THE LDS PRIESTHOOD IS UNBIBLICAL
THE LDS "RESTORATION" OF THE PRIESTHOOD
The LDS church maintains that the primitive church fell into total
apostasy after the death of Christ's apostles, and that they are a
restoration of the true church of Jesus Christ.
Their story is that the Aaronic priesthood was given to Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist; and then later on the
Melchizedek priesthood was bestowed by the Apostles Peter, James
and John. They say that the priesthood is their authority from
God to act in His name and to do His work on earth, which makes
the LDS the only church on earth that has God's legitimate
authority.
However, there is a great deal of confusion here.
Under the Old Covenant, the priests did not act in God's
name. Nor did they represent the authority of God on earth.
Instead the biblical priest represented men to God, and not the
other way around. They were the mediators between men and God.
According to the Bible, it was the prophet who represented God,
in that he was God's voice to the people. The people brought their
sacrifices to the temple, so that the priests could offer them on
their behalf to God, because the priests were their
representatives. For that reason, they also interceded for
the people. The tribe of Levi was set apart as the priestly line.
It was unlawful, and it is unbiblical, for anyone other than a
direct bloodline descendant of Levi to hold the Levitical/Aaronic
priesthood. (Exodus 29:5, Numbers 3:10, 8:23. Aaron was the son
of Levi c/f Numbers 17:1-3, 26:57-59, Joshua 21:10).
Mormonism is an exclusive religion. And although the LDS uses
biblical terminology, they have given meanings to these terms that
will not be found in any dictionary, and nor do they fit in with
what the Bible teaches. (A good example of their deliberately
deceptive use of biblical terms will be found by clicking on this
link: Mormonism's Deceptive Teaching on
Eternal Life .)
At the moment of Christ's death, when the New Covenant was
ratified, the curtain partitioning off the Holy Place where God's
presence dwelt in the temple, ripped into two (Mark 13:2). Hebrews
10:19-20 explains that when Christ shed His blood, thereby
ratifying the New Covenant, He inaugurated a new and living way
for mankind to come directly into the presence of God, through
Christ, under the New Covenant. So the need for man to have a
representative, i.e. someone holding the priesthood, fell away.
None of the members of the primitive church of Jesus Christ
ever held this office. Nor did a single one of them hold the
Melchizedek priesthood; not even the apostles. Christ alone
is the intermediary:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
due time. (1 Timothy, 2:5-6, KJV)
TEACHINGS IN "GOSPEL PRINCIPLES"
In Chapter 13 of their current official teaching manual,
Gospel Principles, the LDS claims that "Our Heavenly
Father shares his priesthood power with worthy male members of the
Church". But this is blasphemy. God doesn't share His power
with anybody. And He is not a priest. He is God.
LDS teachings consistently bring the almighty, holy God of
the universe down to our level, and elevate sinful, fallen mankind
to His. Mormons need to ask themselves, why this should be?
That is Satan's style. The Bible goes to great lengths to explain
that God is our literal Creator, and that we are the work of His
hands. As such, not only do we owe our very existence to Him, but
He holds our very lives in His hands to do with as He wills. Here
is one of the many scriptures that illustrate the truth about the
fact that we are subservient to God in every conceivable way:
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even
by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to
election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It
was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is
written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we
say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he
saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh,
Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew
my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all
the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and
whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he
yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me
thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Romans 9:10-21, KJV
The Mormon teaching that God begot us in the normal reproductive
manner in a pre-existence, was Joseph Smith's idea, and is not
biblical. Joseph was not well educated and had such a problem with
his writing and grammar, that he invariably used scribes to do his
writing for him. So he had little knowledge about the finer
points of language, such as terms of speech. Consequently, when
reading the Bible he jumped to false conclusions.
A study of the culture during biblical times reveals that one of
the many terms of speech in common use, was the word
"Father." And when used in this manner, it implied that
the person concerned was the source or the origin of something.
For instance, in John 8:44, Christ called Satan "the father
of lies," meaning that he is the source of lies, i.e. that
his evil, perverse nature is personified in the spawning of
untruths. Christ amplifies his statement by saying that whenever
Satan speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature.
It was also customary to use the term "Father" when
referring to a person who provided for their needs or
protection; or who was the source of advice, wisdom, and so
on. That's why Job said that he was a father to the poor (Job
29:16). And when Joseph of the coat of many colours took over the
task of managing Egypt during the famine, he said that God had
made him a father to Pharaoh (Genesis 45:8, KJV).
When Christ instructed His followers to call God their Father
in heaven, they knew exactly what He meant. They knew full well
that God wasn't their biological father, but that Christ was
teaching them that God was their sustainer, as well as both the
provider and the source of all their needs. (For a deeper
understanding of Hebrew terms of speech see this article
http://www.bibruth.com/heb.html .)
As explained above, a priest is the go-between, who mediates
between almighty God and mortal man. And 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us
that (under the New Covenant) there is only one mediator between
man and God, the man Christ Jesus, who incidentally held the
Melchizedek priesthood. This subject will be dealt with further
down in this article.
Still in Gospel Principles chapter 13, under the heading,
Why Do We Need the Priesthood on the Earth? the LDS gives
the scripture reference Matthew 7:21-23 (without printing it out
so that we can see what it says), insinuating that it indicates
that even if a man is sincere, unless he possesses the LDS
priesthood, the Lord won't recognize any of the ordinances he
performs (i.e. baptism, laying on of hands and so on).
But Christ wasn't discussing the priesthood in Matthew 7:21-23.
The priesthood isn't mentioned, or even alluded to, in the entire
chapter of Matthew 7. Instead, Christ was teaching how to discern
whether someone is a false prophet, by his fruit. (See verse 20,
immediately preceding the LDS quote, where Christ was explaining
that the way to recognize false prophets is by their fruits.
Prior to that, in 7:16, He had been talking about hypocrisy.)
Besides quoting this scripture completely out of its context, the
LDS has conveniently left out verse 20, immediately preceding their
quote, thereby deliberately giving the false impression that this
scripture backs up their teachings on the priesthood. But
Christ didn't mention or refer to the priesthood anywhere in this
section, because that wasn't what He was talking about. Here
is the entire quote, including the explanatory verses:
Matthew 7:13-23:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad
is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go
in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth
unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which
is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity. (KJV)
(Matthew 7:13-23, KJV)
Where does the above passage mention the word,
"priesthood?" And where does it say that unless one has
the LDS priesthood, God will not recognize any ordinances we
perform? This passage is discussing the hypocrisy of false prophets,
who speak and do "wonderful works" in Christ's name, but
the way that they live reveals that they are not following Him.
When Christ talks about the strait gate mentioned at the start of
the above quote from Matthew 7:13-23, He is referring to Himself.
He consistently taught that He was the gate, the way and the door,
and not once ever so much as hinted that possession of the LDS
priesthood was the way, the gate or the door. Here are some
examples:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the
door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the
same is a thief and a robber. ..... I am the
door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,
and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (John 10:1,9, KJV)
(Emphasis by editor.)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(John 14:6, KJV) (Emphasis by editor)
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me,
that ye might have life. (John 5:39-40, KJV)
For through him [Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access
by one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:18, KJV)
Where do the above scriptures say that the priesthood is the door?
We can make the Bible prove anything we like, by taking scriptures
out of their context. But that's dishonest. And it's not the way to
learn anything but error.
Acts 3 is a good example of how LDS teachings on priesthood, power
and authority contradict the teachings of the Bible. The story of
the lame man sitting begging at the Gate Beautiful, tells us that
in the name of Christ, Peter commanded him to be healed. Then in
verse 12 he explained to the marveling crowd that it was not
due to his power or holiness that this man had been made to
walk. In other words he didn't claim that the miracle was
performed through the power of his priesthood. (Peter never even
held the priesthood.) He goes on to say in verse 16 that it was
solely through faith in the name of Christ that
this man was made whole. The so-called authority of the priesthood
doesn't feature anywhere in the equation. If he had performed
this miracle through the power of the priesthood, he would have
said so. But he didn't. He said it was solely through faith in
Christ.
11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the
people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's,
greatly wondering.
12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of
Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as
though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our
fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and
denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let
him go.
14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer
to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God
hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong,
whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him
this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.(Acts 3:11-16,
KJV)
Neither Christ nor any of His apostles ever taught that it was
necessary to hold the priesthood in order to be able to either
preach the gospel or baptize anyone. And if it was such a dire
necessity, as the LDS insists it is, why did they neglect
to tell us so, or even so much as mention it?
Gospel Principles, page 76, tells us that " A worthy
young man may be ordained a priest when he is 16 years old or
older." But the Bible tells a different story. The priesthood
only pertained to the Old Covenant, not the New. And Numbers 8:23
says that in order to begin serving in the priesthood, the
descendants of Aaron must be at least 25 years of age. (However,
during biblical times, one needed to be over the age of 30 in order
to serve as a teacher or in any other position of leadership, even
when it pertained to the priesthood. This will be discussed later
on in this article.) Mormons ignore both the age restriction as
well as the fact that it is only the bloodline of Levi that
qualifies for the priesthood. Why?
The LDS church is entitled to have whatever office bearers they
please in their church. But then they mustn't claim to be biblical,
and nor must they claim to have the same organization as the
primitive church, or to be a restoration of that church. What is
even more puzzling is that on one of their official websites they
are now claiming to be a "Christian denomination." (See
Mormonism's Claim to be a Christian
Denomination .)
THE TWO COVENANTS
The Old Covenant and the New are two completely separate and
different covenants, The Old Covenant with its priesthood,
sacrifices and temple, was solely between Jehovah God and the
nation of Israel. The church of Jesus Christ falls under the New
Covenant, that was ratified by Christ's shed blood. The
sacrificial system, the priesthood and the temple all fall away
under the New Covenant, as they are part and parcel of the Old
Covenant set up.
Mormonism consists of a combination of both Old and New Covenants
practices, mixed in with their own exclusive theology that doesn't
fit in with either covenant. But that wasn't how the primitive
church of Jesus Christ functioned. The priesthood belonged to the
Old Covenant and was associated with the temple and the
sacrificial system. So this office was not necessary and therefore
did not exist under the New Covenant of grace. The primitive church
never had a temple, because that belonged to the Old Covenant. The
temple was the place where God's presence dwelt. Under the New
Covenant believers in Christ are the temple of God, as they are
indwelt by His Spirit:
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall
God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
(1 Corinthians 3:16-17, KJV)
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
(1 Corinthians 6:19, KJV)
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are
the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in
them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be
my people. (2 Corinthians 6:16, KJV)
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And
are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the
building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the
Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God
through the Spirit. (Ephesians 1:19-22, KJV)
As will be seen from the above scriptures, the word
"temple" is used to denote the place where God's presence
dwells. Prior to the New Covenant, His presence dwelt in the Old
Covenant temple. But once the New Covenant had been ratified by
Christ's shed blood, believers who trusted in Christ for salvation
from sin, were born again, or born of the Spirit (John 3). This
meant that God indwelt them by His Spirit, and to all intents and
purposes they were the temple of God.
When we go to the book of Revelation, the same applies. Several
times reference is made to the temple in heaven. But
Christians of that day understood perfectly well that this
indicated that heaven was the dwelling place of God. And this is
confirmed by the following scripture, which is referring to the
heavenly Jerusalem:
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb
are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither
of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it,
and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Revelation 21:22-23, KJV)
The only temples mentioned in the New Testament, other than the
Jewish temple in Jerusalem, were those of idolaters.
N.B. Although, right at the very beginning of the church, the
apostles did go to the Jerusalem temple, this was only to enable
them to spread the gospel amongst the unsaved Jews, because that is
where the Jews gathered. The very early church consisted of Jews.
And Jews were permitted to teach in the temple courtyard. The
church's mandate was to preach the gospel first to the Jews, and
then to the Greeks (Gentiles.)
There is a link to an article on the differences between the LDS
temples and God's temple of biblical times, at the end of this
page.
THE BIBLICAL PRIESTHOOD
According to the Bible, the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was an
office that was inherited solely by males who were
genuine, direct bloodline descendants of Levi, without
exception. Never ever was the priesthood passed on by laying
of hands, by some person with so-called authority, to another.
Authority had nothing to do with it. It was the bloodline that
was the deciding factor. Moreover, anyone who presumptuously
performed the duties of a priest without being in that direct
bloodline came under God's judgment, as did King Uzziah in 2
Chronicles 26:16-21. That's why the Jews were so strict
about their genealogies. Unlike the practices in the Book of
Mormon, which reveal a dismal lack of knowledge about the Jewish
religion, those who were not of the line of Levi were not allowed
to hold the priesthood.
Then too, not all men in the line of Levi were permitted to serve as
priests. There were additional qualifications that had to be adhered
to, besides the bloodline. These are carefully laid out in
Leviticus chapter 21. Needless to say they were also ignored by
Joseph Smith, who invented his own qualifications. (According to
Leviticus 21, Joseph would have been disqualified, even if he had
been of the line of Levi, due to the surgery on his leg where a
section of the bone had been removed.) To put it bluntly the whole
LDS priesthood debacle is way out of line with biblical teaching,
and is in direct contravention of God's specific instructions.
Another biblical practice that the LDS ignores in its claim to
have the same organization as the restored primitive church, is
that no man under the age of 30 was ever permitted to hold any
position of authority or leadership (c/f Numbers 4:34-35),
including full service in the priesthood. This practice of limiting
authority to men over the age of thirty is a historical fact. You
can read through the entire Bible, without discovering a single
case of anyone under the age of 30 who ever held any office or
served in any position of leadership. That's why Christ waited
until He was thirty before He began His ministry. Yet Mormons ordain
their men as elders (an LDS priesthood office) when they are still
in their late teens or early twenties and inexperienced in the ways
of life. But the biblical post of elder had nothing whatsoever to do
with the priesthood. Priests were never elders, and elders were
never priests. They were completely separate posts, in every
way. And the position of elder was always (under both the Old
and New Covenants) only occupied by older, mature men of
wisdom.
In the real world, Elder means an older person. However,
the LDS has invented their own meanings for all of the
biblical terms, none of which will be found in any dictionary.
Mormonism is a religion of deception.
For a more detailed discussion of the biblical qualifications for an
elder, the article The Organization of the LDS
Church includes an entire section on biblical Elders, their
qualifications and their duties, and compares them with those
of the LDS.
Because the Lord Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, He didn't
qualify to hold the Levitical priesthood (Matthew 5:17). His
priesthood was of the order of Melchizedek, the biblical requirement
of which was the power of an indestructible life. He qualified in
this regard as the grave couldn't hold Him, and He arose out of it
in bodily form. Consequently, He still holds the Melchizedek
Priesthood, and according to Hebrews 7:23-25 given below, only one
person can hold this priesthood at a time. This means that the LDS
church is in error in granting the Melchizedek priesthood to their
male members.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,
of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that
our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing
concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that
after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but
after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews
7:13-17 KJV) (Author's italics.)
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to
continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth
ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able
also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing
he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:23-25 KJV).
(Italics inserted by writer.)
If God decreed that Christ Himself didn't qualify for the
Levitical/Aaronic priesthood because he had the wrong lineage, then
what makes Mormons believe that they're entitled to qualify? And
how many Mormon men holding the so-called Melchizedek priesthood,
have risen from the grave? Regardless of their claims, Mormons
belong to the fallen race of mortal man, and as such have no rights
to the Melchizedek priesthood. John 1:1 tells us that Christ,
who held the Melchizedek priesthood, was deity. And the New
Testament gives record of the fact that the grave could not hold
Him.
CHRIST'S DEATH RATIFIED THE NEW COVENANT
Christ was born a Jew, in Israel. Because the New Covenant had not
yet been ratified by his shed blood on the cross, He lived under
and fulfilled the the Old Covenant between the Israelites and
Jehovah God. Contrary to LDS teachings, which maintain that he
fulfilled their laws and ordinances; the truth is that as an Old
Covenant Jew, He knew nothing of Mormon laws and ordinances, only
of Judaism. Mormonism didn't even exist at that stage. Then He
gave Himself as the final, perfect, unblemished sacrifice to cover
the sins of those who trust in Him as their Messiah. His shed
blood ratified the New Covenant of grace and rendered the Old
Covenant and its priesthood obsolete.
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now
that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(Hebrews 8:13, KJV).
THE LEVITICAL/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD IS OBSOLETE
The Levitical/Aaronic priesthood is Old Covenant theology,
tied up with the Mosaic Law, the sacrificial system and the
temple. Whilst it is true that the New Testament refers to
High Priests and so on, we need to remember that the Old Covenant,
with its Law, temple and priesthood, was between God and the
nation of Israel, not the church. The church falls under the New
Covenant. And until the Jews, including those mentioned in
the New Testament, accept the crucified Christ as their Messiah,
they still fall under the Old Covenant with its priesthood and
temple. Bear in mind that the gospels in the New Testament
were written during the transitional period between the Old and
the New Covenants, as the New Covenant was only ratified on the
death of Christ. And then, the majority of the Jews never accepted
Him as their Messiah. So they remained under the Old Covenant of
Law, between Israel and God.
Because Christ lived under the Old Covenant, he attended the
Jewish temple. But His shed blood at His death ratified a New
Covenant and ushered in a new dispensation. Nowhere in the New
Testament do we find mention of any church member ever being given
the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. That went out along with the Old
Covenant, the temple and the sacrificial system. None of the
apostles ever held the priesthood. (The priest represented man to
God.) And only Christ qualified to hold the Melchizedek
priesthood.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all ..... (1 Timothy
2:5-6, KJV).
The death of Christ ushered in a new era under a New Covenant. Now
all who are "in Christ" are priests in the sense that we
have direct access to God through the blood of Christ, who gave
Himself as our substitutionary sacrifice.
The priesthood that pertains to the church under the New Covenant
has no connection with that of the Aaronic/Levitical, but is the
"spiritual" priesthood mentioned in 1 Peter 2:5 and 9.
And this spiritual priesthood applies to all believers who
are "in Christ," regardless of race, gender or
nationality, (Galations 3:28). In contrast, the LDS
priesthood, which like that of the Old Covenant, is limited to men.
And until fairly recently it was restricted to those who were
white only. So the LDS is really out of line with biblical
teaching here.
The Bible teaches that New Covenant 'priests' offer spiritual
sacrifices, such as praise. (Hebrews 13:15, I Peter 2:5).
(Addressing the body of Christ, Peter said:) ..... Ye also, as
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5, KJV) (Author's italics)
"THE CHURCH" IS NOT ISRAEL UNDER ANOTHER
NAME
Whereas Israel is a nation, the New Covenant church is comprised of
an elect body of regenerated believers in Christ, who come from
every tribe and nation. They're not a continuation of Israel
under another name. So scriptures, teachings, practices,
prophecies and promises applying to Israel as a nation under the Old
Covenant, should not be applied to the church. God hasn't finished
dealing with the nation of Israel yet. Although He has set them
aside, this is only temporary. The apostle Paul writes:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also
am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew ..... For I
would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part
is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in
..... (Romans 11:1, 2, 25, KJV)
Israel falls under the Old Covenant and is a physical religion in
the sense that their promises were all physical. They were promised
a physical land of their own where they could rest from their
wanderings, physical health and prosperity, and victory over their
physical enemies, as long as they were faithful to God. And if they
weren't, they were promised physical curses (Deuteronomy 28 to
29:1). On the other hand, under the New Covenant the church are
promised a spiritual rest, victory over their spiritual enemies
and every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ Jesus
(Ephesians 1:3). All that the followers of Christ are promised in
this world, is tribulation (John 16:33).
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36, KJV)
THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD
The First Presidency of the LDS church always holds the Melchizedek
priesthood. But they don't qualify to hold this priesthood any more
than they qualify to hold the Aaronic. As already mentioned, the
book of Hebrews makes the point that the qualification for the
Melchizedek priesthood is the power of an indestructible life.
And that presents a real problem for Mormons. None of them have
ever risen from the grave. Not a single one. Furthermore, it could
only be held by one person at a time. And Christ still holds the
Melchizedek priesthood (Hebrews 5:5-7; 7:15-17).
However, the LDS always has a long list of "excuses" to
explain away the vast number of errors and contradictions in their
teachings. LDS Apostle and doctrinal writer Bruce McConkie gives
the peculiar explanation that the Melchizedek priesthood was
eternal because it was occupied by God's people from Adam onward
(Mormon Doctrine, page 475). But that is not what the word
"eternal" means. And anyway, the Melchizedek priesthood
was never practiced by the Jews, even although they were God's
chosen people. Nor was it ever given to ordinary people at all.
Because of the qualifications given in the book of Hebrews of an
indestructible life and because the one tenth that Abraham gave to
Melchizedek was the amount specified as a tithe to the Lord, one
could surmise that the Melchizedek of Genesis was a theophany of
Christ.
LDS DECEPTION REGARDING PRIESTHOOD REVELATIONS
Mormonism is an evolving religion. All of their major doctrines have
been changed, some of them several times.
Right from the start Joseph Smith set the precedent of changing LDS
doctrines whenever it suited his purposes. He put these changes down
to revelations from God.
David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, was
also one of the six foundational members of the LDS church. And he
became deeply concerned over the deceptions being perpetrated in
Mormonism, especially when it came to the LDS priesthood. This is
what he says:
The next grievous error which crept into the church was in ordaining
high priests in June, 1831. This error was introduced at the
instigation of Sydney Rigdon. The office of high priests was never
spoken of, and never thought of being established in the church
until Rigdon came in. Remember that we had been preaching from
August, 1829, until June, 1831 — almost two years — and
had baptized about 2,000 members into the Church of Christ, [an
earlier title of the LDS church] and had not one high priest. During
1829, several times we were told by Brother Joseph that an elder was
the highest office in the church. In December, 1830, Sydney Rigdon
and Edward Partridge came from Kirtland, Ohio, to Fayette, N.Y., to
see Brother Joseph .... Rigdon would expound the Old
Testament scriptures of the Bible [remember that the
church falls under the New Covenant, not the Old] and Book of Mormon
(in his way) to Joseph, concerning the priesthood, high priests,
etc., and would persuade Brother Joseph to inquire of the Lord about
this doctrine and that doctrine, and of course a revelation would
always come just as they desired it. Rigdon finally persuaded Brother
Joseph to believe that the high priests which had such great power in
ancient times, should be in the Church of Christ to-day. He had
Brother Joseph inquire of the Lord about it, and they received an
answer according to their erring desires.
You have changed the revelations from the way they were
first given and as they are to-day in the Book of
Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph
in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have
changed the revelations to support the error of high priests.
You have changed the revelations to support the error of a
President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have
altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain
teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon.
(An Address to All Believers in Christ David Whitmer,
Richmond, Missouri, 1887, pages 35, 49.) (Emphasis inserted by
editor.)
D. Michael Quinn, former LDS historian, confirms:
"Men were first ordained to the higher priesthood over a year
after the church’s founding. No mention of angelic
ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35."
The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 15.
He goes on to say:
"The revelation referring to the Aaronic restoration is missing
from the Book of Commandments, as well as from the original church
history as published in The Evening and Morning Star
(edition dated March 1833, p.6). The only known manuscript copy of
the revelation makes no reference to the LDS priesthoods
either." The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power,
page 16.
Grant H. Palmer, a Mormon Seminary teacher, received his M.A. in
American history from Brigham Young University in 1968. He maintains
that:
"By degrees, the accounts [of LDS priesthood restoration]
became more detailed and more miraculous ..... Details usually become
blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened ......
The most plausible explanation is that they were retrofitted to an
1829-30 time period to give the impression that an impressive and
unique authority had existed in the church from the beginning"
(An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, pages 228-230).
Seeing they falsified their claims about their so-called priesthood
authority some years after the LDS had been brought into being,
by what authority did Joseph Smith institute the LDS church? By
what authority did they baptize their first few thousand
converts? Mormons need to understand that the LDS's so-called
"authority" is nothing more than a red herring, and their
priesthood nothing more than an afterthought, in an attempt to make
the Mormon religion seem more impressive.
EARLY MORMON DOCUMENTS
According to Dan Vogel, there are no Church documents that describe
the angelic restoration of the priesthood, 1834 (c/f Early
Mormon Documents.)(Bear in mind that the church was established
in 1830):
"The first time that any mention of angelic messengers is
documented was in 1834 at a meeting of the Kirtland High Council.
Soon after, Cowdery also started to talk about angels. In 1835, he
said, '[Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or
Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself ..... After this we
received the high and holy priesthood' " (Early Mormon
Documents 2:452-453).
SUMMARY
The LDS maintains that they have the same organization as the
primitive church. But neither history nor the Bible supports their
stance. The clear indications are that Joseph Smith invented
Mormonism as he went along, to fit in with his own, personal
agenda. Consequently, Mormonism of today bears very little
resemblance to Mormonism as it was in the early days, when Smith
claimed to have restored "the true church." After he had
established the LDS, he kept changing their doctrines, right up
until the day he died, every time he found something else that
suited his purposes better. But truth never changes. It is
eternal. And the fact that LDS doctrines have been changed
means that they must have either been wrong at the start, or else
they are wrong now.
Joseph Smith was a deceiver and a false prophet. (See the article
Joseph Smith, the Latter-day False
Prophet .)
As revealed above, the LDS priesthood (through which they now
claim they have God's authority for the gospel) was only introduced
some years after the LDS church had already been in existence.
And it wasn't even Joseph Smith's idea. Sidney Rigdon persuaded
him that introducing the priesthood into the LDS church would make
it more impressive. But by this time thousands of folk had
already been baptized into membership without any priesthood in the
church. Nevertheless, Joseph felt that Sidney Rigdon was on to
a good thing, and so he prayed for a revelation to back up his
ideas. Oh my.
Deception was a way of life for Joseph Smith, and it has been woven
into the very fabric of Mormonism. (See the article
Mormonism's Foundation of Deception .)
So after carefully covering up the fact that the LDS had operated as
the only true church for quite some time before Sidney Rigdon had
persuaded him to introduce both the Aaronic and Melchizedek
priesthoods, Joseph made the following brash claim:
"All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without
the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchizedek,
which is after the order of the Son of God." (Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by 10th LDS President and
Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, page 375.)
It is obvious from the above statement, that Joseph Smith had no
conscience at all, or any sense of shame.
There are four types of priesthood in biblical history:
Firstly, prior to Abraham, there was the family priest. (Job lived
before Abraham, and was a priest to his family, i.e. he interceded
on their behalf to God.) Secondly there was the Melchizedek
priesthood, which can only be held by one person at a time, and the
qualification for which is the power of an indestructible life.
And seeing Christ still holds the Melchizedek priesthood, no one
else is permitted to do so. Thirdly there were the Levitical
priests under the Old Covenant. The physical descendants of Levi
were the sole source of this priesthood. Then lastly there is the
spiritual priesthood that applies to all believers, regardless of
race, nationality or gender, under the New Covenant. The Mormon
priesthood doesn't fit in with any of these.
The first priestly sacrifice offered to God by all who are "in
Christ," both male and female, is themselves, as a living
sacrifice (Romans 12.1.) They also offer the sacrifice of praise
(Hebrews 13:15) and the sacrifices of doing good and sharing
(Hebrews 13.16).
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,
which is your reasonable service. (Romans 12:1, KJV).
By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his
name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such
sacrifices God is well pleased. (Hebrews 13:15-16, LJV)
By "restoring" the temple and its Levitical/Aaronic
priesthood, laws and ordinances, the LDS church has taken Mormons
back into the Old Covenant of Law. However, it must be said that
the LDS temple, rituals and priesthood bear no resemblance
whatsoever to those of the Bible. So how Joseph Smith could ever
have imagined that these things were being "restored"
is beyond a thinking person's comprehension. Nevertheless, the
restoration of Old Covenant practices, and of reverting to earning
grace (2 Nephi 25:23, Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, pages 339,
408, The Miracle of Forgiveness, LDS President and Prophet
Kimball, pages 206-207); amounts to the same thing as trampling
underfoot the blood of Christ that ratified the New Covenant of
forgiveness of sins by grace, through faith.
The following links will take you to articles on how greatly the
LDS's organization differs from that of the primitive church, in
the areas of deacons, elders, prophets and apostles, and on the
question of so-called authority, as well as to other articles
mentioned above:
Comparing the LDS's Organization with that of the
Primitive Church
The LDS Authority Teaching Has No Basis
LDS Temples Compared with Those of Biblical Times
The Book of Mormon Exposed
To access a comprehensive index of articles comparing various
aspects of Mormonism with what the Bible teaches, click on the
"home" button at the bottom of this page.
Copyright 2007, Mormonism and Biblical Truth. All rights reserved.
