Hebrews 7 adds this explanation for why it's called the "Melchizedek priesthood". The author uses an allegory of Melchizedek, for whom the Jews had no genealogical records, saying that Melchizedek was, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Obviously, the man himself had a father and mother, was born, and also died. But because there was no genealogical record of it, it appeared as though this important figure had no beginning or end of days. The Hebrew author uses this priest to draw an analogy to Christ, who ACTUALLY has no beginning or end. And accordingly, Christ's priesthood never ends. He is eternal. He is perfect. His is a better and higher priesthood.
@@BNichols021 when it says “without father or mother” etc. it’s referring to priesthood he had. Which was the same priesthood as Christ that is without end
He is confused. The LDS church is officially called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is Christ's church. NO OTHER CHURCH is Christ's.
@@tucuxi70That is a lie; there was no Book of Mormon nor were there any plates of Nephi. there are no Nephites or lamanites or any other 'ites' related to a group of crypto Jews that came across the Atlantic to the Americas. it's all bullshit. God established his last church in mankind because it is on men's hearts that God had written the laws for the Jews and gentiles. by Jesus becoming the personification of that law and establishing through faith in his Word which was solidified in his death and resurrection, knowing that Jesus is the bridegroom of the church which we have to accept in our hearts, AND since it is the law that is always kept in the church, that makes mankind the church. this is how we know the Mormon church is full of shit. God wouldn't make the church in something that he created, only to turn around and repeat what had taken place in the Old testament. That's just dumb.
@@tucuxi70 You can call it whatever you want. Perhaps you have never heard of "catfishing", "identity theft", or "internet scams". People claim to be what/who they are not all the time. This is nothing new to the internet age. If the LDS church is TRULY the church of Jesus Christ, then 2 things would have to be true... 1) They would have to be following the historical, Jesus Christ. Not a fake one invented in the 1800's. After all, Jesus himself warned that there would be many who would come after him (especially in the latter days) claiming to be the Christ. 2) They would have to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (and revere them), at a bare minimum. (Even if they didn't do much with the rest of the Bible.) And when someone else taught things contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, they would have to deny & forsake these false shepherds (rather than sustaining them) & instead follow the voice of the good shepherd. By this basic rubric, the LDS church CANNOT be, as you say: "Christ's church". They follow the teachings of Joseph Smith & Brigham Young & other men-whose teachings undermine & oppose the teachings of the Bible, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. If you all would like to call yourselves: "the Church of Joseph Smith", I would take no issue with that, as long as you stay true to his teachings. What you call yourselves now is a dishonest misnomer-it's "religious appropriation". This is NOT an accusation. It is a fact. You have only to read the Bible for yourself to see how your beliefs contradict what it says. The LDS church is hoping you will NOT do this. If you follow the teachings & beliefs of Jesus Christ, only then can you claim to be of his true flock. Otherwise, he was clear: you follow another.
Excellent breakdown and explanation of a topic I found confusing for several years after leaving the LDS church. Not sure I have ever seen it so simply articulated. Well done GLM.
@@tucuxi70 🤣 that’s laughable, you must be crazy. Aside from being Mormon, I can tell from how you yell through your keyboard. 😃 Mormonism is the most obvious fraud. We’re glad you are here to learn from GLM today ❤️ come back frequently please 🙏
That's his interpretation. Now go through the other religions that are under the triune god and open your eyes to how they interpret this thousands of different ways. Look at Europe and how many kings and queens killed those who worshiped a different version of there Christianity. If you believed in the holy trinity one way you were murdered by those who viewed the same god in a different way. No matter what they teach you know the truth. God made us a peculiar people to him that's why people don't get our beliefs to God. Without a prophet you get thousands of people who believe they know the church. Every version of Christianity under the triune god will say the other one is wrong and they are going to hell, but they all gang up to go against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints . Just some food for thought for you my friend. Take care and come back when your ready. Which version of the triune Church is Jesus coming back for at his second coming? Roman Catholism, Protestant, Baptist, they all say the others are going to hell?
@jacobsamuelson3181 i read the standard works including the new testament b4 i decided to resign. The more i read the bible the more i realized i would have to reject most of it to believe the lds church was true this led to a long investigation of Christianity and a surrender of self to God. What I can say is having an assurity of eternal salvation is way better then trying to become a god myself.
Use your brain! They laid their hands on Stephen to give him authority, and that authority was priesthood authority, and it was by the spirit of prophecy and the laying on of hands!! That was not merely a ceremony!!!
And? actually it's your ignorance that is showing; does it not say in the doctrine and Covenants section 22:1 that YOUR God had done away with all the old covenants? That would include the priesthood which has been established moniker of the LDS church's hierarchy. It also states that a man can repent a thousand times and it would be for nothing because The laws of Moses no longer apply. this would include the ten commandments, which Jesus himself came to establish being a personification of the law, which you guys don't believe anyway because Jesus isn't the law according to your ways; he was the first child of your Mormon God and his goddess, on a planet that existed before they were spirit children.
@@JulioHendricks-r8nthe Melchezidek priesthood was after the Oder of the Son of God and means king of righteousness. The law of Moses was the lower law that was given to the children of Israel because of their disobedience to God. When Moses came down he had two tablets that he threw down and broke which contained the higher law. The children of would receive the lower law, the carnal commandments, or the law of Moses. They operated primarily under the priesthood of Aaron or lesser priesthood. When Christ came he fulfilled the law of Moses and gave them the higher law that they would have received earlier. There would be a return to operating in the Melchezidek priesthood and order.
@@andrewdurfee3896 Tell me something Andrew; do women still sleep with animals? do homosexuals still exist? does thievery still exist? how about dishonoring thy mother and thy father? See, you got to be careful in how you're presenting the ideology of your cult. there is a common but comedic phenomena amongst true Christians and their conversations with Mormons; You can ask 10 Mormons the same question and you'll never get The same answer. While that is an exaggeration, it has been proven to a degree that a lot of what they believe is scattered amongst different members of the "church". I literally tested this theory with five members of the same family who are all Mormon, and it concerned the use of the word "gods" and the rehashed creation story given in the book of Abraham. the mother who was batshit stupid told me that it was God and his unnamed goddess. The daughter of that same woman told me it was God, Jesus, and the archangel Michael who later became Adam. and the third explanation I got amongst the five people I asked was that it involved God, Jesus, and the unnamed goddess. to a Christian when someone says the name Elohim, we automatically think of John 5:8 which says that there are three that bear record in heaven; God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. Elohim is plural and rightfully so, because it is referring to the triune God. there's many examples of this throughout the Bible. your faith separates them, which whether you believe it or not, remove your Christ from being the law. there is a deliberate misrepresentation when you say things like alpha and Omega, or having no beginning. according to the Book of Moses your God had a beginning, which means you can't go to our Bible to any reference to God being eternal or not having a beginning to justify any and all other parts that do not mention your God being born on another planet. whether you like it or not, that's showing that your god had a beginning. this also goes against Isaiah 43:10 which is from God's own mouth telling his servants that there are no other gods formed before him, and there will be none after. That tells us two things in reference to your false ideology; this means that he is not going to turn you into a God, because that clearly goes against his own word of God's being formed after him, and it also means that he was never born or exalted by another god. He clearly states that before him there were no other gods formed. so if your book of Moses says that he was born to human parents and exalted in his flesh by his God, that would obviously imply that before he became a God, there was another God... You Mormons aren't that slow so I know you know what I mean. these two things I've just mentioned go to the heart of what forms your ideology. another quick one is the conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well where he states from his own mouth that God is a spirit and that his true worshipers worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus identifies himself as the way, the truth, and the life. this means that his words cannot mean anything else but what he is giving to this Samaritan woman. this is not a parable, okay? He is telling this woman that God is a spirit and those that worship him must worship him in their spirit. look it up if you don't believe me; 1st John 10: 21 -24. in fact, I can name several verses just from the book of John alone that completely destroy the theology of the Mormon church, most especially coming from the mouth of Christ himself. to deny what he says would make you an Antichrist, would it not? You guys don't realize it but you already worship Satan, and what you were doing before you read this was going through every verse that you had been taught in the LDS church that refers and used as proof that God has a body... which again is not true. The reason why I'm telling you all this is because Mormons will time and again use a book they believe to be incomplete and flawed to validate and justify their bullshit. I'm not going to stand for it. your book is a book of lies and I would tell you to your face if you were standing right in front of me. If you can sit there and deny the words of Christ and what he says about his own father, then you're not a Christian at all. a true Christian believes the words of Christ which is why they're called Christians in the first place. I also don't care how you feel about how I've conveyed my message to you. And this is because your Satanism is hidden by a thick veneer of what you feel is somehow associated with Christianity. Not realizing of course that you've turned a lot of the core fundamentals of Christianity backwards. God has a body, you have to earn grace, Jesus is not the entirety of the law, just the law that applies to this heaven and this earth, that God has a wife.... All of that is satanic. why? because it further validates the reasons why you stay within your bubble that tells you that God is in the image of a man. You use this for your justifications all the time. so let me explain omnipresence to you so you have a better understanding of why God said he made us in his image. He already knew that Jesus was going to be the personification of the law which means he would have to be born here on earth. as Elohim and the absolute law of the universe, we are made in HIS image. in the Bible it says that God tells his own son that he is the crater of all things and that everything That exist would not be possible without him. You guys can't believe that because you have separated them. You've separated God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost as three separate gods being independent of each other, but have the same initial goal. as I showed you before, goes against most of what we read in the Book of 1st John which is part of the gospel, which ironically you have distorted in several places of the Book of Mormon as well as Isaiah. this is part of the reason why you guys hold the Book of Mormon above that of the Bible because you believe this is new revelation about Jesus, God, and these crypto Jews they came to the Americas, while simultaneously calling your book Another testament of Jesus Christ. by the way, Christ is not his last name, but in third Nephi that's the way he introduces himself. your book also says that he was born in Jerusalem which is not true. there are three names given for the birthplace of Christ; Bethlehem, the House of bread, and the City of David. Jerusalem is not the city of David. I don't know if anybody's told you that, but if they did they need their face slapped. my Mormon ex-girlfriend tried to justify this by saying that it's a generalization which refers to the area of the Levant near where Jesus was born but would be considered part of Jerusalem. That's not true. I'm glad Joseph Smith made this mistake, because it shows how stupid and ignorant he was, and you would have to be stupid and ignorant to believe anything that he wrote or dictated. And I say both stupid and ignorant as opposed to using one over the other, because I'm pretty sure this is not the first time you've been confronted about the bullshit of your faith. You lie to yourselves, each other, and other people all the time, you just don't know it; that's called ignorance. I've also called you stupid because even after being told the truth, you will still repeat the lies of your ideology. retreat to the safety bubble of your echo chamber why you continually tell yourself that anyone that stands against your religion, your prophet, or any other part of your ideology, they are considered the enemy and the children of the devil. I'm not the one unwittingly worshiping Satan.
I gave you the perfect example of the priesthood given by the laying on of hands for the presbytery! Do you know what that word means?!? I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but Zi have studied theology for more than 60 years and it seems like you guys want to keep arguing that Santa Claus is real!
Member of the church here. One quick correction to an assertion you made toward the beginning of the video. We believe the higher (Melchizedek) and lower (Aaronic or Levitical) priesthoods have been established since the days of Adam. Due to the idolatry of the Israelites, the higher law (officiated by the higher priesthood) was removed from the nation, symbolized by Moses breaking the tablets, and replaced with a lower law officiated by the lower priesthood. The Levites were called to officiate in the ordinances of the lower law on behalf of the nation, although there remained select few who were permitted to be ordained to the higher priesthood. Lehi was one such individual, and so, being ordained to the higher priesthood, he was permitted to conduct the ordinances of both the lower and higher laws, hence why he being from Manasseh was permitted to offer burnt offering. All that aside, the Book of Mormon is true! Don’t take my word for it or anyone else’s word against it. Read it yourself and pray to the Lord for understanding. It truly testifies of Christ. Glory to God, and merry Christmas everyone!
Have you ever considered that the central epistemological metric of Mormonism doesn't even seem to envision the potential for tangible truths to be found that proves the doctrines legitimacy? In other words, is it even a little paradoxical to you that if the book of Mormon were true, it wouldn't have to command its readers to find its truth by a method detached from any and all tangible investigation? Doesn't it seem like the book of Mormon would have to ALREADY be true for Moroni 10:4 to mean anything at all? I believe you when you say that you believe the book of Mormon is true, but is YOUR word truly the final authority? Where is that in the scripture? How do you know the Brighamite sect of Mormonism is true? There are dozens of other sects who also believe in the book of Mormon, yet are anathema, why? And yes it does testify of Christ. So does the gospel of Thomas. Why do you reject the gospel of Thomas? Because you prayed about it and you feel like God told you it's not from Him? No. It's rejected because it's verifiably late and apocryphal. The same exact thing is true of the BOM yet to a much more dramatic degree (the BOM is approximately 1800 years too late). An unknown language (that was supposedly in written form as recently as the 5th century AD), unknown peoples, unknown places. Anachronisms galore. The words Bible, pastors, and churches would have meant absolutely nothing in 600 BC for one example. Word for word plagiarisms from the KJV (the version JS happened to have right next to him). Do you see how this narrative can feel indistinguishable from fraud? Not even trying to attack it just genuinely interests me.
So Adam and Eve and the creation story was mythical based on older myths. The same for the flood, babel, etc. What does that do to your explanation? Do you consider neanderthals human since we had viable offspring with them?
Great reply! This guy condradicts the Great Apostasy, which begs the question "Why people persecutes and even murders early Christian believers and then after they died even Christ, a widespread Christianity occurs?" They spread the name of Christ but did they ask God if they're doing it correctly? Can someone please answer...
@ there is no contradiction. The apostasy is the loss of priesthood keys, it is not a claim the world rejected the message of Christianity. Christ is the Messiah. The fact that Christianity continued to expand after the loss of the keys of the priesthood is a testament to the truth and power of His message. We are commanded to believe in Jesus Christ, repent, and be baptized. Baptism must be done by one ordained to that authority. This gentleman’s video was interesting but not compelling. By their fruit you shall know them, and the “every Christian a priest” mentality has yielded confusion and disunity among Christiandom. Were this to be the case, Christ would have had no need to ordain apostles. But He did, because His church is built upon the organization of priesthood authority (ref Ephesians 2:20). The keys of the priesthood are restored! The long-promised gathering of scattered Israel has commenced! And you can know the truth of these things for yourself. Please read the Book of Mormon and pray to the Lord. Christ is King. I hope this helps, all the best!
This is one topic that I find many missionaries (and members as a whole) are very ignorant about. And it is central to the “great apostasy” claim because that has been the go-to argument for why a restoration was needed in the first place. But the problems are that the apostles had neither the levitical nor Melchizedek priesthoods, and the idea of “priesthood authority” began around 1834. I recently had missionaries cite Matthew 16’s use of “keys” as evidence for “priesthood keys,” but they could not answer how they get this to mean levitical or Melchizedek priesthood from the text. The only answer given regarding this was it’s “in the whole Bible.” And yet, like so many, they were ignorant of Hebrews 7 and the requirements to hold the levitical priesthood. Repeatedly I hear “we believe the Bible” despite them not knowing what it says. Article of faith 8 exists, in reality, to mean “we believe the Bible as long as we feel it supports our church.” I hope your videos continue to open the eyes of Mormons to the falsehood that is Mormonism.
"Repeatedly I hear 'we believe the Bible' despite them not knowing what it says. Article of faith 8 exists, in reality, to mean 'we believe the Bible as long as we feel it supports our church.' " This is 100% how it is. The LDS church is counting on the ignorance of their church members to keep them in the fold.
A lot of people just incorrectly assume that Rev. 20'6 means that if you only believe God will make you priests and kings, but that is a wrong assumption! A priest or minister of God is called by the spirit of prophesy and it is given by the laying on of hands, just as the scriptures I gave you clearly shows! Also, in Acts chapter six, when the apostles, who were official priesthood holders and ministers for Christ, used this same spirit of prophecy to ordain Stephen and six others to their priesthood offices to minister to the people and this was given by the laying in of hands!!! Continued...
You accuse people (in a bit of a superior tone) of making a "wrong assumption" about the meaning of Revelation 20:6. Then you proceed to make the following statements: 1) A priest is called by the spirit of prophecy. 2) Priesthood is given by the laying on of hands. 3) The Apostles were priesthood holders. 4) The Apostles used ordination to confer priesthood on Stephen & others, by the laying on of hands. Now, I ask you: how are points 1 & 2 NOT assumptions of your own, that you are reading into the text? The guy in the video actually spent time to cover where the priests got their calling from, in the Old Testament. SPOILER: it was NOT by the "spirit of prophecy" as you say, so where are you getting this idea? As to your second point, IF priesthood was given by the laying on of hands, why wasn't this mentioned in Leviticus 8, where the original priests were consecrated for the work of the priesthood? The only "laying on of hands" was done by the priests themselves unto the bull that they sacrificed. So...the bull had the priesthood as well??? I think you have miisunderstood what the "laying on of hands" actually signifies. I also have to ask: do you know the difference in purpose between the office of a priest & the office of a prophet? They have distinctively different purposes & functions. Now, as to your statements about the Apostles...based on your understanding of what priesthood is... I think it's worth pointing out that the Apostles never claimed to be priests, but you seem to feel entitled to claim it for them. So, how is this not also an assumption you are making...and out of it, making a case (in your belief system) for the truth claims of the LDS church about priesthood, apostasy, and restoration? If the Apostles were not (as you claim) "priests" (of the Levitical or Melchizidek order), doesn't that leave this whole chain of LDS teachings without a leg to stand on? Lastly, friend, your use of Acts chapter 6 in this line, is either disingenuous, ignorant, or blatantly deceitful. (I'll choose to assume ignorance on your part.) Acts chapter 6 is VERY clear that those being called by the Apostles in that story were being set apart as DEACONS. Not priests. They were being given no ceremony, no vesture, and no responsibilities that were in any way similar to that of Leviticus 8. Your logic (as it related to this truth claim) is entirely "out of bounds" in supporting your beliefs with this scripture. Acts 6 has nothing to do with priesthood.
@@Daniel_McDI’ve been asking some Mormons lately how they get “priesthood authority” from the texts of the New Testament. They’ve all been giving essentially the same answer, which is to just quote the passages and claim it means priesthood authority. None have actually explained how they get this to mean priesthood despite being asked to. They are bringing Mormon presuppositions about priesthood and inserting them into a text that they would otherwise not be able to get. I see this happening in numerous comments on this video as well.
Great Podcast, I've been thinking about the same things recently. One of the evidences that ordination of the laying on of hands, and the transmission of priesthood as practiced by Mormons has a basis in antiquity, is in the catholic episcopal consecration, which is still done, they lay the hands on the head in transmission authority, Bishops and Popes are ordained via the laying on of hands. They must of got the concept from somewhere. Also in the oldest Rosicrucian order, which is attached to freemasonry, ordination is done through the laying on of hands, a conferral of power and authority. I think priesthood which is tied to the temple priesthood, was not for public disclosure, laying on of hands comes, exists in the same category of temple priesthood arcana of signs, penalties and grips which exist in freemasonry and has judiac origins linked with the temple, so the fact it's not clear in the text, not everything is in the text. The shrewdest historians and scholars are not privy to all the workings in the temple. Other jewish sources the talmud, and various authorative commentaries and kabbalistic texts should be checked to see if there is any basis for this laying on of hands. Lay mormon's should be more aware that their priesthood concept is not clear in the scriptures, they are not aware of the difference with christian understaning which they should be. In the liberal catholic church which is very esoteric, they do the same thing, esoteric scholars have also stated and talked about how the right and left hands are laid on the crainium over the left and right hemispheres of the left and right brains. Making the case the Mormon priesthood concepts are fiction, is not as simple as one may think. IMO Mormons are unaware of this but I'm glad this guy is looking at it. Personally the Mormon priesthood concepts of the laying on of hands, which is the whole damn lynch pin of the whole damn ball of wax is a big deal, a very big deal. Where did Jesus get his authority, mormon sources I think state it was innate, no one ordained him, as he was the true high priest of israel. Say the Mormons are wrong, toss their laying of hands on the head, in the bin, and cover it with a pile of manure and then spit on the pile, sure go ahead, but if you do that, very serious priestly priesthood authority becomes airy fairy, vagueries, there is no way over it, around it, or under it. Priesthood in israel, and various offices and conditions and types of priests, I've had a look at it, and it's clearly complex and I'm not an expert on it. The question many mormons have, is how will the temple be restored in israel without priesthood? Many mormons think that israel can't build restore or consecrate the third temple without the Melchezedek priesthood so they are wondering how that is going to come about? My understanding his Jewish concepts of priesthood which they currently have priests in training, for 3rd temple is lineage, from levi, and remaining ritually pure, which they can verify these days, their lineage of levi, with a DNA Test.
Study the Bible and theology more! Paul mentions that he was caught up to the third heaven, which we call the celestial kingdom. How could there be s third heaven if their werent a first and second heaven?!? Continued...
The word heavens can be used to refer to different realms. Heavens can refer to the sky and the earth’s atmosphere, making it the “first heaven” (Deuteronomy 11:11; Psalm 104:12; Isaiah 55:10). It can also refer to outer space, where the stars and planets are-the “second heaven” (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 13:10). And it can refer to God’s dwelling place, which is beyond the other “heavens,” a place known as the “third heaven” (Psalm 33:13-14; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 7:26; Revelation 11:19). When Paul says that he went to the third heaven, he means that he went to the place where God dwells. I think it is a stretch to say just because the bible mention something that the LDS entire doctrine of their interpretation is true. It takes a lot of logical jumps. What is important when speaking of Paul is what his message overall was in that chapter. He said "3 And I know that this man-whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows- 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses" He wasnt making a theological statement about the number of heavens, he was saying he wont boast about himself, but he would boast about this guy. Later he wraps up his point by saying "8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." He is pointing to Jesus being sufficient, not how many "heavens" there are. Even today people will saying things like "the heavens are singing" or other phrases, that doesn't mean we are affirming LDS doctrine. You also have to remember the context of what the biblical writers even knew about space, so t makes since they may call it a "heaven"
@@readingwithsyd This is rock solid, brother. It made my heart rejoice to see someone so clearly demonstrate & share a biblical understanding. Be encouraged that you've encouraged my heart today! Thank you. (Philemon vs. 7 & 20)
I want so much to talk with some of my childhood friends about the Mormon Church. However, I am 67 now and so are they. It would be difficult to do. I saw several of them a few years ago at a high school reunion and came close to starting a conversation about why I no longer believe in the church. I am not well versed in disputing their beliefs and practices. They simply do not believe in Jesus, or the Trinity the way an evangelical's do. I need help! Anyone with some advice?
@@imyttadidit4290 I can help you practice. I'm a faithful Latterday Saint. If you can coherently explain the Trinity to where it makes sense I will join your church. I will listen with ears wide open but I won't just accept everything you say as truth. Good luck!
Trinity was created to commit genocide. Eyes won't open until hearts soften . God has so many promises . Most "believers" have little faith because they are taught that Jesus has no power and needs none of your time . We are all on active duty . Which side are you really on ?
Also, he incorrectly makes assumptions that if something is not clearly expressed in detail that it is not true, and that is a false assumption! He has no evidence whatsoever that Aarons sons were not given the priesthood by the laying in if hands which is the way it is ALWAYS given!!! See 1 Timothy 4:14 where it clearly states that Timothy was given the priesthood by revelation and the LAYING on of HANDS!!!
The problem is, with the bible it's better to assume something not to be required or done a certain way if not explicitly stated, rather than add your own interpretation. So, could that have been possible, sure. But since we don't know for a fact, then we cant base theology or religious requirements on it as it clearly wasn't important enough for God to add in. Timothy mention gifts, not the priesthood so don't add that in. Clearly there is something to say about laying of hands, but that doesn't allow you to jump to a major theological conclusion. I think GLM said they will post a video on that soon.
Your comment seems slightly hypocritical. Your first part of your comment talks about being careful about making assumptions with what is not clear in scripture. You then cite a verse and say it "clearly states" something that it not only doesn't say in any translation (I looked at 10 of them and all use the word gift not priesthood), but requires your own assumptions and bias to make it say what you want it to say.
To Mike and @germ, look, I have studied theology and Mormon doctrine for more than 60 years so I know Mormon doctrine. Yes, the intelligence of God and man are co eternal, but not in the dame form. They progresses. Is is not scientic ir kogical that anything other than in its very basic or rlemtary state could be eternal! Gods dont just happen to be eternal! Intelligences, matter or energy, snd space ste the only things that sre eternal! Continued...
Joseph Smith claimed he was given the priesthood in a vision. William Law in an interview stated that the idea of priesthood was given to Joseph Smith by Sidney Rigdon who brought the idea from the Cambellites who were practicing a similar program
Makes zero sense that God in His sovereignty would pour out His Holy Spirit on the earth for nearly 1800 years in vain... kind of flies in the face of the great commission and Christ becoming our high priest and mediator between God and man.
I am Mormon. I didn't listen to the video. There is not point for me to do so anymore. If this is what you desire for you eternity, so be it. You can choose who you become. I just want to wish you a Merry Christmas. I am so so grateful for the Savior. That he came to earth as an innocent little baby and that he sacrificed everything for you and I. He is the ultimate example and I will continue to learn of his ways throughout eternity.
Thanks for being a part of promoting GLM’s ministry to save lost Mormons. Your comment is appreciated for algorithm support even if you do not choose to listen to truth. Love you ❤
@gracethroughfaithnotworks The truth is, is that Evangelicals say they will love Mormons in this life but will not longer care about them in the next life. The truth is, is that God loves everyone and we are all his children. He lets people decide who they become and GLM are becoming a people who want to spend their exsistence finding fault in others. If that is what they want to become, so be it. I guess I better stop even clicking on GLM from now on so that I do not given them Algorithm support. And I will tell people to NOT listen to them. Thanks for the idea. .
@@Imtryingtobelikejesus-m1mYet you are here commenting again. Hope you come back to hear the true gospel of Jesus Christ. We love helping Mormons escape Mormonism to find the real Jesus. He wants you to know Him. Come back soon 😃 ❤
@gracethroughfaithnotworks My LAST comment will be to say: YOU have chased me away. What you said makes sense. I am promoting GLM through coming here through the youtube algorithm. SO NO MORE. l will listen to Thoughtful faith and Saints Unscripted and General Conference talks. Thanks for the encouragement. You gave me the push I needed. Thanks! I sincerely hope you are happy and enjoy this part of your life. I know God loves you. You are his child. I am so grateful for the Saviors atonement in my life. He died for you and me. Goodbye.
@@Imtryingtobelikejesus-m1m I'm sorry to hear that you are so closed off and cold to the things of God that you would remain in an echo chamber of fellow people who believe the same falsities you do rather than think critically and allow yourself to consider the fact that you might be wrong.
The truth is that both ways of looking at the children of God issue are true. Spirits of all mankind are chldren of God the Father. And when we are born again through Christ by covenant, we become the children of Jesus Christ as he spiritually begets us.
Your denial of the laying on of hands around 10:00 mark and then your confession that yea actually there is a laying on of hands in scripture in acts is telling. I was even going to bring this up but you already knew about it, but then that would mean there could validity to what what we are saying and we can’t have that now can we.
My short, quick answer - the existence of laying on of hands doesn't mean that it is the ONLY means used to authorize someone. Yes, it was used. Yes, Christians STILL lay on hands at times. No, it was not the only way to "pass on authority."
@@zissler1 The evidence says otherwise. Homo Sapiens have wandered for hundreds of thousands of years. We had viable offspring with neanderthals, does that mean they were human too?
@@zissler1 There was no global flood. The dispersal of the species, the fossil record, the ocean salinity, not enough water to cover all the land, etc, etc. Homo Sapiens have existed hundreds of thousands of years. Neanderthal DNA is in us.
I'm guessing you're referring to Acts 19? They received the "Baptism of John," and as the text says - it was insufficient because it was only a baptism of repentance. It wasn't "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and it didn't have the symbolism of Christ's death attached yet. Romans 6 - Baptism represents that we're buried with Christ in death, and raised to new life. It's a sign of our union with Christ. There's nothing in that text about authority being the reason they were rebaptized (though, perhaps you're referencing another story...)
@briandavis6898 The baptism of John was not the same baptism. John's was a baptism of repentance to prepare for the One who was coming. The people in Acts 19 didn't even seem to know that the Messiah had already come, had been crucified, and rose from the dead. These essential events happened AFTER John had been killed, so it had to be explained to them because they didn't know. And they certainly weren't baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because that particular baptism wasn't initiated until after Jesus rose from the dead. So John's baptism was not the same baptism that the New Testament Church used.
Your prophets change words constantly, the only reason they don’t still practice polygamy is due to the government pushing on them. You as you know are supposed to have many wives to populate your planets. To be worshipped as we worship our God. But your prophets just shy that off now. Back to authority, I’m a believer of Jesus, are you saying I don’t have the authority to be a priest forever as the Bible clearly says?
Another thing that he said that was absolutely and obviously wrong was that he said that Jehovah gave to Christ apparently not realizing that Jehovah IS Christ! See Isaiah 26:19, Look up the meaning of Immanuel, also, Isaiah states that Jehovah is the only Saviour and the NT states that Christ is the only Savior! How could there be two ONLY Saviors?!? Also, Paul states correctly in the NT that Moses esteemed the reproach if CHRIST greater than the treasures of Egypt!!! Continued...
@@readingwithsyd The Trinity doesn't explain Christ divinity it actually dismisses it with illogical statements that contradict many passages in the Bible particularly John 17.
@@readingwithsyd Not to mention that you cannot accept the Bible is the ultimate authority if you are making up words like the Trinity to explain it. Again, you just show that the Bible isn't sufficient if you are creating words to explain away meanings.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 That is illogical, unless you only allow for the possibility for a thing to explain itself...which you seem to be arguing against. Science (for instance) or Art, or Music, would not exist (or at least could not be discussed) if this rationale were truth. I think you just don't want to believe the Bible, and you want to sound smart when, in fact, you are just faithless.
Melchezidek is mysteriously because he has no father or mother, has no lineage. Melchezidek is symbolic for higher States of consciousness. Abraham sat down and gave up his 10% mind (ego/carnal/animalistic mind) 10% has nothing to do with money what the religions want. By giving up (meditating) 10% he opens up the right hemisphere, the holistic mind, raising his level of consciousness. We all can acheive higher states of melchezidek. Also when they sacrifice an animal it is symbolic of giving up the lists, desires and carnal nature. It's sad religions have twisted and corrupted this message hidden in code, only those with the body of light and single eye will know and see. Jesus was a enlightened being who reached higher states of consciousness just as these other mythical characters.
All covenant members who are endowed, are endowed to become Priests and Priestesses and Kings and Queens (Patriarchs and Matriarchs) in God’s Kingdom. So in this way men and women and their posterity are a Kingdom of Priests. But that is the prieshood order of Patriarchs and Matriarchs. The church is built on the Priesthood order of Melchezedik, with men given keys to administer the ordinances to bring people into the covenant body, and members are called by authority to certain callings, like preaching repentance and the remission of sins through Jesus Christ. Some are called apostles, Elders, Bishops, Priests, Teachers, deacons. Are these offices in the Priesthood not mentioned in the New Testament? The Keys of the Kingdom given to Peter are the same Priesthood Keys Russell M Nelson holds today. I know this through revelation, that this is the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth.
@ the authority of Christ Himself. Christ called apostles, and it is by His mere calling that they are given authority. All authority is derivative of God. The inspired apostles said to appoint elders, so again, the authority here is derived from Christ.
@@JohnSmith-fd4ws You're not reading the Bible if you believe this. It's just NOT there. You bring this presupposition to your readings, as a result of your belief in the extra-biblical teachings of the LDS church. What does the Bible say are the conditions upon which the Melchezedik priesthood was attributed to Jesus Christ? Is every man in your church perfect/sinless? (That was 1 of the 3 conditions.) Since the Levitical priesthood has been made obsolete (which is taught all the way though the New Testament), why does your church insist on practicing it...but then saying "out of the other side of its mouth" that it believes the Bible? Moreover, IF the Levitical priesthood IS something that is for our churches today & YOU GUYS HAVE IT, then where is all of the ceremony from Leviticus 8? Where are the animal sacrifices that were so essential & central to the duties of Aaron's sons? How are those of you (assigned by your leaders) with a belonging to tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi-how are these men participants in the Levitical priesthood? Easy answer: You made it up, and you made it into something that seemed good to you. You made it in such a way that it didn't have to be anything like what it is in the Bible, with no accountability to the "source material", and you kept it exclusively for males and not females. You ask: "...Apostles, Elders, Bishops, Priests, Teachers, deacons. Are these offices in the Priesthood not mentioned in the New Testament? The Keys of the Kingdom given to Peter are the same Priesthood Keys Russell M Nelson holds today." John, the LDS church has "tagged" all of these offices (which are indeed mentioned in the New Testament) with the term "priesthood", just like it "tagged" the keys you mentioned with the term "priesthood". Unfortunately, this association is NOWHERE in ANY of the historical texts of the Bible. You guys have added these assumptions into your readings of the Bible. Because you misunderstand it entirely, you will come to strange conclusions, naturally. That has happened to me in math class-I would get a variable wrong, misunderstand how to solve the equation, and end up with some crazy, way-off-the-mark answer. And everybody else would get the right answer & look at me like: "How'd you come up with that?!?!" It's natural. It was a LOT of work. It felt right. But it was plain wrong, and I needed someone to teach me how the actual math worked.
Funny how the title says Fact or LDS Fiction. If they wanted to be a bit more obvious, they could have said Christian Fact or LDS fiction? Basically the idea.
The Kingdom of Priests God promised Abraham that he would make a great nation through him (Gen 12:2). Moses would later deliver that nation of Israel from the bondage of the Egyptians. Israel was promised to be a blessing to the world as the stewards of God’s oracles (Gen 12:3, Rom 3:1-2). The entire nation was prophesied to one day be the Priests of the Lord to the Gentiles: “But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.” - Isa 61:6 God ordained Israel to be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation: “ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” - Exodus 19:6 Today, there is no one holy nation as there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Gentiles are never included as priests in his kingdom. Also, Paul teaches us that we are “not under the law” and “strangers of the covenants of promise” (Rom 6:14, Eph 2:12). Therefore, water rites, special anointings, or sacrificial sprinklings, which are a part of the law and the covenants, are unnecessary for us today when we learn that they were given for a special kingdom of priests.
If traditional Christianity is to be united in Christ, then why is it divided into tens of thousands of differing denominations, each with their own version of the same thing. Clearly it has no shepherd. The angel of God has turned their presumption into confetti. And the bible stands in silent witness to their fall, as it teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God. The bible, in comradery with the Book of Mormon, which is another testimony of Jesus Christ, have shaken the dust from their garments, making of Babylon a field of disparate stones. Be thankful for what God does, toppling the walls and setting the captives at liberty.
Re: divided into tens of thousands denominations....that's a myth. I made a video on it here: ua-cam.com/video/IYBxPnNKsCw/v-deo.html We have a substantial unity as Christians, even though we are institutionally part of different local churches.
"The bible, in comradery with the Book of Mormon..." I'm gonna stop you right there. "...For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" -2nd Corinthians 6:14-15 If you think the "old black book" & your blue one are in one accord, clearly, you've never read the Bible on your own. There are more contradictions between those 2 books than you can shake a stick at! Not the least of which is Lehi's journey to a promised land, when Jeremiah (his alleged contemporary) said ALL of Judah would be destroyed in the 4 disposals (Jeremiah 15:2-6). Or Lehi's claim to the Aaronic priesthood, when (allegedly) he was of the tribe of Manasseh (not the tribe of Levi, from which all the "Aaronic" priests came). The guy in this video shows you a blatant contradiction & you are unmoved. I am flabbergasted by this.
@@Daniel_McD "I'm gonna stop you right there." My knowledge of God and conversion to his Church isn't based on academic comparisons, its doctrines, its history, its personalities, or anything of the sort. It is strictly from the visitation of his spirit. Therein is my knowledge of God by his knowing of me first, awakening me to a remembrance of his spirit, and the knowledge that my true life is in him rather than in myself or in my life alone. I make no apology for this. I may be faulted, but he is not. It is precisely because he is divine and I am not, that I look to him. I don't build God. He builds me. That said, every denomination in the tens of thousands which parade as Christianity is contradictory to the next. So if it can't stand to its own judgments, then it sure isn't fit to pass judgment on anyone else.
Another thing, while I am thinking about it, he has apparently never read 1 Timothy 4:14 which states that Timothy was given the gift of the priesthood by revelation and the LAYING on of HANDS! Also, concerning the "restitution of ALL things," the restoration of the gift of the Holy Ghost that is given by the LAYING on of HANDS!!! Continued...
once again you added the word priesthood, where the bible just says "4 Don’t neglect the gift that is in you; it was given to you through prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the council of elders." even in KJV " 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." See how it is of concern that you add something that is not there to push your point. I am open to any ideas that can be proven in the bible, but not adding your own words.
1:17 So much ignorance. Mosiah 18:18 And it came to pass that Alma, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM GOD, ORDAINED PRIESTS; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Is it hard keeping a straight face whilst you call other people ignorant considering you belief in a fictional book and a cult which has been shown to be objectively false?
Jebtewd 7:1 Also clearly ztates thst Melchezidek was a priest of God, snd sldo Sbraham paid his tithes to him! Also, Zachsrias was s priest of God whose Job was to burn incense in the temple!
George, it looks like all of my responses to you have been scrubbed from the internet! I'm curious: which of the UA-cam Community Guidelines did you feel I was violating?
Jesus gave the Melchizedek Priesthood to Peter. James and John. They are in the tribe of Judah same as Jesus. Why questions Christ decision to give priesthood authority to His Apostles. This same Apostles gave the Priesthood authority to Joseph Smith in 1829. While the Aaronic Priesthood was given by John the Baptist, who is a tribe of Levi, was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in May 15,1829.
Priesthood authority is made up, there is no instance that I have found where Jesus gave any person authority over others. In fact there weee several instances where the disciples prodded Jesus to declare which of them would be greatest, and even the sons of Zebedee sought position at the right and left hand of Jesus. Authority over others is different than authority over Devils and uncean spirits. The way the LDS church uses this made up concept of Priesthood Authority is a blasphemy against Jesus’s message.
This universal priesthood interpretation is one of the most abominable thing one can do to damage the meaning of Gods word. It allows one to dismiss actual authority. This is why Jesus has explained, there will be MANY that say Lord Lord have we not perforned miracles in my name. And Jesus answers, I dont know thee. Get thee hence workers of iniquity. (Paraphrased) Saying you are a Christian doesnt make you a priest. Reading a book doesnt make you a Christian. Brandon horribly removes context from every verse used to support universal priesthood.
Reading a book doesn't make you a Christian, yes! So what does? Following Jesus who is our eternal high priest and savior, and king, and the list goes on. Jesus is our authority and really we can only trust him with our salvation, as the bible shows us, human being always mess it up. 1 Peter 2:5-9: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” this passage is pretty clear that as co-heirs with Christ we are also a royal priesthood.
@jacobsamuelson3181 "This universal priesthood interpretation is one of the most abominable thing one can do to damage the meaning of Gods word." It's not an interpretation. It's an actual statement made by the apostles Peter (1st Peter 2:9) and John (Revelation 1:6). It's not abominable to read it or believe what it says. It's not twisting anything or dismissing anything. It's just what they wrote. And for people who believe what is written in the Bible, it is no unusual thing that we should accept these corroborating statements as facts. You are capable of reading English. When you read it, you are also capable of believing it or NOT believing it. What is NOT acceptable is adding in a bunch of other words (that are NOT written) which changes the plain meaning of the text. Looking at a passage of scripture with preconceived notions in mind & passing the text through that subjective filter IS privately interpreting the text. The text has ONE meaning. That's how it is when you write a letter to someone, or make a grocery list. Why is it so hard for you LDS folks to do the same with a book? Jesus was talking (in Matthew 7, which you referenced) about false teachers & false professions. The Apostle Paul instructs us: to examine our professions of faith to see if they are true professions (2nd Corinthinas 13:5). How do you propose we do this? I propose we look into God's Word and see what he says about what is true & what is not. (Hint: You could start in 1st John.) You are right about 1 thing: not everyone who claims to be a Christian really IS a Christian. But you are wrong about something too: all true Christians are priests. Not because I misinterpreted something, but because that's what the Apostles taught. You say: "Brandon horribly removes context from every verse..." but what I think you mean is: "Brandon doesn't read every verse with my pre-conceived ideas at the forefront of his understanding." The "context" is mostly what this video is about: a discussion of the Jewish customs & Levitical laws, a comparison of scripture with scripture (where they speak about the same thing) so that we can consider all of the pertinent statements being made about something, how the writer(s) of the text would have been understood by the readers of the text, what the original language of the texts can tell us about the nuances of our own English translations, etc.-these are all contextual elements. He's not stripping this away; rather, this is what is stripped away in the LDS church, when they have Sunday School and "study" the Old or New Testaments. Context is an unknown thing to them.
@Daniel_McD It appears you are struggling so I'll help you out. Well read it together. Paul 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: Revelations And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen Since you claim to be so good at reading please point to me where it says there is a Universal Priesthood. I'll wait.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 I didn't claim anything lofty for myself, but I can read. And I can think. The 1st passage you pasted here is from a letter we call "1st Peter". Do you know whom it was written to? From? The 2nd passage was from the introduction to the Revelation of Jesus. Do you know whom it was written to? From? Since you asked (and maybe you aren't being snide), I'll help with the breadcrumbs. (You'll love the inclusion of context.) 1st Peter 1:1-2 gives a very specific & clear "To". The church which had been scattered from Jerusalem by persecution, around 60-65 AD. But more generally to: those who are "Elect" by the Father, "Sanctified" by the Spirit, and "Obedient" to Christ. This is clarified (in verse 3) as: those who have been born again by the Father, who have the hope of resurrection in Christ, and an inheritance waiting in Heaven-which we know from Ephesians 1:14 is secured by the Spirit. (What we call "the Trinity" is at work here!) Revelation 1:1 says this was written to: (a) the servants of Jesus Christ, and (b) sent unto his servant John. Verse 4 goes on to say: this (at least the 1st part, which comprises chapters 1-3) was a message to (c) the 7 churches in Asia. Revelation 22:16-17 enlarges this audience quite a bit by inviting us to invite others (the Bride says: Come!) and the Holy Spirit himself invites (d) ALL who are thirsty for the water of life to come & drink of this. So, the answer about whom it is to, is: the servants of Jesus Christ, and the spiritual successors to the 7 churches of Asia (those who passed along the invitation-as part of the Bride-to those today who are of like faith, who have accepted the invitation & have heeded the letters to the 7 churches). If this is you, Jacob, then the Priesthood spoken of here & there extends even unto you! It IS true of me, so (as un-royal & unworthy as I am), the Priesthood spoken of here is for me! It doesn't speak of those who have undergone or performed ordinances. It describes those included: by what has been done FOR THEM, rather than what has been done BY THEM. To the extent that all of these characteristics apply to anyone, that person is "universally" accorded a place in this priesthood. I'm not saying it. It is a simple reading of what is here before us, in the writings of 2 of the Apostles. I believe it. I add nothing to it to make it square with my religion. Howabout you?
Tell me you don’t understand the scriptures without telling me you don’t understand the scriptures. “Christians” meaning creedists don’t believe in priesthood authority because they don’t believe in bible. Genesis 14:18 says “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God” Melchizedek isn’t a Levite. There’s two different priesthoods in the old testament levitical priesthood was specifically for temple functions. But the higher priesthood being the order of the Son or Melchizedek priesthood pre-dates the Levitical priesthood. Which Melchizedek held, Abraham, even Moses (Exodus 18). Hebrew chapter 7 literally speaks of a higher priesthood which Christ had. Specifically verse 15 In this verse, the author of Hebrews is emphasizing the uniqueness and preeminence of Christ's priesthood compared to the Levitical priesthood. Melchizedek, was a figure from the Old Testament who was both a king and a priest, and he is often seen as a type or foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. The verse indicates that Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchisedec," suggesting that His priesthood is eternal and superior, not being based on lineage or the law, as was the case with the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. And this is the priesthood which all the prophets held. Including Lehi
@@NauvooExpositor thanks for proving my point. One thing I learned is that when someone can’t have an intelligent response they immediately throw out the word cult.
@@coyproctor1359 But this is when it stopped being an "intelligent response": "...And this is the priesthood which all the prophets held. Including Lehi." There's your fiction. And what are we logically supposed to do with this imagining of yours? Nothing supports this statement except the LDS church. (That is cyclical reasoning.) The Bible NEVER says the prophets all were part of some priesthood! That's LDS (or your own) fiction. And if you try to throw the Council of Nicaea at me (because maybe you've never read historical accounts of it & have no idea what the church prior to 325 AD believed & taught), we can still ask: Do Jews believe (or did they ever believe) all of their prophets were part of some higher priesthood? No, they did not & do not. Neither did the prophets themselves believe it or claim it. You show that you do not even understand what the office of a prophet was for and what the office of priest was for-because they are opposite in function. Moreover, their "conferring" was on a completely separate basis, and AFAIK, there were VERY FEW (maybe only 1: Samuel?) men who were ever had both "callings". And there were women who were prophetesses, but whom could not have been priests. I'll help you. A prophet represents God to the people. A priest represents the people to God. It's that simple. But your whole LDS belief system falls apart if you accept this simple biblical & culturally-recognized viewpoint, because they've made such a twisted mess out of all of the "exaltation of man" that is woven all throughout their religion.
@ you’re gonna tell me that prophets didn’t represent people to God? That’s exactly what Moses did! I think you don’t understand the roles of prophets you gotta read the scriptures and quit believing the lies the creedist brought. Did you know even the church fathers believed men can become exalted as God is? Intelligence leaves the conversation when you try and tell me what corrupt creedist brought.
While John baptized men, those men had to be rebaptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. If baptism fulfills all righteousness, why did those baptized by John have to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ? Yet those who baptized couldn't give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, but ONLY the Apostles could give the gift of the Holy Ghost. When all the Apostles died, so died the gift of the Holy Ghost. Clearly nobody had authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. No man taketh this power (Priesthood)unto themselves, they were called as was Aaron." Which calling was by the laying on of hands. God cannot contradict himself. Furthermore the description "Without father or mother, without beginning of days or end of years" doesn't describe Melchizedek, but the Priesthood of Melchizedek, obviously. Also there was obviously a Priesthood higher than the Aaronic Priesthood before the tribe of Levi were even made Priests of the Temple and it's vessels. The Aaronic Priesthood held no power for judgement, that was done by the Seventy Elders and 12 Princes and the Prophet. And this higher Priesthood was sought after by the those Priests put in charge of the most holy things of God. If Jesus's people were authorized to go as soon as Jesus told them to go, why did they then have to wait until the Day of Pentacost to receive the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ had just spoken unto them to receive, promising them for the second time?🤦🏻♂️
There are answers for just about all of this. And they are reasonable & logical. They have been taught for centuries. Somehow you missed all of it, and got it all tangled up into this ball of knots you've posed here on YT. I feel awful for you. I just don't have time today to help you un-knot it all. I feel like Dorothy when she met the Tinman, but didn't have an oil can. There are orthodox explanations for how all of this works together. You don't need to turn to a cult for answers, unlesss you assume that the people of the world were entirely without answers before the 1800's. If this is the case, then God is a liar. He said he would preserve his church & that not 1 little bit of his Word would be lost. Joseph Smith (like many men of the past & of today) made up problems that didn't exist so that he could make himself out to be the solution that everyone needed. This is the desire for preeminence that drives EVERY false teacher. Either God lied, and he wasn't able to preserve his Word & his Church, or Joseph Smith lied when he said they both needed restoration. You pick.
If those baptized under John's authority needed to be rebaptized because John didn't have proper authority, why should I believe Mormons have authority when they claim their authority to baptize was restored by John the Baptist?
@austinnajar The authority wasn't the problem with John, it was the method. Both the authority and the method have to be right. But you missed the main point, even those who had authority to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, didn't automatically have the authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, only the Apostles had that authority, and never does it say they gave it to anyone else. Those who claim otherwise have to add to the Bible. When the Apostles died, so ended the gift of the Holy Ghost. Until it was restored from heaven.
@briandavis6898 Melchizedek did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Hebrews 7 adds this explanation for why it's called the "Melchizedek priesthood". The author uses an allegory of Melchizedek, for whom the Jews had no genealogical records, saying that Melchizedek was, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Obviously, the man himself had a father and mother, was born, and also died. But because there was no genealogical record of it, it appeared as though this important figure had no beginning or end of days. The Hebrew author uses this priest to draw an analogy to Christ, who ACTUALLY has no beginning or end. And accordingly, Christ's priesthood never ends. He is eternal. He is perfect. His is a better and higher priesthood.
Heres how to debunk this poor mans argument: In the OT, Name How many prophets were from the tribe of Levi? Conclusion: All of the prophets who were not from the tribe of Levi had no priesthood authority. Why would Lehi being a prophet need to be from the tribe of Levi?
The bible never says prophets are priests. The biblical view of prophets is very different from LDS. What he was saying is to have "the priesthood" aka be a Levitical priest, you have to be a Levite. Priests in the bible had very different duties than prophets. So, if Lehi did exist, unless he was from that bloodline, he was not a priest.
@readingwithsyd Biblical view... What does that even mean? Are you saying a prophet didn't have the same authority as a priest if he wanted to? Did Aaron have more authority than Moses?
@@jacobsamuelson3181 I think it's not about authority. Both of their authority came directly from God's command to them, so how could one possibly be other another. In a general sense, a prophet is a person who speaks God’s truth to others. The English word prophet comes from the Greek word prophetes, which can mean “one who speaks forth” or “advocate.” Prophets are also called “seers,” because of their spiritual insight or their ability to “see” the future. Moses was a prophet and a leader, but many bible prophets never lead and many bible leaders weren't prophets. God then told Moses to ordain Aron and sons as priests. "Are you saying a prophet didn't have the same authority as a priest if he wanted to?" Moses didn't necessarily have more or less authority over any other human. It's not about "if he wanted to" He was simply letting God to speak for him through Gods authority. And people knew to listen because God had proved he was using Moses with this purpose. If Moses or Aron were to just do his own thing "because he wanted to" there would be consequences. In fact Moses clearly had no authority because In Numbers 20, Moses struck a rock, which was a disobedience to God. As punishment, God told Moses he would not lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. Moses ended up dying because of his disobedience, once God was done allowing him to speak for God. After God decided Aron and his line were to be priests, all sacrifices were done by their line simply because God said to. God made it clear no sacrifice was acceptable unless done by a priests and followed all the other laws about sacrifices. The whole point was to show humans inability to save themselves, not to give authority to specific people.
We are all priests in Christ Jesus because we offer "spiritual sacrifices" through our worship to God. It is not a statement of authority over one another. Paul's statements of man being the head of woman, and women not usurping men's authority is rooted in the created order, not in priesthood.
@@BNichols021 The problem with that logic is the function of priests traditionally was not to offer their "own" sacrifices. It was to receive the sacrifices of the people for the High Priest to advocate on behalf of every individual their sacrifice. The idea of offering your OWN sacrifice would undermine the entire authority that God created.
1:40 also you're assuming that the priesthood was only the aaronic priesthood or the levitical priesthood but there was a higher priesthood the Melchizedek priesthood which presumably had the keys of the aaronic priesthood that was not limited to descendants of Aaron particularly when no descendants were available
@briandavis6898 You're saying the Melchizedek priesthood "presumably had the keys of the Aaronic priesthood"? Then why does the book of Hebrews say, "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." (Heb 7:14)? He is clearly showing that it is not the expectation that any priests would come from outside the tribe of Levi. Christ is the outlier here, and even then He did NOT hold the Aaronic priesthood, but held a higher, "Melchizedek" priesthood.
@WestLight-l3u wow. I surely didn't get that out of your question. I don't think I interpreted a scripture. What I do think is something about this video didn't sit right with you, but you could properly put it in words.
Lehi’s descendants can’t make babies by themselves. Their children also were descendants of Ishmael and we don’t know Ishmael’s lineage. It is possible they were Levites!
What??? Um...I think you are confused. Abraham's 1st 2 sons were Ishmael & Isaac. Isaac begat Jacob & Esau. Jacob IS Israel. Jacob had 12 sons. 1 of Jacob's 12 sons was Levi. So, either Lehi was Jewish (a descendant of Abraham's 2nd son), or he was an Arab (a descendant of Abraham's 1st son). The Book of Mormon says he was from the tribe of Manasseh (who was actually 1 of Joseph's sons-so, Jacob's grandson). So, if Lehi was a descendant of Ishmael, then he's not Jewish in the 1st place. (This is, of course, if we don't see the entire Book of Mormon as being a fiction-and thus Lehi a fictional character-fabricated by Joseph Smith.)
The only authority is Christ , the priest forever . no man is an authority as there is now the Lord himself living in those born again . The real priest is not from the Line of Levi . The is the Lion Of Judah . Melchizedek forever
Here's the basic problem: if Jesus (who is God) instructs Joseph Smith by revelation to establish a higher priesthood and call it Melchizedek, what objection do you have to that? In other words, as I am sure you know Mormons do not establish their authority by being bound by precedent in the Bible. Rather Joseph Smith claims a new revelation to establish his authority to establish a priesthood order in this way.
Here the basic problem. Why would god give us a bible and book if Mormon that are incorrect and full of mistakes ? Why would we listen to a prophet who is always a product of his time and is constantly speaking as a man and changing doctrine then calling it policy. Your lost
Pdalms 82:7 does not contradict Psalms 82:6 at all! Of corse we will all die, bit that does not change the fact that we are ALL the dpirit children if God, and that is why ee sre all called gods!!! Also, you need to read Hebrews 5:4 and 1 Timothy 4:14 which dpesk not only on the priesthood, but that it is hiven by the laying on of hands!!! You need to study s lot more! You dint know xxxx about the Bible!!!
very demented behavior from old George here. How many comments did you complain like an old grumpy wart about GLM’s intelligence? I’d say he is under your skin and it’s not a good look for you George. In fact, I’d say it proves that the spirit of Mormonism in you is not of Jesus Christ at all. Of course we all know that, but perhaps you’ll realize it too when you look in the mirror and ask yourself if Jesus would approve of your behavior. Even in Mormon terms you aren’t thinking or behaving in a way that’s worthy of the celestial kingdom. The celestial kingdom is make-believe anyway, but at least in your terms you might concede that your behavior is not compatible with the repentance required to access that kingdom. But, we’re glad you are here to hear the truth from GLM and all of your comments are quite helpful in promoting the YT algorithm so we can reach more lost Mormons and share the real gospel of Jesus Christ with them. Thank you Georgie ❤
3:01 wrong again. Not all true followers but members of his church, ordained as priests. Now just imagine these same verses were spoken in an LDS Church service where all men are ordained as priests and they're is no priestly class. Fits perfectly with LDS practice
@briandavis6898 Melchizedek did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Hebrews 7 adds this explanation for why it's called the "Melchizedek priesthood". The author uses an allegory of Melchizedek, for whom the Jews had no genealogical records, saying that Melchizedek was, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Obviously, the man himself had a father and mother, was born, and also died. But because there was no genealogical record of it, it appeared as though this important figure had no beginning or end of days. The Hebrew author uses this priest to draw an analogy to Christ, who ACTUALLY has no beginning or end. And accordingly, Christ's priesthood never ends. He is eternal. He is perfect. His is a better and higher priesthood.
GLM says that descendants of Lehi were performing ordinances in the Book of Mormon but Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh and not Levi who the Bible says authority to officiate was given to under the mosaic law. The Bible documents Abel, Noah and Jacob all making sacrifices though none of them were descended from Levi. Furthermore sacrifices were made by other non levites; Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, David and Solomon. It seems that at least Joshua, Samuel and Elijah like Moses, Abraham, Noah and Jacob all had the higher Melchizedek Priesthood as did Lehi who fled Jerusalem for the Americas. That same Melchizedek Priesthood was given by Jesus to his apostles who conferred it upon other elders. For example, John the Baptist only had the levitical or Aaronic priesthood (the priesthood of the preparatory gospel) and so was authorised to preach the gospel and to baptise. But he lacked the higher Melchizedek Priesthood which had authority to confer on others the Gift of the Holy Ghost; Matthew 3:11. The apostles and those ordained elders in the early church had the Melchizedek Priesthood and did have authority to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost; Acts 9:17. Their authority superseded the authority of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood. GLM says there’s no verse in the Bible where Jesus lays his hands on the apostles to give them authority. Just because a particular event isn’t recorded in the Bible doesn’t prove that it never happened. Jesus Christ did state that he ordained his apostles; John 15:16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” And elsewhere we see that the 12 and other elders were ordained and given authority; Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Acts 13: 1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. Ephesians 4: 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers There are some other erroneous statements made by GLM; 1. All Christians are priests of God - This is not based on any scripture but is purely an exegesis by ministries like GLM who know they have never been given any authority from God to be ministers in the kingdom; although they erroneously claim that they have authority from Jesus’ word to his disciples. 2. Jesus is our new high priest who holds a better priesthood (like Melchizedek) - Whilst this is true it is not true that only Jesus held the Melchizedek priesthood. This priesthood was also conferred upon the apostles, the seventy and many other elders, evangelists, pastors etc. 3. The Aaronic Priesthood has been fulfilled by Jesus. - nowhere in the Bible is this stated. This is another exegesis by GLM. As already stated, John the Baptist was baptising with the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood. Baptism is still an essential saving ordinance; Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21. The Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. All Melchizedek Priesthood holders have authority to perform duties pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood. All worthy men are to hold the priesthood and their wives, being one flesh with them, also claim its everlasting blessing. Revelation 1:6..
@@Originaldoctrine Exactly. his videos are laughable because they are off base. hes reading his own personal biases into the text and preaching it as bible truth..
If I'm reading my own biases into the text - can you tell me where Priesthood Authority, as the LDS Church defines it, is found in the Bible? Where is my exegesis flawed? Maybe it is! But where?
I think you’re limiting the Old Testament priesthood down to just one office. We both know there was a previous priesthood order under Melchizedek and Jethro which were before the giving of the Torah and Levitical priesthood laws. That order didn’t vanish and continued through Manasseh. If it was not the levitical law, what other order could it be?
He doesn't care. Nor does he care that basically every prophet after Moses were not Levites. You would have to say most prophets have no priesthood authority either.
@@mlucario2262 Not true. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy have priests, but none of them teach anything remotely like the idea of "priesthood authority" as taught by the LDS church. As the video points out, you can believe in both a priesthood and authority without the esoteric LDS innovation of "priesthood authority".
The New Testament and the Early Christian writers all speak of Priesthood Authority. Even the Eastern Orthodpx and Roman Catholic churches require Priesthood Authoity, Either the Catholic churches have it or the LDS church has it.
Cite and exegete the verses in the New Testament that explicitly indicate "Priesthood Authority" in *any way* similar to that of the LDS church doctrine. Your statement of "Either the Catholic churches have it or the LDS church has it" is a false dichotomy (AKA, the "Either-or Fallacy").
@GregMeece About a decade ago, I was trying to reason with an LDS coworker about this. He claimed that no one had authority to baptize until Joseph Smith since "priesthood authority" had been lost. I asked him to show me a single passage where the New Testament says that Christians need priesthood authority before they can baptize. He insisted that the New Testament does say it, but he wouldn't show me where. When I got home from work, I printed out every verse in the New Testament that mentions baptism, including verses where the Greek word for baptism was translated some other way. The next day, I handed him the printout and again asked him to show me where the New Testament says that Christians need priesthood authority before they can baptize. He wouldn't even touch the printout, much less look at it, and he said, "Well, it doesn't say it, but it means it." So either he already knew it wasn't in there and he lied, or he pretended to know the New Testament when he didn't really have a clue what it actually says.
@@GLMI think you are insane to dismiss the laying in of hands or the gift of authority. To claim that Jesus just picked out 12 guys without any authoritative ordinance is preposterous. Amount of transfiguration giving the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, James and John was not just Jesus saying words
14:46 that's just not true. You conveniently choose not to discuss the laying on of hands as a biblical ordination. And yet it's plain in the Bible that it is. You're theology is so shallow. Again, thank God for prophets.
@briandavis6898 it's disingenuous of you to say he "conveniently chooses not to discuss the laying of hands" when he specifically says he will discuss the laying of hands in a separate video. Also, he does discuss the priests having hands laid upon them early in the video. The PEOPLE laid their hands on the priests, not vice versa.
@BNichols021 except that not true either. His scholarship is so very wrong. Again just ask an actual scholar, preferably a Jew or an Orthodox scholar. This video is our nonsense
I'm not seeking to deceitfully and rebelliously bash, I have a convicted belief contrary to the teachings of the LDS Church. I'd love to discuss the issue at hand here, if you have a particular comment or response to my argument.
@GLM Oh you mean, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST that has been restored back on earth, in this LATTER DAYS. And, so to let you know, I've came across some, against THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, my advice is, counsel with our HEAVENLY PARENT'S, to manifest the fullness and the truthfulness of, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
Then, you also make the stupid ignorant statement that we were created at birth! Why do you think that the Bible speaks of giving up the ghost back to God?!? The Bible teaches that God is the Father of spirits! What spirits do you think they were dummy?!? This is not referring to something figurative or adoption! When Paul is speaking to the non believing and non adopted Greeks on Mars Hill, he stated that WE are His offspring!!! Continued...
No it doesn’t. The Bible talks about giving “the ghost back to God” because he’s the giver of life, not because we were literally begotten by him. John 3:16 boldly proclaims that Jesus is the Father’s ONLY begotten son.
@@GeorgeDemetz I’d say anyone using the word “dummy” as you did above is in fact that. I’m sure Jesus thinks that’s a good way to talk to others 😃 but glad you are here to learn from GLM with a potty mouth or not. Come back frequently please 🙏
Wrong, Christ did not create multiple churches with opposing teachings. The guy in this video is confused. Christ called Apostles by the laying on of hands. He authorized only one church. That church is Christ's and has his doctrine. Most Christian churches are man made and stem from men who were once Catholic. Christ warned against following men who do their own will. This guy in this video is against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and he is teaching false doctrine!
This scripture is as plain as it can be; look at it closely and let in sink in your little brain and stop trying to twist the clear meaning of what it actually states: "Ye ate gods and ALL of you are the CHILDREN of the Most High." This is the Old Testiment and the meaning is clear and plain and it is NOT talking about adoption! You can lie in your ignorance all you want and try to twist the plain meaning of the scriptures sll you want, but you can never change the truth!!!
...um, did you watch video? Because this nothing to do with this video. Also, did you actually read Psalm 82? Because your comment doesn't have anything to do with the context of Psalm 82 either.
Not what the video is talking about but also you have proof texted this from Psalm 82:6 and if you had taken the time to simply read ONE verse further (Psalm 82:7), you would know how foolish utilizing this verse is in trying to prove that WE can become Gods. Psalm 82 is a celestial judgement scene where God pronounces the DEATH PENALTY in verse 7 on angels who sinned against Him (same sons of God as Genesis 6 and Deuteronomy 32). So number 1) Psalm 82 is NOT talking about us, it is talking about angels (hence the gravity of them being destined to die LIKE MEN) who had dominion in pagan nations of the old world and judged unjustly. And number 2) even if this chapter WAS talking about us, then it would be a MOCKERY and INDICTMENT from God,the OPPOSITE of a promise of exaltation. Please, read the whole chapter slowly, it's only 8 verses.
You font know xxxx about the Bible! How could the gospel be preached to the daed if there is no dpirit if the person to oreach ti, morin?!? You want to twist and change the plain meanings of the scriptures, but you sre ibviously no theologian and should not even being doing these podcasts in your ignorance!!!
Ecclesiastes 3:14, 12:6 tells me that everything is eternal with God including the spirit of man. This agrees with LDS Doctrine of the Spirit coexisting eternally with God. That all things are eternal with God.
@@sjjsc92661I'll make it easy. The person making this video, Brandon, has no clue what he's talking about in a Biblical or a Spiritual perspective. He has no authority. Hope that helps.
God Bless you guys! Keep up the great work!
Hebrews 7 adds this explanation for why it's called the "Melchizedek priesthood". The author uses an allegory of Melchizedek, for whom the Jews had no genealogical records, saying that Melchizedek was, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Obviously, the man himself had a father and mother, was born, and also died. But because there was no genealogical record of it, it appeared as though this important figure had no beginning or end of days. The Hebrew author uses this priest to draw an analogy to Christ, who ACTUALLY has no beginning or end. And accordingly, Christ's priesthood never ends. He is eternal. He is perfect. His is a better and higher priesthood.
Revelation 1"6 is "kings and priests" Which is the Melchizedek Priesthood. We note John had it. Do you?
@@BNichols021 when it says “without father or mother” etc. it’s referring to priesthood he had. Which was the same priesthood as Christ that is without end
This is the best explanation I’ve ever heard! Thank-you!
I speak to a lot of LDS, some which are in laws.
Your videos are extremely appreciated!
He is confused. The LDS church is officially called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is Christ's church. NO OTHER CHURCH is Christ's.
What did he actually explain? If you read any of his verses he uses, they are put way out of context.
@@jacobsamuelson3181No they weren't. The only reason why you're putting this out there, is because it makes your religion look stupid.
@@tucuxi70That is a lie; there was no Book of Mormon nor were there any plates of Nephi. there are no Nephites or lamanites or any other 'ites' related to a group of crypto Jews that came across the Atlantic to the Americas. it's all bullshit.
God established his last church in mankind because it is on men's hearts that God had written the laws for the Jews and gentiles. by Jesus becoming the personification of that law and establishing through faith in his Word which was solidified in his death and resurrection, knowing that Jesus is the bridegroom of the church which we have to accept in our hearts, AND since it is the law that is always kept in the church, that makes mankind the church. this is how we know the Mormon church is full of shit. God wouldn't make the church in something that he created, only to turn around and repeat what had taken place in the Old testament. That's just dumb.
@@tucuxi70 You can call it whatever you want. Perhaps you have never heard of "catfishing", "identity theft", or "internet scams". People claim to be what/who they are not all the time. This is nothing new to the internet age.
If the LDS church is TRULY the church of Jesus Christ, then 2 things would have to be true...
1) They would have to be following the historical, Jesus Christ. Not a fake one invented in the 1800's. After all, Jesus himself warned that there would be many who would come after him (especially in the latter days) claiming to be the Christ.
2) They would have to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (and revere them), at a bare minimum. (Even if they didn't do much with the rest of the Bible.) And when someone else taught things contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, they would have to deny & forsake these false shepherds (rather than sustaining them) & instead follow the voice of the good shepherd.
By this basic rubric, the LDS church CANNOT be, as you say: "Christ's church". They follow the teachings of Joseph Smith & Brigham Young & other men-whose teachings undermine & oppose the teachings of the Bible, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. If you all would like to call yourselves: "the Church of Joseph Smith", I would take no issue with that, as long as you stay true to his teachings. What you call yourselves now is a dishonest misnomer-it's "religious appropriation".
This is NOT an accusation. It is a fact. You have only to read the Bible for yourself to see how your beliefs contradict what it says. The LDS church is hoping you will NOT do this. If you follow the teachings & beliefs of Jesus Christ, only then can you claim to be of his true flock. Otherwise, he was clear: you follow another.
Excellent breakdown and explanation of a topic I found confusing for several years after leaving the LDS church. Not sure I have ever seen it so simply articulated. Well done GLM.
Congrats on escaping Mormonism. I hope you’re able to help others still stuck in the Mormon church.
He is wrong and teaching false doctrine. The LDS church is true!
@@savedbygracethrufaithWrong, the LDS church is true! STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!!
@@tucuxi70 🤣 that’s laughable, you must be crazy. Aside from being Mormon, I can tell from how you yell through your keyboard. 😃 Mormonism is the most obvious fraud. We’re glad you are here to learn from GLM today ❤️ come back frequently please 🙏
That's his interpretation. Now go through the other religions that are under the triune god and open your eyes to how they interpret this thousands of different ways. Look at Europe and how many kings and queens killed those who worshiped a different version of there Christianity. If you believed in the holy trinity one way you were murdered by those who viewed the same god in a different way. No matter what they teach you know the truth. God made us a peculiar people to him that's why people don't get our beliefs to God. Without a prophet you get thousands of people who believe they know the church. Every version of Christianity under the triune god will say the other one is wrong and they are going to hell, but they all gang up to go against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints . Just some food for thought for you my friend. Take care and come back when your ready. Which version of the triune Church is Jesus coming back for at his second coming? Roman Catholism, Protestant, Baptist, they all say the others are going to hell?
Very clear and straightforward!
I love your doctrinal sound bytes such a great resource (former LDS)
Congratulations on escaping Mormonism ❤
@@amandaterry4381 Until you actually read the verses he mentions and they have nothing to do with everyone having the priesthood.
@jacobsamuelson3181 i read the standard works including the new testament b4 i decided to resign. The more i read the bible the more i realized i would have to reject most of it to believe the lds church was true this led to a long investigation of Christianity and a surrender of self to God. What I can say is having an assurity of eternal salvation is way better then trying to become a god myself.
@ so very happy to hear this, happy for you ❤️
@amandaterry4381 Are you trying to be like Jesus?
I enjoy watching these videos very informative without “Mormon Bashing”!
Use your brain! They laid their hands on Stephen to give him authority, and that authority was priesthood authority, and it was by the spirit of prophecy and the laying on of hands!! That was not merely a ceremony!!!
Also, to further show the ignorance of this man, Hebrews 7:17 states that Christ was made a high priest AFTER the ORDER of Melchezidek!!!
@@GeorgeDemetz Protestants have no concept of order. Just look at how many churches they have.
And? actually it's your ignorance that is showing; does it not say in the doctrine and Covenants section 22:1 that YOUR God had done away with all the old covenants? That would include the priesthood which has been established moniker of the LDS church's hierarchy. It also states that a man can repent a thousand times and it would be for nothing because The laws of Moses no longer apply. this would include the ten commandments, which Jesus himself came to establish being a personification of the law, which you guys don't believe anyway because Jesus isn't the law according to your ways; he was the first child of your Mormon God and his goddess, on a planet that existed before they were spirit children.
@JulioHendricks-r8n the priesthood is not a covenant it is the power and authority to make them.
@@JulioHendricks-r8nthe Melchezidek priesthood was after the Oder of the Son of God and means king of righteousness. The law of Moses was the lower law that was given to the children of Israel because of their disobedience to God. When Moses came down he had two tablets that he threw down and broke which contained the higher law. The children of would receive the lower law, the carnal commandments, or the law of Moses. They operated primarily under the priesthood of Aaron or lesser priesthood. When Christ came he fulfilled the law of Moses and gave them the higher law that they would have received earlier. There would be a return to operating in the Melchezidek priesthood and order.
@@andrewdurfee3896 Tell me something Andrew; do women still sleep with animals? do homosexuals still exist? does thievery still exist? how about dishonoring thy mother and thy father? See, you got to be careful in how you're presenting the ideology of your cult. there is a common but comedic phenomena amongst true Christians and their conversations with Mormons; You can ask 10 Mormons the same question and you'll never get The same answer. While that is an exaggeration, it has been proven to a degree that a lot of what they believe is scattered amongst different members of the "church". I literally tested this theory with five members of the same family who are all Mormon, and it concerned the use of the word "gods" and the rehashed creation story given in the book of Abraham. the mother who was batshit stupid told me that it was God and his unnamed goddess. The daughter of that same woman told me it was God, Jesus, and the archangel Michael who later became Adam. and the third explanation I got amongst the five people I asked was that it involved God, Jesus, and the unnamed goddess.
to a Christian when someone says the name Elohim, we automatically think of John 5:8 which says that there are three that bear record in heaven; God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. Elohim is plural and rightfully so, because it is referring to the triune God. there's many examples of this throughout the Bible. your faith separates them, which whether you believe it or not, remove your Christ from being the law. there is a deliberate misrepresentation when you say things like alpha and Omega, or having no beginning. according to the Book of Moses your God had a beginning, which means you can't go to our Bible to any reference to God being eternal or not having a beginning to justify any and all other parts that do not mention your God being born on another planet. whether you like it or not, that's showing that your god had a beginning.
this also goes against Isaiah 43:10 which is from God's own mouth telling his servants that there are no other gods formed before him, and there will be none after. That tells us two things in reference to your false ideology; this means that he is not going to turn you into a God, because that clearly goes against his own word of God's being formed after him, and it also means that he was never born or exalted by another god. He clearly states that before him there were no other gods formed. so if your book of Moses says that he was born to human parents and exalted in his flesh by his God, that would obviously imply that before he became a God, there was another God... You Mormons aren't that slow so I know you know what I mean. these two things I've just mentioned go to the heart of what forms your ideology.
another quick one is the conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well where he states from his own mouth that God is a spirit and that his true worshipers worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus identifies himself as the way, the truth, and the life. this means that his words cannot mean anything else but what he is giving to this Samaritan woman. this is not a parable, okay? He is telling this woman that God is a spirit and those that worship him must worship him in their spirit. look it up if you don't believe me; 1st John 10: 21 -24.
in fact, I can name several verses just from the book of John alone that completely destroy the theology of the Mormon church, most especially coming from the mouth of Christ himself. to deny what he says would make you an Antichrist, would it not? You guys don't realize it but you already worship Satan, and what you were doing before you read this was going through every verse that you had been taught in the LDS church that refers and used as proof that God has a body... which again is not true.
The reason why I'm telling you all this is because Mormons will time and again use a book they believe to be incomplete and flawed to validate and justify their bullshit. I'm not going to stand for it. your book is a book of lies and I would tell you to your face if you were standing right in front of me. If you can sit there and deny the words of Christ and what he says about his own father, then you're not a Christian at all. a true Christian believes the words of Christ which is why they're called Christians in the first place.
I also don't care how you feel about how I've conveyed my message to you. And this is because your Satanism is hidden by a thick veneer of what you feel is somehow associated with Christianity. Not realizing of course that you've turned a lot of the core fundamentals of Christianity backwards. God has a body, you have to earn grace, Jesus is not the entirety of the law, just the law that applies to this heaven and this earth, that God has a wife.... All of that is satanic. why? because it further validates the reasons why you stay within your bubble that tells you that God is in the image of a man. You use this for your justifications all the time.
so let me explain omnipresence to you so you have a better understanding of why God said he made us in his image. He already knew that Jesus was going to be the personification of the law which means he would have to be born here on earth. as Elohim and the absolute law of the universe, we are made in HIS image. in the Bible it says that God tells his own son that he is the crater of all things and that everything That exist would not be possible without him. You guys can't believe that because you have separated them. You've separated God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost as three separate gods being independent of each other, but have the same initial goal. as I showed you before, goes against most of what we read in the Book of 1st John which is part of the gospel, which ironically you have distorted in several places of the Book of Mormon as well as Isaiah.
this is part of the reason why you guys hold the Book of Mormon above that of the Bible because you believe this is new revelation about Jesus, God, and these crypto Jews they came to the Americas, while simultaneously calling your book Another testament of Jesus Christ. by the way, Christ is not his last name, but in third Nephi that's the way he introduces himself.
your book also says that he was born in Jerusalem which is not true. there are three names given for the birthplace of Christ; Bethlehem, the House of bread, and the City of David. Jerusalem is not the city of David. I don't know if anybody's told you that, but if they did they need their face slapped. my Mormon ex-girlfriend tried to justify this by saying that it's a generalization which refers to the area of the Levant near where Jesus was born but would be considered part of Jerusalem. That's not true. I'm glad Joseph Smith made this mistake, because it shows how stupid and ignorant he was, and you would have to be stupid and ignorant to believe anything that he wrote or dictated. And I say both stupid and ignorant as opposed to using one over the other, because I'm pretty sure this is not the first time you've been confronted about the bullshit of your faith. You lie to yourselves, each other, and other people all the time, you just don't know it; that's called ignorance. I've also called you stupid because even after being told the truth, you will still repeat the lies of your ideology. retreat to the safety bubble of your echo chamber why you continually tell yourself that anyone that stands against your religion, your prophet, or any other part of your ideology, they are considered the enemy and the children of the devil.
I'm not the one unwittingly worshiping Satan.
I gave you the perfect example of the priesthood given by the laying on of hands for the presbytery! Do you know what that word means?!? I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but Zi have studied theology for more than 60 years and it seems like you guys want to keep arguing that Santa Claus is real!
Member of the church here. One quick correction to an assertion you made toward the beginning of the video. We believe the higher (Melchizedek) and lower (Aaronic or Levitical) priesthoods have been established since the days of Adam. Due to the idolatry of the Israelites, the higher law (officiated by the higher priesthood) was removed from the nation, symbolized by Moses breaking the tablets, and replaced with a lower law officiated by the lower priesthood.
The Levites were called to officiate in the ordinances of the lower law on behalf of the nation, although there remained select few who were permitted to be ordained to the higher priesthood. Lehi was one such individual, and so, being ordained to the higher priesthood, he was permitted to conduct the ordinances of both the lower and higher laws, hence why he being from Manasseh was permitted to offer burnt offering.
All that aside, the Book of Mormon is true! Don’t take my word for it or anyone else’s word against it. Read it yourself and pray to the Lord for understanding. It truly testifies of Christ.
Glory to God, and merry Christmas everyone!
Have you ever considered that the central epistemological metric of Mormonism doesn't even seem to envision the potential for tangible truths to be found that proves the doctrines legitimacy? In other words, is it even a little paradoxical to you that if the book of Mormon were true, it wouldn't have to command its readers to find its truth by a method detached from any and all tangible investigation? Doesn't it seem like the book of Mormon would have to ALREADY be true for Moroni 10:4 to mean anything at all? I believe you when you say that you believe the book of Mormon is true, but is YOUR word truly the final authority? Where is that in the scripture? How do you know the Brighamite sect of Mormonism is true? There are dozens of other sects who also believe in the book of Mormon, yet are anathema, why? And yes it does testify of Christ. So does the gospel of Thomas. Why do you reject the gospel of Thomas? Because you prayed about it and you feel like God told you it's not from Him? No. It's rejected because it's verifiably late and apocryphal. The same exact thing is true of the BOM yet to a much more dramatic degree (the BOM is approximately 1800 years too late). An unknown language (that was supposedly in written form as recently as the 5th century AD), unknown peoples, unknown places. Anachronisms galore. The words Bible, pastors, and churches would have meant absolutely nothing in 600 BC for one example. Word for word plagiarisms from the KJV (the version JS happened to have right next to him). Do you see how this narrative can feel indistinguishable from fraud? Not even trying to attack it just genuinely interests me.
So Adam and Eve and the creation story was mythical based on older myths. The same for the flood, babel, etc. What does that do to your explanation? Do you consider neanderthals human since we had viable offspring with them?
Well written!!! @josephgelwix6788
Great reply! This guy condradicts the Great Apostasy, which begs the question "Why people persecutes and even murders early Christian believers and then after they died even Christ, a widespread Christianity occurs?" They spread the name of Christ but did they ask God if they're doing it correctly? Can someone please answer...
@ there is no contradiction. The apostasy is the loss of priesthood keys, it is not a claim the world rejected the message of Christianity.
Christ is the Messiah. The fact that Christianity continued to expand after the loss of the keys of the priesthood is a testament to the truth and power of His message.
We are commanded to believe in Jesus Christ, repent, and be baptized. Baptism must be done by one ordained to that authority. This gentleman’s video was interesting but not compelling. By their fruit you shall know them, and the “every Christian a priest” mentality has yielded confusion and disunity among Christiandom. Were this to be the case, Christ would have had no need to ordain apostles. But He did, because His church is built upon the organization of priesthood authority (ref Ephesians 2:20).
The keys of the priesthood are restored! The long-promised gathering of scattered Israel has commenced! And you can know the truth of these things for yourself. Please read the Book of Mormon and pray to the Lord. Christ is King.
I hope this helps, all the best!
This is one topic that I find many missionaries (and members as a whole) are very ignorant about. And it is central to the “great apostasy” claim because that has been the go-to argument for why a restoration was needed in the first place. But the problems are that the apostles had neither the levitical nor Melchizedek priesthoods, and the idea of “priesthood authority” began around 1834.
I recently had missionaries cite Matthew 16’s use of “keys” as evidence for “priesthood keys,” but they could not answer how they get this to mean levitical or Melchizedek priesthood from the text. The only answer given regarding this was it’s “in the whole Bible.” And yet, like so many, they were ignorant of Hebrews 7 and the requirements to hold the levitical priesthood. Repeatedly I hear “we believe the Bible” despite them not knowing what it says. Article of faith 8 exists, in reality, to mean “we believe the Bible as long as we feel it supports our church.”
I hope your videos continue to open the eyes of Mormons to the falsehood that is Mormonism.
@@Liberator54321 💯
"Repeatedly I hear 'we believe the Bible' despite them not knowing what it says. Article of faith 8 exists, in reality, to mean 'we believe the Bible as long as we feel it supports our church.' "
This is 100% how it is. The LDS church is counting on the ignorance of their church members to keep them in the fold.
One tiny problem.. ... The LDS Church doesn't have priesthood authority either.
A lot of people just incorrectly assume that Rev. 20'6 means that if you only believe God will make you priests and kings, but that is a wrong assumption! A priest or minister of God is called by the spirit of prophesy and it is given by the laying on of hands, just as the scriptures I gave you clearly shows! Also, in Acts chapter six, when the apostles, who were official priesthood holders and ministers for Christ, used this same spirit of prophecy to ordain Stephen and six others to their priesthood offices to minister to the people and this was given by the laying in of hands!!! Continued...
You accuse people (in a bit of a superior tone) of making a "wrong assumption" about the meaning of Revelation 20:6. Then you proceed to make the following statements:
1) A priest is called by the spirit of prophecy.
2) Priesthood is given by the laying on of hands.
3) The Apostles were priesthood holders.
4) The Apostles used ordination to confer priesthood on Stephen & others, by the laying on of hands.
Now, I ask you: how are points 1 & 2 NOT assumptions of your own, that you are reading into the text?
The guy in the video actually spent time to cover where the priests got their calling from, in the Old Testament. SPOILER: it was NOT by the "spirit of prophecy" as you say, so where are you getting this idea?
As to your second point, IF priesthood was given by the laying on of hands, why wasn't this mentioned in Leviticus 8, where the original priests were consecrated for the work of the priesthood? The only "laying on of hands" was done by the priests themselves unto the bull that they sacrificed. So...the bull had the priesthood as well??? I think you have miisunderstood what the "laying on of hands" actually signifies.
I also have to ask: do you know the difference in purpose between the office of a priest & the office of a prophet? They have distinctively different purposes & functions.
Now, as to your statements about the Apostles...based on your understanding of what priesthood is... I think it's worth pointing out that the Apostles never claimed to be priests, but you seem to feel entitled to claim it for them. So, how is this not also an assumption you are making...and out of it, making a case (in your belief system) for the truth claims of the LDS church about priesthood, apostasy, and restoration? If the Apostles were not (as you claim) "priests" (of the Levitical or Melchizidek order), doesn't that leave this whole chain of LDS teachings without a leg to stand on?
Lastly, friend, your use of Acts chapter 6 in this line, is either disingenuous, ignorant, or blatantly deceitful. (I'll choose to assume ignorance on your part.) Acts chapter 6 is VERY clear that those being called by the Apostles in that story were being set apart as DEACONS. Not priests. They were being given no ceremony, no vesture, and no responsibilities that were in any way similar to that of Leviticus 8. Your logic (as it related to this truth claim) is entirely "out of bounds" in supporting your beliefs with this scripture. Acts 6 has nothing to do with priesthood.
@@Daniel_McDI’ve been asking some Mormons lately how they get “priesthood authority” from the texts of the New Testament. They’ve all been giving essentially the same answer, which is to just quote the passages and claim it means priesthood authority. None have actually explained how they get this to mean priesthood despite being asked to. They are bringing Mormon presuppositions about priesthood and inserting them into a text that they would otherwise not be able to get. I see this happening in numerous comments on this video as well.
Great Podcast, I've been thinking about the same things recently. One of the evidences that ordination of the laying on of hands, and the transmission of priesthood as practiced by Mormons has a basis in antiquity, is in the catholic episcopal consecration, which is still done, they lay the hands on the head in transmission authority, Bishops and Popes are ordained via the laying on of hands. They must of got the concept from somewhere. Also in the oldest Rosicrucian order, which is attached to freemasonry, ordination is done through the laying on of hands, a conferral of power and authority. I think priesthood which is tied to the temple priesthood, was not for public disclosure, laying on of hands comes, exists in the same category of temple priesthood arcana of signs, penalties and grips which exist in freemasonry and has judiac origins linked with the temple, so the fact it's not clear in the text, not everything is in the text. The shrewdest historians and scholars are not privy to all the workings in the temple. Other jewish sources the talmud, and various authorative commentaries and kabbalistic texts should be checked to see if there is any basis for this laying on of hands. Lay mormon's should be more aware that their priesthood concept is not clear in the scriptures, they are not aware of the difference with christian understaning which they should be. In the liberal catholic church which is very esoteric, they do the same thing, esoteric scholars have also stated and talked about how the right and left hands are laid on the crainium over the left and right hemispheres of the left and right brains. Making the case the Mormon priesthood concepts are fiction, is not as simple as one may think. IMO Mormons are unaware of this but I'm glad this guy is looking at it. Personally the Mormon priesthood concepts of the laying on of hands, which is the whole damn lynch pin of the whole damn ball of wax is a big deal, a very big deal. Where did Jesus get his authority, mormon sources I think state it was innate, no one ordained him, as he was the true high priest of israel. Say the Mormons are wrong, toss their laying of hands on the head, in the bin, and cover it with a pile of manure and then spit on the pile, sure go ahead, but if you do that, very serious priestly priesthood authority becomes airy fairy, vagueries, there is no way over it, around it, or under it. Priesthood in israel, and various offices and conditions and types of priests, I've had a look at it, and it's clearly complex and I'm not an expert on it. The question many mormons have, is how will the temple be restored in israel without priesthood? Many mormons think that israel can't build restore or consecrate the third temple without the Melchezedek priesthood so they are wondering how that is going to come about? My understanding his Jewish concepts of priesthood which they currently have priests in training, for 3rd temple is lineage, from levi, and remaining ritually pure, which they can verify these days, their lineage of levi, with a DNA Test.
Study the Bible and theology more! Paul mentions that he was caught up to the third heaven, which we call the celestial kingdom. How could there be s third heaven if their werent a first and second heaven?!? Continued...
The word heavens can be used to refer to different realms. Heavens can refer to the sky and the earth’s atmosphere, making it the “first heaven” (Deuteronomy 11:11; Psalm 104:12; Isaiah 55:10). It can also refer to outer space, where the stars and planets are-the “second heaven” (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 13:10). And it can refer to God’s dwelling place, which is beyond the other “heavens,” a place known as the “third heaven” (Psalm 33:13-14; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 7:26; Revelation 11:19). When Paul says that he went to the third heaven, he means that he went to the place where God dwells.
I think it is a stretch to say just because the bible mention something that the LDS entire doctrine of their interpretation is true. It takes a lot of logical jumps. What is important when speaking of Paul is what his message overall was in that chapter. He said "3 And I know that this man-whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows- 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses"
He wasnt making a theological statement about the number of heavens, he was saying he wont boast about himself, but he would boast about this guy. Later he wraps up his point by saying "8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
He is pointing to Jesus being sufficient, not how many "heavens" there are.
Even today people will saying things like "the heavens are singing" or other phrases, that doesn't mean we are affirming LDS doctrine. You also have to remember the context of what the biblical writers even knew about space, so t makes since they may call it a "heaven"
@@readingwithsyd This is rock solid, brother. It made my heart rejoice to see someone so clearly demonstrate & share a biblical understanding. Be encouraged that you've encouraged my heart today! Thank you. (Philemon vs. 7 & 20)
I would like to hear your response on the LDS claim that the Aaronic Priesthood being restored along with the Melchizedek Priesthood.
I want so much to talk with some of my childhood friends about the Mormon Church. However, I am 67 now and so are they. It would be
difficult to do. I saw several of them a few years ago at a high school reunion and came close to starting a conversation about why I no longer
believe in the church. I am not well versed in disputing their beliefs and practices. They simply do not believe in Jesus, or the Trinity
the way an evangelical's do. I need help! Anyone with some advice?
They are not interested. Looking forward to becoming gods.....
@@imyttadidit4290 I can help you practice. I'm a faithful Latterday Saint. If you can coherently explain the Trinity to where it makes sense I will join your church. I will listen with ears wide open but I won't just accept everything you say as truth. Good luck!
Trinity was created to commit genocide. Eyes won't open until hearts soften . God has so many promises . Most "believers" have little faith because they are taught that Jesus has no power and needs none of your time . We are all on active duty . Which side are you really on ?
Also, he incorrectly makes assumptions that if something is not clearly expressed in detail that it is not true, and that is a false assumption! He has no evidence whatsoever that Aarons sons were not given the priesthood by the laying in if hands which is the way it is ALWAYS given!!! See 1 Timothy 4:14 where it clearly states that Timothy was given the priesthood by revelation and the LAYING on of HANDS!!!
The problem is, with the bible it's better to assume something not to be required or done a certain way if not explicitly stated, rather than add your own interpretation. So, could that have been possible, sure. But since we don't know for a fact, then we cant base theology or religious requirements on it as it clearly wasn't important enough for God to add in.
Timothy mention gifts, not the priesthood so don't add that in. Clearly there is something to say about laying of hands, but that doesn't allow you to jump to a major theological conclusion. I think GLM said they will post a video on that soon.
Your comment seems slightly hypocritical. Your first part of your comment talks about being careful about making assumptions with what is not clear in scripture. You then cite a verse and say it "clearly states" something that it not only doesn't say in any translation (I looked at 10 of them and all use the word gift not priesthood), but requires your own assumptions and bias to make it say what you want it to say.
To Mike and @germ, look, I have studied theology and Mormon doctrine for more than 60 years so I know Mormon doctrine. Yes, the intelligence of God and man are co eternal, but not in the dame form. They progresses. Is is not scientic ir kogical that anything other than in its very basic or rlemtary state could be eternal! Gods dont just happen to be eternal! Intelligences, matter or energy, snd space ste the only things that sre eternal! Continued...
Also, look up the full meaning of priest on your computer!!!
Joseph Smith claimed he was given the priesthood in a vision. William Law in an interview stated that the idea of priesthood was given to Joseph Smith by Sidney Rigdon who brought the idea from the Cambellites who were practicing a similar program
It is the gift of the priesthood! Look up the word presbytery!!!
As a single woman, I bless my children by the laying on of hands, faith, and prayer.
You can bless them by prayer only.
Who laid hands on you to give you that authority?
Makes zero sense that God in His sovereignty would pour out His Holy Spirit on the earth for nearly 1800 years in vain... kind of flies in the face of the great commission and Christ becoming our high priest and mediator between God and man.
You’re not addressing that at the beginning of the book of acts, they laid hands on the seven to call them to positions of authority
At the end of the video, I explain that I'll address the laying on of hands in our next video
Amen.
I am Mormon. I didn't listen to the video. There is not point for me to do so anymore. If this is what you desire for you eternity, so be it. You can choose who you become.
I just want to wish you a Merry Christmas. I am so so grateful for the Savior. That he came to earth as an innocent little baby and that he sacrificed everything for you and I. He is the ultimate example and I will continue to learn of his ways throughout eternity.
Thanks for being a part of promoting GLM’s ministry to save lost Mormons. Your comment is appreciated for algorithm support even if you do not choose to listen to truth. Love you ❤
@gracethroughfaithnotworks The truth is, is that Evangelicals say they will love Mormons in this life but will not longer care about them in the next life.
The truth is, is that God loves everyone and we are all his children. He lets people decide who they become and GLM are becoming a people who want to spend their exsistence finding fault in others. If that is what they want to become, so be it.
I guess I better stop even clicking on GLM from now on so that I do not given them Algorithm support. And I will tell people to NOT listen to them.
Thanks for the idea. .
@@Imtryingtobelikejesus-m1mYet you are here commenting again. Hope you come back to hear the true gospel of Jesus Christ. We love helping Mormons escape Mormonism to find the real Jesus. He wants you to know Him. Come back soon 😃 ❤
@gracethroughfaithnotworks My LAST comment will be to say: YOU have chased me away. What you said makes sense. I am promoting GLM through coming here through the youtube algorithm. SO NO MORE. l will listen to Thoughtful faith and Saints Unscripted and General Conference talks.
Thanks for the encouragement. You gave me the push I needed. Thanks!
I sincerely hope you are happy and enjoy this part of your life.
I know God loves you. You are his child. I am so grateful for the Saviors atonement in my life. He died for you and me. Goodbye.
@@Imtryingtobelikejesus-m1m I'm sorry to hear that you are so closed off and cold to the things of God that you would remain in an echo chamber of fellow people who believe the same falsities you do rather than think critically and allow yourself to consider the fact that you might be wrong.
The truth is that both ways of looking at the children of God issue are true. Spirits of all mankind are chldren of God the Father. And when we are born again through Christ by covenant, we become the children of Jesus Christ as he spiritually begets us.
Your denial of the laying on of hands around 10:00 mark and then your confession that yea actually there is a laying on of hands in scripture in acts is telling. I was even going to bring this up but you already knew about it, but then that would mean there could validity to what what we are saying and we can’t have that now can we.
My short, quick answer - the existence of laying on of hands doesn't mean that it is the ONLY means used to authorize someone. Yes, it was used. Yes, Christians STILL lay on hands at times. No, it was not the only way to "pass on authority."
Christ wasn't the only one who held the Melchizedek, because MELCHIZEDEK held the priesthood or else Abraham wouldn't have paid tithes to him.
Abraham, like Moses, were mythical, now what? Same goes for Adam and Eve.
@@ericreed4535 You're wrong they're as real as you or I. Pray to know for yourself and read the scriptures you will know.
@@zissler1 The evidence says otherwise. Homo Sapiens have wandered for hundreds of thousands of years. We had viable offspring with neanderthals, does that mean they were human too?
@@zissler1 There was no global flood. The dispersal of the species, the fossil record, the ocean salinity, not enough water to cover all the land, etc, etc. Homo Sapiens have existed hundreds of thousands of years. Neanderthal DNA is in us.
Were Neanderthals human as we had viable offspring with them?
Scrubbed from the internet?!? I have had nothing to do with that! Maybe someone did that because your comments were just too dumb!
Why were people in the new testament rebaptized when it was discovered they were baptized without the right authority?
I'm guessing you're referring to Acts 19?
They received the "Baptism of John," and as the text says - it was insufficient because it was only a baptism of repentance. It wasn't "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and it didn't have the symbolism of Christ's death attached yet. Romans 6 - Baptism represents that we're buried with Christ in death, and raised to new life. It's a sign of our union with Christ.
There's nothing in that text about authority being the reason they were rebaptized (though, perhaps you're referencing another story...)
@GLM the baptism of John was the same baptism. It was just done by the wrong people.
Thank God for prophets. Clarity only comes through them
@briandavis6898 The baptism of John was not the same baptism. John's was a baptism of repentance to prepare for the One who was coming. The people in Acts 19 didn't even seem to know that the Messiah had already come, had been crucified, and rose from the dead. These essential events happened AFTER John had been killed, so it had to be explained to them because they didn't know.
And they certainly weren't baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because that particular baptism wasn't initiated until after Jesus rose from the dead.
So John's baptism was not the same baptism that the New Testament Church used.
Your prophets change words constantly, the only reason they don’t still practice polygamy is due to the government pushing on them.
You as you know are supposed to have many wives to populate your planets. To be worshipped as we worship our God.
But your prophets just shy that off now.
Back to authority, I’m a believer of Jesus, are you saying I don’t have the authority to be a priest forever as the Bible clearly says?
Another thing that he said that was absolutely and obviously wrong was that he said that Jehovah gave to Christ apparently not realizing that Jehovah IS Christ! See Isaiah 26:19, Look up the meaning of Immanuel, also, Isaiah states that Jehovah is the only Saviour and the NT states that Christ is the only Savior! How could there be two ONLY Saviors?!? Also, Paul states correctly in the NT that Moses esteemed the reproach if CHRIST greater than the treasures of Egypt!!! Continued...
We believe Jesus is God, so the trinity. In that context it makes sense what he is saying.
@@readingwithsyd The Trinity doesn't explain Christ divinity it actually dismisses it with illogical statements that contradict many passages in the Bible particularly John 17.
@@readingwithsyd Not to mention that you cannot accept the Bible is the ultimate authority if you are making up words like the Trinity to explain it. Again, you just show that the Bible isn't sufficient if you are creating words to explain away meanings.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 That is illogical, unless you only allow for the possibility for a thing to explain itself...which you seem to be arguing against. Science (for instance) or Art, or Music, would not exist (or at least could not be discussed) if this rationale were truth.
I think you just don't want to believe the Bible, and you want to sound smart when, in fact, you are just faithless.
Melchezidek is mysteriously because he has no father or mother, has no lineage. Melchezidek is symbolic for higher States of consciousness. Abraham sat down and gave up his 10% mind (ego/carnal/animalistic mind) 10% has nothing to do with money what the religions want. By giving up (meditating) 10% he opens up the right hemisphere, the holistic mind, raising his level of consciousness. We all can acheive higher states of melchezidek. Also when they sacrifice an animal it is symbolic of giving up the lists, desires and carnal nature. It's sad religions have twisted and corrupted this message hidden in code, only those with the body of light and single eye will know and see. Jesus was a enlightened being who reached higher states of consciousness just as these other mythical characters.
All covenant members who are endowed, are endowed to become Priests and Priestesses and Kings and Queens (Patriarchs and Matriarchs) in God’s Kingdom. So in this way men and women and their posterity are a Kingdom of Priests. But that is the prieshood order of Patriarchs and Matriarchs. The church is built on the Priesthood order of Melchezedik, with men given keys to administer the ordinances to bring people into the covenant body, and members are called by authority to certain callings, like preaching repentance and the remission of sins through Jesus Christ. Some are called apostles, Elders, Bishops, Priests, Teachers, deacons. Are these offices in the Priesthood not mentioned in the New Testament? The Keys of the Kingdom given to Peter are the same Priesthood Keys Russell M Nelson holds today. I know this through revelation, that this is the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth.
@JohnSmith-fdws the positions and offices you list are mentioned in the Bible, yes, but they are not grounded in priesthood authority
@BNichols021 If not Priesthood, then what authority?
@ the authority of Christ Himself. Christ called apostles, and it is by His mere calling that they are given authority. All authority is derivative of God. The inspired apostles said to appoint elders, so again, the authority here is derived from Christ.
@BNichols021 His authority is Priesthood authority.
@@JohnSmith-fd4ws You're not reading the Bible if you believe this. It's just NOT there. You bring this presupposition to your readings, as a result of your belief in the extra-biblical teachings of the LDS church.
What does the Bible say are the conditions upon which the Melchezedik priesthood was attributed to Jesus Christ?
Is every man in your church perfect/sinless? (That was 1 of the 3 conditions.)
Since the Levitical priesthood has been made obsolete (which is taught all the way though the New Testament), why does your church insist on practicing it...but then saying "out of the other side of its mouth" that it believes the Bible?
Moreover, IF the Levitical priesthood IS something that is for our churches today & YOU GUYS HAVE IT, then where is all of the ceremony from Leviticus 8? Where are the animal sacrifices that were so essential & central to the duties of Aaron's sons? How are those of you (assigned by your leaders) with a belonging to tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi-how are these men participants in the Levitical priesthood?
Easy answer: You made it up, and you made it into something that seemed good to you. You made it in such a way that it didn't have to be anything like what it is in the Bible, with no accountability to the "source material", and you kept it exclusively for males and not females.
You ask: "...Apostles, Elders, Bishops, Priests, Teachers, deacons. Are these offices in the Priesthood not mentioned in the New Testament? The Keys of the Kingdom given to Peter are the same Priesthood Keys Russell M Nelson holds today."
John, the LDS church has "tagged" all of these offices (which are indeed mentioned in the New Testament) with the term "priesthood", just like it "tagged" the keys you mentioned with the term "priesthood". Unfortunately, this association is NOWHERE in ANY of the historical texts of the Bible. You guys have added these assumptions into your readings of the Bible. Because you misunderstand it entirely, you will come to strange conclusions, naturally. That has happened to me in math class-I would get a variable wrong, misunderstand how to solve the equation, and end up with some crazy, way-off-the-mark answer. And everybody else would get the right answer & look at me like: "How'd you come up with that?!?!" It's natural. It was a LOT of work. It felt right. But it was plain wrong, and I needed someone to teach me how the actual math worked.
Funny how the title says Fact or LDS Fiction. If they wanted to be a bit more obvious, they could have said Christian Fact or LDS fiction? Basically the idea.
The Kingdom of Priests
God promised Abraham that he would make a great nation through him (Gen 12:2). Moses would later deliver that nation of Israel from the bondage of the Egyptians. Israel was promised to be a blessing to the world as the stewards of God’s oracles (Gen 12:3, Rom 3:1-2).
The entire nation was prophesied to one day be the Priests of the Lord to the Gentiles:
“But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.” - Isa 61:6
God ordained Israel to be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation:
“ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” - Exodus 19:6
Today, there is no one holy nation as there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Gentiles are never included as priests in his kingdom. Also, Paul teaches us that we are “not under the law” and “strangers of the covenants of promise” (Rom 6:14, Eph 2:12).
Therefore, water rites, special anointings, or sacrificial sprinklings, which are a part of the law and the covenants, are unnecessary for us today when we learn that they were given for a special kingdom of priests.
Jesus Christ is not operating today as King or Judge, but as the Saviour of all men.
If traditional Christianity is to be united in Christ, then why is it divided into tens of thousands of differing denominations, each with their own version of the same thing. Clearly it has no shepherd. The angel of God has turned their presumption into confetti. And the bible stands in silent witness to their fall, as it teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God. The bible, in comradery with the Book of Mormon, which is another testimony of Jesus Christ, have shaken the dust from their garments, making of Babylon a field of disparate stones. Be thankful for what God does, toppling the walls and setting the captives at liberty.
Re: divided into tens of thousands denominations....that's a myth. I made a video on it here: ua-cam.com/video/IYBxPnNKsCw/v-deo.html
We have a substantial unity as Christians, even though we are institutionally part of different local churches.
"The bible, in comradery with the Book of Mormon..."
I'm gonna stop you right there.
"...For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" -2nd Corinthians 6:14-15
If you think the "old black book" & your blue one are in one accord, clearly, you've never read the Bible on your own. There are more contradictions between those 2 books than you can shake a stick at! Not the least of which is Lehi's journey to a promised land, when Jeremiah (his alleged contemporary) said ALL of Judah would be destroyed in the 4 disposals (Jeremiah 15:2-6). Or Lehi's claim to the Aaronic priesthood, when (allegedly) he was of the tribe of Manasseh (not the tribe of Levi, from which all the "Aaronic" priests came).
The guy in this video shows you a blatant contradiction & you are unmoved. I am flabbergasted by this.
@@Daniel_McD "I'm gonna stop you right there."
My knowledge of God and conversion to his Church isn't based on academic comparisons, its doctrines, its history, its personalities, or anything of the sort. It is strictly from the visitation of his spirit. Therein is my knowledge of God by his knowing of me first, awakening me to a remembrance of his spirit, and the knowledge that my true life is in him rather than in myself or in my life alone. I make no apology for this. I may be faulted, but he is not. It is precisely because he is divine and I am not, that I look to him. I don't build God. He builds me.
That said, every denomination in the tens of thousands which parade as Christianity is contradictory to the next. So if it can't stand to its own judgments, then it sure isn't fit to pass judgment on anyone else.
Another thing, while I am thinking about it, he has apparently never read 1 Timothy 4:14 which states that Timothy was given the gift of the priesthood by revelation and the LAYING on of HANDS! Also, concerning the "restitution of ALL things," the restoration of the gift of the Holy Ghost that is given by the LAYING on of HANDS!!! Continued...
once again you added the word priesthood, where the bible just says "4 Don’t neglect the gift that is in you; it was given to you through prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the council of elders." even in KJV " 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."
See how it is of concern that you add something that is not there to push your point. I am open to any ideas that can be proven in the bible, but not adding your own words.
1:17 So much ignorance.
Mosiah 18:18 And it came to pass that Alma, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM GOD, ORDAINED PRIESTS; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Is it hard keeping a straight face whilst you call other people ignorant considering you belief in a fictional book and a cult which has been shown to be objectively false?
@@NauvooExpositor thank you for sharing your worthless opinion.
Jebtewd 7:1 Also clearly ztates thst Melchezidek was a priest of God, snd sldo Sbraham paid his tithes to him! Also, Zachsrias was s priest of God whose Job was to burn incense in the temple!
George, it looks like all of my responses to you have been scrubbed from the internet! I'm curious: which of the UA-cam Community Guidelines did you feel I was violating?
@@Daniel_McDyour comments are under “newest”. I responded to another of yours and later discovered you had responded to mine prior haha.
So you’re saying the Bible is fiction?
@chloewright9561 where did he imply that?
@@BNichols021 So full of errors, not worth reading Jesus could not keep his word. the Bible is trash...
Amen!
I sense a new missionary discussion video from GLM coming up in the future!
Jesus gave the Melchizedek Priesthood to Peter. James and John. They are in the tribe of Judah same as Jesus. Why questions Christ decision to give priesthood authority to His Apostles. This same Apostles gave the Priesthood authority to Joseph Smith in 1829. While the Aaronic Priesthood was given by John the Baptist, who is a tribe of Levi, was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in May 15,1829.
Priesthood authority is made up, there is no instance that I have found where Jesus gave any person authority over others. In fact there weee several instances where the disciples prodded Jesus to declare which of them would be greatest, and even the sons of Zebedee sought position at the right and left hand of Jesus. Authority over others is different than authority over Devils and uncean spirits. The way the LDS church uses this made up concept of Priesthood Authority is a blasphemy against Jesus’s message.
This universal priesthood interpretation is one of the most abominable thing one can do to damage the meaning of Gods word. It allows one to dismiss actual authority. This is why Jesus has explained, there will be MANY that say Lord Lord have we not perforned miracles in my name. And Jesus answers, I dont know thee. Get thee hence workers of iniquity. (Paraphrased) Saying you are a Christian doesnt make you a priest. Reading a book doesnt make you a Christian. Brandon horribly removes context from every verse used to support universal priesthood.
Reading a book doesn't make you a Christian, yes! So what does? Following Jesus who is our eternal high priest and savior, and king, and the list goes on. Jesus is our authority and really we can only trust him with our salvation, as the bible shows us, human being always mess it up.
1 Peter 2:5-9: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”
this passage is pretty clear that as co-heirs with Christ we are also a royal priesthood.
@jacobsamuelson3181
"This universal priesthood interpretation is one of the most abominable thing one can do to damage the meaning of Gods word."
It's not an interpretation. It's an actual statement made by the apostles Peter (1st Peter 2:9) and John (Revelation 1:6). It's not abominable to read it or believe what it says. It's not twisting anything or dismissing anything. It's just what they wrote. And for people who believe what is written in the Bible, it is no unusual thing that we should accept these corroborating statements as facts. You are capable of reading English. When you read it, you are also capable of believing it or NOT believing it.
What is NOT acceptable is adding in a bunch of other words (that are NOT written) which changes the plain meaning of the text. Looking at a passage of scripture with preconceived notions in mind & passing the text through that subjective filter IS privately interpreting the text. The text has ONE meaning. That's how it is when you write a letter to someone, or make a grocery list. Why is it so hard for you LDS folks to do the same with a book?
Jesus was talking (in Matthew 7, which you referenced) about false teachers & false professions. The Apostle Paul instructs us: to examine our professions of faith to see if they are true professions (2nd Corinthinas 13:5). How do you propose we do this? I propose we look into God's Word and see what he says about what is true & what is not. (Hint: You could start in 1st John.)
You are right about 1 thing: not everyone who claims to be a Christian really IS a Christian.
But you are wrong about something too: all true Christians are priests. Not because I misinterpreted something, but because that's what the Apostles taught. You say: "Brandon horribly removes context from every verse..." but what I think you mean is: "Brandon doesn't read every verse with my pre-conceived ideas at the forefront of his understanding." The "context" is mostly what this video is about: a discussion of the Jewish customs & Levitical laws, a comparison of scripture with scripture (where they speak about the same thing) so that we can consider all of the pertinent statements being made about something, how the writer(s) of the text would have been understood by the readers of the text, what the original language of the texts can tell us about the nuances of our own English translations, etc.-these are all contextual elements. He's not stripping this away; rather, this is what is stripped away in the LDS church, when they have Sunday School and "study" the Old or New Testaments. Context is an unknown thing to them.
@Daniel_McD It appears you are struggling so I'll help you out. Well read it together.
Paul
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:
Revelations
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen
Since you claim to be so good at reading please point to me where it says there is a Universal Priesthood. I'll wait.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 I didn't claim anything lofty for myself, but I can read. And I can think.
The 1st passage you pasted here is from a letter we call "1st Peter". Do you know whom it was written to? From?
The 2nd passage was from the introduction to the Revelation of Jesus. Do you know whom it was written to? From?
Since you asked (and maybe you aren't being snide), I'll help with the breadcrumbs. (You'll love the inclusion of context.)
1st Peter 1:1-2 gives a very specific & clear "To". The church which had been scattered from Jerusalem by persecution, around 60-65 AD. But more generally to: those who are "Elect" by the Father, "Sanctified" by the Spirit, and "Obedient" to Christ. This is clarified (in verse 3) as: those who have been born again by the Father, who have the hope of resurrection in Christ, and an inheritance waiting in Heaven-which we know from Ephesians 1:14 is secured by the Spirit. (What we call "the Trinity" is at work here!)
Revelation 1:1 says this was written to: (a) the servants of Jesus Christ, and (b) sent unto his servant John. Verse 4 goes on to say: this (at least the 1st part, which comprises chapters 1-3) was a message to (c) the 7 churches in Asia. Revelation 22:16-17 enlarges this audience quite a bit by inviting us to invite others (the Bride says: Come!) and the Holy Spirit himself invites (d) ALL who are thirsty for the water of life to come & drink of this.
So, the answer about whom it is to, is: the servants of Jesus Christ, and the spiritual successors to the 7 churches of Asia (those who passed along the invitation-as part of the Bride-to those today who are of like faith, who have accepted the invitation & have heeded the letters to the 7 churches).
If this is you, Jacob, then the Priesthood spoken of here & there extends even unto you! It IS true of me, so (as un-royal & unworthy as I am), the Priesthood spoken of here is for me! It doesn't speak of those who have undergone or performed ordinances. It describes those included: by what has been done FOR THEM, rather than what has been done BY THEM.
To the extent that all of these characteristics apply to anyone, that person is "universally" accorded a place in this priesthood. I'm not saying it. It is a simple reading of what is here before us, in the writings of 2 of the Apostles. I believe it. I add nothing to it to make it square with my religion. Howabout you?
Tell me you don’t understand the scriptures without telling me you don’t understand the scriptures. “Christians” meaning creedists don’t believe in priesthood authority because they don’t believe in bible. Genesis 14:18 says “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God” Melchizedek isn’t a Levite. There’s two different priesthoods in the old testament levitical priesthood was specifically for temple functions. But the higher priesthood being the order of the Son or Melchizedek priesthood pre-dates the Levitical priesthood. Which Melchizedek held, Abraham, even Moses (Exodus 18). Hebrew chapter 7 literally speaks of a higher priesthood which Christ had. Specifically verse 15 In this verse, the author of Hebrews is emphasizing the uniqueness and preeminence of Christ's priesthood compared to the Levitical priesthood. Melchizedek, was a figure from the Old Testament who was both a king and a priest, and he is often seen as a type or foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. The verse indicates that Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchisedec," suggesting that His priesthood is eternal and superior, not being based on lineage or the law, as was the case with the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. And this is the priesthood which all the prophets held. Including Lehi
But Lehi is part of the BoM fairytale....
The irony of a heretical cult member telling anybody else that they don't understand the Bible lol
@@NauvooExpositor thanks for proving my point. One thing I learned is that when someone can’t have an intelligent response they immediately throw out the word cult.
@@coyproctor1359 But this is when it stopped being an "intelligent response":
"...And this is the priesthood which all the prophets held. Including Lehi."
There's your fiction. And what are we logically supposed to do with this imagining of yours? Nothing supports this statement except the LDS church. (That is cyclical reasoning.)
The Bible NEVER says the prophets all were part of some priesthood! That's LDS (or your own) fiction. And if you try to throw the Council of Nicaea at me (because maybe you've never read historical accounts of it & have no idea what the church prior to 325 AD believed & taught), we can still ask: Do Jews believe (or did they ever believe) all of their prophets were part of some higher priesthood? No, they did not & do not. Neither did the prophets themselves believe it or claim it.
You show that you do not even understand what the office of a prophet was for and what the office of priest was for-because they are opposite in function. Moreover, their "conferring" was on a completely separate basis, and AFAIK, there were VERY FEW (maybe only 1: Samuel?) men who were ever had both "callings". And there were women who were prophetesses, but whom could not have been priests.
I'll help you. A prophet represents God to the people. A priest represents the people to God. It's that simple. But your whole LDS belief system falls apart if you accept this simple biblical & culturally-recognized viewpoint, because they've made such a twisted mess out of all of the "exaltation of man" that is woven all throughout their religion.
@ you’re gonna tell me that prophets didn’t represent people to God? That’s exactly what Moses did! I think you don’t understand the roles of prophets you gotta read the scriptures and quit believing the lies the creedist brought. Did you know even the church fathers believed men can become exalted as God is? Intelligence leaves the conversation when you try and tell me what corrupt creedist brought.
Look up the closest meaning of ordain on you computer!!!
While John baptized men, those men had to be rebaptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. If baptism fulfills all righteousness, why did those baptized by John have to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ? Yet those who baptized couldn't give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, but ONLY the Apostles could give the gift of the Holy Ghost. When all the Apostles died, so died the gift of the Holy Ghost. Clearly nobody had authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. No man taketh this power (Priesthood)unto themselves, they were called as was Aaron." Which calling was by the laying on of hands. God cannot contradict himself. Furthermore the description "Without father or mother, without beginning of days or end of years" doesn't describe Melchizedek, but the Priesthood of Melchizedek, obviously. Also there was obviously a Priesthood higher than the Aaronic Priesthood before the tribe of Levi were even made Priests of the Temple and it's vessels. The Aaronic Priesthood held no power for judgement, that was done by the Seventy Elders and 12 Princes and the Prophet. And this higher Priesthood was sought after by the those Priests put in charge of the most holy things of God. If Jesus's people were authorized to go as soon as Jesus told them to go, why did they then have to wait until the Day of Pentacost to receive the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ had just spoken unto them to receive, promising them for the second time?🤦🏻♂️
There are answers for just about all of this. And they are reasonable & logical. They have been taught for centuries. Somehow you missed all of it, and got it all tangled up into this ball of knots you've posed here on YT. I feel awful for you. I just don't have time today to help you un-knot it all. I feel like Dorothy when she met the Tinman, but didn't have an oil can.
There are orthodox explanations for how all of this works together. You don't need to turn to a cult for answers, unlesss you assume that the people of the world were entirely without answers before the 1800's. If this is the case, then God is a liar. He said he would preserve his church & that not 1 little bit of his Word would be lost. Joseph Smith (like many men of the past & of today) made up problems that didn't exist so that he could make himself out to be the solution that everyone needed. This is the desire for preeminence that drives EVERY false teacher. Either God lied, and he wasn't able to preserve his Word & his Church, or Joseph Smith lied when he said they both needed restoration. You pick.
If those baptized under John's authority needed to be rebaptized because John didn't have proper authority, why should I believe Mormons have authority when they claim their authority to baptize was restored by John the Baptist?
@austinnajar The authority wasn't the problem with John, it was the method. Both the authority and the method have to be right. But you missed the main point, even those who had authority to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, didn't automatically have the authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, only the Apostles had that authority, and never does it say they gave it to anyone else. Those who claim otherwise have to add to the Bible. When the Apostles died, so ended the gift of the Holy Ghost. Until it was restored from heaven.
@ the mark of a Christian is they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Are you making the claim then that there were no Christians for 1700+ years?
6:34 the Melchizedek priesthood was not held by Melchizedek? You're logic makes no sense and any Jew world laugh in your face at this claim
@briandavis6898 Melchizedek did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Hebrews 7 adds this explanation for why it's called the "Melchizedek priesthood". The author uses an allegory of Melchizedek, for whom the Jews had no genealogical records, saying that Melchizedek was, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Obviously, the man himself had a father and mother, was born, and also died. But because there was no genealogical record of it, it appeared as though this important figure had no beginning or end of days. The Hebrew author uses this priest to draw an analogy to Christ, who ACTUALLY has no beginning or end. And accordingly, Christ's priesthood never ends. He is eternal. He is perfect. His is a better and higher priesthood.
12:49 so you completely dismiss the laying on of hands?
15:00 ...
@AustinD1646 Right, he just didn't have time to address it. Eye roll
@briandavis6898 That's exactly right. No eye rolls needed, that's uncharitable.
Working on editing that video now - I'll post it once editing is finished
@GLM is love to see you debate this with an actual biblical scholar.
Heres how to debunk this poor mans argument: In the OT, Name How many prophets were from the tribe of Levi? Conclusion: All of the prophets who were not from the tribe of Levi had no priesthood authority. Why would Lehi being a prophet need to be from the tribe of Levi?
The bible never says prophets are priests. The biblical view of prophets is very different from LDS. What he was saying is to have "the priesthood" aka be a Levitical priest, you have to be a Levite. Priests in the bible had very different duties than prophets. So, if Lehi did exist, unless he was from that bloodline, he was not a priest.
@readingwithsyd Biblical view... What does that even mean? Are you saying a prophet didn't have the same authority as a priest if he wanted to? Did Aaron have more authority than Moses?
@@readingwithsyd You may need to read Numbers 12 to put in perspective how much authority Moses had compared to Aaron.
@@readingwithsyd I'm also having trouble finding where it says Lehi was ordained a priest in your definition in the Book of Mormon.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 I think it's not about authority. Both of their authority came directly from God's command to them, so how could one possibly be other another.
In a general sense, a prophet is a person who speaks God’s truth to others. The English word prophet comes from the Greek word prophetes, which can mean “one who speaks forth” or “advocate.” Prophets are also called “seers,” because of their spiritual insight or their ability to “see” the future. Moses was a prophet and a leader, but many bible prophets never lead and many bible leaders weren't prophets.
God then told Moses to ordain Aron and sons as priests.
"Are you saying a prophet didn't have the same authority as a priest if he wanted to?"
Moses didn't necessarily have more or less authority over any other human. It's not about "if he wanted to" He was simply letting God to speak for him through Gods authority. And people knew to listen because God had proved he was using Moses with this purpose.
If Moses or Aron were to just do his own thing "because he wanted to" there would be consequences.
In fact Moses clearly had no authority because In Numbers 20, Moses struck a rock, which was a disobedience to God. As punishment, God told Moses he would not lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. Moses ended up dying because of his disobedience, once God was done allowing him to speak for God.
After God decided Aron and his line were to be priests, all sacrifices were done by their line simply because God said to. God made it clear no sacrifice was acceptable unless done by a priests and followed all the other laws about sacrifices.
The whole point was to show humans inability to save themselves, not to give authority to specific people.
3:08 so you're saying that Paul opened up priesthood to women and yet told the church that women shouldn't even speak in church?
We are all priests in Christ Jesus because we offer "spiritual sacrifices" through our worship to God. It is not a statement of authority over one another. Paul's statements of man being the head of woman, and women not usurping men's authority is rooted in the created order, not in priesthood.
@BNichols021 in the created order? You don't think Adam was given priestly authority?
@@BNichols021 The problem with that logic is the function of priests traditionally was not to offer their "own" sacrifices. It was to receive the sacrifices of the people for the High Priest to advocate on behalf of every individual their sacrifice. The idea of offering your OWN sacrifice would undermine the entire authority that God created.
All priesthood besides in Jesus. Our salvation comes through faith, not some authority scheme...
@@johnrowley310 yes all priesthood resides in Jesus, but he specifically gave that authorize to Peter, James, and John.
1:40 also you're assuming that the priesthood was only the aaronic priesthood or the levitical priesthood but there was a higher priesthood the Melchizedek priesthood which presumably had the keys of the aaronic priesthood that was not limited to descendants of Aaron particularly when no descendants were available
Are you aware of what scripture says about the Melchizedek priesthood? What are the requirements to hold this position?
@ChristisLord2023 I think you need to talk to some Jews. Good luck telling them they are wrong
@briandavis6898 You're saying the Melchizedek priesthood "presumably had the keys of the Aaronic priesthood"? Then why does the book of Hebrews say, "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." (Heb 7:14)? He is clearly showing that it is not the expectation that any priests would come from outside the tribe of Levi. Christ is the outlier here, and even then He did NOT hold the Aaronic priesthood, but held a higher, "Melchizedek" priesthood.
Why does something have to be in the Bible to be true?
Silly ?.
@ ?
Because the Word told us that truth is in the word.
@@ginnybaker4188 the question is, who has the authority to interpret these scriptures? I don’t believe that we do.
@WestLight-l3u wow. I surely didn't get that out of your question. I don't think I interpreted a scripture. What I do think is something about this video didn't sit right with you, but you could properly put it in words.
That is just the biggest Danta Clas fairy tale in all if apistste Christendom!!!
Lehi’s descendants can’t make babies by themselves. Their children also were descendants of Ishmael and we don’t know Ishmael’s lineage. It is possible they were Levites!
What???
Um...I think you are confused.
Abraham's 1st 2 sons were Ishmael & Isaac. Isaac begat Jacob & Esau. Jacob IS Israel. Jacob had 12 sons. 1 of Jacob's 12 sons was Levi. So, either Lehi was Jewish (a descendant of Abraham's 2nd son), or he was an Arab (a descendant of Abraham's 1st son). The Book of Mormon says he was from the tribe of Manasseh (who was actually 1 of Joseph's sons-so, Jacob's grandson).
So, if Lehi was a descendant of Ishmael, then he's not Jewish in the 1st place. (This is, of course, if we don't see the entire Book of Mormon as being a fiction-and thus Lehi a fictional character-fabricated by Joseph Smith.)
The only authority is Christ , the priest forever . no man is an authority as there is now the Lord himself living in those born again . The real priest is not from the Line of Levi . The is the Lion Of Judah . Melchizedek forever
WOAH new shirt??
I fear that people often confuse the Aaronic priesthood with the Ironic preisthood.
The cost of accepting restoration of priesthood pharisee covenant. ua-cam.com/video/8q6pKhUDdAY/v-deo.htmlsi=f2K2BgkJN2tqYyFF
Here's the basic problem: if Jesus (who is God) instructs Joseph Smith by revelation to establish a higher priesthood and call it Melchizedek, what objection do you have to that? In other words, as I am sure you know Mormons do not establish their authority by being bound by precedent in the Bible. Rather Joseph Smith claims a new revelation to establish his authority to establish a priesthood order in this way.
@KSASTAMPS because the Melchizedek priesthood is defined in the Bible. So if Joseph Smith comes along and defines it differently, then he is wrong.
@@BNichols021The Bible is a collection of books? they can contain error and passages are often misinterpreted.
@WestLight-I3u if they can be wrong, then why is it that you think Joseph was right?
@@BNichols021 Because the Spirit of God has given me a witness of the Book of Mormon, which came forth as a result of his prophetic work.
Here the basic problem. Why would god give us a bible and book if Mormon that are incorrect and full of mistakes ? Why would we listen to a prophet who is always a product of his time and is constantly speaking as a man and changing doctrine then calling it policy. Your lost
Pdalms 82:7 does not contradict Psalms 82:6 at all! Of corse we will all die, bit that does not change the fact that we are ALL the dpirit children if God, and that is why ee sre all called gods!!! Also, you need to read Hebrews 5:4 and 1 Timothy 4:14 which dpesk not only on the priesthood, but that it is hiven by the laying on of hands!!! You need to study s lot more! You dint know xxxx about the Bible!!!
very demented behavior from old George here. How many comments did you complain like an old grumpy wart about GLM’s intelligence? I’d say he is under your skin and it’s not a good look for you George. In fact, I’d say it proves that the spirit of Mormonism in you is not of Jesus Christ at all. Of course we all know that, but perhaps you’ll realize it too when you look in the mirror and ask yourself if Jesus would approve of your behavior. Even in Mormon terms you aren’t thinking or behaving in a way that’s worthy of the celestial kingdom. The celestial kingdom is make-believe anyway, but at least in your terms you might concede that your behavior is not compatible with the repentance required to access that kingdom. But, we’re glad you are here to hear the truth from GLM and all of your comments are quite helpful in promoting the YT algorithm so we can reach more lost Mormons and share the real gospel of Jesus Christ with them. Thank you Georgie ❤
👏👏👏🙏
🤦♂️
3:01 wrong again. Not all true followers but members of his church, ordained as priests. Now just imagine these same verses were spoken in an LDS Church service where all men are ordained as priests and they're is no priestly class. Fits perfectly with LDS practice
So Jesus was a priest in the order of Melchizedek because he was perfect and because he was the Messiah? So then what was Melchizedek?
@briandavis6898 Melchizedek did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Hebrews 7 adds this explanation for why it's called the "Melchizedek priesthood". The author uses an allegory of Melchizedek, for whom the Jews had no genealogical records, saying that Melchizedek was, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." Obviously, the man himself had a father and mother, was born, and also died. But because there was no genealogical record of it, it appeared as though this important figure had no beginning or end of days. The Hebrew author uses this priest to draw an analogy to Christ, who ACTUALLY has no beginning or end. And accordingly, Christ's priesthood never ends. He is eternal. He is perfect. His is a better and higher priesthood.
He very well could have been Jesus
@goldencross2947 but he wasn't
@@goldencross2947 Christ can only be born once in the flesh.
Very good question! These actors force squares in round holes. They end up justifying themselves in priestcraft.
Thank your for your teaching, your a wise humble man,,,
He is making himself an enemy to Christ’s church sadly.
@WestLight-l3udoubtful considering the Mormon church is a product of fiction 😃
Caiaphus was a wise man too.
How so?
I am part of Christs church, so is he,,,
What makes you think you are?
F I C T I O N
F A C T
You're right, it does look cooler when you put spaces between the letters.
GLM says that descendants of Lehi were performing ordinances in the Book of Mormon but Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh and not Levi who the Bible says authority to officiate was given to under the mosaic law. The Bible documents Abel, Noah and Jacob all making sacrifices though none of them were descended from Levi.
Furthermore sacrifices were made by other non levites; Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, David and Solomon.
It seems that at least Joshua, Samuel and Elijah like Moses, Abraham, Noah and Jacob all had the higher Melchizedek Priesthood as did Lehi who fled Jerusalem for the Americas. That same Melchizedek Priesthood was given by Jesus to his apostles who conferred it upon other elders. For example, John the Baptist only had the levitical or Aaronic priesthood (the priesthood of the preparatory gospel) and so was authorised to preach the gospel and to baptise. But he lacked the higher Melchizedek Priesthood which had authority to confer on others the Gift of the Holy Ghost; Matthew 3:11. The apostles and those ordained elders in the early church had the Melchizedek Priesthood and did have authority to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost; Acts 9:17. Their authority superseded the authority of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood.
GLM says there’s no verse in the Bible where Jesus lays his hands on the apostles to give them authority. Just because a particular event isn’t recorded in the Bible doesn’t prove that it never happened. Jesus Christ did state that he ordained his apostles; John 15:16
“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”
And elsewhere we see that the 12 and other elders were ordained and given authority;
Luke 9:1
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
John 20:21
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Acts 13:
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Acts 14:23
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Ephesians 4:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers
There are some other erroneous statements made by GLM;
1. All Christians are priests of God - This is not based on any scripture but is purely an exegesis by ministries like GLM who know they have never been given any authority from God to be ministers in the kingdom; although they erroneously claim that they have authority from Jesus’ word to his disciples.
2. Jesus is our new high priest who holds a better priesthood (like Melchizedek) - Whilst this is true it is not true that only Jesus held the Melchizedek priesthood. This priesthood was also conferred upon the apostles, the seventy and many other elders, evangelists, pastors etc.
3. The Aaronic Priesthood has been fulfilled by Jesus. - nowhere in the Bible is this stated. This is another exegesis by GLM. As already stated, John the Baptist was baptising with the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood. Baptism is still an essential saving ordinance; Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21. The Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. All Melchizedek Priesthood holders have authority to perform duties pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood.
All worthy men are to hold the priesthood and their wives, being one flesh with them, also claim its everlasting blessing. Revelation 1:6..
TLDR, but glad you’re here learning from GLM ❤
@ All I’m learning is how ignorant of truth GLM is and how determined it is to try and undermine The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
@@Originaldoctrine Exactly. his videos are laughable because they are off base. hes reading his own personal biases into the text and preaching it as bible truth..
If I'm reading my own biases into the text - can you tell me where Priesthood Authority, as the LDS Church defines it, is found in the Bible? Where is my exegesis flawed? Maybe it is! But where?
@@germanslice glad you are here. Bring your Mormon friends so all can learn the truth from GLM ❤️
I think you’re limiting the Old Testament priesthood down to just one office. We both know there was a previous priesthood order under Melchizedek and Jethro which were before the giving of the Torah and Levitical priesthood laws. That order didn’t vanish and continued through Manasseh. If it was not the levitical law, what other order could it be?
1:18 not all were descendants of Lehi. Zoram, Ishmael and his family also came with Lehi
He doesn't care. Nor does he care that basically every prophet after Moses were not Levites. You would have to say most prophets have no priesthood authority either.
@jacobsamuelson3181 unless you accept that they had the Melchizedek priesthood.
@@briandavis6898 Exactly. I don't know how anyone can get around that only Aaronic priesthood existed for humans pre Christ.
It isn't Christians that don't care about Priesthood authority, it's just Protestants.
@@mlucario2262 Not true. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy have priests, but none of them teach anything remotely like the idea of "priesthood authority" as taught by the LDS church. As the video points out, you can believe in both a priesthood and authority without the esoteric LDS innovation of "priesthood authority".
@lukewayne2953 fair enough. Thanks for letting me know.
@@lukewayne2953 but I'd like to make it clear that I do believe in LDS Priesthood Authority. If we're the only ones who believe in it, then so be it.
The New Testament and the Early Christian writers all speak of Priesthood Authority. Even the Eastern Orthodpx and Roman Catholic churches require Priesthood Authoity, Either the Catholic churches have it or the LDS church has it.
What did you think about my arguments presented in the video?
Cite and exegete the verses in the New Testament that explicitly indicate "Priesthood Authority" in *any way* similar to that of the LDS church doctrine.
Your statement of "Either the Catholic churches have it or the LDS church has it" is a false dichotomy (AKA, the "Either-or Fallacy").
Typical Sheep 🐑 still following the narrative that has been Crushed!
@GregMeece About a decade ago, I was trying to reason with an LDS coworker about this. He claimed that no one had authority to baptize until Joseph Smith since "priesthood authority" had been lost.
I asked him to show me a single passage where the New Testament says that Christians need priesthood authority before they can baptize. He insisted that the New Testament does say it, but he wouldn't show me where.
When I got home from work, I printed out every verse in the New Testament that mentions baptism, including verses where the Greek word for baptism was translated some other way.
The next day, I handed him the printout and again asked him to show me where the New Testament says that Christians need priesthood authority before they can baptize. He wouldn't even touch the printout, much less look at it, and he said, "Well, it doesn't say it, but it means it."
So either he already knew it wasn't in there and he lied, or he pretended to know the New Testament when he didn't really have a clue what it actually says.
@@GLMI think you are insane to dismiss the laying in of hands or the gift of authority. To claim that Jesus just picked out 12 guys without any authoritative ordinance is preposterous. Amount of transfiguration giving the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, James and John was not just Jesus saying words
14:46 that's just not true. You conveniently choose not to discuss the laying on of hands as a biblical ordination. And yet it's plain in the Bible that it is. You're theology is so shallow. Again, thank God for prophets.
15:00 Just a few seconds later...
@@AustinD1646 15:14 few seconds later...
this guy is triggered 😂 look at how many posts he made on this video. GLM probably appreciates the algorithm boost
@briandavis6898 it's disingenuous of you to say he "conveniently chooses not to discuss the laying of hands" when he specifically says he will discuss the laying of hands in a separate video. Also, he does discuss the priests having hands laid upon them early in the video. The PEOPLE laid their hands on the priests, not vice versa.
@BNichols021 except that not true either. His scholarship is so very wrong. Again just ask an actual scholar, preferably a Jew or an Orthodox scholar. This video is our nonsense
Those, bashing THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, have spirit of deceit betrayal rebellious & ignorance.
@@VAATAUSILI4139 🤣 I spy a Mormon ⬆️ Thanks for coming to learn truth from GLM today ❤️
Dinky Dine Mormons haven't studied to learn the truth.
I'm not seeking to deceitfully and rebelliously bash, I have a convicted belief contrary to the teachings of the LDS Church. I'd love to discuss the issue at hand here, if you have a particular comment or response to my argument.
@GLM Oh you mean, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST that has been restored back on earth, in this LATTER DAYS. And, so to let you know, I've came across some, against THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, my advice is, counsel with our HEAVENLY PARENT'S, to manifest the fullness and the truthfulness of, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
Then, you also make the stupid ignorant statement that we were created at birth! Why do you think that the Bible speaks of giving up the ghost back to God?!? The Bible teaches that God is the Father of spirits! What spirits do you think they were dummy?!? This is not referring to something figurative or adoption! When Paul is speaking to the non believing and non adopted Greeks on Mars Hill, he stated that WE are His offspring!!! Continued...
Are you Christian? Cause u sure don’t sound it,,. I sense no love in your words,,,
What's the time stamp on this video for the claim you are referring to?
No it doesn’t. The Bible talks about giving “the ghost back to God” because he’s the giver of life, not because we were literally begotten by him. John 3:16 boldly proclaims that Jesus is the Father’s ONLY begotten son.
@@GeorgeDemetz I’d say anyone using the word “dummy” as you did above is in fact that. I’m sure Jesus thinks that’s a good way to talk to others 😃 but glad you are here to learn from GLM with a potty mouth or not. Come back frequently please 🙏
Wrong, Christ did not create multiple churches with opposing teachings. The guy in this video is confused. Christ called Apostles by the laying on of hands. He authorized only one church. That church is Christ's and has his doctrine. Most Christian churches are man made and stem from men who were once Catholic. Christ warned against following men who do their own will. This guy in this video is against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and he is teaching false doctrine!
Mormonism stems from treasure digging.
Thanks for coming to hear truth from GLM ❤ We love helping lost Mormons 😃
You said that "Christ called Apostles by the laying on of hands" - where did He do that?
This scripture is as plain as it can be; look at it closely and let in sink in your little brain and stop trying to twist the clear meaning of what it actually states: "Ye ate gods and ALL of you are the CHILDREN of the Most High." This is the Old Testiment and the meaning is clear and plain and it is NOT talking about adoption! You can lie in your ignorance all you want and try to twist the plain meaning of the scriptures sll you want, but you can never change the truth!!!
@@GeorgeDemetz you realize this video is about priesthood, right?
...um, did you watch video? Because this nothing to do with this video.
Also, did you actually read Psalm 82? Because your comment doesn't have anything to do with the context of Psalm 82 either.
See my ckomment about the priesthood.@@lukewayne2953
Not what the video is talking about but also you have proof texted this from Psalm 82:6 and if you had taken the time to simply read ONE verse further (Psalm 82:7), you would know how foolish utilizing this verse is in trying to prove that WE can become Gods. Psalm 82 is a celestial judgement scene where God pronounces the DEATH PENALTY in verse 7 on angels who sinned against Him (same sons of God as Genesis 6 and Deuteronomy 32). So number 1) Psalm 82 is NOT talking about us, it is talking about angels (hence the gravity of them being destined to die LIKE MEN) who had dominion in pagan nations of the old world and judged unjustly. And number 2) even if this chapter WAS talking about us, then it would be a MOCKERY and INDICTMENT from God,the OPPOSITE of a promise of exaltation. Please, read the whole chapter slowly, it's only 8 verses.
😂😂 Mormons hurling insults is the most Mormon thing ever 😂😂 more entertainment please 🙏
You font know xxxx about the Bible! How could the gospel be preached to the daed if there is no dpirit if the person to oreach ti, morin?!? You want to twist and change the plain meanings of the scriptures, but you sre ibviously no theologian and should not even being doing these podcasts in your ignorance!!!
Please edit your spelling, it hurts to try and read it.
@sjjsc92661 I think it's the truth that hurts you most!
Look at how you typed that first sentence and then ask yourself who is the moron here 😂😂😂 hint: he’s reflecting back at you in your mirror
Ecclesiastes 3:14, 12:6 tells me that everything is eternal with God including the spirit of man. This agrees with LDS Doctrine of the Spirit coexisting
eternally with God. That all things are eternal with God.
@@sjjsc92661I'll make it easy. The person making this video, Brandon, has no clue what he's talking about in a Biblical or a Spiritual perspective. He has no authority. Hope that helps.
I enjoy watching these videos very informative without “Mormon Bashing”!