Levitical and Melchizedek priesthoods

[onefour1]

I guess my first question is: Why does Jesus need to be a mediator between the people and himself. Doesn't the term mediator suggest a third party between two other parties to work out a problem? If Jesus one of the two parties with the problem, why is he a mediator between himself and the other party?

In follow up to the above:

1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Notice how the mediator, Christ Jesus, is between two other parties, God and men. Jesus Christ is a separate and distinct being and personage from God the Father.

[Bill the Cat]

In follow up to the above:

1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Notice how the mediator, Christ Jesus, is between two other parties, God and men. Jesus Christ is a separate and distinct being and personage from God the Father.

Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow. Jesus is here called a man. Jesus is both man and God (and notice Paul says there is ONE God, not two). So, if your conclusion is drawn from from this verse, then Jesus is not God, but is only a man, since you have declared the separate personage of the Father as the ONE God.

[Sparko]

In follow up to the above:

1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Notice how the mediator, Christ Jesus, is between two other parties, God and men. Jesus Christ is a separate and distinct being and personage from God the Father.

no. He is mediator because he is fully God and fully human. and since there is only ONE God, he is the same being as the Father (not the same person)

[JAYMZ]

In follow up to the above:

1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Notice how the mediator, Christ Jesus, is between two other parties, God and men. Jesus Christ is a separate and distinct being and personage from God the Father.

So, once again, are you using this verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ ?

As sparko said, Christ has two natures. Paul even thinks so.

Scripture Verse:

Romans 1:1-6 (New International Version 1984)

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6 And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

[JAYMZ]

I just met two LDS members in their early 20s who said they are currently holding the Melchizedek priesthood. I asked them why they could be considered priests " in the order of Melchizedek, " but they just wanted to tell me about how confusing it was to know which Church God wants us to attend. They weren't really prepared to go outside their track. Its like a soulless sales pitch. The sales pitch that they were programmed to give. Every missionary, every time. They didn't really strike me as Melchizedek priests. I really couldn't picture Abraham offering a tenth to these nice young men though.

[jo7241974]

I just met two LDS members in their early 20s who said they are currently holding the Melchizedek priesthood. I asked them why they could be considered priests " in the order of Melchizedek, " but they just wanted to tell me about how confusing it was to know which Church God wants us to attend. They weren't really prepared to go outside their track. Its like a soulless sales pitch. The sales pitch that they were programmed to give. Every missionary, every time. They didn't really strike me as Melchizedek priests. I really couldn't picture Abraham offering a tenth to these nice young men though.

This should help you understand the various callings and positions within the Priesthoods (source Wikipedia):

Priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Aaronic priesthood offices
Deacon • Teacher • Priest • Bishop

Melchizedek priesthood offices
Elder • Seventy • High priest • Patriarch • Apostle

Priesthood quorums and bodies
Quorum • First Presidency • Quorum of the Twelve Apostles • Quorums of the Seventy • Presiding Bishopric • Council on the Disposition of the Tithes • Common Council of the Church • Council of the Church • Council of Fifty • High council • Disciplinary council

Priesthood callings
President of the Church • President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles • Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles • Prophet, seer, and revelator • General authority • Presiding Patriarch • Patriarch emeritus • Presiding Bishop • Temple president • Mission president • Stake president •Church Historian and Recorder • High councilor • Branch president

Tithes are given directly to a Ward's Bishop (who must be a High Priest, or has a right-by-lineage to that calling, in which case he does not also need to be a High Priest), or to either of his counselors by the person making the tithe. Therefore, the two young men you met would not even be allowed to accept a tithe. Also, it would be highly unusual for men in their early twenties to even hold the position as a High Priest. If the two men you are talking about were Missionary companions, then their position within the Melchizedek Priesthood would have been "Elder", which is the first level within that Priesthood.

Inasmuch as a full-time Missionary's purpose is to spread the Gospel message, and, because it is not a requirement for them to be Theologians or even be trained to become a Theologian, you will be hard pressed to find an Elder serving his mission who is well versed enough to even have the type of discussion you have trained yourself in. Just as the Disciples of the NT, no official in-depth training is required to spread the Gospel. What is needed is the desire to serve Father, a keen love for their Savior, language training (when appropriate in accordance with where they are called to serve), some teaching guidelines, and a prayer-filled and scripture study-filled, and proselyting-filled schedule which involves a true 24/7 dedication to serving God for the length of 24 months for young men, and 18 months for young women. They are set apart for this purpose at which time they are given the mantle of the Power and Authority to perform their specified responsibilities of this calling. This "mantle" includes a special blessing of the Holy Ghost who then guides and directs them during their mission. When confronted by someone who wishes to "dismantle" them (such as being faced with someone like you and your agenda), the Holy Ghost instructs them to leave. You will see precedent for this behavior of leaving found in the NT as well. They do not stay where they do not feel welcomed and/or where their message is not being received.

Do not project your agenda and your resulting expectations as ignorance on their part with their true and simple purpose, motivated by their own pure love for serving Father and Jesus Christ. If you wish to argue theology with the LDS, you will need to find someone else in the Church to attack. The Missionaries are messengers; they are not the military. Is it really your true intent to shoot the messenger? With your arsenal of anti-propaganda weaponry, do you feel superior when you feel you have been able to trample the messenger and appear taller because you are standing on top of them?

You show a lot of courage when expressing your beliefs on this forum from the protection of your own home. Would you have the courage it takes to go out and spread your message into a field where you might, at any moment, be met with hostility; have doors slammed in your face; be mocked and verbally abused; etc., over and over again? Would you yet have the courage to persist in that mission 24/7 for 24 months of your life depending only upon God and the guidance of the Holy Ghost and with only the physical support of a companion assigned to you who is periodically changed so that you are continually learning to deal with new personalities and other young men you have never met before?

Regards,

jo

[RBerman]

Tithes are given directly to a Ward's Bishop (who must be a High Priest, or has a right-by-lineage to that calling, in which case he does not also need to be a High Priest), or to either of his counselors by the person making the tithe. Therefore, the two young men you met would not even be allowed to accept a tithe. Also, it would be highly unusual for men in their early twenties to even hold the position as a High Priest. If the two men you are talking about were Missionary companions, then their position within the Melchizedek Priesthood would have been "Elder", which is the first level within that Priesthood.

As we've been discussing in this thread, the Biblical role of elder (presbyter) has nothing to do with Christ's Melchizedekean priesthood. It simply means that the church should be ruled by the oldest, most mature men. It makes a mockery of that office to assign the title "Elder" to teenage boys, however brave they are to spend two years of their life evangelizing total strangers. In fact, it lends a definite aura of sadness to their endeavor.

[jo7241974]

As we've been discussing in this thread, the Biblical role of elder (presbyter) has nothing to do with Christ's Melchizedekean priesthood. It simply means that the church should be ruled by the oldest, most mature men. It makes a mockery of that office to assign the title "Elder" to teenage boys, however brave they are to spend two years of their life evangelizing total strangers. In fact, it lends a definite aura of sadness to their endeavor.

"Elder" is the first level within the Melchizedek Priesthood:

Melchizedek priesthood offices:

Elder • Seventy • High priest • Patriarch • Apostle

Do you have an opinion on how "old" an Elder should be before he should be qualified to be called such? Is there a particular "age" you think is better for men to serve a mission? Should they serve it without the benefit of the Higher Priesthood? Would it be better if they were already married and had children, whereby they wouldn't really be able to concentrate entirely on God 24/7?

Do you have Biblical support for your opinion? Or is this just a statement based on your emotions and dislike for the LDS Church? Are you just shooting in the dark here?

Regards,

jo

[RBerman]

Do you have an opinion on how "old" an Elder should be before he should be qualified to be called such? Is there a particular "age" you think is better for men to serve a mission? Should they serve it without the benefit of the Higher Priesthood? Would it be better if they were already married and had children, whereby they wouldn't really be able to concentrate entirely on God 24/7? Do you have Biblical support for your opinion? Or is this just a statement based on your emotions and dislike for the LDS Church? Are you just shooting in the dark here?

I'm surprised that you would frame your questions in this manner, Jo. Do I have a reputation with you for "shooting in the dark" and making "statements based on emotions"? You should know by now that it's always my goal to back up my theological claims with appeals to the Bible. Here are some of the relevant Scriptures concerning elders in the church:

Titus 1:5-9

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Acts 20:17,18,28

Now from Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them... "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."

Notice how these passages use elder (presbyter) and overseer (episkopos) synonymously to describe the leaders of the local church "in every town." The second of these terms appears in Paul's similar advice to Timothy:

1 Timothy 3:1-7

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Note that Paul assumes that the elders are old enough to have children who are old enough to be accused of "debauchery" or being not "submissive" or of "insubordination." That wouldn't be the case if it were normative to have elders who were only teenagers themselves. Here's another passage:

1 Peter 5:1-5

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders.

In identifying the elders as those who "exercise oversight" over the local church, Peter contrasts them with those in the congregation who are young, showing that the young people are not "elders" themselves. None of this was new or unusual; the elders of Israel exercised rule over God's people throughout the OT and the gospels as well. "Elder" was not a random title, but a descriptor of the sort of man who filled the role: a mature, seasoned adult who's raised his own family and is prepared to lead God's family.

[Cow Poke]

Do you have an opinion on how "old" an Elder should be before he should be qualified to be called such?

Regards,

jo

Jo, some things are just so obviously wrong, you don't need to get into degrees of wrongness.
If somebody were having sex with a 5 year old, would you indignantly demand to know what is the PROPER age for sex, or would you agree it's just flat wrong.

Calling a teenager an "elder" is just plain goofy.

[OtherCheek]

Calling a teenager an "elder" is just plain goofy.

I understand the sentiment, CP.

In our church, the term "Elder" refers to an office in the higher priesthood. When the term is used as such we aren't using it as a designation of age. Men of all ages are ordained to that office.

Here is the LDS perspective on that priesthood office:

Elders

Elders. The term elders is used in various ways in the Bible. In many instances in the O.T. it has reference to the older men in a tribe, usually entrusted with the governmental affairs. Their age and experience made their counsel sought often. This was not necessarily a priesthood calling. Gen. 50:7, Ruth 4:2, Matt. 15:2, and Acts 4:5 are examples of this usage.

There were ordained elders in the Melchizedek Priesthood in O.T. times, as in Ex. 24:9–11 and Num. 11:16. Among the Nephites there were also ordained elders in the priesthood (Alma 4:7, 16; 6:1; Moro. 3:1; 4:1; 6:1, 7). In the N.T., elders are mentioned as priesthood offices in the church (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19; James 5:14–15). The term elder as used in the N.T. is from the Greek presybteros. The detailed duties of the ordained elders in the Church today have been defined by latter-day revelation (D&C 20:42–45; 42:44–52; 46:2; 107:12).

Elder is the proper title given to all holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Thus an apostle is an elder in this sense, and it is proper to speak of members of the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Quorum of the Seventy by this title (D&C 20:38; cf. 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Jn. 1:1; 3 Jn. 1:1). See also Ministry.

http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/elders?lang=eng&letter=e

[Sparko]

I understand the sentiment, CP.

In our church, the term "Elder" refers to an office in the higher priesthood. When the term is used as such we aren't using it as a designation of age. Men of all ages are ordained to that office.

Here is the LDS perspective on that priesthood office:

Elders

Elders. The term elders is used in various ways in the Bible. In many instances in the O.T. it has reference to the older men in a tribe, usually entrusted with the governmental affairs. Their age and experience made their counsel sought often. This was not necessarily a priesthood calling. Gen. 50:7, Ruth 4:2, Matt. 15:2, and Acts 4:5 are examples of this usage.

There were ordained elders in the Melchizedek Priesthood in O.T. times, as in Ex. 24:9–11 and Num. 11:16.

Wow, OC. Let's look at those verses:

Num 11:16 The LORD said to Moses: “Bring me seventy of Israel’s elders who are known to you as leaders and officials among the people. Have them come to the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with you. 17 I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the power of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them. They will share the burden of the people with you so that you will not have to carry it alone.

Ex 24:9 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up

First of all we see both passages are talking about the same group of 70 elders. Next we notice that nothing is mentioned of any priesthood, especially Melchizedek. Thirdly we notice that these are LEADERS and OFFICIALS of the people. These were NOT children or teenagers.

So rather than contrast with the first given example in your quote of "The term elders is used in various ways in the Bible. In many instances in the O.T. it has reference to the older men in a tribe, usually entrusted with the governmental affairs. Their age and experience made their counsel sought often." the second example is just more of the same. The 70 elders were leaders and officials and NOT PRIESTS OF ANY KIND.

[RBerman]

In our church, the term "Elder" refers to an office in the higher priesthood. When the term is used as such we aren't using it as a designation of age. Men of all ages are ordained to that office.

And you don't have a problem with using the term "elder" in a way inconsistent with the clear instructions of God in the Bible? If Mormonism were truly the restoration of the Biblical pattern of worship, then it would use Biblical terms in a Biblical manner rather than redefining them through alleged "modern-day revelation."

There were ordained elders in the Melchizedek Priesthood in O.T. times, as in Ex. 24:9–11 and Num. 11:16. Among the Nephites there were also ordained elders in the priesthood (Alma 4:7, 16; 6:1; Moro. 3:1; 4:1; 6:1, 7). In the N.T., elders are mentioned as priesthood offices in the church (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19; James 5:14–15). The term elder as used in the N.T. is from the Greek presybteros. The detailed duties of the ordained elders in the Church today have been defined by latter-day revelation (D&C 20:42–45; 42:44–52; 46:2; 107:12). Elder is the proper title given to all holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Thus an apostle is an elder in this sense, and it is proper to speak of members of the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Quorum of the Seventy by this title (D&C 20:38; cf. 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Jn. 1:1; 3 Jn. 1:1).

Well, let's see if those verses say what the LDS website claims they say about elders being Melchizedekean priests. 1 Timothy 5 was cited in my previous post, and you can see that it doesn't mention or imply priesthood or priestly duties. Maybe these others do. Let's see.

Exodus 24:9-11

Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

Doesn't say or imply anything about the elders being Melchizedekean priests there. It just describes them as having met with God on this occasion.

Numbers 11:16-17

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.

Not there either. This passage is about the mature men of Israel exercising rule, not priestly functions.

Acts 14:23

And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

No mention of priesthood here. It doesn't really say anything about what elders do one way or the other, only that they were appointed "with prayer and fasting."

James 5:14-16

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

This is an interesting passage since it's the only one in the Bible that specifies that the "oversight" of elders includes ministry to the needs of the congregation. Not sure what this has to do with anyone allegedly being Melchizedekan priest, though. Hebrews doesn't leave us guessing as to what Christ's Melchizedekean ministry is like, and it doesn't include any of the things described in the Bible passages above. Please take the time to read this carefully:

Hebrews 7-9

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life... The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer... when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption... Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Do you see that Christ's "Melchizedekean priesthood" is all about his sacrificial death for our sins? It has nothing to do with the leadership duties of elders providing oversight for God's people.

[Cow Poke]

I understand the sentiment, CP.

In our church, the term "Elder" refers to an office in the higher priesthood. When the term is used as such we aren't using it as a designation of age. Men of all ages are ordained to that office.

But this is one of the clearest examples of the Mormons redefining terms, and this one, particularly, in a way that makes no sense at all.

Calling a teenager an elder is like calling a 5 year old a parent. The name IMPLIES something, OC, that teenagers simply are not. And not just in age, but in practical experience, maturity, wisdom... all the things that MAKE an "elder".

[OtherCheek]

But this is one of the clearest examples of the Mormons redefining terms, and this one, particularly, in a way that makes no sense at all.

Calling a teenager an elder is like calling a 5 year old a parent. The name IMPLIES something, OC, that teenagers simply are not. And not just in age, but in practical experience, maturity, wisdom... all the things that MAKE an "elder".

Tell me about it. I was on a mission in Taiwan. There, the term "elder" is highly respected--even more than in our culture, and here we were just 19-20 year-olds with the title "elder" on our name tags.

Again, it's a priesthood office, not a reference to age, it's the first office in the Higher Priesthood, after a person has previously held the lesser priesthood. We don't use the term as a ploy to garner respect from people, or because of a cultural significance. We don't pay a lot of attention to cultural significance or classifying people by their age. In the Priesthood organization, a 19 year old elder, holds the same priesthood as a person of 90. And there is no distinction made as to their priesthood.

Now, a person with wrinkles, who has been around the block a few times, will be respected for his wisdom and maturity, but with the priesthood, we don't make distinctions as to respecting the priesthood of an old person more than a younger person.