May 3, 2012 -- 11:30AM, Joe68 wrote:

Can you please show where any Mormon leaders have offically said that the “real name” of the Melchizedek priesthood is the “fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”?

Because it really seems like you are just making this up. I’ve read quite a bit about the MP on the LDS website and I don’t recall it ever being said that it had another name let alone that its “real name” was something else.

Either you didn't look hard enough, or something isn't quite right here.

Because I paid a visit to the Bible Dictionary and found the info straightaway.

D&C 107 -

 1 There are, in the church, two ^apriesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and ^bAaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

 2 Why the first is called the ^aMelchizedek Priesthood is because ^bMelchizedek was such a great high priest.

 3 Before his day it was called the Holy ^aPriesthood, after the ^bOrder of the Son of God.

May 3, 2012 -- 11:23AM, withwonderingawe wrote:

WWA; I’ve got the whole Bible behind me

Joe; If this is true then please explain:

1) Where in the bible do we find that Melchizedek conferred the priesthood on Abraham or any other OT person?

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth”

Melchizedek was priest of El Elyon. He has this higher priesthood, “after the order of the Son” for he gives the sacrament of bread and wine to Abraham.

Melchizedek must have given Abraham the priesthood because Jethro a descendant of Abraham is also known as Ruel or friend of El and is a priest, (remember the Aaronic priesthood does not exist yet). In Ex 18 He performs the sacrifices for Israel and also breaks bread with them or gives them the sacrament.

Now there is a whole bunch of history concerning Abraham’s family the Bible is missing. Jethro didn’t jump in there out of thin air and Moses would not have allowed a pagan to perform the sacrifice. While Israel was languishing in Egypt their cousins the Medianites were alive and well in the promised land. They must have been a fairly righteous people for they retained the priesthood up until Moses came on the seen. They were probably ripe with iniquity by then and Jethro was their last priest.

Now in Exodus 18 Jethro does something which must consist of him giving the priesthood to Moses for he says;

“I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: (take his position as Priest who petitions El) And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.”

There are at this same time other chosen to be judges in Israel.

In the next chapter the Lord speaks to Moses

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation..”

Note Peter quotes this passage in 1 Peter 2
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light”

Back to Ex 19
“These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel….And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded……And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.”

Now remember the Aaronic priesthood has not be created yet, that does not happen until chapter 40.

So where did these priest come from?

2) Where in the bible do we find that Melchizedek conferred the priesthood on Peter, James, John or any of the NT disciples or apostles?

He did not for Christ was there and he is the head, he’s over Melchizedek. He called and ordained.

3) Where in the bible do we find that Melchizedek priesthood was ever held by anyone other than Jesus or Melchizedek?

I think I’ve shown it, you’re just ignoring all of the evidence because you do not want to see.

So Priest of Midian now means Melchizedek Priest? Couldn’t it just mean Jethro was of an unnamed priesthood? Just like in 1 Peter 2:5 where it mentions a priesthood which is neither the Levitical or Melchizedek priesthoods. It is simply unnamed.

Unless there is something in the text that directs one to be able to identify the priesthood it is best to leave it as God conveyed it to us, an unnamed priesthood. Otherwise it is mere speculation.

Joe; Second the article you link to says that except for the fact that Jesus Christ is a Melchizedek priest the Bible is silent on any "particulars" of the MP. All the details, all the particulars about the MP (including its “other” name ) in the article come from Joseph Smith. Meaning these Mormon “particulars” concerning the MP does NOT come from the Bible – meaning that the LDS teachings on the MP are NOT Biblical.

Many years ago when I was studding the differences between Mormonism and Traditional Christianity I decided I needed to stop relying on little cut and past jobs done by both sides. I needed to know what the Bible actually says for myself.

I got a note book and made up a topical guide of my own. At the top of the page I would put ‘God what is he physically like’ or ‘faith vs. works’ etc. Starting at Gen 1:1 I would write down the reverence when I came across something. I also bought a Strong’s Concordance and began comparing the Hebrew and Greek. And I also bought a Barclay Bible to see how it could be rendered in plain English. When I could get to a computer I would go to Crosswalk.com to compare different Bibles and how they wrote the passage.

I started at the beginning and worked my way through as I went I became more and more impressed with Joseph Smith. The whole experience cemented my testimony of him as a very real Prophet of God.

What I found is that you Evangelicals are more interested in your dogma than in what the Bible actually says. As an example the lady who started me on this journey and I were discussing Mark 16:16

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”

I said there is ya have to be baptized to be saved. She said no belief is mentioned twice so it’s more important, you don’t need baptism to be saved.

It was then I realized how hopeless the discussion was. My being wrong was more important to her than believing what the Bible says. She really didn’t believe the Bible at all.

Do you?

This little phrase “the fellowship of his (God’s) Son” is so close to “the Order of the Son of God” I mean why quibble over it except that you don’t want to believe we could possibly be right.

Joe; "It is his Father in law; he is simply expressing deferential respect

Verse 11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people.

You say that Jethro was a “friend of god” and a MP but he is only NOW understanding that the Lord is greater than all the false pagan deities? If he was a priest of the Lord he would known that." 

Again Joe I just keep assuming you know the Bible but you surprise me. Jethro is simply referring to Deut 32 which is translated wrong in the KJV it should read;

“Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”

This does not mean Israel was polytheistic in any sense. It is referring to the 70 sons of El or angels who were placed over the different nations as care givers after the earth was divided.

Yahweh’s responsibility was Israel and He was as God head of the Devine council of these sons or Host of Heaven. That’s why one of Yahweh’s title is Lord of Host. (do you really want me to go through all the different passages?)

I believe this is how paganism first began. All peoples and nations were suppose to worship or make offerings to Yahweh who was the mediator between man and El through their own lesser sons.

Abraham’s family was the chosen nation who went directly through Yahweh.

There is a reference to this in Isa 44

“Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them….Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

The word “ancient” there is that same word used as everlasting or eternal. Yahweh is referring to the sons of El who he appointed over the nations and are part of the host of heaven. Of all of them He alone is God, there is none else. He goes on to say

“They that make a graven image are all of them vanity”

But when Moses goes up to the mountain it actually says the Mountain of the Gods. It is plural and there is no singular noun. Jethro was the priest of his tribe and being a descendant of Abraham he offered sacrifice to Yahweh to petition El. Their may have been other priest at that same mountain who were suppose to petition their own angel who would then petition Yahweh.

But somewhere there men began to reject Yahweh as God to worship their own lesser son/angel of El as a God which they weren’t. Jewish traditions says it was Nimrod who first taught men to worship false gods and Shem became so angry he slew him.

Moses warned the people about worshiping false gods.

"…And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

The different sons or host of heaven were represented by the different objects in the night sky; Ra the Egyptian god was God of the sun, Yarikh was a moon god. Even Yahweh was the morning star.

But even with the warnings Manasseh "…built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord".

I see Jethro some what like Jonah who tried to run away from Yahweh. The belief was the land was divided up between the different sons so if he ran to another land he wouldn’t have to obey Yahweh. He found out differently, didn’t make him less a prophet. Jethro may have had the same view and learned by what happened to Israel that “the Lord is greater than all gods”.

May 7, 2012 -- 11:48PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

Joe; He didn't perform a "sacrifce for Israel".

“And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God.”

He took a burnt offering from Israel and preformed the sacrifice for Israel.

Joe; All Mark 16:16 is affirming is that those who do not believe will not be saved and those who believe and are baptized will be saved. It simply does not address what happens to someone who believes but is not baptized.

See ya care more about your dogma than what the Bible says.

There are four options for people in regards to belief and baptism:

1) one can believe and be baptized

2) one can believe and not be baptized

3) one can have no belief and be baptized

4) one can have no belief and not be baptized

Everyone falls into one of those four categories. Mark 16:16 speaks about #1 they are saved number 3 & 4 are not saved due to non belief. But what about someone who believes but is not baptized? It does not say. Any supposed definitive answer is simply an assumption.

Jethro:

Read the verse again.

“And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God. and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God.”

No where does it say that Jethro took a burnt offering FROM Israel and preformed the sacrifice FOR Israel.

It says that Jethro took A burnt offering and sacrifices FOR God.

 A “burnt offering” was understood to atone for past sins and to appeal for forgiveness and acceptance. Then “Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God,” which signified the formal admission of Jethro into Israel.

It fits perfectly with Jethro acknowledging that he did not know “that the Lord is greater than all gods” (meaning he was not a priest of God) but NOW he does know. And then he comes to God with his sacrifice for atonement and acceptance. Then has a meal with Abraham and etc.  

You yet to show how Jethro - a supposed  Melchizedek priest  in LDS theology - who doesn’t know that the God he supposed to be serving isn’t greater then all the pagan gods.  Your explaination does not fit the context.