Hi as a Catholic priest I have other views on the priesthood. But I recognize many valuable views in the LDS Church. As we both appreciate the importance of the priesthood as a sort of channel for Gods grace, (I hope I used the right words) I have the feeling that in LDS Church the priesthood is more present and I really appreciate your priesthood..I really view it as very valuable that the priesthood reaches to the family itself, so Gods grace is available, also in that level!
Thank you for your interest! I meet too many people who put down others because of their beliefs. That’s not what Christ told us to do, so thank you for your kindness and civility! 😊
I was just ordained to Elder and given the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood at Stake Conference on September 25. I’m a baby Elder. Lol Great video. New subbie. Loving these videos.
We've done one F&B on patriarchal blessings? And I think there's at least one episode of the main show that features a patriarch as a guest. That might interest you. Patriarchs don't hold keys though, despite their prominent and interesting role, which is why they were neglected here.
@@seans5289 Gotcha. Well, I gotta be frank. I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re talking about. Haha I know Joseph Sr. was patriarch for the whole church at one point and held influence that way, but the church was also contained pretty much in one or two cities at the time. My guess is their prominence died as the church got bigger and their influence became more diluted - but that’s a total assumption I’m making. Is there a specific function they served that you’re referring to?
What I love about LDS theology is it is so covered in secret knowledge. The terms used have meaning to members, but are confusing to non members. Are these keys physical keys or metaphysical. What makes they different from any other thing that denotes church organization like Ordainment in Catholocism or Pastoral blessing in Protestantism. In short why do Priesthood Keys denote more legitimacy of belief than any other system of organization that other denominations use
Because the "keys" (permissions / authorizations) are passed by the laying on of hands from one who has the priesthood to another receiving the priesthood in an unbroken chain back to Jesus Christ Who holds all keys. You cannot get priesthood keys from prayer, scripture study or feeling the Holy Ghost as some Protestants claim. You cannot receive them by someone who thinks they have them but does not. You cannot purchase the priesthood or it's keys as we learn in the Book of Acts. You must receive them by the laying on of hands by one authorized in an unbroken chain back to Christ Himself.
One big problem I find is… why, when the Three Nephites and John the Beloved are still on earth to this day (which is what the Church says), why do we say that the priesthood keys were lost? And why did they not give the priesthood keys to Joseph Smith?
@@brucenorth5337 You still have to admit that it makes no sense that John, as a translated being (not resurrected) couldn't have given them the keys. Also, why would Peter and James already be resurrected beings as claimed by the Church? The Resurrection hasn't even taken place on the Earth yet. It also doesn't make sense that they, according to the endowment ceremony, gave Adam and Eve the tokens. They hadn't even been born on Earth yet and received a physical body. Brigham Young said that the Three Nephites, as beings who were allowed to stay on Earth, taught and baptized thousands. Where are these thousands of converts now? And why does the Church say that the priesthood keys were lost, when the Three Nephites still had the keys and weren't taken away from the Earth and are still walking around? The problem with Mormonism is that everything sounds nice and somewhat logical when you hear the stories, but when you think a little bit more about them, you run into lots of problems and contradictions. The same with the different vision accounts, the different interviews by the BoM witnesses, the problem with the Garden of Eden in Missouri, the Church's history with polygamy and racism.
This is why currently only the Bishop performs mortal weddings, even though from a theological perspective it is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance like baptism and the sacrament.
@@zionmama150 That used to be the case. Not just missionaries, but anyone ordained to the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. That policy has changed, so only Bishops (not even councilors), Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents (no longer missionaries), chaplains, and General Authorities can perform temporal weddings. IT is actually because of missionaries not following proper legal procedures (which differ in different countries) that the policy was changed. It is not something for which the Church permits short cuts.
@@zionmama150 Late 80s or early 90s. Sometime between my mission and my brothers. It was something my father complained about a bit. When he was a councilor in the Bishopric he was assigned to perform weddings all the time, but by the time he became Bishop he was not allowed to delegate that responsibility. In the US the Church only licenses the listed callings. In Michigan it costs about $150 dollars a year to get a license to perform weddings, and there really is not a need to pay that for each missionary. Even Temple Presidents (who are licensed) are not supposed to perform temporal weddings, only Temple ones.
And therein lies the problem - mortals either asking themselves or another mortal man for the CONFIRMATION of who actually holds the Keys of The Priesthood of God. NO MORTAL MAN can CONFIRM that knowledge to another. Only God Himself THRU THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY GHOST can CONFIRM to any of us WHICH MORTAL MEN God has ORDAINED with His Priesthood Keys. It’s a beautiful thing, a safe thing - but only if your faith is in GOD above MORTAL APOSTLES and PROPHETS, the latter being subject to the occasional HONEST mistake or error in SECULAR decisions. I DO NOT FOLLOW THE BRETHREN BLINDLY and I WORSHIP ONLY THE GOD OF ISRAEL. In this day and age of the rise of the Power of the Dragon and his Beast, when “EVEN THE VERY ELECT MAY BE DECEIVED”, I would STRONGLY encourage all saints to do the same.
You should follow Jesus Christ first and foremost. Latter-day Saints believe the priesthood authority was lost from the earth after the death of the apostles, and this priesthood was restored to the earth in 1829. This is a Latter-day Saint ran channel, so obviously we are biased here. The biggest thing we ask for is to read The Book of Mormon and pray about it. When the spiritual prompting comes, calling missionaries would be the next step, they will take care of you from there.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp I bear my personal witness that the Keys of The Kingdom / God’s Priesthood was REMOVED from mankind on earth upon man’s rejection and murders of the 12 living men of the Quorum of The Twelve Apostles and 2 of the 3 (Peter and James) who held the First Presidency in those days. Those VERY SAME keys of authority were RESTORED to men on earth thru a prophet of God, Joseph Smith Jr., called from among the literal descendants of the “lost tribes” of Israel (the tribe of JOSEPH thru EPHRAIM specifically). This restoration was done according to God’s great Plan of The Salvation and Eternal Life of man. It was/is all prophesied in great detail in the Old Testament prophesies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Amos and others. But I am only a message bearer. I cannot CONFIRM this Truth to the heart and soul of any man or woman. Neither can any living Prophet or Apostle do it. Neither does any holy book of scripture have the power to CONFIRM the Truth it contains to any man or woman’s heart and soul. THAT witness comes ONLY from GOD HIMSELF thru the power of The Holy Ghost. It is ONLY thru PERSONAL REVELATION to the individual son or daughter of God that men and women may RECEIVE the knowledge of the Eternal Truths of God.
But make no mistake, I will not do as the errant culture of many saints do on local and stake levels who worship the mortal brethren and promulgate among themselves the false belief that the Prophet and Apostles are infallible and never make mistakes in decisions related to the secular matters of the Church. The brethren DO NOT pray about every decision or recommendation they make and have OCCASIONALLY made HONEST serious mistakes. It is instructive to note that THE LORD ALLOWS THIS as a test of our faith in Him first. There is nothing wrong with this testing process of the people of God. It is vital and necessary. And there is nothing wrong with God calling imperfect people to His work. Who else is He going to call to the work of the ministry in this mortal world? Perfected beings? No. There would be no test of our faith in doing that. God works thru the imperfect mortal men whom He has called and ordained. Follow them, BUT NOT BLINDLY.
If you currently believe that Pope Francis holds the priesthood keys, then I hope that you are correct in that belief. One video won't change your mind or convert you. Personally, I have a testimony that the restoration was set into motion through Joseph Smith and Russell M. Nelson is the current prophet to lead us. This channel is replete with topics about Latter-day Saint theology and you are free to do your own research and prayer about the topics. I leave you this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Keys are knowledge, not power or authority. The Mormon concept of "keys" was never taught by Joseph Smith. It was concocted by Brigham Young in order to claim exclusive monopoly authority over that which Christ can freely give unto all.
0:17 In Old Testament times only Levite men could hold the priesthood? I'm afraid that's not entirely accurate. You should specify the Aaronic Priesthood because there were priesthood holders before there were Levites. Further, Joshua was not a Levite nor was Samuel, yet they and the entire OT school of the prophets had the priesthood.
That is certainly a common assumption. Joshua certainly had a calling, but it could have been something like a Sunday School President in today's Church. A calling rather than a priesthood office.
The Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical priesthood are not the same. Power and authority to baptize was known as the lesser priesthood in Adam’s day, for he was practicing baptism. Same with Enoch’s people.
woah. the keys to the kingdom have received much abuse. You've told a nice story here, but also made up a completely new concept, foreign to what Jesus meant. The keys represent the method of opening the door to the kingdom of heaven. Any diligent seeker of the kingdom can receive the keys from Christ directly. The LDS understanding is actually according to the will of the natural man... the will of the human ego... the aspect of ourselves that desires to hold exclusive power and authority. A classic blunder.
I see where there are apostles and the other four offices in the church in Eph 4:11, however I do not see where any NT leaders had a 'priesthood'. Is there a Bible verse that states the priesthood office? And the verse in 1 Peter is referring to the priesthood of all believers, as it us written to the church which includes children and women and gives no exculsion that only men hold this office.
Here are some scriptures to prayerfully consider about priesthood in your personal scripture study on the subject: •Genesis 14:25 •Exodus 28 •Exodus 40:15, it was to be a priesthood used throughout the ages. •Numbers 16:10 •Numbers 25:13 •Joshua 18:7 •Psalms 110:4 - clearly there is an order to the priesthood. •Ezra 2 (this scripture specifically is about how the priesthood was taken from them due to their rebellion and apostasy) • Nehemiah 7:64 & 13:29, speaking also of the same thing Ezra spoke of, how the lost their priesthood birthright. (There is symbolism of this happening also as that Ishmael, Esau, and Rueben all lost/did not have the birthright due to actions/rebellions/sins they committed. It is a type and shadow demonstrating how the 1st church was lost, but the 2nd church got the blessing just as the 2nd and not the 1st son kept their birthright, the birthright being symbolic of the priesthood) •Matthew 21:23-27 - this demonstrates that the Pharisees understood and knew something of that there had to be priesthood authority to perform ordinances. The people believed John the Baptist was a prophet and he did have Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood through his father who worked in the temple. So they knew something of authority. Especially because that’s part of the issue with Saul offering a sacrifice instead of Samuel. Saul had no priesthood or keys to do such a thing. That’s why the offering was not accepted. •Luke 9:1 •Acts 8:18 •1 Timothy 4:14 •Hebrews 6:2 •Heb 7:5-24 - THIS IS HUGE, so many hints about priesthood authority being needed •Hebrews 13 • 1 Peter 2 Those are the scriptures I could find. Hope it helps. Go to the Lord in prayer directly and do as James 1:5-6 directs and you will be guided by the Lord what He wants you to do with this information.
@@zionmama150 "Here are some scriptures to prayerfully consider about priesthood in your personal scripture study on the subject:" While I appreciate the time that you took the respond to my question, none of these scriptures tell of a NT priesthood office like the Apostles are an office (I believe in the modern five offices of the church in eph 4:11). I asked for a priesthood office in the NT and half of the verses you listed are in the OT. Priests were for the OT and they went between man and God, because God is holy and we are not. Jesus rent the viel and gave us free access to God by His blood on the cross (Matt 27:51, John 19:30, Eph 1:7, 1 John 1:7-8). The New Covenant nullifies the need for priests because the Hoy Spirit dwells in those who believe the gospel (Eph 1:13). The Holy Spirit is not given based on man-made doctrines and rituals, though I DO believe in laying on of hands, that is not required to receive the Holy Spirit. Even in the NT---the Catholic church in roughly the second century decided to use the greek word presbyters (which means elders) as priests. EVEN THOUGH priests are NOT an office FOR the NT church. Because you spent the time to respond, I will respond to each verse. The Aaronic priesthood was ONLY for those from the tribe of Levi. Ex 28:1-3. Numbers 3:10, "So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons to carry out the duties of the priesthood; but any outsider who approaches the tabernacle must be put to death." And Deut 18:1-7. •"Genesis 14:25" Perhaps you mistyped, as Gen 14 has only 24 verses. But Gen 14:18-20 is Jesus appearing. He is the ONLY one in the bible to have the Mel priesthood. •"Exodus 28" I have read it and it is talking about Aaron the priests being concentrated to the Lord. But in the NT the viel to the holiest of holies was torn. Paul and Peter etc never say in their letters 'I, Paul, a priesthood holder', they say 'I, Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ". The priesthood is NOT in the NT as an office. Ie Peter and Paul did not have the Aaronic or Mel priesthood. Paul could not have the Aaronic priesthood because he was from the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1). "•Exodus 40:15, it was to be a priesthood used throughout the ages." NOOOO, that verse do NOT say that. It says this, "Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout THEIR generations.” As in the Israelites. But we have been grafted in. Jesus took down the veil of partition and created in himself ONE new man Eph 1. He is our high priest (Hebrews 2:17). I do not like it when people misquote something, it does NOT say 'all generations'. •"Numbers 16:10, While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the desert, and there was the glory of the Lord appearing in the cloud." I do not see how this verse answers my question which has to do with NT priesthood office. "•Numbers 25:13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.” Yes, His descendants. But we have the New Covenant. If the LDS priesthood is bibilical---how come they are not doing it the way the Levites did with animal sacrifice etc? Because the New Covenant, right? But that is just cherry-picking. I do hope you do not see my firmness in my response as an attack on you, I enjoy discussing controversial theological topics. "•Joshua 18:7 The Levites, however, do not get a portion among you, because the priestly service of the Lord is their inheritance." Exactly, ONLY those from the tribe of Levi are priests, are you (presuming you are LDS) from the tribe of Levi? •"Psalms 110:4 - clearly there is an order to the priesthood." "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”" THIS verse is directed to ONE person--- it does not say 'you are priests forever'. It is about Jesus and in fact the writer of Hebrews quotes this verse in the new testament. Hebrews 5:10. It does not say 'there is an order to the priesthood' as you claim. "Ezra 2 (this scripture specifically is about how the priesthood was taken from them due to their rebellion and apostasy)" I do not see how this is relevant to NT priesthood office. "• Nehemiah 7:64" Ok, how is this relevant to the NT and New Covenant. "Nehemiah & 13:29, speaking also of the same thing Ezra spoke of, how the lost their priesthood birthright. (There is symbolism of this happening also as that Ishmael, Esau, and Rueben all lost/did not have the birthright due to actions/rebellions/sins they committed. It is a type and shadow demonstrating how the 1st church was lost, but the 2nd church got the blessing just as the 2nd and not the 1st son kept their birthright, the birthright being symbolic of the priesthood)" Except that this is not given in the NT. "•Matthew 21:23-27 - this demonstrates that the Pharisees understood and knew something of that there had to be priesthood authority to perform ordinances." No, it means they recognized that Jesus had authority. And so did John because John was full of the Holy Spirit is the greatest to live (Luke 1:41, Luke 7:28). "The people believed John the Baptist was a prophet and he did have Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood through his father who worked in the temple." That is true, but it is not recorded as John performing these priestly orders. Because He was preaching the gospel and the NEW Covenant (John 1:23, Mark 1:1-4). In fact, he had the priests come to him to ask if he was the Messiah--- John 1:19-21). "So they knew something of authority." There is not priesthood mentioned here except for the Pharisees and priests asking John if he is the Messiah. There is no office of priests under the New Covenant expect for Jesus who is our high priest. " Especially because that’s part of the issue with Saul offering a sacrifice instead of Samuel. Saul had no priesthood or keys to do such a thing." Saul lost the Holy Spirit-who gives us the authority. In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit could only dwell on believers---not in them---which is why David and others were envious of those that would live to have the Holy Spirit in us (1 Cor 3:16, Eph 1:13, Psa 32:2). "That’s why the offering was not accepted." That is just not true or biblical. "•Luke 9:1" At least now we are getting to the NT. "When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases," Yes, the disciples, the Apostles. NOT priests. This does not even address what I asked. And Jesus said WE would do these miracles Mark 16:17-18. I have seen these things--they are real and for today. "•Acts 8:18" Apostles are NOT priests. Not relevant. "•1 Timothy 4:14" elders are not priests. The words are different. "•Hebrews 6:2" Priests are not even mentioned here, it is not relevant "•Heb 7:5-24 - THIS IS HUGE, so many hints about priesthood authority being needed" Hebrews 7:22:25, " Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. 23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." This nullifies what you are saying. It is saying the exact opposite because Jesus nullifies the need for a priesthood. Especially verse 24. In the New Covenant, we do not need priests. "•Hebrews 13" verse 11-14, " The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come." I fail to see the point you are making. Hebrews 13 is all about Jesus and His perfect sacrifice---He is our high priest. There is no mention of a priesthood being passed down in the NT and under the New Covenant. •" 1 Peter 2" verse 5 as i have stated above in my original comment is referring to the priesthood of all believers in Christ------because this letter is written to the church. There is not a 'priesthood office' the way the LDS church claims, it is not biblical. Each believer, woman and child is a priest unto God. "Those are the scriptures I could find. Hope it helps. Go to the Lord in prayer directly and do as James 1:5-6 directs and you will be guided by the Lord what He wants you to do with this information." I am curious of your response.
@@catherinecooper8370 It sounds like you have your mind made up. I don’t believe your take on a lot of those scriptures because of other scriptures and experiences I’ve had with God in my life. But, if you prayerfully take these things to the Lord and let him teach you, you will know the truth of all things. 💟🙏🏽
The differences between the sexes absolutely are eternal, and thank God for that. No point in "male and female created He them" if they're the same and have the same jobs.
It’s important to note that this is all umbilical for New Testament church. Main line Christianity does not agree with this necessary apostolic succession to continue the described congregation that apostles were directing believers to build under the church of Christ. Even among the “keys needing” assumed denominations such as Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics there’s great debate among proper role of keys if it is necessary. Practically all agree no one major bishop should have full control over the church(such as the Catholics). We see in first centuries first no proof of continued singular full control bishop and inconsistencies in ways when they start to form in later centuries. This all sounds very great and dandy because it was used in similar concepts in old testament governments of God, but New Testament church in no way clearly states these necessities, offices, successions. It is all assumed at best and historically inconsistent to assume there was actual lineage after Peter or that it was necessary. Mormons simply have view Catholic Church was on right tract but became so corrupt it lost its authority. But, that’s a big begging the question fallacy from very start because Catholics have yet to prove any of all their assertions. So, Joseph smith coming along claiming the holder of such keys is just a big logical fallacy.
Sal, “mainline” churches, I.e historical Protestantism (Lutheranism, Reformed churches, Methodism, etc) viewed the Catholic Church as having been right but going off course say when they “introduced” the intercession of saints and put a higher value on episcopal authority. Non mainline Christianity, I.e, the run of the mill non denominational and evangelical church may or may not take that view, so it existing as a pretence doesn’t call into question Mormonism necessarily. Although I think the Mormon claim is closer to the Muslim claim of the real gospel and apostolic tradition being lost when they died and then apostasy, than the mainline Protestant view that there was simply a failure to pass on authentic christian teaching. But, you should know, the acts of the apostles does make clear it is necessary to have apostles authenticate and give you three power of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands. Acts shows that people received baptism, but weren’t confirmed by the apostolic leadership, they did not yet receive the Holy Spirit. For which reason we are sealed with the spirit in Christ by the anointing of holy myrrh and made a part of his body. As far as episcopacy goes, the structure of the Hasidim/Essene communities indicates they did abide by bishops over a certain number of people, with a titular leadership among the bishops. And it is shown in the book of Titus that atleast one apostle, Paul, (although we would say they all did this) left Titus in Crete to do the duties of a Bishop/watcher, appointing presbyters in every city. And the book of revelation (rev 21) asserts that the faith of Israel is defended by God on the foundation of his twelve apostles. Further, Ignatius the disciple of John, even in the syriac text to Polycarp warns that if we do not break bread with the bishop as one body gathered together over the hills, there is no life or salvation, and that no one can be truly godly apart form the bishop because to do so is to be godly apart from Christ, our Hierarch in the heavenly places.
@Sal R Mainline sectarian Christendom can’t even agree with itself! There are well over 800+ DIFFERING, DIVIDED sects of “Christian” religions all teaching CONFLICTING, OPPOSING, CONTRADICTORY doctrines, while each claims it’s own interpretation of THE SAME BOOK to be “the one and only truth”. That isn’t God. He has nothing to do with that miasma of manmade construct. It was God Himself who revealed His Truth to the world when He answered the humble prayer of a faithful 14 year old uneducated farm boy… “In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I [the boy, Joseph] often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.’ Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood THE SAME PASSAGES of scripture SO DIFFERENTLY as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture. So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally. After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God… I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-‘This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!’ My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)-and which I should join. I was answered that I must JOIN NONE OF THEM, for they were ALL WRONG; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them.” Speaking for myself, I have not always known this. When I first read the witness of Joseph Smith Jr, I felt an intense desire to know whether or not this was actually the word of God, I myself have done as the Apostle James directs and have asked God to tell me Himself. Thru the sure witness of The Holy Ghost, I received the undeniable, definitive answer of Truth from God Himself that this was indeed HIS answer to the young farm boy who had the faith to seek and ask Him rather than relying on the arm of flesh and depending upon the mere words of mortal men for their answers to the Eternal things of God Joseph Smith Jr. continued his witness of Truth… “I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects-all united to persecute me. It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise. So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation. I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned-that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. I had found the testimony of James to be true-that a man who lacked wisdom might ask of God, and obtain, and not be upbraided.”
Peter was given keys to lead the church. Those “keys” were to receive revelation from God to govern the Church, as explained by Jesus in Matthew 16. It was a priesthood because it was an authority, and whatsoever he would bind on earth, would also be bound in heaven (and also loose). There are numerous verses in the New Testament of Prophets and apostles leading the church but actually no verses asserting the opposite. The Church was not to be built upon Peter, but rather on the Melchizedek Priesthood which was just given to Peter. But, the Melchizedek Priesthood was overall rejected by the people and thus God withdrew His power given to those who held it. The gates of Hell not prevailing could mean anything really, no interpretation could refute the LDS belief. Prevail means to triumph forever, not temporarily. The LDS do not believe the gates of Hell prevailed. Catholic Church was not “on right tract” because the Catholic Church wasn’t formally formed until Constantine sought to not only universalize one religion, but to empower it politically.
People need to read the Bible, it is reliable despite what Muhammad and Joseph Smith said. I can discuss how I have come to believe this, through much research.
@@brettmajeske3525Before we get into it, my primary concern in life is following God, and bringing more souls into his kingdom. If you get into this conversation with me and take it seriously it could result is some serious turmoil in your earthly life. i.e. Bearing our crosses. I believe that the Bible is very deep, but also very plain. (Deep enough for the largest of God's creatures to swim, shallow enough for a child to wade in.) Smith's "interpretation" makes it seem like a riddle. Also, when the BOM talks about the big bad church taking things out of the Bible, that's provably false. Unless the things taken out where taken out of the new testament, between like 60 A.D. - 200 A.D., and the Old Testament is almost completely unchanged from the Dead Sea Scrolls which where from 100 years before Jesus, so the DSS are essentially Jesus' Bible. Smith also added a verse to... Genesis, I think.
@@travissharon1536 Again, what does that have to do with reliability? JS thought the Bible, while not perfect, was reliable. You seem to think he did not believe so. If you pay attention to his sermons he quotes the Bible about ten times more often than the Book of Mormon and other modern scripture. That is not the behavior of someone who rejects the Bible.
@@brettmajeske3525 It's obvious that he didn't, have you read his words? He added a verse to it, to make himself prophesied by it, and he changed the whole religion. Jesus said people do not marry in heaven. Smith thought you become a God if you follow the rules he made, and you keep your wives and become a God yourself to populate a planet of your own. He lessened the greatness of the creator of all things, he was a blasphemer.
Peter wasn’t the head of the Church, James was and Acts tells us that as well. Peter as leader is Pauline Christianity, and the majority of scholars accept James as head of the church, not Peter.
@@MultiMargaret and... the majority of main stream scholars and even some Evangelical scholars accept that James was the leaders. Paul went up to James the leader of the Church to get approval, NOT to Peter for approval. That is according to Paul as well as Acts. Maybe you should go read your New Testament before getting defensive that an atheist is schooling you
@@atheistapostate7019 Well, Hugh Nibley was of the opinion that James of Jerusalem replaced James the brother of John in the equivalent of the ancient First Presidency. That is just speculation but would explain things in an LDS friendly way. Peter spent a lot of time traveling. James stayed in one place mostly.
@@brettmajeske3525 Nibley is a very bad source to use. There are very little modern scholars today that do not accept that James the Just, not James the Leaser, was leader of the Jerusalem and main church. Paul always goes to James and THEN mentions Peter and John next. James is NEVER called the Lesser and we know who took over from James when he was killed. James was killed before Peter, Peter killed approx 2years later and we have Simeon, the brother of James succeed James... NOT James the brother of John.. we also know who succeeded Simeon, his younger brother. This is all in Acts and the Epistle of James in the New Testament
Definitely my favorite account on RUclips! Saints Unscripted never misses
Sin - To miss the mark.
Not really a critique, just a funny coincidence.
I agree!
Hi as a Catholic priest I have other views on the priesthood. But I recognize many valuable views in the LDS Church. As we both appreciate the importance of the priesthood as a sort of channel for Gods grace, (I hope I used the right words) I have the feeling that in LDS Church the priesthood is more present and I really appreciate your priesthood..I really view it as very valuable that the priesthood reaches to the family itself, so Gods grace is available, also in that level!
Thank you for your interest! I meet too many people who put down others because of their beliefs. That’s not what Christ told us to do, so thank you for your kindness and civility! 😊
We love our catholic brothers and sisters because without you we wouldn’t have the Bible
over the years, I've come to realize that we as LDS are very much alike to you guys, I personally love the catholic faith!
This was such a helpful video to understand the essence of who holds what priesthood authority!
It tells us in Numbers that hands were laid on head for passing authority and callings to people.
Thanks for explaining this in a simple, easy manner.❤
You're welcome 😊
I was just ordained to Elder and given the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood at Stake Conference on September 25. I’m a baby Elder. Lol
Great video. New subbie. Loving these videos.
Great explanation thanks
I’d be interested in an episode on patriarchs, since they were left out of this episode, despite their prominence in the priesthood hierarchy.
We've done one F&B on patriarchal blessings? And I think there's at least one episode of the main show that features a patriarch as a guest. That might interest you. Patriarchs don't hold keys though, despite their prominent and interesting role, which is why they were neglected here.
@@life-of-taylor: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean stake patriarchs. I meant the kind that used to have prominence in the church.
@@seans5289 Gotcha. Well, I gotta be frank. I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re talking about. Haha I know Joseph Sr. was patriarch for the whole church at one point and held influence that way, but the church was also contained pretty much in one or two cities at the time. My guess is their prominence died as the church got bigger and their influence became more diluted - but that’s a total assumption I’m making. Is there a specific function they served that you’re referring to?
Once again David knocks it out of the park with his presentation
Elders have a lot of Keys - this is a great explanation thank you ☺️
You guys are awesome
How did I never comment on this one...
Even the best of us slip up from time to time. 😅
@@SaintsUnscripted I guess 🤷♂️
3:25 That's the most bishop looking bishop I've ever seen.
What I love about LDS theology is it is so covered in secret knowledge. The terms used have meaning to members, but are confusing to non members. Are these keys physical keys or metaphysical. What makes they different from any other thing that denotes church organization like Ordainment in Catholocism or Pastoral blessing in Protestantism. In short why do Priesthood Keys denote more legitimacy of belief than any other system of organization that other denominations use
Because the "keys" (permissions / authorizations) are passed by the laying on of hands from one who has the priesthood to another receiving the priesthood in an unbroken chain back to Jesus Christ Who holds all keys.
You cannot get priesthood keys from prayer, scripture study or feeling the Holy Ghost as some Protestants claim. You cannot receive them by someone who thinks they have them but does not. You cannot purchase the priesthood or it's keys as we learn in the Book of Acts. You must receive them by the laying on of hands by one authorized in an unbroken chain back to Christ Himself.
Great question; David explains these differences in the other videos he references near the beginning of this video.
Just wondering...do you keep your keys in the sock drawer, or the underwear drawer?
One big problem I find is… why, when the Three Nephites and John the Beloved are still on earth to this day (which is what the Church says), why do we say that the priesthood keys were lost?
And why did they not give the priesthood keys to Joseph Smith?
I should double-check this, but I thought John, with Peter and James, gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Melchizedek Priesthood.
@@brucenorth5337 You still have to admit that it makes no sense that John, as a translated being (not resurrected) couldn't have given them the keys.
Also, why would Peter and James already be resurrected beings as claimed by the Church? The Resurrection hasn't even taken place on the Earth yet.
It also doesn't make sense that they, according to the endowment ceremony, gave Adam and Eve the tokens. They hadn't even been born on Earth yet and received a physical body.
Brigham Young said that the Three Nephites, as beings who were allowed to stay on Earth, taught and baptized thousands. Where are these thousands of converts now?
And why does the Church say that the priesthood keys were lost, when the Three Nephites still had the keys and weren't taken away from the Earth and are still walking around?
The problem with Mormonism is that everything sounds nice and somewhat logical when you hear the stories, but when you think a little bit more about them, you run into lots of problems and contradictions.
The same with the different vision accounts, the different interviews by the BoM witnesses, the problem with the Garden of Eden in Missouri, the Church's history with polygamy and racism.
Kinda sad David didn't start by saying "egg eyes".
This is why currently only the Bishop performs mortal weddings, even though from a theological perspective it is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance like baptism and the sacrament.
Elders can marry people when the Mission President authorizes it. Not only Bishops can marry people.
@@zionmama150 That used to be the case. Not just missionaries, but anyone ordained to the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. That policy has changed, so only Bishops (not even councilors), Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents (no longer missionaries), chaplains, and General Authorities can perform temporal weddings.
IT is actually because of missionaries not following proper legal procedures (which differ in different countries) that the policy was changed. It is not something for which the Church permits short cuts.
@@brettmajeske3525 when did that change get made? I don’t recall such a change made
@@zionmama150 Late 80s or early 90s. Sometime between my mission and my brothers. It was something my father complained about a bit. When he was a councilor in the Bishopric he was assigned to perform weddings all the time, but by the time he became Bishop he was not allowed to delegate that responsibility. In the US the Church only licenses the listed callings. In Michigan it costs about $150 dollars a year to get a license to perform weddings, and there really is not a need to pay that for each missionary. Even Temple Presidents (who are licensed) are not supposed to perform temporal weddings, only Temple ones.
Wait, you’re telling me the Pope doesn’t hold these priesthood keys??? What kind of authority does he have? Should I follow Russell M Nelson now?
And therein lies the problem - mortals either asking themselves or another mortal man for the CONFIRMATION of who actually holds the Keys of The Priesthood of God. NO MORTAL MAN can CONFIRM that knowledge to another. Only God Himself THRU THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY GHOST can CONFIRM to any of us WHICH MORTAL MEN God has ORDAINED with His Priesthood Keys. It’s a beautiful thing, a safe thing - but only if your faith is in GOD above MORTAL APOSTLES and PROPHETS, the latter being subject to the occasional HONEST mistake or error in SECULAR decisions.
I DO NOT FOLLOW THE BRETHREN BLINDLY and I WORSHIP ONLY THE GOD OF ISRAEL. In this day and age of the rise of the Power of the Dragon and his Beast, when “EVEN THE VERY ELECT MAY BE DECEIVED”, I would STRONGLY encourage all saints to do the same.
You should follow Jesus Christ first and foremost. Latter-day Saints believe the priesthood authority was lost from the earth after the death of the apostles, and this priesthood was restored to the earth in 1829.
This is a Latter-day Saint ran channel, so obviously we are biased here. The biggest thing we ask for is to read The Book of Mormon and pray about it. When the spiritual prompting comes, calling missionaries would be the next step, they will take care of you from there.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp
I bear my personal witness that the Keys of The Kingdom / God’s Priesthood was REMOVED from mankind on earth upon man’s rejection and murders of the 12 living men of the Quorum of The Twelve Apostles and 2 of the 3 (Peter and James) who held the First Presidency in those days. Those VERY SAME keys of authority were RESTORED to men on earth thru a prophet of God, Joseph Smith Jr., called from among the literal descendants of the “lost tribes” of Israel (the tribe of JOSEPH thru EPHRAIM specifically). This restoration was done according to God’s great Plan of The Salvation and Eternal Life of man. It was/is all prophesied in great detail in the Old Testament prophesies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Amos and others. But I am only a message bearer. I cannot CONFIRM this Truth to the heart and soul of any man or woman. Neither can any living Prophet or Apostle do it. Neither does any holy book of scripture have the power to CONFIRM the Truth it contains to any man or woman’s heart and soul. THAT witness comes ONLY from GOD HIMSELF thru the power of The Holy Ghost. It is ONLY thru PERSONAL REVELATION to the individual son or daughter of God that men and women may RECEIVE the knowledge of the Eternal Truths of God.
But make no mistake, I will not do as the errant culture of many saints do on local and stake levels who worship the mortal brethren and promulgate among themselves the false belief that the Prophet and Apostles are infallible and never make mistakes in decisions related to the secular matters of the Church. The brethren DO NOT pray about every decision or recommendation they make and have OCCASIONALLY made HONEST serious mistakes. It is instructive to note that THE LORD ALLOWS THIS as a test of our faith in Him first. There is nothing wrong with this testing process of the people of God. It is vital and necessary. And there is nothing wrong with God calling imperfect people to His work. Who else is He going to call to the work of the ministry in this mortal world? Perfected beings? No. There would be no test of our faith in doing that. God works thru the imperfect mortal men whom He has called and ordained. Follow them, BUT NOT BLINDLY.
If you currently believe that Pope Francis holds the priesthood keys, then I hope that you are correct in that belief. One video won't change your mind or convert you.
Personally, I have a testimony that the restoration was set into motion through Joseph Smith and Russell M. Nelson is the current prophet to lead us.
This channel is replete with topics about Latter-day Saint theology and you are free to do your own research and prayer about the topics. I leave you this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Keys are knowledge, not power or authority. The Mormon concept of "keys" was never taught by Joseph Smith. It was concocted by Brigham Young in order to claim exclusive monopoly authority over that which Christ can freely give unto all.
0:17 In Old Testament times only Levite men could hold the priesthood? I'm afraid that's not entirely accurate. You should specify the Aaronic Priesthood because there were priesthood holders before there were Levites. Further, Joshua was not a Levite nor was Samuel, yet they and the entire OT school of the prophets had the priesthood.
That is certainly a common assumption. Joshua certainly had a calling, but it could have been something like a Sunday School President in today's Church. A calling rather than a priesthood office.
The Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical priesthood are not the same. Power and authority to baptize was known as the lesser priesthood in Adam’s day, for he was practicing baptism. Same with Enoch’s people.
Do patriarchs have keys?
If only God didn’t wait 1800 yrs to restore the church aye, maybe there might be a billion LDS members today instead of a billion Catholics 🤔
Can’t God do things on His own timing? It’s not our job to question Him. We find out knowledge through revelation from Him, not the other way around.
If it ain't Orthodox, I ain't trusting it!
woah. the keys to the kingdom have received much abuse. You've told a nice story here, but also made up a completely new concept, foreign to what Jesus meant. The keys represent the method of opening the door to the kingdom of heaven. Any diligent seeker of the kingdom can receive the keys from Christ directly. The LDS understanding is actually according to the will of the natural man... the will of the human ego... the aspect of ourselves that desires to hold exclusive power and authority. A classic blunder.
I see where there are apostles and the other four offices in the church in Eph 4:11, however I do not see where any NT leaders had a 'priesthood'. Is there a Bible verse that states the priesthood office?
And the verse in 1 Peter is referring to the priesthood of all believers, as it us written to the church which includes children and women and gives no exculsion that only men hold this office.
Here are some scriptures to prayerfully consider about priesthood in your personal scripture study on the subject:
•Genesis 14:25
•Exodus 28
•Exodus 40:15, it was to be a priesthood used throughout the ages.
•Numbers 16:10
•Numbers 25:13
•Joshua 18:7
•Psalms 110:4 - clearly there is an order to the priesthood.
•Ezra 2 (this scripture specifically is about how the priesthood was taken from them due to their rebellion and apostasy)
• Nehemiah 7:64 & 13:29, speaking also of the same thing Ezra spoke of, how the lost their priesthood birthright. (There is symbolism of this happening also as that Ishmael, Esau, and Rueben all lost/did not have the birthright due to actions/rebellions/sins they committed. It is a type and shadow demonstrating how the 1st church was lost, but the 2nd church got the blessing just as the 2nd and not the 1st son kept their birthright, the birthright being symbolic of the priesthood)
•Matthew 21:23-27 - this demonstrates that the Pharisees understood and knew something of that there had to be priesthood authority to perform ordinances. The people believed John the Baptist was a prophet and he did have Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood through his father who worked in the temple. So they knew something of authority. Especially because that’s part of the issue with Saul offering a sacrifice instead of Samuel. Saul had no priesthood or keys to do such a thing. That’s why the offering was not accepted.
•Luke 9:1
•Acts 8:18
•1 Timothy 4:14
•Hebrews 6:2
•Heb 7:5-24 - THIS IS HUGE, so many hints about priesthood authority being needed
•Hebrews 13
• 1 Peter 2
Those are the scriptures I could find. Hope it helps. Go to the Lord in prayer directly and do as James 1:5-6 directs and you will be guided by the Lord what He wants you to do with this information.
@@zionmama150 "Here are some scriptures to prayerfully consider about priesthood in your personal scripture study on the subject:" While I appreciate the time that you took the respond to my question, none of these scriptures tell of a NT priesthood office like the Apostles are an office (I believe in the modern five offices of the church in eph 4:11). I asked for a priesthood office in the NT and half of the verses you listed are in the OT.
Priests were for the OT and they went between man and God, because God is holy and we are not. Jesus rent the viel and gave us free access to God by His blood on the cross (Matt 27:51, John 19:30, Eph 1:7, 1 John 1:7-8). The New Covenant nullifies the need for priests because the Hoy Spirit dwells in those who believe the gospel (Eph 1:13). The Holy Spirit is not given based on man-made doctrines and rituals, though I DO believe in laying on of hands, that is not required to receive the Holy Spirit.
Even in the NT---the Catholic church in roughly the second century decided to use the greek word presbyters (which means elders) as priests. EVEN THOUGH priests are NOT an office FOR the NT church. Because you spent the time to respond, I will respond to each verse.
The Aaronic priesthood was ONLY for those from the tribe of Levi. Ex 28:1-3. Numbers 3:10, "So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons to carry out the duties of the priesthood; but any outsider who approaches the tabernacle must be put to death." And Deut 18:1-7.
•"Genesis 14:25" Perhaps you mistyped, as Gen 14 has only 24 verses. But Gen 14:18-20 is Jesus appearing. He is the ONLY one in the bible to have the Mel priesthood.
•"Exodus 28" I have read it and it is talking about Aaron the priests being concentrated to the Lord. But in the NT the viel to the holiest of holies was torn. Paul and Peter etc never say in their letters 'I, Paul, a priesthood holder', they say 'I, Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ". The priesthood is NOT in the NT as an office. Ie Peter and Paul did not have the Aaronic or Mel priesthood. Paul could not have the Aaronic priesthood because he was from the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1).
"•Exodus 40:15, it was to be a priesthood used throughout the ages." NOOOO, that verse do NOT say that. It says this, "Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout THEIR generations.” As in the Israelites. But we have been grafted in. Jesus took down the veil of partition and created in himself ONE new man Eph 1. He is our high priest (Hebrews 2:17). I do not like it when people misquote something, it does NOT say 'all generations'.
•"Numbers 16:10, While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the desert, and there was the glory of the Lord appearing in the cloud." I do not see how this verse answers my question which has to do with NT priesthood office.
"•Numbers 25:13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.” Yes, His descendants. But we have the New Covenant. If the LDS priesthood is bibilical---how come they are not doing it the way the Levites did with animal sacrifice etc? Because the New Covenant, right? But that is just cherry-picking.
I do hope you do not see my firmness in my response as an attack on you, I enjoy discussing controversial theological topics.
"•Joshua 18:7 The Levites, however, do not get a portion among you, because the priestly service of the Lord is their inheritance." Exactly, ONLY those from the tribe of Levi are priests, are you (presuming you are LDS) from the tribe of Levi?
•"Psalms 110:4 - clearly there is an order to the priesthood." "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”" THIS verse is directed to ONE person--- it does not say 'you are priests forever'. It is about Jesus and in fact the writer of Hebrews quotes this verse in the new testament. Hebrews 5:10. It does not say 'there is an order to the priesthood' as you claim.
"Ezra 2 (this scripture specifically is about how the priesthood was taken from them due to their rebellion and apostasy)" I do not see how this is relevant to NT priesthood office.
"• Nehemiah 7:64" Ok, how is this relevant to the NT and New Covenant.
"Nehemiah & 13:29, speaking also of the same thing Ezra spoke of, how the lost their priesthood birthright. (There is symbolism of this happening also as that Ishmael, Esau, and Rueben all lost/did not have the birthright due to actions/rebellions/sins they committed. It is a type and shadow demonstrating how the 1st church was lost, but the 2nd church got the blessing just as the 2nd and not the 1st son kept their birthright, the birthright being symbolic of the priesthood)" Except that this is not given in the NT.
"•Matthew 21:23-27 - this demonstrates that the Pharisees understood and knew something of that there had to be priesthood authority to perform ordinances." No, it means they recognized that Jesus had authority. And so did John because John was full of the Holy Spirit is the greatest to live (Luke 1:41, Luke 7:28).
"The people believed John the Baptist was a prophet and he did have Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood through his father who worked in the temple." That is true, but it is not recorded as John performing these priestly orders. Because He was preaching the gospel and the NEW Covenant (John 1:23, Mark 1:1-4). In fact, he had the priests come to him to ask if he was the Messiah--- John 1:19-21).
"So they knew something of authority." There is not priesthood mentioned here except for the Pharisees and priests asking John if he is the Messiah. There is no office of priests under the New Covenant expect for Jesus who is our high priest.
" Especially because that’s part of the issue with Saul offering a sacrifice instead of Samuel. Saul had no priesthood or keys to do such a thing." Saul lost the Holy Spirit-who gives us the authority. In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit could only dwell on believers---not in them---which is why David and others were envious of those that would live to have the Holy Spirit in us (1 Cor 3:16, Eph 1:13, Psa 32:2).
"That’s why the offering was not accepted." That is just not true or biblical.
"•Luke 9:1" At least now we are getting to the NT. "When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases," Yes, the disciples, the Apostles. NOT priests. This does not even address what I asked. And Jesus said WE would do these miracles Mark 16:17-18. I have seen these things--they are real and for today.
"•Acts 8:18" Apostles are NOT priests. Not relevant.
"•1 Timothy 4:14" elders are not priests. The words are different.
"•Hebrews 6:2" Priests are not even mentioned here, it is not relevant
"•Heb 7:5-24 - THIS IS HUGE, so many hints about priesthood authority being needed" Hebrews 7:22:25, " Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." This nullifies what you are saying. It is saying the exact opposite because Jesus nullifies the need for a priesthood. Especially verse 24. In the New Covenant, we do not need priests.
"•Hebrews 13" verse 11-14, " The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come." I fail to see the point you are making. Hebrews 13 is all about Jesus and His perfect sacrifice---He is our high priest. There is no mention of a priesthood being passed down in the NT and under the New Covenant.
•" 1 Peter 2" verse 5 as i have stated above in my original comment is referring to the priesthood of all believers in Christ------because this letter is written to the church. There is not a 'priesthood office' the way the LDS church claims, it is not biblical. Each believer, woman and child is a priest unto God.
"Those are the scriptures I could find. Hope it helps. Go to the Lord in prayer directly and do as James 1:5-6 directs and you will be guided by the Lord what He wants you to do with this information." I am curious of your response.
@@catherinecooper8370 It sounds like you have your mind made up. I don’t believe your take on a lot of those scriptures because of other scriptures and experiences I’ve had with God in my life. But, if you prayerfully take these things to the Lord and let him teach you, you will know the truth of all things. 💟🙏🏽
Nobody wants your priesthood dude. You withheld the priesthood from some well deserving people. Take your priesthood and shove it.
I hope sexism isn't eternal.
The differences between the sexes absolutely are eternal, and thank God for that. No point in "male and female created He them" if they're the same and have the same jobs.
It’s important to note that this is all umbilical for New Testament church. Main line Christianity does not agree with this necessary apostolic succession to continue the described congregation that apostles were directing believers to build under the church of Christ. Even among the “keys needing” assumed denominations such as Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics there’s great debate among proper role of keys if it is necessary. Practically all agree no one major bishop should have full control over the church(such as the Catholics). We see in first centuries first no proof of continued singular full control bishop and inconsistencies in ways when they start to form in later centuries. This all sounds very great and dandy because it was used in similar concepts in old testament governments of God, but New Testament church in no way clearly states these necessities, offices, successions. It is all assumed at best and historically inconsistent to assume there was actual lineage after Peter or that it was necessary.
Mormons simply have view Catholic Church was on right tract but became so corrupt it lost its authority. But, that’s a big begging the question fallacy from very start because Catholics have yet to prove any of all their assertions. So, Joseph smith coming along claiming the holder of such keys is just a big logical fallacy.
Sal, “mainline” churches, I.e historical Protestantism (Lutheranism, Reformed churches, Methodism, etc) viewed the Catholic Church as having been right but going off course say when they “introduced” the intercession of saints and put a higher value on episcopal authority. Non mainline Christianity, I.e, the run of the mill non denominational and evangelical church may or may not take that view, so it existing as a pretence doesn’t call into question Mormonism necessarily. Although I think the Mormon claim is closer to the Muslim claim of the real gospel and apostolic tradition being lost when they died and then apostasy, than the mainline Protestant view that there was simply a failure to pass on authentic christian teaching.
But, you should know, the acts of the apostles does make clear it is necessary to have apostles authenticate and give you three power of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands. Acts shows that people received baptism, but weren’t confirmed by the apostolic leadership, they did not yet receive the Holy Spirit. For which reason we are sealed with the spirit in Christ by the anointing of holy myrrh and made a part of his body. As far as episcopacy goes, the structure of the Hasidim/Essene communities indicates they did abide by bishops over a certain number of people, with a titular leadership among the bishops. And it is shown in the book of Titus that atleast one apostle, Paul, (although we would say they all did this) left Titus in Crete to do the duties of a Bishop/watcher, appointing presbyters in every city. And the book of revelation (rev 21) asserts that the faith of Israel is defended by God on the foundation of his twelve apostles.
Further, Ignatius the disciple of John, even in the syriac text to Polycarp warns that if we do not break bread with the bishop as one body gathered together over the hills, there is no life or salvation, and that no one can be truly godly apart form the bishop because to do so is to be godly apart from Christ, our Hierarch in the heavenly places.
@Sal R
Mainline sectarian Christendom can’t even agree with itself! There are well over 800+ DIFFERING, DIVIDED sects of “Christian” religions all teaching CONFLICTING, OPPOSING, CONTRADICTORY doctrines, while each claims it’s own interpretation of THE SAME BOOK to be “the one and only truth”. That isn’t God. He has nothing to do with that miasma of manmade construct. It was God Himself who revealed His Truth to the world when He answered the humble prayer of a faithful 14 year old uneducated farm boy…
“In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I [the boy, Joseph] often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.’
Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood THE SAME PASSAGES of scripture SO DIFFERENTLY as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.
So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God…
I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-‘This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!’
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)-and which I should join.
I was answered that I must JOIN NONE OF THEM, for they were ALL WRONG; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
He again forbade me to join with any of them.”
Speaking for myself, I have not always known this. When I first read the witness of Joseph Smith Jr, I felt an intense desire to know whether or not this was actually the word of God, I myself have done as the Apostle James directs and have asked God to tell me Himself. Thru the sure witness of The Holy Ghost, I received the undeniable, definitive answer of Truth from God Himself that this was indeed HIS answer to the young farm boy who had the faith to seek and ask Him rather than relying on the arm of flesh and depending upon the mere words of mortal men for their answers to the Eternal things of God
Joseph Smith Jr. continued his witness of Truth…
“I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects-all united to persecute me.
It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned-that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. I had found the testimony of James to be true-that a man who lacked wisdom might ask of God, and obtain, and not be upbraided.”
Peter was given keys to lead the church. Those “keys” were to receive revelation from God to govern the Church, as explained by Jesus in Matthew 16. It was a priesthood because it was an authority, and whatsoever he would bind on earth, would also be bound in heaven (and also loose). There are numerous verses in the New Testament of Prophets and apostles leading the church but actually no verses asserting the opposite.
The Church was not to be built upon Peter, but rather on the Melchizedek Priesthood which was just given to Peter. But, the Melchizedek Priesthood was overall rejected by the people and thus God withdrew His power given to those who held it.
The gates of Hell not prevailing could mean anything really, no interpretation could refute the LDS belief. Prevail means to triumph forever, not temporarily. The LDS do not believe the gates of Hell prevailed.
Catholic Church was not “on right tract” because the Catholic Church wasn’t formally formed until Constantine sought to not only universalize one religion, but to empower it politically.
@@bigboybrock1205
Amen Brother BBB. A man with correct understanding.
@@bigboybrock1205 Melchizedek priesthood given to Peter? Where do you see that?
People need to read the Bible, it is reliable despite what Muhammad and Joseph Smith said. I can discuss how I have come to believe this, through much research.
Joseph Smith did think the Bible is reliable. I do not know why you think he didn't believe that.
@@brettmajeske3525Before we get into it, my primary concern in life is following God, and bringing more souls into his kingdom. If you get into this conversation with me and take it seriously it could result is some serious turmoil in your earthly life. i.e. Bearing our crosses.
I believe that the Bible is very deep, but also very plain. (Deep enough for the largest of God's creatures to swim, shallow enough for a child to wade in.)
Smith's "interpretation" makes it seem like a riddle.
Also, when the BOM talks about the big bad church taking things out of the Bible, that's provably false. Unless the things taken out where taken out of the new testament, between like 60 A.D. - 200 A.D., and the Old Testament is almost completely unchanged from the Dead Sea Scrolls which where from 100 years before Jesus, so the DSS are essentially Jesus' Bible. Smith also added a verse to... Genesis, I think.
@@travissharon1536 Again, what does that have to do with reliability? JS thought the Bible, while not perfect, was reliable. You seem to think he did not believe so.
If you pay attention to his sermons he quotes the Bible about ten times more often than the Book of Mormon and other modern scripture. That is not the behavior of someone who rejects the Bible.
@@brettmajeske3525 It's obvious that he didn't, have you read his words? He added a verse to it, to make himself prophesied by it, and he changed the whole religion. Jesus said people do not marry in heaven. Smith thought you become a God if you follow the rules he made, and you keep your wives and become a God yourself to populate a planet of your own. He lessened the greatness of the creator of all things, he was a blasphemer.
@@travissharon1536 Yes I have read his words and disagree with your interpretation.
Peter wasn’t the head of the Church, James was and Acts tells us that as well. Peter as leader is Pauline Christianity, and the majority of scholars accept James as head of the church, not Peter.
And because James is actually the head of the church…you’re an atheist
@@MultiMargaret and... the majority of main stream scholars and even some Evangelical scholars accept that James was the leaders.
Paul went up to James the leader of the Church to get approval, NOT to Peter for approval. That is according to Paul as well as Acts. Maybe you should go read your New Testament before getting defensive that an atheist is schooling you
@@MultiMargaret go read Acts 21:18 😉
@@atheistapostate7019 Well, Hugh Nibley was of the opinion that James of Jerusalem replaced James the brother of John in the equivalent of the ancient First Presidency. That is just speculation but would explain things in an LDS friendly way. Peter spent a lot of time traveling. James stayed in one place mostly.
@@brettmajeske3525 Nibley is a very bad source to use. There are very little modern scholars today that do not accept that James the Just, not James the Leaser, was leader of the Jerusalem and main church. Paul always goes to James and THEN mentions Peter and John next. James is NEVER called the Lesser and we know who took over from James when he was killed.
James was killed before Peter, Peter killed approx 2years later and we have Simeon, the brother of James succeed James... NOT James the brother of John.. we also know who succeeded Simeon, his younger brother.
This is all in Acts and the Epistle of James in the New Testament