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. Ralph says:

    Arthur, you said “but those men allegedly held the golden plates, and still they left mormonism. Makes you kind of wonder about their testimony doesn’t it?” What do you say about Judas? And how about the others referenced in the Bible who left Jesus and followed Him no more? If people became apostate while in the company of the Saviour, then it stands to reason that they can become apostate after just a little thing as seeing angels and gold plates. But still t hey did not deny seeing the plates, they just decided they would not follow the LDS faith.

    You also said “You have nothing to fall back on except the BoM itself, the plates are gone and there are no copies or facsimiles of the writings.” With this I guess you mean that we do not have the original plates to verify the interpretation or existence of them, is this correct? If it is, then what about the Bible? Yes there are thousands of old manuscripts out there that are copies, but we DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINALS. So we cannot verify if what we have is authentic can we? Yes the manuscripts we have agree in the majority of cases, but there are differences between them. There is a debate on 2 verses in 1 Cor 14 where it discusses women talking in church. Some believe that it is an inclusion, while others do not. However, the ones who believe that it is an inclusion have gone through the manuscripts and believe that it was a marginal note on the original document made by either Paul himself or a contemporary of his. So by their accounts even the original manuscript was corrupted. Now I am not saying that these people are correct or not in their thinking, but like I said – we do not have the original so how can we know how correct is what we have? Especially in light of this argument about 1 Cor. As translations are becoming better and more older documents are found, inclusions and mistakes are being found indicating that the Bible has not been translated correctly in the past.

  2. Jacob5 says:

    Well, here is the thing. Why are there so many different religions that believe the bible differently? If there is just the one bible, why are there so many people who believe it so differently.
    Whether you believe in Joseph Smith or not, doesn’t the whole part about his confusion on this issue not stand out.
    So many times Christ says that we should be one even as He and the Father are one.
    To claim inherrant authority simply by saying you quote the bible, can’t anyone who reads and studies the bible also lay such a claim? This is based on so many denomonations and sects in the Christian world today.
    So, again, aside from saying what anyone else could say about authority about God’s word, I would like to know where your authority come from?

  3. Arthur Sido says:

    “What do you say about Judas? And how about the others referenced in the Bible who left Jesus and followed Him no more? If people became apostate while in the company of the Saviour, then it stands to reason that they can become apostate after just a little thing as seeing angels and gold plates.” Well I guess I would say that I wouldn’t trust the testimony of Judas! My point is that the testimony of these witnesses is sketchy “evidence”. As far as the plates versus manuscripts, do you get that not having either the plates nor any reproductions of their pages (written in a langauge that doesn’t exist) is hardly analogous to thousands of manuscripts that provide a remarkably uniform end product? Where there are questions, Bibles note the differences (i.e. let he who is without sin cast the first stone) but none of the differences impact the central doctrines of salvation.

    Jacob, that is a common question. Why so many churches? I am a Baptist, reformed in doctrine. I worship with other Baptists, many who are not reformed. But that doesn’t mean that Presbyterians or Methodists are not my brothers and sisters in Christ. We worship in a different style and hold to different doctrines. Some baptize infants and some do not, but we all agree on the command to baptize. Some are ruled by elders and some by episcopal forms of government. But we all are under the authority of Christ and His Word. The names on the building are different, and the services look different but all Christians agree on the vital doctrines. Lots of people are confused because they don’t get that the name on the sign is far less important than the God that is worshipped inside. But the right response is to search the Scriptures, not to create a whole new religion to suit your own desires.

  4. chuck5000 says:

    In an attempt to move the conversation back onto topic of the priesthood, I have searched the scriptures, and nowhere in any instance of Holy Writ, does it show where someone has taken unto himself, the authority (by “knowing” the word of God or otherwise) to officiate in sacred ordinances and being acknowledged by the Lord. So following the line of suggestion by Aaron, please provide the scriptural evidence that we can base our faith on that simply knowing the word of God gives authority.

  5. Jacob5 says:

    The other thing about Latter-day Saints don’t make a presumptive clame to the priesthood authority. We clame through the proper line of authority. John the Baptist gave the Aaronic priesthood authority, and Peter, James, and John gave the Melchisedek priesthood authority. We don’t simply claim that because we have the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, we have direct authority from God. We believe that God has an order to how he does things. And this involves how the authority is given.
    Now if you want to use the United States constitution as an example. Those men who have direct authority of the Constitution are chosen and put into those position by a higher authority. In that case that would be the people of the United states, or in case of the Supreme Court, by the President of the United States.
    Now if you wish to use authority to mean simply having a wide knowledge on the subject then fine, there are “authorities” out there. But in my case I say authority as receiving full power to act in behalf of an organization or for the stead of another.
    Supremem Court justices have authority to rule in cases of the constitution. Legislative and executive positions ar given authority through voting. No one can claim to be the authority without such a process.
    We feel the same applies to religious authority. No one has authority without receiving it from another who has such authority and through a process. ie. laying on of hands.

  6. Lautensack says:

    Ralph said ” No one has authority without receiving it from another who has such authority and through a process. ie. laying on of hands.”
    Ralph where in scripture does it say that a man is to be given authority by men in authority? Where does it say that this process must be done through the laying of hands? Where does it say that Jesus received His authority this way, or Paul, or Peter? Frankly it does not. Also what if an apostate laid hands on a new member, would the new priesthood be valid as the one with the authority clearly lost it, or never truly had it to begin with?


  7. Lautensack says:

    The quote in the previous post was Jacob5 not Ralph, my mistake, sorry.


  8. Jacob5 says:

    Actually, that was me (Jacob5) not Ralph. I think Chuck5000 has done a pretty good job of understanding those questions. I will refer you to him.
    But can you honestly tell me that there is no organization in how God’s work is done? If I am wrong, please tell me what you believe the organization of His church is.

  9. chuck5000 says:

    In contrast to the things I have already demonstrated about the authority of the gospel, how it was passed on through ordination, and the laying on of hands, read about Korah and his associates in Numbers 16. In their rebellion against the authority of the Priesthood when they falsely professed the right to minister in the priest’s office, the Lord promptly visited them in their sin. The Lord caused the ground to swallow them with all of their belongings showing how God feels about unauthorized assumption of authority.

    Consider Uzza and his fate when putting forth his hand to steady the ark of the covenant without authority to do so. (1 Chro. 13:10)

    Consider Saul who grew impatient waiting for the return of Samuel and prepared the burnt offering himself, forgetting he occupied the throne but did not have the right to officiate in the Priesthood of God. (1 Samuel 13)

    Consider the sons of Sceva who tried to use the power and authority possessed by Paul, when they sought to cast out an evil spirit in Acts 19:
    “13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
    14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
    15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
    16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”

    The evil spirit “prevailed against them” because they had no such power or authority.

    The scriptures are replete with “evidence” of the priesthood, the power and authority to act in Gods name. We believe that man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

  10. Eric the Red says:

    Jacob5, you misunderstood my point. Granted, Supreme Court justices are appointed to oversee the constitution, but why? Not because they are in a long line of uniquely anointed justices. Yes, they replace other justices, but not because of a laying on of hands that reaches back to Thomas Jefferson. They are appointed based upon their knowledge of law (i.e., the Constitution). They are appointed because of their qualifications. They would never be put in those positions of authority until they were able to prove they could speak with authority on the constitution. They receive their positions of authority because of their knowledge of the constitution, not because of a judiciary lineage. Present day authority through the Aaronic priesthood is not biblical. All believers can speak with authority in as much as they are speaking from the authoritative Word of God. Ministers are put into positions of spiritual leadership only as they have an authoritative grasp of the Word of God. And ministers can be rejected if they are not preaching sound doctrine. Where does this authority come from? Not from a defunct priesthood, but from a Spirit empowered understanding of the Bible. Note Acts 17:11. Also 1 John 4:1 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Truth is, your Constitution paradigm fits better with a Christian minister. Spiritual leaders must have authoritative knowledge of the Bible. Titus 1:9 “He [a minister] must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.”

  11. Eric the Red says:

    If ten people read the Bible and come up with ten different interpretations, does this invalidate it as a sufficient authority? Let’s take the US Constitution analogy a little further. LDS say “Well, if the Bible is your authority, others can claim the same, ergo, no authority.” Apply the same logic to any historical document, and see where it leads. Some interpret the Constitution to say religion should be expelled from all things governmental. Others interpret it to mean that government can make no laws limiting the free exercise of religion. Taking the LDS interpretation of authority, we have two options. One, the Constitution is an insufficient authority because there is disagreement over interpretation. Two, for the Constitution to have any authority, we need interpreters who have received their anointing from a succession of laying on of hands that reaches back to Thomas Jefferson. What Mormons need to realize is that claiming priesthood authority is little more than a religious Rook card to trump the biblical interpretation of others. A general perusal of LDS Bible interpretation reveals a total lack of clear understanding of Scripture by the “anointed” (1 Cor 15- three heavens; the doctrine of God, and may I say, Hebrews 7?). In reality, this anointing is a mask for diminishing the importance of the Bible. Paul reasoned from the OT Scriptures. He convinced people from the written Word. I am sure the Jews of his day proffered different interpretations of the OT Scriptures, but Paul never used his anointing to override them. He even told the Galatians to reject him –an apostle- if he ever preached another Gospel! Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures! Wrong interpretation does not nullify the sufficient authority of the Bible. If we would consider such thinking silly in reference to the authority of the U.S. constitution, a human document, then why would we consider it a valid argument for proving the insufficiency of the authority of the Bible?

  12. Eric the Red says:

    Sorry, Numbers 16, 1 Chronicles 13:10, and 1 Samuel 13 are all irrelevant to the conversation. None here debates that there was priesthood authority in the OT. The question is: “Is there an Aaronic priesthood today?” By the way, Uzza had authority; he was struck down because he misused it. His father Abinadab (or possibly his grandfather) was sanctified to care for the ark. 1Samuel 7:1 “And the men of Kiriathjearim came and took up the ark of the LORD, and brought it to the house of Abinadab on the hill; and they consecrated his son, Eleazar, to have charge of the ark of the LORD. This responsibility was passed on to his sons. Uzza should have known that the ark was not to be transported on a wagon. Your interpretation of Acts is a classic example of eisogesis. Nothing here is said about priesthood authority. Strangely these seven men were sons of a Jewish high priest, so according to Mormon theology, they should have had authority. Acts 19:14 “Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this.” I agree with you that they had no power of authority, but that authority came from the Name of Jesus, an authority that every believer has the right to invoke.

  13. falcon says:

    Bottom line for me in this discussion is that we don’t see the priesthood as a church office any where in the NT. Ephesians talks about apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. There function is the equipping of the saints for the work of service to the building up of the body of Christ. First Corinthians talks about a variety of gifts, ministries and effects and then goes on to name these. It says nothing about a priesthood office or function within the NT church. Hebrews is the only full discussion in the NT of Christ as the believer’s High Priest. It answers the question, “Whatever happened to Jesus?” Hebrews offers us nothing in regard to believers being priests. This is about Jesus. The idea of men wanting to usurp Christ’s priesthood designation is disturbing. It does fit however with men wanting to be gods also.

  14. Arthur Sido says:

    To springboard off of falcon, not only is there no scriptural evidence for the role of the priesthood in the New Testament, there is no need for the priesthood, either as it existed in the Old Testament or in the erroneous interpretation of mormonism. What role, what function did the Old Testament priesthood fulfill? Read Leviticus and you see a picture of the priest acting as mediator between sinners and God (Lev 5:18 He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him for the mistake that he made unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven.). The priest was required to make atonement on behalf of people, to perform the ceremonial sacrifices. Under the administration of the New Covenant, Christ is the great High Priest, the mediator between man and God. His sacrifice is sufficient to forgive all the sins of His sheep, and there is no need for any additional sacrifice and no need for a human mediator. Because of Christ, we can “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace”. There is no set apart priesthood under the New Covenant because we have a better High Priest in Christ Jesus, “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant”. The whole argument about succession in the priesthood put forth by mormons misses the point that the reason we no longer have a priesthood like the Aaron and his sons held is that we no longer need it, and to long for that office makes a mockery of the once and complete sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

    The “restored priesthood” is a control device, by making mormons suspicious of the veracity of the Bible. Smith set himself up as the sole arbiter of what was accurate, what the proper translation was. You couldn’t search the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was true because he convinced people that the Scriptures were unreliable. The mormon priesthood is all about control and keeping people dependent on the church.

  15. chuck5000 says:

    I have provided the evidence in the Bible that is sought. The OT and the NT are clear on the authority of God. Couple that with modern day revelation, and it is confirmed the Priesthood is the power and authority of God on earth.

    Aaron said, “If you do not have any evidence that you are willing to provide to promote your position, you simply aren’t going to feel very welcome on this blog while making naked, unsubstantiated claims, because you have no intention on engaging in serious, constructive communication.”

    The claims are not naked, assumptive, nor unsubstantiated. Who now lacks the intention of engaging in serious constructive communication?

    Acts 19 is clear, they try to invoke the Name of Jesus and were buffeted by the evil spirit. Remember Matth. 10:1. Jesus gave power and authority to cast out unlcean spirits. Jesus was clear, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained, you” (John 15:16).

    So Eric, the sons of Sceva and those that were with them KNEW the scriptures and had the right as a believer to invoke the authority yet the spirit was not cast out. So your interpretations have little to stand on.

    You can claim your misinterpretation of anointing or ordaining as you want, but it does not change the facts. You should do as Aaron says and take Hebrews 7 a little more seriously. You should also study Acts 1:12-26. I have already presented the facts of the scripture. The “evidence” speaks for itself.

    Your claim that studying the scriptures and becoming an authority on them holds no truth. If that were the case, Jesus would have called Scholars and Lawyers to be his Apostles, and not Fishermen. I provide the scriptures showing the facts, after years of study, and you disagree. So if I am not right, yet again your theory holds no water, because I hold a “Spirit understanding of the Bible.” So if I have no authority, your theory does not stand.

    Aaron, care to comment? I have been waiting for your feedback on the commentary I provided.

  16. David says:


    Do you really want to throw Hebrews 7 out there as a proof-text for 1st century Christian, Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods? That passage disproves your claim as it sets up Jesus as the permanent high priest “once for all”.

    Mere invoking of the name of Jesus is not enough to drive out demons and that is what Acts 19 tells us. You make an unwarranted leap that the reason is they lacked the appropriate apostolic authority. Those Jews did not even believe Jesus is the Messiah yet they tried to invoke his name like a magical incantation. Even for the apostles, authority was not enough as they were unable to drive out a particularly tough demon in Matt 17.

    Mark 9 has an unnamed man casting out demons. The disciples tried to do what you advocate (stopping “unauthorized” good deeds) yet Jesus said, “Do not stop him.”

    Apollos did not have the laying on of hands that you say is so important. Apollos just seems to come out of nowhere yet he was received as a believer and even encouraged in his ministry by the other believers (even Paul).

    I could give you OT examples of men who God simply raised up but we are trying to stick to the topic of the primitive church having the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. It simply did not have those. Melchizedek and Aaron are mentioned in the NT, but you do not see Christian, holders of those priesthoods in the NT. Extra-biblical evidence for these priesthoods is non-existent.

    You are left with your version of latter-day revelation. The constant harping on continuing revelation is a holdover from the time and space of Joseph Smith. Plenty of groups, Mormon and non-Mormon (even Christian ones), throughout history (and today) and across the world believe in continuing revelation. However, few if any (maybe the Shakers) were in Joseph Smith’s locality or on his radar. Therefore, his followers have the same preoccupation. When it comes to modern day seers, you all are far from being the only show in town.

  17. falcon says:

    OK, how about this? I’m down in the basement working out and I get thinking about this corruption of the Bible and things being left out of it and pop(!) my old Catholic teachings are manifested. How about the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven after her death? It’s not in the Bible, so I’m figuring that it’s just one more of those things that the conspirators hijacked along with the priesthood, temple rites, plural marrage, progression to godhood etc. Now come on Mormon friends, the Catholics can play this game too, if they want. Here’s something especially for you: “Addressing a jubilant crowd of more than 500,000 people packed into St. Peters Square, Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in Munificentissimus Deus on Nov. 1, 1950, that the ‘Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.’…….the belief in the assumption of our Blessed Mother exemplifies the dynamism of revelation….
    WOW! The dynamism of revelation! Is that good or what? I don’t care if it isn’t in the Bible. It got revealed. It’s true. Will you belive me if I say “I bear you testimony that Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven is true?”

  18. Lautensack says:

    It is funny that you bring up Acts 19 as a proof text for a priesthood, as the Sons of Sceva were sons of a Jewish High Priest, and as such they fulfilled the birth requirements to be priests in the order of Aaron, and they themselves were probably priests. However they were not followers of the Way, and they did not know Jesus, but understood that Paul was casting out demons in His name. It is also good to note that these men are later classified with workers of the magical arts. Basically they were not Christians, though they at least held the birth requirements to be Levitical priests. This seems to fit with Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

  19. chuck5000 says:

    You all are making great claims. But you still fail to adhere to Aarons request: Aaron said, “If you do not have any evidence that you are willing to provide to promote your position, you simply aren’t going to feel very welcome on this blog while making naked, unsubstantiated claims, because you have no intention on engaging in serious, constructive communication.”

    Where is the evidence? Walk us all through the scriptures you claim show evidence of your belief and show us how it fits with what you are saying. You are referencing the scriptures, but fail to show how the evidence I have provided is not accurate. I have walked through the verses in Hebrews and gave detailed explanation. I have provided the evidence. You simply reference a few scriptures and provide a brief description based on personal interpretation, but show no scriptural evidence to back your claims. So by all means, walk us through the scriptures that provide evidence to support your views.

    I addressed with the scriptures that Hebrews 7 does not indicate it was Jesus Christ only… listen to it again. Matthew 17 & Mark 9 refers to the disciples, not the Apostles, I have also covered that. Where does it say Apollos did not have the laying on of hands or that he was an Apostle? You cannot simply claim that because it is not in the scriptures it did not occur. So show me already.

    You should all be held to the same requirements or shouldn’t be welcome to post anymore either. But it is becoming more clear that there is a lack of integrity and a clear display of favoritism for anyone who does not believe in the LDS Church. Otherwise, Aaron would be holding you accountable like he does us. So Aaron, you will speak out against the lack of evidence from the rest, or you are not serious about constructive communication either, as demonstrated by the posts that are continuing to spout personal ideas without the evidence to back it up.

  20. Eric the Red says:

    Show us a Bible verse that said that Jesus never drank coffee. That must mean that he must have drank coffee!

  21. falcon says:

    So to summarize, as the story goes the LDS received its authority during the days of Joseph Smith. The authority came through the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Aaronic came to Smith via John the Baptist who, it is said, appeared to the prophet. The Melchizedek Priesthood he is said to have gotten from Peter, James and John who also appeared to him. Straight up, I don’t believe it!
    There is no need for the priesthood generally because it ceased when Christ established his new covenant of grace and the Melchizedek priesthood was never a literal order of priests anyway. The “priesthood” was replaced by a new one that is now held by all believers….indeed it is God’s royal priesthood.
    Now if Mormons want to practice a priesthood based on appearences of John the Baptist et al to Joseph Smith I say knock yourselves out. It goes well with the entire package of deception. I repeat, in a spiritual war you have to choose sides. I choose the army of the God of the Bible

  22. Ralph says:

    Here is part of what the official LDS stance is on this question, it is from

    The lineal restrictions of that Aaronic (Levitical) Priesthood were lifted when the law of Moses was fulfilled, and thereafter the offices of the priesthood were conferred upon worthy men without limitation to the tribe of Levi. This appears to be the case in the Church as recorded in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon (where there were no Levites), and is presently operative in the Church as it has been restored in the latter days.
    The Aaronic Priesthood continued “with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel” from Aaron until John the Baptist, who was a priest in the Aaronic order (D&C 84: 26-27), and by this authority he prepared the way for and baptized Jesus. Nineteen centuries later this same John was sent from heaven as a resurrected being to confer the Aaronic Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. This was done on May 15, 1829, near Harmony, Pennsylvania, along the banks of the Susquehanna River. At that time John outlined some of the duties, privileges, and limitations of the priesthood, specifying that the Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of the ministry of angels and can perform baptisms by water, but has not the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Aaronic Priesthood functions under the direction of the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 13; JS-H 1: 68-72).
    Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84: 14-21; D&C 107: 13-17).

    There is more if you wish to read it.

  23. Ralph says:

    At ( it says this about the Melchizedek Priesthood –

    The higher or greater priesthood, as compared with the lesser or Aaronic priesthood. The reason for the name is given in D&C 107: 1-3. The Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in Ps. 110: 4; Heb. 2: 17-18; Heb. 3: 1; Heb. 5: 6, 10; Heb. 6: 20; Heb. 7: 11, 15, 17, 21; but the Bible does not give many particulars concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we learn that within the Melchizedek Priesthood are the offices of elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch, apostle, and president (D&C 107), and that this priesthood must be present and functional whenever the kingdom of God is upon the earth in its fulness.

    There are 2 more paragraphs if any one is interested.

  24. Daniel says:

    Chuck, you are right, Hebrews 7 does not explicitly say that the Melchizidekan priesthood is for Christ only. But it does say that the basis for receiving that priesthood is an “indestructible life” (v. 16), that Jesus holds the priesthood permanently because he continues forever (in contrast to the Aaronic priests, who were subject to death) (v. 24), and that we will die, and after that face judgement (9:27), which makes us unable to hold that priesthood.

    As to the necessity of a continuing priesthood, Hebrews 8 speaks to why there is no longer a need for an earthly priesthood succession: because he has established a new covenant with us, written on our hearts, not bound by the law. The function of the priesthood is to offer gifts and sacrifices for transgressions of the law (8:3), and they do so in an earthly copy of the temple in heaven. But since Jesus is seated in heaven and he lives forever to intercede for us there (8:1,2;7:25), we no longer need the shadows of the old covenant here on earth.

  25. Arthur Sido says:

    Chuck, are you even reading what is being posted? We only have 2000 characters, so it is not practical to post a comprehensive list of scriptures that point to the new priesthood of Christ as High Priest and mediator. You seem unwilling to explore the nature of the new covenant, the new administration under Christ instead of an earthly priest caste. Things changed after the cross, the need for sacrifice and thereby the need for the temple was done away with. You have to look at the Bible as a whole, instead of merely plucking verses out of context. The word “priest” in a verse does not equal evidence in favor of the mormon priesthood. The priesthood is mentioned quite a bit in the NT, but never in the way that mormons believe. There is but one high priest under the new covenat: 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. I am working on a more comprehensive response to why we no longer need the priesthood on my blog, but it is taking more time than I thought.

    It would be interesting to explore, in light of this conversation, the mormon idea of blood atonement with the continuing mormon priesthood, since mormons seem to think that the sacrifice of Christ was inadequate to provide propitiation.

  26. chuck5000 says:

    Daniel, thank you for stepping up and presenting your position based on scripture. I would like to address a few things.

    First, Heb.7:16 does not refer to a requirements of having an indestructible life. If you read the verses (15-16), it is referring to a specific priest after the order of Melchisedec, who was Jesus Christ. But as I explained in my audio commentary, vs. 23 explains there were many priests.

    Try to remember the context of these Chapters is referencing Jesus Christ. So when it says “he” or “whom” it is referring to Jesus, not the priesthood. When it says “they” or “their” it’s referring to other priesthood holders. For example in Heb. 8:3: “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices”. Why, if it was referring to Jesus Christ as the only priest, would it say “every high priest”. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say “For the high priest”. Can you see the difference in plurality? The same is mentioned in Heb. 5:1 “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God”. Why would it say “every high priest taken from among men”? If there was only to be one, wouldn’t it be written, “The high priest is Jesus Christ?”

    You are correct about the “new covenant” Jesus established. That is why there is mention in Heb. 7:12 about this change. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” The old law was fulfilled (not destroyed) and there is a new priesthood to govern the new law (or new covenant) as you mentioned. That is why there is a need for the priesthood.

    I would encourage you to listen to my audio again as I have already explained all of this in some detail.

    falcon, I have been saying that for a long time: You simply choose not to believe the truth, and that’s fine… but whether you accept it or not does not change the truth.

  27. falcon says:

    I would say ditto back to you. You have chosen to believe a lie rather than the truth. The Bible talks about people being darkened in their understanding. You and I are on opposite sides of a spiritual battle for the truth. I thank the Lord for people like Arthur Sido who writes here, who has been on the inside of Mormonism and can testify to the level of deception that is present within the sect. There’s always hope, but you may be too far gone.

  28. Lautensack says:

    Hebrews 8:3 is referring to the High Priests of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant in Contrast to the High Priest Jesus Christ who is the High Priest of the New Covenant. If you read Hebrews 8 one can clearly see that it is contrasting the Old Covenant against the New Covenant. Hence why Hebrew 8:13 says “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” This is why sacrifices are no longer needed because “every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.” Hebrews 10:11-13 The other High Priests spoken of in Hebrews 8:3 are not other High Priests in the Order of Melchizedek because they offer sacrifices, plural, thus they are High Priests in the Levitical Order being contrasted to Jesus the High Priest of the Melchizedek Order. Also Numbers 35:28-32 shows that there was one High Priest at a time, because if there were multiple then frankly the laws of Numbers 35 would be funny to say the least because different High Priests would be dying and no one would be held to those laws because which High Priest would you Go by? However I must always assert that in order to understand the Epistle to the Hebrews one must understand the compare contrast nature of the work. First He is compared to the Angels, the to Moses, then to Melchizedek, the to High Priests of the Levitical Order, then to the sacrifices of Leviticus, only after all those comparisons where Jesus is Greater than all does it go on to explain that He is the Assurance, author and perfecter of our faith, and finally how we are to live our Christian lives. You’re right the truth does not change, yet with the Mormon view of God it does, as God, Truth Himself does.

  29. Jacob5 says:

    Oh well, perhaps it is good that the concept of what the priesthood is was lost, as it may have been corrupted.
    I believe in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as well, and they teach me enough about the priesthood.
    We cannot expect those who do not believe these books to also believe in such things as the priesthood.
    As you believe in Christ, I commend you, and I pray for good lives for you all. I also pray that you continue to have your agency to chose as you will. After all, that is one of the most important parts of God’s plan. He will not force any many to make a choice they will not want to make.
    I have made my choice, and I will stay by it for eternity.

  30. Arthur Sido says:

    Jacob, that brings us back to a recurring them. WHY do you believe in the “modern” revelation, in the BoM, the PGP and the D&C, in the teachings of Smith and Brigham Young and now Thomas Monson. If the basis is because of a burning in the bosom, and nothing else, that is something you need to examine. Ask why a “restoration”, ask why “another testament of Jesus Christ” would contradict the Bible in so many fundamental ways. Both cannot be right.

    This is the big challenge in witnessing to mormons, because it so often comes down to “well I have a testimony and all evidence to the contrary aside, that is just what I believe”

    Jacob you are quite right in this statement: “I have made my choice, and I will stay by it for eternity.”. My fear is that you have made the wrong choice, but fortunately while you still live it is not too late. Eternity is too long to be wrong. You seem genuinely interested in honestly discussing much of the issues that surround mormonism unlike so many others, so I would encourage you to continue to ask questions and seek answers beyond “I have a testimony”. I know all too well how fallible a personal testimony based on a emotional experience can be.

  31. Daniel says:

    Chuck, I do most of my posting here at work, and I don’t have audio, so I don’t have the benefit of listening to your audio posts…sorry. I will say that I agree with Lautensack’s exegesis that the author of Hebrews, when speaking in v.23 of many high priests is speaking of the Aaronic (Levitical) order of the old covenant, which in chapter 8 is removed by the new covenant, with Jesus.

  32. falcon says:

    I think Arthur has hit on the key to what sustains a belief in Mormonism. Granted there are people who remain in the sect for social, cultural, familial and economic reasons long after the “burning in the bossom” emotional experience has left and no longer fuels and sustains their witness and testimony. I’ve had it confirmed to me once again in our discussion of the priesthood that emotion and desire to believe will top rational objective evidence every time. As Christians we start with the Biblical text and ask, “What does this say?” Mormons start with a belief posture and ask “How does this support what I believe and more importantly feel?” Some people can loose themselves from the emotional hook and find freedom in Christ. Others, unfortunately can’t.

  33. falcon says:

    It is clear, that the “priesthood” that Mormons hold to, did not emanate from the Bible or from the NT Church. Josesph Smith claims the priesthood based on supposed visions he had and ordination he received from the Apostles Peter, James and John. So what Mormons are left with is trying to hustle-up some Bible verses to support Smith’s visions. As is custom, Mormons must depend on a burning in the bossom to substantiate a claim by their prophet. What we do know is that JS and many of his early followers were involved in Masonry. Guess what? There are two priesthoods in Masonry; the Aaronic and the Melchizedek. During the Mason ritual for the 19th degree of Grand Pontiff, there is a swearing of oaths of secrecy and total obedience, and then anointing with oil. The Mormons have a similar temple ritual. So where did Joseph Smith get the idea for the priesthood? Was it from a vision or from his Masonic membership? I know, it doesn’t matter. Questioning might cause doubt. It’s easier to go along or hope and pray for a feeling that will confirm the “truth”.

  34. Michael P says:


    You forget they will also claim that they have restored what the rituals are and should be, since we have gone astray…

    This, IMO, is another facet of Mormonism that gives them some room to bob and weave.

  35. Arthur Sido says:

    Falcon, I may be wrong but I think that Smith’s involvement with Masonry came much later in his life, but there is an clear relationship between his masonic membership and the formation of the mormon temple ceremony. What is equally clear is the way that Smith used Biblical terminology to mask all manner of heretical teachings. Using Biblical characters, the ideas of priests and temples, “translating” the BoM using King James English all are designed to appeal the uninformed by sounding similar to what they hear in churches and read superficially in the Bible. Even though the doctrines he espoused have no similarity to Biblical Christianity, by using the same words with different meanings it becomes easier to lead people astray.

  36. falcon says:

    Thank you, I’ll look it up. The fact that the Mormon priesthood terms and those of the Masons along with the similarities in the Temple rites between Mormons/Masons would lead one to believe that Smith borrowed liberally from that group. There is a Mormon who wrote “Mormons for Dummies” who freely admits the Mormon/Mason connection seeing it as a positive in regards to incorporating ancient religious wisdom into Mormonism.
    I have learned through our discussion here that Mormons put great emphasis on Smith’s visions in particular and revelation generally. Visions and revelation are equated with spiritual experiences that trump the Bible for example. The Bible is seen as a corrupted work. Again, we have to pick a side. Both can’t be right.

  37. chuck5000 says:

    Correct. Joseph Smith wasn’t involved with masonry until 1842, and the priesthood was restored in 1829, nearly 13 years prior to his involvement with the Masons.

    So if testimony is not valid. If feelings are not valid. How did you come to know the church is NOT true? Did a “man” convince you? (Keep in mind that “man” could be you too.) If these things are not valid, then how do you suppose someone is suppose to come to a knowledge of the truth?

  38. Lautensack says:

    Whose testimony are we talking about as two conflicting testimonies cannot both be true. Also I hate this concept of it feels right so it must be right, my homosexual friend implies the same thing when we discuss morality and his sexual excursions, he says that they just feel right. Am I to simply tell him to trust his feelings and continue living in sin?

    Think of it this way, an old friend of my family flew planes in WWII one foggy night when returning from a mission they squadron was low on fuel and their gut feeling was to make a mayday call and ditch in the ocean. However this friend asked his commanding officer to fly a few more moments and trust their instruments. A few moments later they landed safely and once down they realized that had they ditched when their feelings told them to they would have landed in enemy territory and probably been captured or killed.

    In the same way God gave us the greatest instrument for life in His word, the Holy Bible. This is why we trust in Him and lean on His word rather than our own feelings that often lead us astray. “the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Genesis 8:21


  39. chuck5000 says:

    Great story but you never answered the question. How is someone suppose to know the truth among all the “preaching”? How is someone suppose to come to the knowledge of truth? The instrument, I agree is the Holy Bible, but there is obviously conflicts among the interpretations of it. So if I am an outsider looking in, how am I to know what it truth if not through prayer/feelings/thoughts? How can I know the truth?

  40. mikeb says:


    You asked an excelent question…How can I know the truth. You can believe the Bible, it is full of God’s truth and the great thing is you don’t have to pray and ask for a confirmation like with the BoM. Jesus said I am the truth, the light and the way and no one comes unto the father except through me.

    There are over 200 verse’s regarding truth in the Bible. After you realize you’re a sinner and in need of a savour because you can not do it yourself, you ask Jesus to forgive you and to be that savour and to live in you. God fills you at that moment with His Holy Spirit and you are sealed in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Then when you read the Bible He reveals his truth through His Holy Spirit. It’s truly amazing and it really is that simple!! It’s called Grace and it’s is free to us.

  41. mikeb says:


    Please check out this website’s “What is truth” page. I think you’ll find it very informative.

  42. mikeb says:

    Please forgive me in my excitement I miss quoted scripture.

    John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. And…
    John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
    1 John 4:6
    We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
    From the KJV


  43. chuck5000 says:

    That’s sounds a lot like a “burning in the bosom” to me. Otherwise, how does “God fill you at that moment with his Holy Spirit”? But according to Lautensack and falcon, you are wrong.

    Just to clarify, I read and re-read the scriptures continually. I know I am a sinner. I ask for forgiveness all the time. I do rely on the Atonement of Jesus Christ to save me from my sins knowing it is the only way to be saved is by Him who died for the entire world. I am filled with the Holy Spirit. I pray multiple times a day as Jesus taught. I read the scriptures daily. I receive answers to my questions constantly from study, prayer, and the Holy Spirit.

    The link you provided (which, by the way, is in violation of this blogs policy) is something a “MAN” wrote. What makes him an authority on truth any more than Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson? Did God leave him in charge? I agree with the scripture that says “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col. 2:8) So does he speak for God? Or is it “his” philosphy? Quite frankly, the writter is very confusing and doesn’t define truth at all.

    I agree that God’s word is truth, but how do you know your interpretation of it is correct? There are so many “men” saying so many different things as to what God is saying in his word. How do you know which one is true?

  44. David says:


    If you look at the context of Mark 9 and Matt 17, you will see that the portions I referenced come after the transfiguration. So when Peter, James, and John came to “the other disciples” that shows that at least a few apostles were present. Oftentimes the words “apostle” and “disciple” are used interchangeably (like when John calls himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) and here the context shows that members of the twelve were present. Also, it is the apostle John who asks Jesus about the unnamed man who was casting out demons.

    Your right – nowhere does it say that Apollos did not receive the laying on of hands just like in no place does it say he was not assumed or caught-up at the end of his earthly life. Anyone can make all kinds of claims with that kind of reasoning. You are asking us to prove a negative. However, because you are making the claim that a modern-day priesthood (other than Christ’s) is necessary you need to show where in the Bible it explicitly says that such a priesthood does exist and is necessary. Our claim is that no such priesthoods were part of the first 1,800 years of Christianity so we challenge your claims and your “evidence”.

    If the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods being a part of primitive Christianity were so obvious then why do we see zero extra-biblical evidence that these priesthoods existed in the early church? That type of thing should have some evidence. However, zero patristic citations, zero hymns, zero inscriptions, and zero devotionals have been found to lend any credence to your claim that the primitive church possessed and carried out the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.

  45. Arthur Sido says:

    Chuck, Acts 17:11 tells us to be like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures to see if these things are true. Take no man’s word for what God has said, but search the Word. If what I say or any other man says contradicts the Word, then that teaching is false. What Joseph Smith taught and what Thomas Monson teaches contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Not the ancillary issues, but the core doctrines. Who is God? Who is man? Why is man seperated from God? How can we be forgiven, how are we saved, what is the means of being reconcilled to God. Don’t focus on what would Jesus do, ask what has Jesus done? If you focus on these questions you will find that Christians are in agreement. In His Word are the words of life, and through them you see Christ revealed and if you bend the knee and submit to Christ as the only way to be saved, in spite of your good works not because of them, being justified by faith and nothing but faith, you can be saved as well. That is my sincere hope and prayer for you, that in His sovereign grace and infinite mercy, He will save you.

  46. falcon says:

    How do I know Mormonism is false. That’s a piece of cake. I can determine that on an intellectual level which I know plays no part in Mormonism. We have a man of dubious character and a practioner of occult magic arts, Joseph Smith, who claims to have religious visions and revelations. He declares war on Christianity and proceeds to proclaim that men can become gods, that to achieve the highest level of heaven you have to have many wives, he proceeds to take several wives including women who are already married and at least one young girl. He publishes a book of scripture for which there is no DNA evidence for his premise that the Indians are a lost tribe of Israel, there is no archeological, linguistic or historic evidence to support the book. I could go on. My point is that you believe it all because you got a feeling. You’re being seduced by what you interpret as a spiritual sign. God expects you to use you’re intellect especially in a case when the evidence is so straight forward.

  47. chuck5000 says:

    So, by what you are saying falcon, to be saved you cannot be a child, mentally-disabled, or illiterate? That’s not the God I worship. If I am slow of speech (like Moses), and not very smart, then I cannot be saved. Hmmm… that sounds more like elitism than Christianity.

    David, I have covered those topics in my recording. I have shown the evidence from the scriptures where I believe there is proof the priesthood authority exists. I was very explicit in my walk through. So I’m not certain why you continue to say there is zero evidence. Please listen to my recordings… I cover it.

    Arthur, I can appreciate your sincerity. My faith and confidence in God is based on more than a feeling. I have based it on feelings, but also on study of the scriptures, weekly worship, prayer, fasting; just to name a few. I have had other experiences of a spiritual nature that cannot be simple coincidence. But if we are going to be saved by faith alone, then why is there a judgment? You all say I should look to the word of God for truth… here is some truth right from the word of God.

    Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

    1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work

    How can you explain this in your theory of “faith alone”? This is exactly what I refer to with the various interpretations. God says we will be judged according to our works. You say its our faith alone. And you want me to believe you? Intellect or not, the bible is clear on this topic, yet you all say the contrary. Who should I believe? You or the bible?

  48. Arthur Sido says:

    I would say these verses are exactly right, but confusing without looking at the whole Biblical record. Everyone will be judged on their works. That is the problem, because when you or anyone else stands before God clothed in the filthy rags of your own works. Every person, outside of Christ, will be judged based on their works and be shown guilty of their sin and condemned. All of us are lost in our sins…

    Mar 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
    Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
    Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

    Your works will get judged indeed, and be found to condemn, not justify you. Any sinner can only be justified by faith in Christ.

    What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Rom 4: 1-8

    It is faith that is counted as righteousness. You HAVE to read the entire Biblical record, the redemptive-historic work of God in salvation. Only then will you see the failings on man’s works and the imputed righteousness of Christ who saves.

  49. falcon says:

    Nice try Chuck.
    You should go into politics. I expect a little more integrity from you in your comments. It’s the old attempt at mischaracterization. I know you know what I was getting at in my post. I’m not taking your bait. I made my point.
    Find me some historical evidence that Joseph Smith was ever ordained by the Apostles Peter, James and John into the priesthood. The prophet made all sorts of claims that have been found to be fraudulent. I’ll just throw in his translation of the Book of Abraham (which has been proven to be a fraud) as an example. He’s not a guy I’d bet my salvation on.
    People from all forms of religion have spiritual experiences. Go pick up a copy of “Lord of the Air”. It’s about a guy who spent several years in India with one of the gurus. All sorts of spiritual experiences. It takes the gift of discernment to test the true from the false. People get deceived all the time by spiritual phenomenon.

  50. chuck5000 says:

    This is the circle I continue to refer to. I bring up truth, it says specifically that we will be judged according to our works, and you all come up with “you have to read it in context.” The context of who? None of you can answer my question. If I do not have the truth, how can I come to know the truth with all of the various interpretations of scripture? How can I come to know the truth of the Word of God? You say not to put my trust in the man Joseph Smith, but you are asking me to trust you… to trust the word of God (which I do), but then you proceed to tell me I am trusting the wrong words and need to look at other scripture to get the truth.

    I am ready to hear how to come to know the truth of God, without the interference of men interjecting their beliefs.

    1 Cor. 1
    19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

    1 Cor. 2
    4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
    5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
    6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
    7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

    So how do I avoid the wisdom of men, obtain the wisdom of God, and clearly understand the difference between the two? I beg of you to tell me. I have been asking in my last three posts, and have yet to receive a clear response. PLEASE tell me.

Comments are closed.