Time for new reformation re: understanding of Biblical priesthood, sainthood, & ordination [Vanity]

Colofornian | June 26, 2014 | Colofornian

[Colofornian]

Mass confusion is still extant pertaining to three key Christian words -- each related to "ministry" and those who serve God:
"priesthood"
"saints"
"ordination"

Each of these words have, unfortunately, been largely skewed by the historical Church: The first two by Roman Catholicism; the latter by Protestantism.

'Holy Priesthood...Royal Priesthood'

No New Testament-based Church can neglect 1 Peter 2:4-9 and Revelation 1:5-6 plus Revelation 5:10 in its definition of "priesthood."

In 1 Peter 2, the "holy priesthood" (verse 5) and the "royal priesthood" (verse 9) are described as a privilege presented to those who...
...come to Christ (verse 4);
...are chosen by God (verse 4);
...are precious to God (verse 4);
...make up God's "spiritual household" (verse 5);
...are God's "people" (verse 9);
...are a "holy nation" (verse 9);
...are God's "special possession" (verse 9);
..."declare the praises of" God (verse 9)

Here are the specific verses cited in context:

4 As YOU come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 YOU also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
8 and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9 But YOU are a chosen PEOPLE, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a HOLY NATION, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a PEOPLE, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The obvious questions then arise when reading these passages: Do only males...
...come to Christ?
...become objects of His chosen ones?
...become valued as "precious" by God?
...become His "special possession"?
...declare God's praises?

And exactly what kind of a "spiritual household" would such a "household" be if it excluded females?

Is Peter's reference to God's people in verse 9 gender-restricted? What kind of a "people" would that be?

What is a "holy nation" that is gender-homogenous?

Or what is a "kingdom" that constitutes males only? (see Revelation 1:5-6 and Revelation 5:10 for context)

Is 'Ministry' -- a word that simply means 'Service' -- best reflected within a hierarchical structure? Or, rather, as Christ Himself served, being a bond-servant of Him?

In the New American Standard Bible, which strives more toward a fairly literal translation...
...Peter referenced Himself as a "bond-servant" of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).
So did James (James 1:1).
So did Jude (Jude 1).
So did Paul (Titus 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:5, etc.), who also included Timothy in that description (Phil. 1:1).
Paul also labeled Epaphras (Col. 1:7) and Tychicus (Col. 4:7) as such.
And the apostle John uses the phrase nine times in the book of Revelation (1:1; 2:20; 7:3; 11:18; 15:3; 19:2,5; 22:3,6).
Finally, Paul even describes Jesus Himself as a "bondservant" (Phil. 2:7)!

What is a "bond-servant?" Well, the New American Standard version also highlighted its more literal usage: A bond-servant of Jesus Christ is simply a bondslave of Jesus Christ (see Col. 4:12 re Epaphras reference; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:16)

At the time the apostle Paul wrote his letter to those in Christ at Rome, about one-third of the Roman world was slaves...bond-servants.

And it's no coincidence that Peter references "bondservant" just seven verses (1 Pet. 2:16) after his "royal priesthood" reference (v. 9): Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God."

You see, the common notion of "priesthood" has been historically skewed by layers of ecclesiastical bureaucracy. The "priesthood" isn't "one-upsmanship" in terms of service. The very words "ministry" and "service" is what is provided by the Bondslaves operating from a spiritual posture on their knees; not ecclesiastical "magistrates" administratively "lording" it over others.

This is why both the feminist rebellion verses a Biblical understanding of spiritual submission within the Church at-large
-- along with the historical notions to place both "priesthood" and "ministry" as "higher levels"
... via the decidely unbiblical notion of "ordination" --
...have both run off-base courses.
NOTE: "Clergy"-"Laity" distinctions in the ways they've come to be interpreted within Protestantism and other church traditions are extrabiblical traditions; "ordination" is merely a biblical word tied to the decrees of God but has no verse-by-verse Biblical underpinnings re: "THE ministry."

Being a bond-servant -- a bondslave -- is submission; is servanthood.

Sainthood

Likewise, the vocabulary of "Sainthood" also suffered within history and unto modern times in much the same way as "priesthood" and "the ministry"...reducing these levels to the "very few" and "spiritually elite." (NOTE: Satan has always desired to reduce his battle to a mere few)

"Saints" simply literally means "holy ones" -- those set apart to serve our Lord. In other words, ALL of us who are in Christ. We are ALL set apart for holy service, bearing the Holy Spirit within each of us.

When the apostle Paul referenced the church in greetings and other references, he highlighted ALL of them as "saints":
"but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints." (Romans 15:25)
"For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem." (Romans 15:26)
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:1)
"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father." (Col. 1:2)
"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;" (Eph. 5:3)

'Ordained' or 'Ordination' for Ministry

In the New Testament, you'll find the Greek word for "ordained" twice...and both are applied to the Law of God...not to special leadership capacities. "Ordination" as a word isn't otherwise in the New Testament.

Landing Point: The Reformation and 'Priesthood of All Believers'

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia: Universal Priesthood (doctrine):

"While Martin Luther did not use the exact phrase 'priesthood of all believers", he adduces a general priesthood in Christendom in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in order to dismiss the medieval view that Christians in the present life were to be divided into two classes: 'spiritual' and 'secular'. He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are 'priests' and 'spiritual' in the sight of God:

"That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings.'"

Two months later Luther would write in his On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520):

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry (ministerium Predigtamt) and consented to by us (nostro consensu)? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (ius imperii, in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom.' In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: 'No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.'"

Other Notable Biblical Considerations

1 The apostle Paul listed spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14, Romans 12, and Ephesians 4. They are not gender-specific. Thus, ministry is carried on by the Holy Spirit operating thru both men and women operating as the Laos (Greek for laity) -- the "people" of God.

2 In the New Testament, we find female prophetesses in Luke 2:36 (Anna) & Acts 21:8-9 (evangelist Philip's four daughters). In some current religious cultures -- like the Mormon Church -- Philip and his four daughters might frankly be ex-communicated in a such a sub-culture! Faith investigators may want to be careful in "faulting" the Holy Spirit for giving this gift to females in those circumstances, or other spiritual gifts that the apostle Paul highlighted in numerous New Testament passages.

3 Israel was quite comfortable with Deborah serving as a Judge-leader; and an entire Old Testament book (and ensuing Purim recognition amongst Jewish believers) is devoted to Esther serving as an intercessor where no man had the inroad (or seeming courage) to proceed?

[daniel1212]

For the record:

Does presbyter or elder mean priest?

In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

This use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalance.

Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.

The only way NT pastors are called "priests" is by way of inclusion in the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)

Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos, the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. It is also understood that even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”

Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spirtual life. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) Morever, the sacrifice related to the Lord's supper is that which all communicants are to show by the communal meal is to show, by the unselfish caring for each other in the body which Christ bought with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 20:28)

For despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine in the life of the church, the only teaching in Acts and onward (and thus interprets the gospels) that clearly refers to the Lord's suppper is that of 1 Cor. 11:19-34, and in which the nature of the elements is not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, which unity with Christ some did not recognize (as shown here).

Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by it is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.

In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

Moreover, in addition to a separate class (and clothing) of sacerdotal clergy mentioned above, much less required (with rare exceptions) celibacy for them, what you will not see in the New Testament church is,

Praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6)

Or that regeneration cannot precede baptism (as some hold), or baptism except to those who could fulfill the stated requirements of hearing, repentance and faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; cf. 8:12; 16:32-34; 19:4,5)

Or the Lord's supper being the means by which souls gain life in them, or that not “discerning the body” referred to the elements of the supper versus the church;

Or bowing down to icons, or believers bowing down to any other believer, (cf. Acts 10:26)

Or an exalted supreme magistrate in Rome (versus warnings against such exaltation: Mt. 23:8; Jude 1:11; 3Jn. 3:9-11; Rv. 2:15) and to whom all the churches were directed to look to,

Nor an assured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility as per Rome;

Or the mention of any successors to the original apostles (such James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14) and that by lots, preventing political maneuverings and things that resulted in extended papal absences (a headless Roman church), and men being chosen who were not even qualified to be church members, let alone successors to Peter.

Or a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)

Or any pastored Christian bodies being called anything less than a church if they believed and preached the gospel by which men are regenerated, and who are thus baptized by the spirit into the church, (1Cor. 12:13), even when under a separatist pastor, (3Jn. 3:9-11) versus “ecclesia communities” (as Rome refers to evangelical churches as) because they do not subscribe to the unScriptural perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome and all that which flows from it.

Or conversion being the result of intellectual indoctrination and the supremacy of the church in Rome, fostering faith in the church and one's merits for salvation, versus the aforementioned conviction by the Holy Spirit such as true preaching can effect, usually resulting in conversions in the same hour (though preparation can take a lifetime), and thus souls can be saved and spiritually added to the church anywhere, even being left alone in the desert, (Acts 8:26-39; cf. 1Cor. 12:13);

[ealgeone]

For the record: Does presbyter or elder mean priest? In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5. This use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalance. Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. The only way NT pastors are called "priests" is by way of inclusion in the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos, the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. It is also understood that even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.” Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spirtual life. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) Morever, the sacrifice related to the Lord's supper is that which all communicants are to show by the communal meal is to show, by the unselfish caring for each other in the body which Christ bought with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 20:28) For despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine in the life of the church, the only teaching in Acts and onward (and thus interprets the gospels) that clearly refers to the Lord's suppper is that of 1 Cor. 11:19-34, and in which the nature of the elements is not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, which unity with Christ some did not recognize (as shown here). Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by it is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural. In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states, No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people. Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description. To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm) Moreover, in addition to a separate class (and clothing) of sacerdotal clergy mentioned above, much less required (with rare exceptions) celibacy for them, what you will not see in the New Testament church is, Praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6) Or that regeneration cannot precede baptism (as some hold), or baptism except to those who could fulfill the stated requirements of hearing, repentance and faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; cf. 8:12; 16:32-34; 19:4,5) Or the Lord's supper being the means by which souls gain life in them, or that not “discerning the body” referred to the elements of the supper versus the church; Or bowing down to icons, or believers bowing down to any other believer, (cf. Acts 10:26) Or an exalted supreme magistrate in Rome (versus warnings against such exaltation: Mt. 23:8; Jude 1:11; 3Jn. 3:9-11; Rv. 2:15) and to whom all the churches were directed to look to, Nor an assured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility as per Rome; Or the mention of any successors to the original apostles (such James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14) and that by lots, preventing political maneuverings and things that resulted in extended papal absences (a headless Roman church), and men being chosen who were not even qualified to be church members, let alone successors to Peter. Or a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) Or any pastored Christian bodies being called anything less than a church if they believed and preached the gospel by which men are regenerated, and who are thus baptized by the spirit into the church, (1Cor. 12:13), even when under a separatist pastor, (3Jn. 3:9-11) versus “ecclesia communities” (as Rome refers to evangelical churches as) because they do not subscribe to the unScriptural perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome and all that which flows from it. Or conversion being the result of intellectual indoctrination and the supremacy of the church in Rome, fostering faith in the church and one's merits for salvation, versus the aforementioned conviction by the Holy Spirit such as true preaching can effect, usually resulting in conversions in the same hour (though preparation can take a lifetime), and thus souls can be saved and spiritually added to the church anywhere, even being left alone in the desert, (Acts 8:26-39; cf. 1Cor. 12:13);

good work my friend!

[vladimir998]

“Then it is impossible for someone to be poorly ‘catechized’.”

You’re proof to the contrary.

[daniel1212]

To be the glory.

See PM about use of html.

[reaganaut]

What most people outside of Mormonsim do not get is that this isn’t like other churches with formal, trained clergy. Their ‘priesthood’ is open to boys starting at age 12. Their Bishops (read pastors) have no training and women are excluded from even the most basic things like helping with communion, standing in the circle for baby blessings, giving their children healing blessings - things women in Christianity are all allowed to do.

Another thing is these untrained ‘bishops’ ask very personal and often sexual questions, without parents there, to young teenage girls (and boys) to determine ‘worthiness’. Many of these interview questions can be VERY GRAPHIC depending upon the ‘bishop’ and I personally know several women I have helped through my ministry who have been scarred by this. What would be wrong with a woman interviewing these young girls rather than a 40 something year old man? But NOOOOOO, can’t have that, only the men have this ‘priesthood’ (which isn’t biblical anyway).

[Elsie]

Thank You!

It took years of study!

[Elsie]

What would be wrong with a woman interviewing these young girls rather than a 40 something year old man? But NOOOOOO, can’t have that, only the men have this ‘priesthood’ (which isn’t biblical anyway).

What is your church doing to help the male to stay true?

 

---

---

---

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982

---

"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82

---

"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65

---

"Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196

---

"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.

---

"I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965

---

"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155

---

"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.

[Elsie]

What is your church doing to help the FEMALE to stay true?

HMMMmmm...

[reaganaut]

Oh you have no idea. One of my friends was 18 when she got married and when she went for her temple recommend interview he went into detail about oral sex, bestiality (?!), sodomy and what was proper and not proper in Mormon marriages. She didn’t even know what those things were (typical sheltered Utah Mormon girl) and so he explained it to her.

And that isn’t even the worst account I have come across.

[delchiante]

Revelation 18:4
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Who is ‘her’ to you?

[delchiante]

Ezekiel 46:1 is our heavenly Father’s template and Torah and the prophets confirm it... and our Messiah’s life events detailed in the New Testament (birth, circumcision, dedication, baptism, death, burial, resurrection) all occurred on a new moon, sabbath or feast, following the same template-

and those cannot be found using the world’s calendar.. and that isn’t an accident...

New moon day-
Six work days
Seventh day Sabbath...(8th day of His month but seventh day of His week.
That is what I observe.. days are numbered, not named...

Today is the 30th day and last day of His second month.it is Gregorian Saturn’s day....
The new moon day is tomorrow and will be the first day of His third month.(and christians will actually stumble into His Sabbath for four weeks coming up-muslims and jews stumble into it sometimes too-it was a Friya’s day for four weeks in His second month)

His seventh day sabbath was yesterday, a goddess Friya s day in the pope’s calendar-I am guessing most were working that day...I wasn’t...

I observe His calendar, not the pope’s and it is all for His Glory! (And BTW, the next man made holy day of July 4th will be a work day for me)

And because I have been blessed by Him to see it and then take action and observe His timekeeping, I now know how counterfeit the world is..

And can see how scripture can proclaim that the devil deceives the whole world- and then see it occur...
And how even the very elect can be deceived (even to the point that reformers will defend the teachings and practices of what the first reformers called the ‘Antichrist’)

The first reformers had an opinion of the papacy... and I concur with that belief..

The world accepts the premises presented by the greco roman latin mother church - and her daughters... I do not...

And that is why there are so many denominations out there, each with its own version of ‘truth’..all birthed from counterfeit premises and each holding what they agree with their mother on- and jumping off the rest..

But you and they are free to do so.. I have been set free from conforming to this world...HalleluYah!
And if we agree on one thing, let it be that His Grace and Mercy is needed more than any of us know..I know how how enslaved I was to this world, even as a believer..

Two years ago I would not have even thought about the gregorian being anything other than the calendar that I used too..

Scripture as my guide and His Spirit as my teacher, I was able to see this timekeeping He gave us at creation and He taught Israel(they have abandoned)
and to see that timekeeping reflected in the major events in our Messiah’s life- hinted and confirmed in scripture that we read without even knowing it?

The pope’s calendar doesn’t do that...nor was it designed to.. But our Heavenly Father’s timekeeping does point to our Messiah..and His Spirit can lead anyone to that truth if one is willing to ask, seek and knock...

May He bless your journey out of this counterfeit world more than He has mine.

[delchiante]

The Messiah of Israel, the Word the became flesh:

Was born on a new moon, sabbath or feast (His timekeeping and scripture tells us which)

Was circumcised on a new moon, Sabbath or feast (His timekeeping tells us and scripture hints which)

Was dedicated in the temple on a new moon, sabbath or feast(His timekeeping tells us and scripture hints which)

Was baptized on a new moon, sabbath or feast (His timekeeping tells us and scripture hints which)

Was killed on a new moon, sabbath or feast(His timekeeping tells us and scripture details and confirms which.

Was resting, even in death, in the tomb on a new moon, sabbath (this one) or a feast (this too)- His timekeeping tells us and scripture details and confirms which.

Was raised from the dead on a new moon, sabbath or feast - His timekeeping tells us and scripture confirms which..

New moons, sabbath and feasts- found on our Heavenly Father’s calendar...
The messiah fulfills them all....

And instead, Christendom selects december 25 and easter and ignores His new moons, Sabbaths and feasts..
Mostly because of ‘tradition’.

Does that look like a bride getting ready for her bridegroom or does that look like counterfeit worship that they inherited from their greco roman latin mother?

It looks like more Tammuz than Torah..

[delchiante]

The pope’s calendar tells you what a work day is... and what a sabbath day is(for all major religions BTW).. and all the world-business, governments and religions accept the pope’s calendar as their standard and are united behind it...
Scripture too tells us what a work day is, what a holy day is, what a sabbath is, but that is ignored for the world’s system..

Scripture gives us His calendar and timekeeping and it isn’t based solely on the sun like the pope’s calendar- that isn’t new-scripture and history speaks on ancient sun worshippers...

Your entire life (and the world BTW), runs on a counterfeit of our Heavenly Father’s calendar. Mine was too before I was blessed by His Spirit with this knowledge.

His calendar is in His sky and His template is throughout His word and fulfilled by our Messiah which each major event of His life on earth...

The Messiah was born, circumcised, dedicated, baptized, killed, rested in tomb, and raised on either a new moon, sabbath or feast..
Those are all days that are found in our Heavenly Father’s calendar and without His calendar, one may accept counterfeits instead of the Genuine..

None of those can be found using the pope’s calendar. They can only be counterfeited..
And the master counterfeiter is our enemy..

So, I observe the calendar that has a template in Ezekial, and confirmed in both the old and new testament and perfectly fulfilled by That Word that became flesh and dwelt among us..

We are called not to conform to the world and His Word and His Creation gives us a perfect calendar that actually points to the Way, Truth and Life and His Kingdom..

But december 25, easter and sun’s day worship, certainly are the standard for the greco roman latin mother church and her daughters..
And all the reformers start with that same foundation..

I am not comfortable with that foundation...

I actually concur with the first reformers about the papacy being an part of the ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of’ Messiah..

Reformers today can accept that premise or not- but if they do accept that the papacy is that dangerous, then maybe anything the papacy teaches is something a reformer should be careful to accept as ‘givens’..

And it may be uncomfortable..even a punch in the gut...

We are to be preparing for our bridegroom... what if all we ever knew or cared to know about our Bridegroom, taught by our mother and daughter churches, is just a greco roman latin counterfeit?

Could Satan be that subtle? That devious?

The father of all lies living in the greco roman latin mother church? most early reformers say yes..
Birthing daughters who are taught and the spread lies, even subtly? Most reformers would say no, not all of them..

I am not so sure...

And without Him showing me His calendar and His timekeeping, (and how it fit our Messiah’s life) I would still be a slave to this world and the world’s system...

But Truth has set me free from living my life based on counterfeits given to us by the master counterfeiter..

But all are free to live as they choose...

But it is important that there is a calendar that the world doesn’t observe but was created at Creation..and the special appointed times and set days on that calendar point to the Messiah- it was given to Israel for rehearsals and shadows for their coming King and Kingdom..they too have ignored it and accept the world’s calculations..
And who knows, maybe it will be used for His return..

I just want to be one of the wise virgins and be prepared for the Bridegroom..
His timekeeping keeps me awake...

But to each his own..the world and the church is united so you can get a job on a moonsday-friyas day business week basis, and still find the churches sabbaths. And get some other man made holy days off like July 4th..

Can’t do that with His calendar. July 4th is a work day this year on His timekeeping.

[Elsie]

Who is ‘her’ to you?

The text answered your question...

---

Revelation 18 (KJV)

1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

[narses]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Time for new reformation re: understanding of Biblical priesthood, sainthood, & ordination [Vanity],

Colofornian wrote:

‘Tis time to relook at true Biblical portrayals of “priesthood,” “sainthood,” and “ordination.”
Are we informed worldview-wise by the Bible? Or overrun by mere “tradition?”

[Elsie]

Some people just cannot accept Scripture:

Romans 14:5
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

[Elsie]

The pope’s calendar tells you what a work day is...

Some people just cannot accept Scripture:

Romans 14:5
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

[Elsie]

Revelation 17:1-5  (KJV)

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

² With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

³ So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

⁴ And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

⁵ And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

[Elsie]

Or overrun by mere “tradition?”

Out of the abundance of the heart...

[daniel1212]

Your entire life (and the world BTW), runs on a counterfeit of our Heavenly Father’s calendar. Mine was too before I was blessed by His Spirit with this knowledge.

That is quite a presumption, but as said, observing a reference point of a system, whether it is a landmark or a calendar, does not mean one accepts all that that system teaches.

And i do not celebrate the annual feast of Christ-mass, as i do not need to submit to a liturgical calendar created by a system of religious syncretism. And which holy-day i see as being like "high places," which were turned into places of Jehovistic worship, rather than destroying them. And which kept them alive and thus facilitated their return back to their former state.

And i wish the names of the days of the week were not from paganism, which i am sure they will not be called in the Lord's reign on earth.

But i also do not believe the focus and necessity is on whether the calendar is correct, as under the New Covenant the command to observe the 7th day sabbath is not enjoined, nor the Jewish liturgical calendar as a whole.

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. (Galatians 4:9-11)

But as the church met on the 1st day, then i consider that my sabbath day, from Sat. pm to Sun pm, and wish the stores were closed etc.

Yet the motive one has in this is what is most important.