Some interesting doctrines of LDS

[Guest Malcolm]

I must insist that you check your sources first and then ask questions so that we may offer an explanation if so desired. For you to say that we (LDS) do not believe this or that makes certain assumptions which are ALWAYS at the root of contention and misunderstandings.

So that it is clearly stated; Jesus Chris is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of ALL mankind. It is thru His infinite Atonement that we are save and have a claim in the kingdom of the Father to eternal life. And there is no other name under which the children of men can be saved.

And yes, we believe just like James, that faith without works is dead. If you are a true Christian you HAVE to live according to the commandments of God. Thus according to the words of Christ and to fulfill all righteousness you MUST be born of the water and of the spirit and be baptized. You MUST do good works as moved by the spirit and pour out your heart in charity by feeding the hungry and the needy, clothing the naked, sheltering the widows and the orphans, vising the sick and afflicted and those who suffer behind bars.

If we do not WORK in faith to build up the kingdom of God then there is no fruit and we had hid our light under a bushel and become like salt that has lost its savor and is to be cast out and trodden under foot.

Beyond that, if you really want to know what we believe and engage in an intelligent and informed exchanged of ideas, you must go to the source and read the Book of Mormon, for starters. You do not have to believe anything it says but at least you will be well informed and ready to discuss the points where you may find yourself at opposite side of the street from us. After all we have spent a lifetime reading the Bible as well.

[darrel]

Thank you PC for your insight on the "new" forum. I confirm again that I cannot convince anyone of my belief through debate or rebuttal. Only the Holy Ghost can witness to our spirit of the truth we seek after search pondering and praying for that knowledge.

I believe you and Snow and other non-lds members of this forum have a unique opportunity to have access on this forum. I am not an intellectual so I cannot "contend" at that level. I also am not a profound scriptorian so I cannot give quote for quote. But I can witness to the things I know are true through my own personal study, prayer, and application in my life, and no one can persuade otherwise.

[darrel]

Dale I believe your position is outside looking in. I feel your position is in the area of protestant christian tradition.

My studies have given me confirmation that Baptism for the Dead and temple work were practiced by several pre-christian era Jewish groups. 1 Cor 15:29 is not condeming baptism but teaching resurrection. The reference was used to help understand that resurrection was a reality and so Baptism for the dead was a doctrinal teaching. The fact it is even referenced in the New Testiment shows that the Latter Day Restoration of all things is a reality.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord:

And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you.

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

(Acts 3: 19-21)

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you PC for your insight on the "new" forum. I confirm again that I cannot convince anyone of my belief through debate or rebuttal. Only the Holy Ghost can witness to our spirit of the truth we seek after search pondering and praying for that knowledge.

I believe you and Snow and other non-lds members of this forum have a unique opportunity to have access on this forum. I am not an intellectual so I cannot "contend" at that level. I also am not a profound scriptorian so I cannot give quote for quote. But I can witness to the things I know are true through my own personal study, prayer, and application in my life, and no one can persuade otherwise.

Snow is LDS. Offering to share what God has done in your life is perhaps the most effective and meaningful form of "evangelism," imho. :)

[Shadow]

I do not see you as intending to misrepresent Mormonism.

Ok, let me go over the priesthood verse by verse. I will use Hebrews 7:11-28 and I will go over topic by topic being that the post would be too long to try to go over every topic at the same time. Also thank you very much for going over all that.

Here it starts (This is the KJV)

11.)If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Right here it is stating why would there be another priesthood after the order of Aaron if the priesthood of Aaron was perfect. This question is stating, that it wasn't perfect and so another had to rise after the order of Melchisdec.

12.)For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Here it is stating because the priesthood had to change from Aaron to Melchisdec that the old law (The law that Aaron gave) had to change, being that there is a new one.

13.)For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the alter.

Now it is sawing that the new priest came out of a tribe that the priesthood wasn't give to.

14.)For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothign concerning priesthood.

By this verse it is stating that the "new" priest came out of a tribe that Moses never spoke of, the Tribe of Juda having the priesthood.

15.)And it is yet far more evident: for that after similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16.)Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17.)For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18.)For there is verily a disannulling of the cammandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness therof.

19.)For th law made nothing perfect, but the brining in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20.)And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21.)(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not

repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec)

22.)By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23.)And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24.)But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

So it goes on to state that Jesus Christ lives forever and so in doing so has an unchangable priesthood. He doesn't give transfer it because

he never dies.

25.)Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26.)For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separeate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27.)Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifec, firest for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28.)For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

So I believe right here it is black and white that Jesus Christ has the eternal priesthood authority and he doesn't change it because

he never dies. And this is not a narrow minded deal or translation. This is what a lot of Christians believe, actually to be truthful I never heard of the priesthood authority taught as being something that was given to people until I start talking to the LDS missionaries.

[Dale]

Shadow-Vs.11 it say's perfection wasn't by the Aaronic priesthood. That different than saying the Aaronic priesthood is no longer needed. An imperfect priesthood can still be needed.

vs.12-I don't see it as saying that because of the change the old priesthood had to cease to exist. We would agree with the change in priesthood the law did not apply to that priesthood.

Vs.13-We would agree on verse 13.

Vs.14-We would agree on verse 14.

Vs.15-22-We would probably agree there also.

vs.23-Mortal priesthood can have many priest's in the High priest's office. But with Melcizedek and christ both being priest's that pretty much destroy's the one High Priest at a time rule. Although the term High Priest was anachronistic to Melchizedek's day Jesus was called to a priest's office equal to his. so to me although the high priest term was created later both men served as high priest's. But i have heard verse 23 used to say we can't have many priest's anymore.

Vs.24-I have heard it mean's untransferable. I have seen that meaning rebutted in another two word studies i have seen.

Vs.25-28-doesn't preclude Jesus from having to make new priesthood by law. We arn't under law. Jesus can make mortal priesthood if he wishe's and Moses law no longer has a say. High Priest's today are of the Melchizedek office. The Aaronic priesthood was quite changed when it was brought into the Restoration by modern revelation.

Jesus and Melchizedek share that priesthood. What verse in Hebrew's 11 prevent's Jesus from further sharing their priesthood with other's? Technically Jesus could not have the priesthood because Melchizedek never died. (Hebrews 7:3) He shared it with Jesus without transferring it. Both men didn't ever give up their priesthood.

----------

Darrel-We would not be accepted as protestant's. We have some similarities with protestant's, but more differences. They think us cultic like the LDS. They only like us slighly better than LDS. They don't believe in salvation for the dead we do. In the Centerplace Library website it has an LDS Issues section. It has an online tract by Apostle Russel F. Ralston giving our position on baptism for the dead.

I have not heard us comment on temple like work in early Christianity. I have no comment's against the evidence. I have heard from Evangelical's who think these were heretic group's or individual's practices. Joseph Smith Jr's interpretation of 1 Corr 15:29 is a good one. I have read the idea it was an errant Christian group, or even a non-Christian group doing it. I like if you have read it Restoring The Ancient Church, Joseph Smith and Early Christianity by Barry Bickmore.

[Shadow]

Shadow-Vs.11 it say's perfection wasn't by the Aaronic priesthood. That different than saying the Aaronic priesthood is no longer needed.

An imperfect priesthood can still be needed.

vs.12-I don't see it as saying that because of the change the old priesthood had to cease to exist.

We would agree with the change in priesthood the law did not apply to that priesthood.

Vs.13-We would agree on verse 13.

Vs.14-We would agree on verse 14.

Vs.15-22-We would probably agree there also.

vs.23-Mortal priesthood can have many priest's in the High priest's office. But with Melcizedek and christ both being priest's that pretty much destroy's the one High Priest at a time rule.

Although the term High Priest was anachronistic to Melchizedek's day Jesus was called to a priest's office equal to his. so to me although the high priest term was created later both men served

as high priest's. But i have heard verse 23 used to say we can't have many priest's anymore.

Vs.24-I have heard it mean's untransferable. I have seen that meaning rebutted in another two word studies i have seen.

Vs.25-28-doesn't preclude Jesus from having to make new priesthood by law. We arn't under law. Jesus can make mortal priesthood if he wishe's and Moses law no longer has a say. High Priest's

today are of the Melchizedek office. The Aaronic priesthood was quite changed when it was brought into the Restoration by modern revelation.

Jesus and Melchizedek share that priesthood. What verse in Hebrew's 11 prevent's Jesus from further sharing their priesthood with other's? Technically Jesus could not have the

priesthood because Melchizedek never died. (Hebrews 7:3) He shared it with Jesus without transferring it. Both men didn't ever give up their priesthood.

First, sorry it took so long to reply and I will try to answer the easiest way possible.

I will go over what and who Melchisedek is(as far as we know) and then I will go through what you said.

Who is MelChisek:

(Heb. 7:1,3) His is King and priest of Salem. (This is also been know to be similar to Christ)

City of Salem

Salem is an ancient name for Jerusalem.

The Two Theories of Melchisedek as a Being:

The two theories of Melchisedek is (1) he is an incarantion of Christ before he came or (2) he is just a mere mortal that was barely mentioned

in the Bible, but has some type of importance.

Melchisedek being eternal:

(Heb 7:3) States Melchisedek as being an eternal being and without mother or father.

-To explain this accuratly one has to go back 2000 years in the eastern world of literature. When they say he has no mother or father this

could be explained by his mother and father wasn't documented or his geneology being obsured. This isn't very uncommon in secular literature

of the time.

For example:

Senceca, in his 108th epistle, speaking of some Roman Kings, says: "Of the mother of Servius Tullus there are doubts; and Ancus Marcu is said

to have no father".

You could look up tons of docrine on this and this doen't mean he too didn't have a father, its just not documented.

This could also be applied to him being eternal.This expression could indicate that his birth and death were not recorded, being that the Jews were responsible for that

time to document the priests that were of Levite descend and they had to prove that they were of at least the age of 25. Now being that he

wasn't a Levite, the Jews would have rendered him not a priest and so would've took no heed to him. That could explain why there are no

descendence recorded of him.

So Melchisedek could have been two different things and no one can be 100% sure. I have read and departed phrases into the original greek and

it is almost impossible to decide on what he was because there are scripture that supports both ends of the argument

but, we can conclude that he was a King and Priest. This debate could go on forever (and it has so far ), all we need to know is that Jesus

holds the priesthood, Melchisedec being the second one to hold it is a life long debate in its self, for there isn't adiquit information to

fully 100% understand who he is (For if he was Christ himself there would be only one, if he was a mortal he would have died.).

*Note if he was of crusial importance the Bible would have more information on him and there are several people who did not die that

are mentioned in the Bible in far more detail than Melchisedek.

Why would God Replace the Aaronic Priesthood:

There are several reasons why this would happand and I will elaborate on the main 4 reasons.

First,

With the change of the law there would have to abe a change of the priesthood. Because under the las of Moses, God appointed the Levietes to be the priests.

This would restrict alot of people from being priests just because there were not Levites. Also when Jesus made the new covenant, he needed to change the priesthood

also. A new law required a new priesthood.

Second,

The Aaronic priesthood could not make anything or anyone prefect and the Aaronic priests could only serve for a short time (They started

at the age of 25 and had to "retire" at the age of 55- I believe right around there) and since Jesus lives and will never die he can serve as

our priest for all eternity. So the Aaronic priesthood had to be done away with because of the flaws due to the men that served it.

Third,

The Aaronic priests could not save those who came to them, Jesus though can save all who come to Him.

Fourth,

Also the Levites had to offer up sacrifices daily to cover the sins comitted. Jesus offered up his won sinless body to be the

sacrifice. This is the one and final sacrifice needed and so in doing so all who come to Him may be saved.

This is why the Aaronic priesthood had to be changed. It was imperfect and so needed to be changed with a perfect one that Jesus Christ holds.

Also you mentioned that it wouldn't stop Jesus from making a new mortal priesthood. No it doesn't, but this is why the Aaronic priesthood was

done away with the first time(It was flawed because mortals served it). Why would he put up another flawed priesthood when he could hold

the perfect one?

You also stated that we are not under the law. You are correct we are not, that law was done away with along with the Aaronic Priesthood(Which the law that

was done away with governed), andJesus made a new covenant on which the Melchisedek priesthood is established on. Now, the law serves as a school master and

identify what "sin" is and why we need Christ.

I hope you understand, thank you very much for your time and please further elaborate on what I said. I quite enjoy Bible discussions.

[cgrantreed]

Oh, and also you may be saying that Christian doctrine and LDS doctrine are the same and I will have to say Hinkle said it himself that he did not believe in the God of Christianity.

..and I'd have to say prove that 'cause... I know that it is said NOWHERE to that fact. He has stood side by side with Christian leaders and acknowledged that we all pray to the same God.

[Shadow]

..and I'd have to say prove that 'cause... I know that it is said NOWHERE to that fact. He has stood side by side with Christian leaders and acknowledged that we all pray to the same God.

Before I answer that question I had a question of my own and that was, can a LDS president/apostle/Prophet contradict other former or current LDS presidents/apostles/Prophets ? And if so which one would be correct?

[inthearmsofsleep]

Before I answer that question I had a question of my own and that was, can a LDS president/apostle/Prophet contradict other former or current LDS presidents/apostles/Prophets ? And if so which one would be correct?

I'm gonna borrow this one from NateHowe in another thread:

The words of the current Prophet are intended for our day specifically. New revelation can overrule the policies of the past, even those accepted by previous prophets. If we are to believe in Jesus Christ, this is not difficult to believe, because His words overruled Moses and previous Prophets. Similarly, the law God gave Moses was different from the revelations given to Adam and Noah.

A good example in modern times is the 1978 revelation that encouraged ordination of all worthy men to the Priesthood. It was granted for the time when it came. It was not the policy of previous Prophets, but it was given for a specific reason in the Lord.

[Shadow]

I'm gonna borrow this one from NateHowe in another thread:

The words of the current Prophet are intended for our day specifically. New revelation can overrule the policies of the past, even those accepted by previous prophets. If we are to believe in Jesus Christ, this is not difficult to believe, because His words overruled Moses and previous Prophets. Similarly, the law God gave Moses was different from the revelations given to Adam and Noah.

A good example in modern times is the 1978 revelation that encouraged ordination of all worthy men to the Priesthood. It was granted for the time when it came. It was not the policy of previous Prophets, but it was given for a specific reason in the Lord.

Well there are some problems with this statement and that is when did Jesus speak against what Moses said? I know he added things like murder was now told to be hating within the heart, but I didn't see anything that was against what Moses said or any of the other prophets. If you could show me some instances that would help.

Also I agree that the old law of Moses was overruled, we are not saved or condemned by the Law of Moses (We are shown what sin is though), but this is now here is the interesting thing. The LDS modern prophet said himself that the Law of Moses had been overruled (In your statement above), which would mean that what it governed would also be overruled. And in so doing the Aaronic Priesthood would had to have been overruled and done away with, just like the Law of Moses. But even when he said this, the Aaronic Priesthood is still being observed when it is supposed to be overruled just like its governor, the Law of Moses was overruled. So now the question is, is it up to you on which part of the old revelation(s) have been overruled, and which have not? Because if that is what he said, that is what is going on.

[darrel]

My understanding about the two priesthoods is that the Higher Priesthood or the priesthood after the order of the Son of God, or Melchisedek priesthood has been on the earth from time to time from Adam, as the Lord had worthy prophets on earth to hold it. Those who hold this priesthood can officiate in spiritual ordinances when authorized by those over them.

The Aaronic Priesthood or Levitical Priesthood as it is also called, is a lesser priesthood to the Melchisedek. Those who hold this priesthood have authority to officiate in temporal duties when authorized by those over them.

Moses had the Higher priesthood and his first attempt to pass it on to the Israelites resulted in his breaking the first tablets because the people were not ready. The Ten commandments and the resulting Levitical ordanances are a temporal replacement

Both priesthoods have a place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We know that once again the sons of Aaron or Aaronic priesthood will be called upon to offer an offering to the Lord in righteousness during the events of the Lords second comming.

The restitution of all things will take place before the Lord comes again.

(Acts 3:19-21):)

[Aelswyth]

There are some doctrines I am curious about.Garden of Eden be located in Independence,Missouri-Joesph Smith vison??? Second coming of christ,Jesus will come to mIssouri-USA first??? Biblical scholars claim Garden of eden is in Middle East-Iraq or somewhere.

Biblical scholars have no idea where the Garden of Eden was; there is no way to determine that from what is recorded in the Bible. Biblical scholars say it was in the Middle East because of two flawed assumptions: first, that the rivers mentioned to flow from the Garden were the same as those known by those names after the Flood (which obviously must have drastically changed the landscape); and second, that people in ancient times were somehow too stupid or too apathetic to travel great distances to far-off lands (despite the continuous discovery of evidence that shows they did just that, and far more often than anyone would have believed).

God has a wife in heaven.God is flesh and bones with wife,makes spirit children.

This is something I've wondered about myself. If Heavenly Father and his wife are both beings of glorified flesh and bones, then how is it they produce spirit children rather than children of flesh and bones like themselves? The only answer to this puzzle seems to be that our natural progression is somewhat like the life-cycle of an insect!! We have a "larval stage" as spirit children, then "cocoon" ourselves in our earthly form, then (after a brief return to spirit) we finally emerge from our metamorphosis as glorified beings like our Heavenly Parents. Of course, this is just a simple way of looking at it from our current limited perspective... actually, Doctrine and Covenants teaches that matter and spirit are just two forms of the same all-pervading substance, just functioning at different levels of refinement, or different speeds of "vibration", to use the terminology of modern quantum physics.

Why does Book of Mormon say that God is a spirit not flesh and bones?? In Doctrines and Covenants say that God is flesh and bones.

When discussing the issue of God as Spirit vs. flesh and bones, one has to keep in mind the timeline of scriptural events. Remember that for most of the Old Testament period, the majority of Hebrews/Jews did not have a complete understanding of the Father and the Son; to them, they had one God and that was Jehovah (whom we know as the pre-mortal Christ). Since Christ had not yet incarnated, he was of course a spirit being for the whole of the Old Testament period. At that time he did NOT have a body of flesh and bones. So when they said that God was a Spirit, they were absolutely correct, as far as they understood it. Remember also that the word "God" is used throughout scripture to refer to the Godhead as a whole and also to any individual member of the Godhead. So even today one could say, "God is (a) Spirit" and be absolutely correct, if referring to the Holy Ghost. But, as we know, God is also a tangible being of flesh and bones (in fact TWO tangible beings of flesh and bones!), so that statement only tells part of the whole truth.

[darrel]

All things were created spiritually before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. Each of us has a spirit and a body of flesh and bones which will be separated at death and reunited again at the resurrection of all men.

During the Millenial reign of Christ there will be no death but an immediate change from mortality to immortality.

[Iggy]

During the Millenial reign of Christ there will be no death but an immediate change from mortality to immortality.

That is not my understanding- there will be death, for we all have to taste death before we can be resurrected.

[darrel]

The first resurrection will take place as Christ comes to reign at the beginning of the millenium. After that the twinkling of an eye will be the time it takes to change from mortality to immortality.

The exception will be those who are part of the second resurrection at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ at the time of the final judgement.:)

[Shadow]

Ok, we are going in two different directions.

Their can be only one priesthood. Because they both are different. The Aaronic is governed by the Law of Moses, which cannot give mercy,

and you have the Melkizedec that can give mercy. They both cannot co-exist because they are in two different covenants. Christ created a

new covenant which ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. The reason for this is that Christ's covenant over rode the old one.

Second if you were to have the Aaronic Priesthood you have to be the age of 25 and not only do you have to be a Levite, but you have

to prove it yourselves. You cannot just claim it. So if you were to do that, most of the LDS are not even qualified for it. So it wouldn't

even be an option. But that is not so, because the Aaronic Priesthood is gone.

Now the Millennial Reign.

That is a little different and I not sure on how we got onto that subject. But never the less it is still important. I believe and I believe

the Bible makes this clear that there will be a generation that does not die. Due to the returning of Christ. Also during his reign not everyone

will be immortal as there is supposed to be a rebellion after the 1000 years when Satan is loosed upon the earth and that their numbers will

be as the sand of the Sea and that they will try to destroy God. So if everyone is immortal how could they be destroyed? And how do they multiply if

they are immortal? The book of Revelation makes that pretty clear, there will be mortals and immortals co-existing.

[Aelswyth]

Ok, we are going in two different directions.

Their can be only one priesthood. Because they both are different. The Aaronic is governed by the Law of Moses, which cannot give mercy,

and you have the Melkizedec that can give mercy. They both cannot co-exist because they are in two different covenants. Christ created a

new covenant which ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. The reason for this is that Christ's covenant over rode the old one.

Second if you were to have the Aaronic Priesthood you have to be the age of 25 and not only do you have to be a Levite, but you have

to prove it yourselves. You cannot just claim it. So if you were to do that, most of the LDS are not even qualified for it. So it wouldn't

even be an option. But that is not so, because the Aaronic Priesthood is gone.

Okay; you can't have it both ways. Either Christ was able to change/amend/update/override the old laws and old covenant, in which case he could certainly amend the requirements for the Aaronic priesthood, or he was not able to change anything, in which case he could not have created a new covenant and ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. So which is it? He can modify the law, or he can't? I think most of us here will agree that Christ has certainly shown himself capable of modifying the law and arranging HIS priesthood/s any way he wants to. Just saying the priesthoods were in two different covenants does not even remotely demonstrate that they cannot co-exist. Many things from the old covenant co-exist with the things in the new, without tearing the fabric of the space-time continuum. And even before Christ came, the two existed together, so why can they not now? Your argument makes no sense. If you can show logically (not just with opinion) why they cannot co-exist, and why they cannot be held by whomever Christ chooses to hold them, please explain it.

[Aelswyth]

Now the Millennial Reign.

That is a little different and I not sure on how we got onto that subject. But never the less it is still important. I believe and I believe

the Bible makes this clear that there will be a generation that does not die. Due to the returning of Christ. Also during his reign not everyone

will be immortal as there is supposed to be a rebellion after the 1000 years when Satan is loosed upon the earth and that their numbers will

be as the sand of the Sea and that they will try to destroy God. So if everyone is immortal how could they be destroyed? And how do they multiply if

they are immortal? The book of Revelation makes that pretty clear, there will be mortals and immortals co-existing.

As for this, you misunderstand the statements about immortality. Yes, people will be mortal in the Millennium, but when they "die", instead of going to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection, they will be instantaneously transfigured into their immortal bodies. It's really just the skipping of the middle step of waiting in the spirit world for resurrection. People will still be just as mortal as they are now, until they die and that transfiguration takes place. So then, yes, there will be a mixture of mortals and immortals, as the Millennium goes on.

[Shadow]

Okay; you can't have it both ways. Either Christ was able to change/amend/update/override the old laws and old covenant,

in which case he could certainly amend the requirements for the Aaronic priesthood, or he was not able to change anything,

in which case he could not have created a new covenant and ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. So which is it?

He can modify the law, or he can't? I think most of us here will agree that Christ has certainly shown himself capable of

modifying the law and arranging HIS priesthood/s any way he wants to. Just saying the priesthoods were in two different

covenants does not even remotely demonstrate that they cannot co-exist.

Actually it would, and is exactly why one overrides the other.

Many things from the old covenant co-exist with

the things in the new, without tearing the fabric of the space-time continuum. And even before Christ came, the two existed

together, so why can they not now? Your argument makes no sense. If you can show logically (not just with opinion) why they

cannot co-exist, and why they cannot be held by whomever Christ chooses to hold them, please explain it.

1st to explain why they cannot co-exist you will need to understand the meaning and use of each one. The Aaronic Priesthood was given to the

Levites to offer sacrifices for the sins of man and to continue in doing so as long as man sinned (Which is indefinite, until Christ comes

back). The Aaronic Priesthood had to offer pure sacrifices for the sins, it couldn't just be any thing you wanted. In Beliving this priesthood

you would still need to offer the blood sacrifices needed to cover the sins of man according to Moses and the Aaronic Priesthood. To say accept

that the Aaronic Priesthood is to still be honored, is to to say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not sufficant for your salvation

and that you still need the sacrifices of the Aaronic Priesthood to be cleanse of sin.

Now this is where the Melchizedek priesthood differs from the Aaronic. Jesus Christ hold's the "new" priesthood and "new" covenant

which states that Jesus's pure sacrifice was sufficent for everyone and it is the last and final sacrifice for sin.

As for this, you misunderstand the statements about immortality. Yes, people will be mortal in the Millennium, but when they "die",

instead of going to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection, they will be instantaneously transfigured into their immortal

bodies. It's really just the skipping of the middle step of waiting in the spirit world for resurrection. People will still be

just as mortal as they are now, until they die and that transfiguration takes place. So then, yes, there will be a mixture of

mortals and immortals, as the Millennium goes on.

As for this where in the Bible does it state that? As far as I know it doesn't state anything in the Bible about a Purgatory "like" place unitl

Christ comes back. Christ did that when he Died on the Cross. It was called Abraham's Bosum, he let the captives free there. We know this to

be true that there is not "holding tank" til Christ comes back because he says to the theif on the cross that he would today be in paradise.

[darrel]

I'm interested in knowing what religion we are talking about here. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches eternal principles taught by God's prophets from the beginning of the world. The Bible is not the fulness of God's teachings. We need additional witnesses to understand the truth. Otherwise we have the confusion that exists in the world today. :)

[rameumptom]

Ok, we are going in two different directions.

Their can be only one priesthood. Because they both are different. The Aaronic is governed by the Law of Moses, which cannot give mercy,

and you have the Melkizedec that can give mercy. They both cannot co-exist because they are in two different covenants. Christ created a

new covenant which ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. The reason for this is that Christ's covenant over rode the old one.

Second if you were to have the Aaronic Priesthood you have to be the age of 25 and not only do you have to be a Levite, but you have

to prove it yourselves. You cannot just claim it. So if you were to do that, most of the LDS are not even qualified for it. So it wouldn't

even be an option. But that is not so, because the Aaronic Priesthood is gone.

Paul taught that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was a schoolmaster brought forth to lead us to Christ. Jesus also said he had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. We are taught in modern revelation that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Its purpose is as a preparatory priesthood. Just as the ancient Aaronic Priesthood prepared the way for the priesthood Christ would bring; so it prepares us in the outward ordinances and commandments that we may be readied to receive the higher and celestial powers and authorities of God.

As for it being "gone", why do you think this? Didn't Peter and Paul continue going to the temple after Christ's death? Didn't they honor the rites and rituals of the Law of Moses? Of course they did. Paul explained the difference between the two priesthoods in Hebrews 5-7, because both still existed. In ancient times, it was given to the Levites (and more specifically to the descendants of Aaron). However, that was caused by revelation, because technically the Lord expected to give it to the first born male children, but took the tribe of Levi instead. Anytime in the future, God can make changes to what he has purposefully done in the past. How does he do this? Through living prophets (Amos 3:7).

So, while the requirement was 25 years of age and a descendant of Levi/Aaron to hold the Aaronic Priesthood anciently, God making a command through a living prophet trumps a command he made thousands of years ago. And if chooses to have the AP as a preparatory priesthood to prepare for the 2nd Coming, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Now the Millennial Reign.

That is a little different and I not sure on how we got onto that subject. But never the less it is still important. I believe and I believe

the Bible makes this clear that there will be a generation that does not die. Due to the returning of Christ. Also during his reign not everyone

will be immortal as there is supposed to be a rebellion after the 1000 years when Satan is loosed upon the earth and that their numbers will

be as the sand of the Sea and that they will try to destroy God. So if everyone is immortal how could they be destroyed? And how do they multiply if

they are immortal? The book of Revelation makes that pretty clear, there will be mortals and immortals co-existing.

Those born in the Millennium will be mortal, to be changed/translated when it comes time to "die."

[Misshalfway]

Maybe someone has already said this but from my understanding, the Lord wanted to give the Israelites the higher law to begin with. They were sinful and unprepared and so the Lord gave them a lower law -- the law of Moses, which was a law of justice and with specific rights and rituals. But that was not the gospel. It was like a remedial course in righteousness design to discipline the hearts of the Israelites and point them to the Savior. It was the lower law and needs to be understood as such. When the Lord came to the earth, he came to fulfill the law. He was the last and greatest sacrifice. After His death and resurrection, the practice of sacrifice was discontinued and a higher law was introduced. Instead of the sacrifice of an animal, it was required that a person come with a broken heart and contrite spirit. This is the essence of the higher law. This law operates within the spiritual realm of the soul -- and is not so focused on outer rites and rituals in daily living. The priesthood power (A and M) and the law are two different things. The priesthood power is the authority to work in the name of God. It was needed to administer within the law of Moses. The same power is needed today. I don't think Christ changed anything about the priesthood power itself ( it is eternal) other than to continue to expand the groups who were able to hold it. That was always the goal. It was always the goal to move the kingdom of God forward to all nations, tongues and people. It was a matter to timing and righteousness and wisdom from the Lord to know when the time was right to extend this power to all the earth. And it has been taken from the earth at various times when the people were unrighteous. And now, after the restoration, it is not the law of moses that was restored. It was the gospel in its fullness or the higher law the the Lord had originally intended for the Israelites before they decided to worship a golden cow and other such sinful practices.

The priesthood and who gets to have it also has to do with birthright. You are right, that the Levites were the only ones that had that birthright at the time. And those blessings are still available to anyone who is found to be of the lineage of Levi. But the Lord extends the blessings of the priesthood to all of the house of Israel now. If a soul is baptized and is not of the House of Israel, the baptism literally adopts them into the house of Israel and then qualifies them, if they continue in righteousness, to all of the blessings of the house of Israel including the holding of and administering of priesthood ordinances.

[rameumptom]

D&C 84 teaches us that Moses' initial goal was to provide the fulness of the Gospel to the Israelites, and have them, through the Melchizedek Priesthood, enter into the presence of the Lord on Mt Sinai. The Israelites refused to go with him on the mountain, and asked Moses to be their eyes and witness. Because of this and their sins, the Lord took the Melchizedek Priesthood away from them (en masse), leaving the high priesthood solely with Moses and a few prophets that followed after. The Aaronic Priesthood was then given as a terrestrial law and a schoolmaster, to prepare the slaves of Egypt for the day when they would be kings and priests under Christ.

Sadly, most of the world struggles with a terrestrial law, much moreso with a celestial law. And D&C 88 tells us that we will receive a glory equal to the law we are willing and able to abide by.

[Aelswyth]

Actually it would, and is exactly why one overrides the other.

1st to explain why they cannot co-exist you will need to understand the meaning and use of each one. The Aaronic Priesthood was given to the

Levites to offer sacrifices for the sins of man and to continue in doing so as long as man sinned (Which is indefinite, until Christ comes

back). The Aaronic Priesthood had to offer pure sacrifices for the sins, it couldn't just be any thing you wanted. In Beliving this priesthood

you would still need to offer the blood sacrifices needed to cover the sins of man according to Moses and the Aaronic Priesthood. To say accept

that the Aaronic Priesthood is to still be honored, is to to say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not sufficant for your salvation

and that you still need the sacrifices of the Aaronic Priesthood to be cleanse of sin.

You're not answering my points, you're merely restating what you've already explained. You are explaining the OLD Aaronic priesthood as it operated under the Mosaic Law. No one is disagreeing with you that that is no longer relevant. What I'm pointing out is that just because it no longer operates under the same laws DOES NOT mean it no longer exists. When a company restructures, does it cease to exist? No. You have failed to address my basic argument that Christ has modified the law, rendering the sacrificial elements obsolete and overhauling the priesthood rather than eliminating it altogether. Please show me the Scriptures which disprove this argument. I don't believe there are any.

Now this is where the Melchizedek priesthood differs from the Aaronic. Jesus Christ hold's the "new" priesthood and "new" covenant

which states that Jesus's pure sacrifice was sufficent for everyone and it is the last and final sacrifice for sin.

Once again, no one is disagreeing with this premise; where we differ is only in our belief in the continued, though modified, existence of the Aaronic priesthood alongside the Melchizidek.

As for this where in the Bible does it state that? As far as I know it doesn't state anything in the Bible about a Purgatory "like" place until

Christ comes back. Christ did that when he Died on the Cross. It was called Abraham's Bosum, he let the captives free there. We know this to

be true that there is not "holding tank" til Christ comes back because he says to the theif on the cross that he would today be in paradise.

Okay, this is where some basic Biblical and historical knowledge comes in handy. First of all, every Scriptural reference to "the resurrection" logically indicates that there is a spirit world where we wait for that resurrection. This place is referred to variously as Sheol (the grave/underworld), Abraham's bosom (i.e. the place where our ancestors await us), and Paradise. "Paradise" comes from a Persian word meaning a walled garden - it's basically the Persian version of the Garden of Eden (the Hebrew phrase "gan 'eden" is literally translated as "enclosed garden of delight"). "Paradise" does not refer to the place where God is (Heaven), it refers to the pleasant place where good folks go after death and before resurrection; there also is the unpleasant "spirit prison" for those who are bad. There are cognates in the Eyptian "Reed Fields" and the Greek "Elysium", both sections of the underworld set apart as places of delight for the spirits of the virtuous dead. Among early Christian Fathers, both Irenaeus and Origen made the distinction between "Heaven" and "Paradise", with Origen describing Paradise as "an earthly 'school' for souls of the righteous dead, preparing them for their ascent through the celestial spheres to heaven."

Christ did not ascend to his Father on the day he died; he descended to Sheol, Paradise, the spirit world of the ancestors, where he preached to the spirits in prison. That is what he meant by telling the thief he would be with him that day in Paradise. He did not ascend to his Father until after he was resurrected and appeared to the disciples. So would you then make Christ a liar?

Yes, according to Scripture, Christ's death and resurrection brought about what is known as the First Resurrection, which consisted of all those in the spirit world at that time. The Second Resurrection, which is all the rest of us, will occur when he returns at the Millennium, after which will be the Day of Judgment. All of these concepts have a sound scriptural basis. If you are unable to find the references yourself, I may be able to post them all for you if I have the time.