The Great Apostacy!

[Bill the Cat]

Jesus has always held the priesthood but that does not mean that Adam

There was no Salem or Jerusalem there, and Adam was not a King.

Enoch,

Ditto above.

Abraham

Abraham wasn't the king of Salem, but he DID meet him.

, Moses

Ditto above. Moses was not a king or a priest.

and on and on did not also hold it

When you can show me someone who was the recognized king of Jerusalem who also acted in a priestly manner, then you may have a potential one.

The priesthood is an order and thus it is delegated to more than one individual.

Yup. but only 2 others, not every "worthy" male. The only thing that made one "worthy" of the priesthood in question was they were a priest/king of Jerusalem.

The Father and Jesus do make the rules on how its used and those who hold it simply use it in behalf of them. Perhaps our communication problem is based that we both have different perceptions on what it is and how its used.

Because you use it in a manner wholly inconsistent with the Bible.

[master_mormon]

There was no Salem or Jerusalem there, and Adam was not a King.

Ditto above.

Abraham wasn't the king of Salem, but he DID meet him.

Ditto above. Moses was not a king or a priest.

When you can show me someone who was the recognized king of Jerusalem who also acted in a priestly manner, then you may have a potential one.

Yup. but only 2 others, not every "worthy" male. The only thing that made one "worthy" of the priesthood in question was they were a priest/king of Jerusalem.

Because you use it in a manner wholly inconsistent with the Bible.

So in your view in order for one to have the priesthood, the must be a king of Salem? If that is correct than its clear that your understainding of the priesthood and our understanding is not on the same wavelength. If anyone is inconsistent with the Bible it is you because I believe you made the claim of a "priesthood of all believers" which is inconsistent with the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

[Cow Poke]

So in your view in order for one to have the priesthood, the must be a king of Salem? If that is correct than its clear that your understainding of the priesthood and our understanding is not on the same wavelength. If anyone is inconsistent with the Bible it is you because I believe you made the claim of a "priesthood of all believers" which is inconsistent with the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

(Sorry, Bill... couldn't resist)

[JAYMZ]

So in your view in order for one to have the priesthood, the must be a king of Salem? If that is correct than its clear that your understainding of the priesthood and our understanding is not on the same wavelength. If anyone is inconsistent with the Bible it is you because I believe you made the claim of a "priesthood of all believers" which is inconsistent with the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

The problem is your method of interpretation. You are taking priesthood in a very literal way.




1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of this role. Christ is a " type of " Melchizedek in the ultimate sense. What mormons qualify to the description above ? None.

It is also absurd that there is a current mormon levitical priesthood as well.

[OneSizeFit]

Any talk about Melchizedek beyond what Jaymz wrote is pure speculation. I think Hebrews is even pushing it a bit.

[Bill the Cat]

So in your view in order for one to have the priesthood, the must be a king of Salem?

All 3 who were said to possess it in the Bible were.

If that is correct than its clear that your understainding of the priesthood and our understanding is not on the same wavelength.

I'm fully aware of that. Your church bases their understanding on the priesthood on made up requirements that hold no support from the Bible.

If anyone is inconsistent with the Bible it is you because I believe you made the claim of a "priesthood of all believers" which is inconsistent with the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

Ok. You are wrong.

1 Peter 2:5
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.


1 Peter 2:9
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;


Who is this "you" Peter is speaking of?

1 Peter 2:7
This precious value, then, is for you who believe;

[Sparko]

<Sarcasm>

But Bill! the bible is corrupt!

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[Bill the Cat]

<Sarcasm>

But Bill! the bible is corrupt!

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

I'm expecting any minute a question on the authenticity of 1 and 2 Peter...

[Sparko]

I'm expecting any minute a question on the authenticity of 1 and 2 Peter...

been a long minute, Bill.

I think they ran away from this thread.

[Bill the Cat]

They know that history and the Bible are no friends to their ideas of the Great Apostasy happening in the first or second centuries.

[BrotherAardvark]

The mormon religion claims that God used joseph smith to restore His Church due to the Church being apostate for 1800 years but trying to find out from mormons when this great apostacy happened is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. Hopefully the lds members on this forum can enlighten us as to when this great apostacy happened?

Can you say when the Catholic Church had gone wrong enough for Martin Luther to usher in the reformation?

We were not there, so we don't know. We just see the result of it.

It happened exactly sometime in between the death of the Apostles and Joseph Smith's first vision.

In my opinion, it happened when the church leaders decided to divorce the Savior and marry the Roman state, thus Christ's bride was turned into an adulterous whore. It was really too bad, because there were probably a lot of good people in the church when their leaders let that happen.

Thank God the bible survived, and thank God that there have always been some people on the earth who made sure the bible was preserved, even though it was used to control people in horrific ways until the invention of the printing press started a movement that set the bible free to bless the lives of the masses in spite of the evil leaders who tried to maintain control with an iron fist.

[Bill the Cat]

It happened exactly sometime in between the death of the Apostles and Joseph Smith's first vision.

So where was the Man of Sin?

[One Bad Pig]

Can you say when the Catholic Church had gone wrong enough for Martin Luther to usher in the reformation?

1054 - but that's an argument for another thread.

In my opinion, it happened when the church leaders decided to divorce the Savior and marry the Roman state, thus Christ's bride was turned into an adulterous whore. It was really too bad, because there were probably a lot of good people in the church when their leaders let that happen.

Your brother Mormons don't agree with you; they think it happened much earlier (and for good reason - the pre-Constantine writings of the early Church rather contradict Mormonism).

Thank God the bible survived, and thank God that there have always been some people on the earth who made sure the bible was preserved, even though it was used to control people in horrific ways until the invention of the printing press started a movement that set the bible free to bless the lives of the masses in spite of the evil leaders who tried to maintain control with an iron fist.

Good thing you're not in a situation where the statements of living prophets are more important than script --- oh, wait. Try openly disagreeing with a statement by one of your leaders, and see how far you get.

[BrotherAardvark]

Your brother Mormons don't agree with you;

Mormons have their own opinions about a lot of stuff.

I've never heard a general authority pinpoint the exact date of the apostasy. Nor do we have any revelations that pinpoint the exact date. All we have is the words of those who lived in those time (history), and it is the result that matters.

The church is made up of imperfect beings, so error has (and does to this day) crop up from time to time, but it can be corrected up to a certain point. In my opinion, the church could have been salvaged up to the point where the Roman state was given control. After that it was toast.

The reformers did what they could, and we admire them for that. They were very courageous to go up against insurmountable powers to start making things right again.

It took the American revolution to provide an atmosphere where God could actually restore the priesthood and the keys. Even then, it was almost quashed by the evil intents of some people (both within and without the church).

Other Mormons are free to disagree. There is nothing wrong with holding various opinions on when the apostasy occurred.

[Bill the Cat]

Mormons have their own opinions about a lot of stuff.

I've never heard a general authority pinpoint the exact date of the apostasy. Nor do we have any revelations that pinpoint the exact date. All we have is the words of those who lived in those time (history), and it is the result that matters.

And scripture matters too. And scripture declares that the Man of Sin would be revealed when the apostasy occurred, so Ik again... where was he?

The church is made up of imperfect beings, so error has (and does to this day) crop up from time to time, but it can be corrected up to a certain point. In my opinion, the church could have been salvaged up to the point where the Roman state was given control. After that it was toast.

Error is not apostasy.

The reformers did what they could, and we admire them for that. They were very courageous to go up against insurmountable powers to start making things right again.

The reformers still agreed with the Catholic Church that God is triune in His nature, that Jesus is eternally God, and other doctrines. They disagreed with things like keeping the Word from the masses, indulgences, and other issues of government. Notice that none of the 95 theses were doctrinal in subject matter.

It took the American revolution to provide an atmosphere where God could actually restore the priesthood and the keys. Even then, it was almost quashed by the evil intents of some people (both within and without the church).

What "priesthood"? Where do you see these "priesthoods" in the New Testament church?