You’re likely right that the “priesthood of all believers” was “discovered” as a result of the reformation. As a Protestant, I would be inclined attribute this to the desire of the existing Roman Catholic church to not place any emphasis on the relevant scriptures as to do so would presumably undermine the authority of their earthly priesthood, an office that is not formally established for the church in the New Testament. The only formal priesthood cited is that which Christ holds as our new high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
If you read Hebrews, you’ll find that the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ (and him alone, which he holds forever) is not an addition to the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. It supplants it. The scriptures describe a “change” in the priesthood. There is no more need for an earthly priesthood or the duties associated with the law that they performed. Christ fulfilled the law, and brought the new covenant, which the old ordinances had no part of. This was, of course, underscored by the tearing of the veil in the temple upon Christ’s death on the cross, and his words “It is finished.” The old covenant was done, finished. Man could now, through Christ, approach the Father. I would suggest you do a thorough reading of Hebrews with regard to the priesthood.
As for your challenge for evidence that the apostasy wasn’t total, I’m afraid the burden is on you to prove that it was. I think it’s much harder to prove such an apostasy given the growth of the church than to simply believe that it fell into correctable error. For that matter, if we agree that the Reformation brought about some appropriate corrections, it seems to me that the mere occurence of the Reformation, in and of itself would pretty well prove that the apostasy hadn’t been total. After all, a total apostasy would mean that no one would have had the ability to see the errors.
But you seem to have redefined the notion of total apostasy from that which the LDS has historically proposed, which is that there were no genuine followers of Christ for all those centuries. After all, how could there be if “all their practioners” were corrupt?
You raise valid questions regarding the selection of the canon and so forth, much more than I’m equipped to get into here, but let’s not let those distract us from some fundamental points.
None of your concerns about Catholic tradition vs. Protestant teaching really impact the bottom line issue of whether or not the Book of Mormon (and subsequent LDS theology) are valid. Certainly if you apply the same level of skepticism to LDS history/theology, you must abandon it far sooner than that of historic Christianity, as the weaknesses are so much more obvious and profound. Indeed, this is why there is such dependence on the “testimony,” because it takes off the table all those good, valid questions you have for historic Christianity when it comes to examining LDS teachings.
And just to clear the air (I hope), while I am a Protestant who believes that Roman Catholicism is in error on many teachings and is loaded with traditions that I think can potentially get in the way of genuine belief and even salvation; I nevertheless believe that, at its core, it is legitimately Christian because of its view of God and the atoning sacrifice of Christ. I can consider Roman Catholics to be my Christian brethren, even though I might pound the table with them over some specific elements of their beliefs.
Thanks for not creating bunny trails all over the place william.
As far as Christ being the only one to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, let’s agree to disagree here. There is plenty of evidence that there were two priesthoods during the time of the First Temple, Solomon’s Temple, but there isn’t enough time for me to go into that.
You said:
“For that matter, if we agree that the Reformation brought about some appropriate corrections, it seems to me that the mere occurence of the Reformation, in and of itself would pretty well prove that the apostasy hadn’t been total. After all, a total apostasy would mean that no one would have had the ability to see the errors.
But you seem to have redefined the notion of total apostasy from that which the LDS has historically proposed, which is that there were no genuine followers of Christ for all those centuries. After all, how could there be if “all their practioners” were corrupt?”
The Mormon Church has never taught that there were no genuine followers of Christ for all those centuries. From a book printed by FARMS that talked about the Apostasy,Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy:
“The Latter-day Saint apostle M. Russell Ballard, for example, has written that the darkness of the Middle Ages refers to the absence of “the light of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including the authority of His holy priesthood,” yet he also notes that good Christians lived during this time.80 The apostle Dallin H. Oaks likewise affirmed that during the apostasy “men and women . . . kept the light of faith and learning alive” and that “we honor them as servants of God.”81 Indeed, despite his affinity with the work of Roberts, Talmage, and Smith, McConkie too acknowledged that “many good and noble souls lived during the dark ages, . . . and they received guidance from th[e] Spirit.”82”
80. M. Russell Ballard, Our Search for Happiness: An Invitation to Understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1993), 30—32.
81. Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, 84—87.
82. McConkie, New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 477. See also, Compton, “Apostasy,” 1:58.
We even believe that the Reformers were inspired by God to do some of what they did.
It’s not about all the people becoming evil and corrupt and totally rejecting the word of God, it’s more about the loss of the priesthood. I realize that you don’t believe this, but I’m just letting you know what I believe.
You will find out that I don’t like arguing religion, but I do love discussing differences of beliefs and why people believe what they believe. I didn’t come here to prove the Mormon Church is true or that another faith is wrong. I also like to point out flaws in discussion logic and I don’t mind others pointing out flaws in my discussion logic also.
I started a thread a while ago about how to convince an agnostic about Christ. I really want to know what people would do to do that. Up front, I told people I was Mormon, but I was going to pretend to be an agnostic. For a lot of the thread I got anti-Mormon material thrown at me and people accused me of deceiving others by pretending to be an agnostic. I didn’t learn very much about how to go about trying to teach an agnostic about Christ unless it was preaching against the Mormon Church. I would love to do it again, but I feel that there are so many on this board who are so angry at the Mormon Church that I will leave that thread still thinking that the Mainstream Christian way to help an agnostic find Christ is to throw anti-Mormon material at them.
The thing I point out more often than not is that many of the arguments used against the Mormons can be used against many of those using those arguments.
Thanks.