “Gentile” being ordained into the Aaronic priesthood. It’s funny too…Jewish people recognize Christianity but disregard any notion of Mormonism theology.

    Chuck, you used the word “highjack” awhile back and that’s exactly what Joseph Smith did with the Christian faith. The reason why you cannot understand the sound Biblical scripture being shared is because you don’t have the spirit of the true God. Jesus said “His sheep hear his voice”.

    True Christians are like priests, the key word being “like” because of their faith in Jesus’ finished work on the cross. We can offer prays and supplications on behalf of whomever. The true gospel message was meant to be very simple, that even a child could understand it.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    There it is…..

    Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

  17. Lautensack says:

    You need to understand that Acts states that the first Christians were in Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Ask any Jew who has not recognized Jesus as the Messiah if they are Christians or if they attend Church and they will plainly tell you No. They lived under the Old Covenant pointing forward to Christ to redeem them, we live in the New Covenant looking back to what Christ has done. Actually this is the point of the entire epistle to the Hebrews. It is not that God changed, for God is immutable, something Mormonism denies, but rather than the old Covenant is done away with and a New and better Covenant is in it’s place. It contradicts the Old with the New, Prophets speaking for God in the Old, The Son of God, the Word become Flesh in the New, The fallible High Priests of the Old, who’s work was never finished, followed by the Infallible High Priest of the New, who’s work is Completed. It might also be noted that Paul tells us that the Old was for the Jews alone where as the New is not only for the Jew but the Gentile also. (Ephesians 3) This is the better Covenant prophesied of by Jeremiah (31:31ff) and Ezekiel (26:36ff) among others of the Old Testament. So did the Jews worship a different God in the Old Testament? No, they worshiped the One True Yahweh God (Deuteronomy 6:4). Do they worship a different God now, yes, because they reject the Messiah, God’s only Son, so you could say that their God is incomplete because they reject the One who the Law and the Prophets bare witness to. (John 1:45ff)


  18. Arthur Sido says:


    You may not know this, since it is a kind of esoteric belief but as part of the mormon patriarchal blessings, it is revealed to you which of the twelve tribes of Israel you are descended from. My wife’s patriarchal blessing says: “Your lineage is declared to be of the house of Ephraim, son of Jacob, Joseph, Isaac and Abraham” My wife is of French ancestry, but according to the mormon church turns out she is Jewish and never knew it! I can send out the image of her blessing if you want to see it.

  19. Ralph says:

    If you re-read Acts 11:26 it states that they were FIRST CALLED CHRISTIANS in Antioch, NOT that the first Christians were in Antioch. BIG difference.

    The word Messiah and Christ are the same, just different languages, and both mean annointed one. The Ancient Israelites and before them, Noah, Adam and Eve, Abraham, etc all believed in and watched for the Messiah/Christ. Granted Jesus’ name and Greek title are absent from the OT, but that is what the true faithful believers were doing through the OT. It is not a case of the NT people looking back on the OT and then pulling out scriptures to support their faith – that is what you are accusing us LDS of doing. All of the prophets and true believers in the OT knew about and watched for the coming of the Annointed One. Yes the fell into apostasy before Jesus’s birth and thus rejected Him so I agree that the JEWS (not Israelites) are not Christian. But as the OT prophets and true believers were waiting for The Annointed One (ie Jesus) whose title is Christ and/or Messiah, they were the Original Christians. Adam and Eve were the very first people who could be called Christian.

  20. chuck5000 says:

    It’s clearly obvious there is no communication going on here from the “Christians”. You just want to preach to the Mormons. You use diversionary tactics by telling Mormons what they believe and then side stepping the real issues by interpreting the scriptures to fit your system of belief; completely overlooking the plain truths that are available.

    I stand by what I have said. I stand by the evidence I have provided and nobody has disproved it scripturally. The scriptures are clear. As for me, I choose to follow the scriptures and the revelations of God through his prophets as he has provided since the foundation of the world and not the philosophies of men which is evident that is all you can provide since you cannot claim to know the will of God in our day as you don’t “know” God, you only know “of” God.

    Thank you for allowing me to share on this topic, but this will be my last post on this topic as it only falls on deaf ears. I will not accept the idle comments, slander, and slurs spewed. They are opinions of men founded on lies and repeated for the only purpose to offend.

    As for my final comment, Aaron, I am disappointed in you. It is clear you are playing favorites and not upholding the same rules for your colleagues as you expect from us Mormons. Your purposes are obvious to me as I see right through the facade and the false pretenses of this blog. It has nothing to do with sharing the truth, communicating honestly, or loving anyone. It’s more about trying to put yourself above the Mormons and using whatever means necessary to accomplish this goal. I thought for a while you were actually being sincere. I regret there can’t be honest communication from you or your colleagues as it could be healthy. God bless.

  21. Michael P says:

    Chuck, too bad that you are leaving. And I am sure you will find this post right with how you characterize all our posts. But quite frankly my experience in dealing with Mormons on this level is that it is you who do not address the main points. We are often accused of putting words in your mouth so to speak when in actuality we repeat what we see from you, what the reality of your beliefs look like to us. Remember, we come from very different starting points, and on topic, when we look at the preisthood, we see a Bible offering very specific instructions on what that means and then we see you offering something very different. I know you say that your beliefs are grounded in the Bible, but we see something terribly different. So, before you get too frusrated with us, understand that we are essentially speaking different languages, and this is why we say you worship a different Christ than we do.

  22. David says:


    It has already been pointed out to you that the priesthood holders mentioned in Hebrews are Levitcal priests of the old convenant. If you look at the context (a word you like to envoke) you will see this to be the case. So your argument has been “disproved” scripturally.

    You seem to admit that there is no extrabiblical evidence to support your wild eisogetical claims (claims which you call “evidence”), as you failed to mention anything from the early church. The early church did not see these passages as supporting orders of Melchizedek or Aaron. That is why this “interpretation” did not exist until the 18th century. The early church did not function the way you think and was not “Mormon”.

    The references in Hebrews to Melchizedek are clearly symbolic, figurative, and Messianic. The author of Hebrews “piggy-backs” Psalm 110. There was no order of Melchizedek in the OT and NT even though the OT and the NT make mention of Melchizedek. The Jews saw Psalm 110 as symbolic, figurative, and Messianic hence why Rabbi Paul is mentioning it to a Jewish, Christian audience.

    You only see a Melchizedek order here because you have a pre-commitment to a total apostasy of the early church (and a commitment to Joseph Smith) . There was no Order of Melchizedek in antiquity. It does not show up until the 19th century.

    Consider that to Melchizedek, Jesus, and a whole host of men in the Bible power accompanied authority (Hebrews 7),

    “And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement [sometimes interpreted ancestry] , but according to the power of an indestructible life.”

  23. falcon says:

    Jews are Jews, Israel is Israel, the Church is the Church. Jews of the OT are not the original Christians. They’re Jews! It’s important to keep people and groups in their proper place. Thank you Lautensack for your contribution and explanation concerning this. Jesus did indeed come to fullfill the scriptures and the OT promises and prophicies. But the Jews of the OT were not Christians. One of the promises God made to David is known as the Davidic Covenant. Gabriel to Mary, “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.” Lk 1:32-33 Jesus will return and sit on that throne that will not be, incidentally, in Independence, Missouri.

  24. falcon says:

    The whole concept of the priesthood, as is everything else in Mormonism, is not based on early Christian practice or scripture. It’s based on Joseph Smith’s report that John the Baptist and a trio of Apostles appeared to and ordained him. Mormons can try and wedge some scripture into Smith’s tales to support their desire to believe in his fantasy, but the Bible does not support a NT priesthood. Thank the Lord that their are Mormons who at some point wake-up to the fact that there are just too many holes in the program and find their way out of the maze.

  25. Lautensack says:

    It seems to me you are trying cram the new wine of the Gospel into the Old wine skins of the Old Covenant. While Yes I will assert that Adam and Eve may have been believers they were under a different Covenant than we are, and Moses for that matter, as the law was given to increase the trespass. All of Scripture is God breathed and all of scripture is about Jesus, So yes there were Believing Jews, Peter, John, and Paul are a few examples in the New Testament, as Abraham, Moses, and David were in the Old Testament. However only those of the New Testament, New Covenant were Christians.

    You make a bold statement claiming that none of the Christians here know God we only know of God, which is absolutely backwards Christian theology by the way, as our entire salvation is determined by our relationship with Him. I must then ask you who is your god? Is He the God of 1 Sam 15:2-3? Does He punish unrighteousness and do you praise Him for His justice against it, or do you worship some idol you have created in your mind rejecting the True God because the God of scripture is far to scary for you? “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Heb 10:31 Furthermore you assert that we have lied, might I inquire where? As for our points being from the philosophy of men, if that is the case, why does every religion in the world outside of Biblical Christianity, including Mormonism, have a karma based soteriology? This type of salvation creates pride and arrogance which you have clearly shown, and I pray God may grant you repentance from it. “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:10,14)

    Now I am wondering if we can get back to the topic of the priesthood, particularly the contrast of Old vs. New throughout the book of Hebrews which has yet to be responded to from scripture.

  26. Ralph says:

    Falcon and Lautensack,
    If Christianity only started from the NT then all of the people in the OT are damned to hell because from what I understand from all of the conversations here only Christians (ie those who believe in the Trinity and accept Jesus as their Saviour WITHOUT works) will go to heaven. According to my understanding you both have said that those in the OT did not know about Jesus and thus did not believe in Him. There is also no evidence of a Trinity in the OT.

    According to LDS, ‘Christians’ are those who believe in Jesus as their Saviour and Redeemer (ie as Christ/Messiah). The OT prophets and the Israelites, plus countless others were looking forward to the coming of their Christ/Messiah. They may not have been called Christians but to me because they did believe in Jesus as their Christ/Messiah and that He was coming, they are true Christians. The Jews are just one tribe and a remnant of the 12 tribes of Israel. As we can see in the Bible they apostasised centuries before Jesus’s birth. They were still looking for their Messiah, but because of their apostate nature they did not recognise Jesus are this person. If Jesus had been born in the days of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob I believe there would be a possibility of them recognising Jesus as their Messiah.

    So maybe you are misunderstanding my terminology – Maybe I should not have used the term ‘Christian’. The true church started with Adam and Eve and followed through until the Israelites became apostate. During this time there was always the priesthood involved to mediate between God and man with sacrifices and God’s word/will for all. And these priests were not always from the tribes of Israel. Then it started again with Jesus’s birth and according to my belief went into apostacy again just after the 12 apostles were killed. Now it has been restored to the earth for the last time with a fully functional priesthood to allow God’s will to be known and disseminated across the earth.

  27. falcon says:

    You throw a lot out there. Let me pick one thing……the topic here, the priesthood. I don’t get your chronology for one thing i.e. “Then it started again with Jesus’s birth…” I don’t know what you mean by that. There’s no evedince of the priesthood in the NT. It’s not there. I’m sure Luke would have mentioned it in Acts, Paul as a Jew would have mentioned it, as would the other writers. It’s not there. Hebrews as we have shown, talks about Christ being the high priest. The idea for the priesthood in Mormonism didn’t come from the Bible. It came from Joseph Smith’s tale of visitations by angels, or apostles, or John the Baptist. That’s why we can’t have a meaningful discussion about this because we’re talking about two different religions. You believe in Joseph Smith’s religion. We don’t.

  28. Lautensack says:

    I will try to make myself more clear, the Church was Not started until Jesus Christ, prior to that Judaism was the religion of God’s people, because they believed in the promises of the Old Covenant. Please show me the verse of the Old Testament where the term Church is used. I tell you the truth, the first mention of Church in the Bible is Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Note the words Jesus uses, build, not rebuild, but build. Prior to this there was no Church there was Judaism as defined in the Law of Moses. However that was pointing forward to the New Covenant “for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Heb 10:4
    However if you continue to assert that the Church was established in the Old Testament, contrary to the evidence of that, and I assume you “hold” the “Aaronic Priesthood” of the LDS Church why do you not perform the duties of an Aaronic priest as described in the book of Leviticus? Were you anointed as described in Exodus 28:41; 29:7; 30:30; 40:13-15; and Leviticus 8:12? Priests were anointed in the Old Testament to stand in the presence of God and intercede for His people, what intersession do you make and for whom do you make it? If the Church was truly started in the Old Covenant then surly you must perform the duties and ordinances of the Old Testament Correct?


Comments are closed.