Mormons

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
All I want to know is what is the purpose of a priest in Mormonism and I keep getting the run around.

You do not get the "run-around". I haven't sent you to more than one place, at all. I have only asked you to acknowledge that thing that both of us know you already know. It's in the scriptures which you probably know better than I do.

Don't you think your approach is a bit dishonest? You're not even subtle about your agenda.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's not given up, he's just looking for more Youtube videos to bring forth as proof.

I will be devastated when he posts up an anti-Mormon youtube video: it will destroy me and my positions.

Edit - I think Buddha WAS divine. I think he was/is every much as important to humanity as people like Jesus. Sure, I say that Jesus' calling was more ultimate than Buddhas but I do think that Buddha contributed quite a bit to humanities salvation and peace.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Did Siddhártha Gautama (the Buddha) ever affirm that he was divine?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Siddhártha Gautama (the Buddha) needs the risen Savior--the Lord Jesus Christ--as much as I need the Lord Jesus.

So why follow Siddhártha Gautama (the Buddha)?

I don't know. I was asking why it's wrong to follow and believe in the teachesings of someone you classify as "not divine".

Per your beliefs he does, but he can't now can he, he's been dead a very long time.

And again I ask: Why not?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Siddhártha Gautama (the Buddha) never affirmed to be divine.

It appears that you are putting words in your leader's mouth.

You, me, and the rest of humanity (the deceased Siddhártha Gautama-the Buddha included) are not divine.

OK, then Jesus is also not divine. We all are, or we all are not.

BTW Did you really not get my point?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You seem to have ignored everything in my post.

But just because I might be cynical does not change the points I have made to you in my post. Isn't it your responsibility to open my eyes and show me the light from my wicked ways? Surely, brother, you falter in your ability to serve as God's servant, if a bit of seeming cynicism dissuades your from spreading the truth.

Part 1

http://mormon.org/faq/purpose-of-priesthood/

The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority.

All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
•Leading congregations of the Church
•Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
•Blessing those who are sick

God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.

I obliged you and looked up Mormon priesthood. Here's what I found:

According to this link The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that,

priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ

However, this is erroneous because there were no priests in the early church.

There were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers and laymen/women, in the original church, but no priests or priesthood (in the Aaronic sense) acting in God's Name.

1 Corinthians 12:28
28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

Besides, we do not act in God's Name in the church, as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints state, we act in the Name of Jesus.

The Name of Jesus is the Name that is above every name .

Philippians 2:9-11
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

John 14:13
And whatever you ask in My Name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 15:16
You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My Name He may give you.

John 16:23
“And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My Name He will give you.

Matthew 28:19
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ,

Acts 16:18
18 And this she did for many days.

But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the Name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.

So the Lord Jesus Christ did not establish any priesthood authority, again in the literal Aaronic priesthood sense.

The church is not led or directed through priesthood authority as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirm.

The Lord Jesus Christ established the five-fold ministry gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 to lead the church.

Ephesians 4:11-20
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Again, where in the Bible does it say overtly or imply that Christians are priests?

1 Peter 2:5, 9, Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6 are the only passages in the New Testament (or New Covenant) that mention anything about priests in reference to believers.

The book of Hebrews talks about the High priestly office of Jesus Christ (but that is another lesson).

Are believers literal priests? Is this a literal priesthood such as the one Aaron and his descendants were called to or a spiritual priesthood?

I believe that it is spiritual.

The apostle Peter writes,

1 Peter 2:4-9
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

According to this verses we are priests in a spiritual sense not a literal sense. We are not to kill any bulls and goats and offer them as sacrifices to God. But we are to offer up spiritual sacrifices, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His Name.

Hebrews 13:15
Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His Name.

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
•Leading congregations of the Church
•Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
•Blessing those who are sick

I have already explained that those in the five-fold ministry mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 are the leaders in the body of Christ not priests so there shouldn't be any priests leading congregations as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints phrases it.

As touching baptism, any believer in Jesus Christ can baptize someone. The Lord Jesus Christ stated,

Matthew 28:19
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Baptism is not the crux of Christianity so any believer can do it. Baptism is simply an outward demonstration of an inward confession by the newfound believer in Jesus Christ. Baptism the act of baptism is meant to symbolize death and burial (i.e. through immersion under the water), and resurrection (i.e. emerging out of the water) to a new life in Christ Jesus.

However, baptism is an ordinance commanded by the Lord Jesus, but not essential to salvation. Only the Blood of Jesus can save someone from their sins.

I am aware of Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and other seeming passages that appear at face value to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation but that is another lesson.

I am dealing only with the priesthood doctrine that is taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I intend to prove that it is unscriptural according to the Bible.

Paul recognized that baptism is not what saves a person anyway so he writes,

1 Corinthians 1:17
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

You see, when the gospel is preached it causes faith to come. When faith comes a person will believe the gospel and become saved. The gospel of Christ--not baptism--is the power of God to salvation.

The Apostle Paul writes,

Romans 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You seem to have ignored everything in my post.

But just because I might be cynical does not change the points I have made to you in my post. Isn't it your responsibility to open my eyes and show me the light from my wicked ways? Surely, brother, you falter in your ability to serve as God's servant, if a bit of seeming cynicism dissuades your from spreading the truth.

Now concerning the sick, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the term,

Blessing the sick.

I don't think that I understand what that means.

Christians don't bless the sick we lay hands on them, praying for them in the Name of Jesus Christ to be made whole or well.

Occasionally we may anoint them with oil as we pray, as a point of contact for their faith, or use a handkerchief that has been prayed over and is anointed.

James writes,

James 5:14
14 Is anyone among you sick? [B]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. [/B]

But the Lord Jesus Christ states,

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will follow those who believe : In My Name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover .”

So in Christianity any believer can pray for the sick in the Name of Jesus Christ and they will recover.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

http://mormon.org/faq/purpose-of-priesthood/

The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority.

All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
•Leading congregations of the Church
•Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
•Blessing those who are sick

God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.

I obliged you and looked up Mormon priesthood. Here's what I found:

According to this link The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that,

priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ

However, this is erroneous because there were no priests in the early church.

There were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers and laymen/women, in the original church, but no priests or priesthood (in the Aaronic sense) acting in God's Name.

So your argument is over the actual name-labels, which is language and time-dependent rather than an actual substantive point?

Let me rephrase: you contradict yourself in your position but only find solace in word labels rather than making a legitimate argument.

So do you actually have a legitimate argument? 🙂

And here is where your argument fails and breaks down:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]1 Corinthians 12:28
28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. [/B]

So, by your logic, all Mexicans are going to hell because they do not use Jesus Christ's name to profess their faith: they use Jesus Christo. Mormons go to hell because they dare use the word "priest" to refer their ordained clergy with anything other than the translated terms seen in a bible.

Oh, you're going to hell, too, because you profess the belief in Jesus Christ instead of YHWH or YHVH. Get your tetragrammaton right, man: your salvation depends on it!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Besides, we do not act in God's Name in the church, as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints state, we act in the [B]Name of Jesus.

The Name of Jesus is the Name that is above every name[/B]

So you agree with our church's name, then, right? lol

Cause Jesus Christ is the first one referenced.

But, calm down: Jesus Christ was the one that told us what He wanted His restored church to be named. You do not get to tell Jesus how he should name His restored church. lol

“For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

Yeah, it's tough argue with a person trying to appeal to authority when we can just claim a more direct higher authority and win the argument. Your authority is the bible, my authority is Jesus Christ Himself. I win. *high fives Jesus*

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
*long winded and irrelevant quote fest goes here*

Um, yeah, all of that is irrelevant.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So the Lord Jesus Christ did not establish any priesthood authority, again in the literal Aaronic priesthood sense.

Yeah, that's because the Jews already had the "Aaronic Priesthood". Keep in mind that it is called that to avoid the vain repetition of God's name. It is pseudonym out of respect. It is similar to the Jews being afraid to use "I Am" in their language. It is out of respect and holiness that we use pseudonyms.

"Well, some might say you think the priesthood is from Aaron, rather than Jesus."

We care more about keeping God's name holy than we do making a few people comfortable with labels that are almost irrelevant in God's eyes.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The church is not led or directed through priesthood authority as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirm.

Well, since we claim to have been ordained by Jesus Christ's actual apostles, and are under the direct authority and direction of Jesus Christ, too bad: you're wrong.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Lord Jesus Christ established the five-fold ministry gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 to lead the church.

Yeah, Jesus Christ did: not a man. Since Jesus did the same with His restored Church, you should repent and be baptized: join His church. lol

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Ephesians 4:11-20
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Again, where in the Bible does it say overtly or imply that Christians are priests?

1 Peter 2:5, 9, Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6 are the only passages in the New Testament (or New Covenant) that mention anything about priests in reference to believers.

The book of Hebrews talks about the High priestly office of Jesus Christ (but that is another lesson).

Are believers literal priests? Is this a literal priesthood such as the one Aaron and his descendants were called to or a spiritual priesthood?

I believe that it is spiritual.

The apostle Peter writes,

1 Peter 2:4-9
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

According to this verses we are priests in a spiritual sense not a literal sense. We are not to kill any bulls and goats and offer them as sacrifices to God. But we are to offer up spiritual sacrifices, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His Name.

Hebrews 13:15
Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His Name. [/B]

lol

Again, you did not actually make a substantive point, at all. You are only arguing word semantics which I have clearly shown is a very bad slippery slope to fall upon.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
•Leading congregations of the Church
•Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
•Blessing those who are sick

I have already explained that those in the five-fold ministry mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 are the leaders in the body of Christ not priests so there shouldn't be any priests leading congregations as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints phrases it.

Seems you enjoy reading your own words because this isn't even another post and you're repeating yourself. I could understand if we were talking in circles and this was another post...but it's not. Make a point and move on.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
As touching baptism, any believer in Jesus Christ can baptize someone. The Lord Jesus Christ stated,

[B]Matthew 28:19
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [/B]

And who did he tell that to? Oh, right, his ordained apostles. 😄

So are you trying to prove my point or are you trying to contradict yourself because you're a secret closet Mormon?

Mark 3:14

"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."

🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Baptism is not the crux of Christianity so any believer can do it. Baptism is simply an outward demonstration of an inward confession by the newfound believer in Jesus Christ. Baptism the act of baptism is meant to symbolize death and burial (i.e. through immersion under the water), and resurrection (i.e. emerging out of the water) to a new life in Christ Jesus.

However, baptism is an ordinance commanded by the Lord Jesus, but not essential to salvation. Only the Blood of Jesus can save someone from their sins.

I think we largely agree, here. I have said before that God does not need these rites to "judge" and/or forgive us. Those rites are for us. However, baptism was deemed essential.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am aware of Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and other seeming passages that appear at face value to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation but that is another lesson.

I am dealing only with the priesthood doctrine that is taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I intend to prove that it is unscriptural according to the Bible.

So you, first, establish that baptism is necessary and then marginalize it to nothing? Make up your mind, good sir! 😄

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Paul recognized that baptism is not what saves a person anyway so he writes,

[B]1 Corinthians 1:17
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. [/B]

Don't you think you're being a blasphemous by misrepresenting Paul's words? You do know Paul is not condemning/marginalizing baptism, here, right? He is marginalizing his mission to be one of preaching, not rites.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You see, when the gospel is preached it causes faith to come.

I hope she's hot. pained

Okay, okay...that was probably inappropriate but I am getting bored with your posts so it is hard to pay attention.

But, no, not always. Faith is something realize through the Holy Ghost: it is not something that just happens to someone. You can't get a "faith shot", really.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
When faith comes a person will believe the gospel and become saved. The gospel of Christ--not baptism--is the power of God to salvation.

We do not disagree, here. Baptism is a necessary step in that salvation, however, as your own scripture tells you. Don't forget that lest you become the blasphemer.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Apostle Paul writes,

[B]Romans 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. [/B]

Ponder these following scriptures:

John 3:5-7

Mark 1:8

Mark 16:16

John 3:22

1 Peter 3:21

Now, please, stop blaspheming holy writ with your anti-baptismic agenda. It is damming your soul. 🙁

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Now concerning the sick, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the term,

Blessing the sick.

I don't think that I understand what that means.

Christians don't bless the sick we lay hands on them, praying for them in the Name of Jesus Christ to be made whole or well.

Occasionally we may anoint them with oil as we pray, as a point of contact for their faith, or use a handkerchief that has been prayed over and is anointed.

James writes,

[B]James 5:14
14 Is anyone among you sick? [B]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. [/B] [/B]

Yeah, that's exactly what we mean: we use oil, while placing our hands gently on their heads, and say a prayer on the person's behalf, to heal them.

HOWEVER....very few prayers are said where the person is inspired to say that they "will be healed". Unless moved upon by the Spirit, very few pronounce a healing. We do not claim to be "God", only having the authority to act in God's name where He approves.

If you ever meet a Mormon that says he can heal the sick, tell him he is a blaspheming liar as no man has the power to miraculously (divine miracles, not the common sense of the word) heal anyone: God does.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But the Lord Jesus Christ states,

[B]Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will follow those who believe : In My Name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover .”

So in Christianity any believer can pray for the sick in the Name of Jesus Christ and they will recover. [/B]

No, it specifically says "laying on of hands" which is some old-school English for placing your hands on them.

So, no, it is not a prayer, per se, it is physically touching them. We obviously interpret this, through Jesus Christ's direction, as placing our hands upon their hands while saying a prayer.

Also, Jesus is referring to his apostles, again, there. Ordained apostles, to be exact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So your argument is over the actual name-labels, which is language and time-dependent rather than an actual substantive point?

Let me rephrase: you contradict yourself in your position but only find solace in word labels rather than making a legitimate argument.

So do you actually have a legitimate argument? 🙂

And here is where your argument fails and breaks down:

So, by your logic, all Mexicans are going to hell because they do not use Jesus Christ's name to profess their faith: they use Jesus Christo. Mormons go to hell because they dare use the word "priest" to refer their ordained clergy with anything other than the translated terms seen in a bible.

Oh, you're going to hell, too, because you profess the belief in Jesus Christ instead of YHWH or YHVH. Get your tetragrammaton right, man: your salvation depends on it!

So you agree with our church's name, then, right? lol

Cause Jesus Christ is the first one referenced.

But, calm down: Jesus Christ was the one that told us what He wanted His restored church to be named. You do not get to tell Jesus how he should name His restored church. lol

“For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

Yeah, it's tough argue with a person trying to appeal to authority when we can just claim a more direct higher authority and win the argument. Your authority is the bible, my authority is Jesus Christ Himself. I win. *high fives Jesus*

Um, yeah, all of that is irrelevant.

Yeah, that's because the Jews already had the "Aaronic Priesthood". Keep in mind that it is called that to avoid the vain repetition of God's name. It is pseudonym out of respect. It is similar to the Jews being afraid to use "I Am" in their language. It is out of respect and holiness that we use pseudonyms.

"Well, some might say you think the priesthood is from Aaron, rather than Jesus."

We care more about keeping God's name holy than we do making a few people comfortable with labels that are almost irrelevant in God's eyes.

Well, since we claim to have been ordained by Jesus Christ's actual apostles, and are under the direct authority and direction of Jesus Christ, too bad: you're wrong.

Yeah, Jesus Christ did: not a man. Since Jesus did the same with His restored Church, you should repent and be baptized: join His church. lol

Part 1

No, I am not discussing semantics, but night and day differences between a priest and a ministry office in the church. A priest was a specific office that God established for Aaron and his descendants under the Old Covenant to minister in to deal with both his sins and the sins of the children of Israel. Mormons truly believe that there is a literal priesthood that only certain individuals can function in so much so that they state that only males are qualified to do so.

The issue is not names or labels, but false doctrine which leads people astray. Mormon priesthood terminology is not language and time-dependent because a priest and ministry gift office in the church are radically different functionally and in terms of covenant dispensation substantively. It would be like calling King David a carpenter or the Apostle Peter a Pope or Roman Centurion. The terms are not the same with regard to their definitions nor in terms of their respective functions.

The priesthood in Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus and the church, so Mormonism in its attempt at sounding scripturally legitimate or authentically Christian committed a huge blunder. There is no such animal as a priest in the church as a leader or clergyman.

An apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher are New Covenant ministry offices that Jesus Christ--the Head of the church--established for specific individuals that He calls to minister in.

Semantics would be to say that a priest is the same as or another way of saying or is identical to or synonymous with, clergy or with New Covenant church ministry offices instituted by the Lord Jesus, but that is not the case.

A priest is not an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher any more than the President of the United States is a Supreme Court Justice, or a senator is a governor. Just as a doctor is not a lawyer, and fireman is not a police officer--a priest is not a ministry office in the church. The priest has not been anointed by God to stand in a ministry office in the church because they are distinct ministry offices within the church body.

A priest was not clergy, there were no churches where the gospel of Jesus Christ was being preached. There were no sinners coming to Christ for salvation during the priesthood of Aaron. There were no believers that needed to be fed until after Jesus Christ rose from the dead and instituted the church.

Moreover, the priest was not a Christian nor was he born again. There is no mention of any priesthood in reference to the church as I have already explained.

The priesthood served a specific function in the Old Testament that it no longer serves under the New Testament becomes the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has made that office obsolete. It was only meant to be a temporary job to point us to the true High Priest: Jesus Christ who ever lives to make intercession for us.

Again, under the Old Covenant the priest was the only mediator between a holy God and a sinful nation (just this group and no other nations). But now, under the New Covenant, Jesus Christ (the fulfillment and full realization and manifestation of the High Priest is the sole Mediator between God and sinful humanity (not just the nation of Israel).

So there are no priests in the body of Christ in a literal sense (or at least there shouldn't be because Jesus Christ is the true fulfillment and embodiment of that Old Covenant type, shadow, and prefigurement.

Jesus Christo still means the same in Spanish as it does in English. But the word priest regardless of what language the actual word is does not mean the same thing as apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. The word is different in meaning and function than those five ministry gifts that Jesus Christ ordained in the church.

I do not believe that Mormons go to Hell for using the word priest in reference to their clergy, but it is very misleading because the term has an Old Covenant connation, meaning, which is obsolete functionally. It has been done away with by the New Covenant which has been established upon better promises by the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My salvation is not based on the Name of God as it has been revealed under the Old Testament. My salvation is based on the death, burial, and resurrection of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ i.e. my faith in His shed Blood which has redeemed me from my sins. My faith is in the Son of God Who loves me and gave Himself for me.

That’s where you’ve made a misstep. You see, the Lord Jesus Christ never said any such thing to Joseph Smith about restoring any church name. Joseph Smith dreamed all of that up—that’s why it cannot be found in the Bible. In fact, Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible so much that he deluded himself into believing that his book (the book of Mormon) was the Word of God, and more correct (or accurate) than the Bible.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His Word are one so whatever He says will agree with His Word and vice versa.

It appears that Mormon leaders make many claims that cannot be substantiated by the Bible. Does that make me wrong or Mormon leaders just presumptuous?

The church was never lost so it never needed to be restored.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

Again, you did not actually make a substantive point, at all. You are only arguing word semantics which I have clearly shown is a very bad slippery slope to fall upon.

Seems you enjoy reading your own words because this isn't even another post and you're repeating yourself. I could understand if we were talking in circles and this was another post...but it's not. Make a point and move on.

And who did he tell that to? Oh, right, his ordained apostles. 😄

So are you trying to prove my point or are you trying to contradict yourself because you're a secret closet Mormon?

Mark 3:14

"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."

🙂

I think we largely agree, here. I have said before that God does not need these rites to "judge" and/or forgive us. Those rites are for us. However, baptism was deemed essential.

So you, first, establish that baptism is necessary and then marginalize it to nothing? Make up your mind, good sir! 😄

Don't you think you're being a blasphemous by misrepresenting Paul's words? You do know Paul is not condemning/marginalizing baptism, here, right? He is marginalizing his mission to be one of preaching, not rites.

I hope she's hot. pained

Okay, okay...that was probably inappropriate but I am getting bored with your posts so it is hard to pay attention.

But, no, not always. Faith is something realize through the Holy Ghost: it is not something that just happens to someone. You can't get a "faith shot", really.

We do not disagree, here. Baptism is a necessary step in that salvation, however, as your own scripture tells you. Don't forget that lest you become the blasphemer.

Ponder these following scriptures:

John 3:5-7

Mark 1:8

Mark 16:16

John 3:22

1 Peter 3:21

Now, please, stop blaspheming holy writ with your anti-baptismic agenda. It is damming your soul. 🙁

Part 2

You assert that I am just dealing with semantics when nothing could be further from the truth. I am dealing with false doctrine that is being taught in the Mormon cult.

I am obviously not a Mormon or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I’d be parroting false doctrine, talking about how the Bible has errors and problems, how man can become a god, how the Lord Jesus was not divine, how God was once a man who has many wives and lives on or near the planet Kolob, etc.

But none of these lies characterize me or what I believe because I am not a Mormon.

I believe the Holy Bible—and the Holy Bible alone is the Word of God. I do not believe that the book of Mormon is God’s Word. I do not believe in any of Joseph Smith’s teachings. I believe that the Holy Bible is infallible, has no contradictions or problems, and is the only Book on the face of the earth that is given by inspiration of God (i.e. God-breathed).
I believe that God has always been God, is from everlasting to everlasting, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present—and that He has never been a man.

I do not believe that man can ever become God.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God (i.e. divine, has always existed, is uncreated, is not the spirit brother of lucifer), has come in the flesh i.e. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, is both true God and true Man, is God, Lord, Savior, Redeemer, High Priest, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—and my soon-coming King! Hallelujah King Jesus!

The Lord Jesus Christ started with the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, but He also sent out the seventy as well:

Luke 10:1
After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.

The Apostles of the Lamb laid the foundation of church doctrine according to the direction and leading of the Holy Spirit. There is no more foundation to lay as far as doctrine. But the Lord

1 Corinthians 3:11
For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Jesus didn’t only pray for His Apostles, but everyone who would afterwards (meaning later on down the line as the gospel was being proclaimed throughout the world) believe on the Lord Jesus through their word.

John 17:20-21
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Baptism is not essential to salvation. I never established that it was necessary, and I certainly never marginalized it too nothing. Baptism has its place, but it does not save him or her who is baptized. I have already explained this in my last post.

I am not misrepresenting Paul’s words or being blasphemous. Paul knew just as I and many others know that baptism has its place but does not save the sinner.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. God initially deals to the believer a measure of faith, but that faith is stimulated, strengthened, and developed through hearing the Word of God preached and taught, and by exercising it. That’s why God sent preachers to preach so that faith can come (i.e. be generated in the heart of the hearer and made strong).

Romans 10:14-17
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, no.

That "myth" comes from Mormon Myth that was never official doctrine. Some thought that black people were "fence sitters" during the events that caused a third of the hosts of heaven to be cast out with Lucifer. Some used the "Mark of Cain" which was thought to be Sub-Saharan African appearance. My personal opinion is it was a mixture of racism and myth that perpetuated the idea that black people should not hold the priesthood.

On a more positive note, Mormons were among the first "white dominant" church to openly proselytize and baptize black people into their congregations. It was part of the reason there was so much controversy surrounding their presence in Missouri: it threatened to throw off the balance of the Missouri compromise. Joseph Smith eventually was persuaded/convinced to such a point of pro-black mind that he said reading about "bonded" men and their hardships made his blood boil. He put in for president and part of his platform was the abolishment of slavery by 1850.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's exactly what we mean: we use oil, while placing our hands gently on their heads, and say a prayer on the person's behalf, to heal them.

HOWEVER....very few prayers are said where the person is inspired to say that they "will be healed". Unless moved upon by the Spirit, very few pronounce a healing. We do not claim to be "God", only having the authority to act in God's name where He approves.

If you ever meet a Mormon that says he can heal the sick, tell him he is a blaspheming liar as no man has the power to miraculously (divine miracles, not the common sense of the word) heal anyone: God does.

No, it specifically says "laying on of hands" which is some old-school English for placing your hands on them.

So, no, it is not a prayer, per se, it is physically touching them. We obviously interpret this, through Jesus Christ's direction, as placing our hands upon their hands while saying a prayer.

Also, Jesus is referring to his apostles, again, there. Ordained apostles, to be exact.

Part 3

God by His Spirit does call certain individuals in the body of Christ to certain ministries. There are those who are used mightily by the Holy Spirit to heal people through the gifts of healing operating in that person's ministry as the Holy Spirit wills.

However, none of the healings can work without faith--the faith of the individual called to minister the gift of healing as the Holy Spirit wills, and the recipient who is being held.

There are a number of cases in the Bible where the Lord Jesus Himself gave the credit for a person's healing to that person's faith and not the power of God--even though we know that it is God's power that heals.

So it is God's power--but it is the person's faith as well that makes a demand, and taps into that power by his/her faith to effect healing.

Laying on of hands is physically touching someone. I never denied that, but many times it accompanies the prayer of faith for healing. In a majority of the cases it is not just laying hands on a person, but laying hands on the person in the Name of Jesus and praying for that person by faith to effect healing.

But without faith working by love none of it works.

Originally posted by Mindset
Oh, that's disappointing. 🙁

On the other hand, are you going to trust the word of a disciple of such a racist religion?

I heard they have special underwear?

Originally posted by dadudemon
[omitted part of your post so I could respond to these verses]

Ponder these following scriptures:

John 3:5-7

Mark 1:8

Mark 16:16

John 3:22

1 Peter 3:21

Now, please, stop blaspheming holy writ with your anti-baptismic agenda. It is damming your soul. 🙁

Here the Lord Jesus Christ used water to refer to the Word of God. A person does not become born again by or through water. Try to understand that the words that Jesus speaks are spirit and life (John 6:63), so He’s not talking about natural things. The Lord Jesus is dealing with spiritual things. It is the spirit that is spiritually dead and that has to be born again.

Just like Nicodemus you have mistakenly thought that the Lord Jesus was talking about something physical. Follow Nicodemus’ train of thought. He's thinking naturally and physically, but the Lord Jesus is speaking spiritually:

John 3:5-10
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Nicodemus didn’t understand the spiritual significance of what the Lord Jesus spoke. Nicodemus thought that the Lord Jesus was talking about natural birth, but the Lord Jesus was talking about being born again spiritually. Nicodemus still didn’t understand so the Lord Jesus explained further.

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

Let me preface this discussion with this: the word water here in verse 5 is a metaphor for the Word of God. I don’t care what kind of water it is, water cannot cause a person to become born again. Being born again is a spiritual phenomenon that takes place in the spirit part of a person’s three-fold nature so water (physical water) is incapable of effecting the new birth because it is a spiritual experience. So the Lord is talking about spiritual rebirth, being born of the Spirit.

Again water here is a metaphor for the Word of God. Believers are born again by the seed of the Word of God.

The apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesian church puts it this way,

Ephesians 5:26
that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the Word ,

Can you see how the apostle talks about the washing of water by the Word? It’s the same metaphor that the Lord Jesus Christ uses here in John 3:5. He’s talking about being born again by the Word and the Holy Spirit.

At least two metaphors are used to describe the Word of God: seed and water.

In the first letter written by the apostle Peter he calls the Word a seed.

1 Peter 1:23
having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever ,

Mark 1:8
8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Being baptized with water and being baptized with the Holy Spirit are not the same. The first baptism is physical. A person who undergoes this baptism is physically immersed in water by a natural, human person.

However, baptism with the Holy Spirit is a spiritual baptism. This type of baptism is done by the Lord Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. The evidence that one has received this type of baptism is speaking in other tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance (Acts Acts 1:8, 2:1-33, 19:1-7).

However, neither baptism saves a person.

The first baptism is simply and outward demonstration of an inward confession, and an ordinance from the Lord Jesus to be obeyed (Matthew 3:15, 28:18-20, Romans 6:4).

The purpose of the second baptism is to empower the believer to be a witness for the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8).

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Did you notice how the Lord Jesus omitted baptism in the second part of His statement?

If baptism were necessary for salvation then the Lord would have said,

but he who does not believe AND IS NOT BAPTIZED will not be saved.

But He didn’t. I believe that the Lord purposely left baptism out of the second part of His statement so that we could see where the real emphasis is: on believing.

So baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is essential to fulfill all righteousness in the sense that it is an ordinance of the Lord. The Lord modeled obedience to His own ordinance by permitting John the Baptist to baptize Him (Matthew 3:15).

John 3:22
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.

The Lord's disciples continued to baptize people because baptism back then accompanied repentance.

The Lord Jesus was making ready a people prepared for Himself (Luke 1:17) just like His cousin John the Baptist.

Again, baptism is outward evidence of what has already taken place in the person’s heart. A person who has repented from sin and has confessed his/her sin is a person who has turned to the Lord.

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The apostle Peter draws upon the flood in Noah’s day to analogize and explain spiritual truth in our day. That’s why the apostle calls it an antitype which means

“a thing formed after some pattern, a thing resembling another, its counterpart, something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge”
--Blue Letter Bible

Just as the ark saved Noah and his family, baptism into the body of Christ (i.e. baptism into the family of God by the Holy Spirit, which accompanies the salvation confession i.e. sinners prayer) saves us—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The apostle Peter states that he is not referring to a physical baptism that saves (not the removal of the filth of the flesh), but spiritual baptism (the new birth) that results in a good conscience toward God--baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The apostle Paul puts it this way,

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

There are three baptisms in Christianity.

I am aware of Ephesians 4:5, but remember:

we must rightly divide (accurately interpret) the Word of Truth.

There's only one baptism that accompanies salvation (see 1 Corinthians 12:13), but there technically speaking there are actually three baptisms.

The first baptism was introduced by John the Baptist at the Father’s direction (John 3:28). It is water baptism. This is an ordinance of the Lord that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ and performed by His disciples as well (John 3:22, 4:2).

The second baptism was introduced by the Lord Jesus. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. The purpose of this baptism is to empower the believer to do the will of God.

The third baptism is the baptism into the body of Christ. This baptism is spiritual. Believers in Jesus Christ are spiritually put into His church body.

All believers in the Lord Jesus Christ experience this type of baptism which removes us from the power of darkness and translates us into the Kingdom of God (John 5:24, Colossians 1:13).

Just try to understand that nothing physical that we do will save us from our sins because our problem was spiritual to begin with. So the solution to the problem must also be spiritual.

I leave you with this verse:

John 3:18
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

Notice that the word baptism is nowhere to be found in reference to salvation and condemnation, so it is not essential for salvation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On the other hand, are you going to trust the word of a disciple of such a racist religion?

JIA: you actually ignored all my points and went off on tangents or are directly wrong (especially the part about baptism...or do you think that John the Baptist just said a prayer and sprinkled Jesus? HA!)

I may respond to your irrelevant posts (irrelevant to my points, not irrelevant, period) if I get bored tomorrow.

Originally posted by dadudemon
JIA: you actually ignored all my points and went off on tangents or are directly wrong (especially the part about baptism...or do you think that John the Baptist just said a prayer and sprinkled Jesus? HA!)

I may respond to your irrelevant posts (irrelevant to my points, not irrelevant, period) if I get bored tomorrow.

Why bother? After all, he isn't really a Christian. ;-)

Originally posted by dadudemon
JIA: you actually ignored all my points and went off on tangents or are directly wrong (especially the part about baptism...or do you think that John the Baptist just said a prayer and sprinkled Jesus? HA!)

I may respond to your irrelevant posts (irrelevant to my points, not irrelevant, period) if I get bored tomorrow.

I answered every single point that you made, and refuted them one by one.

No, I don't believe that John the Baptist said a prayer and sprinkled the Lord Jesus. I stated that John the Baptist baptized the Lord Jesus, and that the Lord permitted John to do so in order to fulfill all righteousness i.e. model baptism for us.

I believe that the Lord Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. However, I do not believe that baptism is necessary for a person to be saved. We are saved by grace through faith. Not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Baptism is a work and works do not save us. But salvation is a gift, a gift that Jesus freely gives those who ask Him. A person cannot earn a gift for then it would cease to be a gift. Anything you have to work for is not a gift--but a work. We do not have to work for salvation. Christ did all that was necessary for us to be saved when He shed His blood on the cross, died, was buried, and raised on the third day.

James 2:14-26 talks about faith without works is dead. What James is referring to is corresponding actions or fruit that shows your faith (i.e. that conversion has actually taken place in your heart and life).

John the Baptist put it this way,

Matthew 3:6-8
6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance ,

James is not contadicting the the apostle Paul who stated in Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are not saved by our works. In Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul uses the word works to stand for anything that we attempt to do in an effort to earn or merit our way into Heaven (which is impossible to do).

But the word works that James uses means actions that demonstrate that conversion has actually occurred in our lives. This is the obvious context for understanding this passage in James based on James 2:15-17.

For example, let's say a person claims that they have turned over a new leaf so he does not sleep around anymore. He's given his life to Christ, and he's focused on living holy. But then you see him going to clubs and bringing various women back to his place every weekend. Would you believe that person's testimony that he's saved?

The answer is no because he does not have any works (i.e. corresponding actions consistent with someone who is saved) to show his faith.

That's all James was saying.

Now, I said all that to say this: if baptism saved anyone that would be a work and we are not saved by our works. So baptism is not necessary for salvation. Now, baptism is necessary to show our obedience to the Lord Jesus' command, but since it is a work--it does not save us. I'll leave you with this link I came across:

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/76.htm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why bother? After all, he isn't really a Christian. ;-)

What is a real Christian?