What About Priesthood and Church Structure?, Pt. 3 (Articles of Faith Series)

If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do?

You're entering outer brightness. But God, being rich in mercy because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, just in case you didn't get it in those few verses, right? Even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. Did I warn myself again?

No. He made me alive together with Christ. Listen, I can no more manufacture the second birth than I manufactured the first one. How can you look upon this inner with such love? Grace overflows my cup. All of my soul and my heart have been revived.

In you I'm satisfied. Okay, so I'm going to throw this question to Paul first. How does placing yourself under your church's authority coincide with freedom in Christ? Yeah, so I think they should fit perfectly well in theory. I think because we're human, we struggle a little bit with that.

I know I do. But the New Testament affirms both that believers have freedom in Christ or what we call Christian liberty, and that we are to submit ourselves to shepherds within the flock. And so, yeah, I guess that's kind of my answer.

In theory, they should fit perfectly well. I think people struggle with it, and I do myself. But I think the main thing to remember with Christianity is that we should be aligned on the essentials, right? And so some of those secondary or tertiary issues that we talked about with Jeremy Howard when he was on the podcast, those should be left to conscience. And the New Testament is fairly clear on that. At least Paul is fairly clear on that as well. And there's some passages where Jesus kind of alludes to that and speaks to that as well. So that's kind of what I would say about that. Matthew, you got any thoughts on this? Could you repeat the question, please?

Yes. How does placing yourself under your church's authority coincide with freedom in Christ? Yeah, I wouldn't add a whole lot to what Paul already said.

I would agree a lot with that. I think when we're talking about freedom in Christ, it's talking about primarily the obligations of the law in terms of righteousness before God. You know, when we're free in Christ, it means that he's provided everything we need for life and salvation in his perfect life and in his perfect sacrifice. And so I think there's freedom there in the sense that we are no longer under Adam's headship, but we're under Christ's headship. And in him, we're free from the bondage of sin and we're free from the guilt and the consequence of sin. But part of that is there's only really two types of servanthood. We're either servants to sin or we're servants to Christ. So with that freedom, we also submit to Christ. And part of submitting to Christ is he's given us shepherds to help and to lead the flock.

And so I think that's part of a healthy church environment is having solid biblical pastors that are there to shepherd the sheep and to guide them. And we have, and Jesus himself gave directions as for church, as for discipline within the church body. If someone offends you, go with them privately. And if they will not be heard privately, then go with two or more witnesses. And if they will not, if they won't be reconciled that way, then go with the elders. So there is still, there's still accountability and there's still, you know, there's a set of, you know, there's a hierarchy in terms of how we're supposed to behave as a church body. It's not just kind of like anything goes. You know what I mean? There is still, there is still order in Christ's church.

Yeah, I was, I was kind of thinking about this a lot too. And I know that I can see a lot of, you know, ex-Mormons having a problem with the idea of submitting to the authority of a church. I think it's natural to kind of want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, you know, because we've been deceived once by a group of men that claim to be our authority. So I think there's a temptation to become a law unto ourselves or a lone ranger, if you will. And I've seen what happens to a lot of ex-Mormons when they do this and then commit themselves to ministering to the Latter-day Saints. And what I think that ex-Mormons probably as much as any other group have a desperate need to be discipled. So, you know, I kind of think that growing up in the church has given me some valuable insight into grace in particular, both in appreciating and understanding it. So I, in a way, I feel like I've got a leg up. But in another sense, I think we need to admit that we're broken, you know, having come out of that religion. We're kind of stuck running the same old software that we had before, and so we need to be immersed into a church so that we can break that cycle. Now, does that negate our freedom?

No. You know, no one's forcing us to join a church or to even show up on Sunday. There's no threat of outer darkness.

But the alternative is pretty bleak. You know, if I don't put myself under the authority of a church, if I don't go there to learn, I'm stifling my own growth and possibly, you know, I'm missing the opportunity to be there to shine as a trophy of God's grace. Yeah, can I just jump back in here with something? When I was prepping for this question, I came across an article, it's one of those got questions articles and it's on Christian liberty and it kind of talks about some of the things that Matthew touched on. And then it talks about, you know, the Christian liberty can also mean that Christians are freed in respect to activities that are not expressly forbidden in the Bible. Therefore, one can feel free to engage in such activity as long as it doesn't stumble or offend another Christian.

Most of these activities revolve around social do's and don'ts, such as whether or not to wear certain kinds of clothes, makeup, jewelry, tattoos, piercings, and or practicing certain things such as smoking, social drinking, recreational gambling, dancing or viewing movies or videos. And then it goes on to say, you know, that Christians who tend to vigorously promote such liberties can sometimes fall into a loose lifestyle of undisciplined living. While on the other hand, Christians who tend to vigorously limit such liberties can sometimes fall into a legalistic lifestyle of being defined by what they are against. So it is wise to seek God in prayer and his word to determine whether or not a particular activity is actually forbidden in Scripture. I think those concepts are important for Latter-day Saints to hear because the three of us kind of come out of a culture, a Latter-day Saint culture that did tend to focus on some of those externalities that aren't expressly forbidden in Scripture. Either the Bible or Latter-day Saint canon for I'm thinking, for example, of like the two earring rule that Gordon B. Hinckley instituted and everybody became really legalistic about and made teenage girls cry if they had more than one piercing in their ear.

Those types of things are not things that really should be focused on, I don't think. And so I think if there's Latter-day Saints listening or post Latter-day Saints listening who are concerned about that kind of legalism, just know that Christian liberty and freedom in Christ does free us from those types of things. And if you hear a Christian or a pastor being too legalistic on things like that, then know that they're kind of stepping outside of what true Bible preaching is. I took the question in a different way than you guys, but you guys brought up some really excellent points.

I'm really glad you brought that up. I was thinking more in the sense of like, you know, maybe a Latter-day Saint will see a Christian say, we have freedom in Christ. And that means, oh, you don't even have to go to church.

You don't even have to have a pastor, you know? So I kind of took it from that angle. That's how I thought the question was being asked. But I think you brought up some very excellent points. Yeah, there's definitely that too. There are no Lone Ranger Christians, right? Shouldn't be. Nope.

We need each other too much to do that. So Paul, now that you do not believe that you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, do you find that you are more confident in your daily life or less confident in your daily life? Well, some people might say I've always been too confident. But I was trying to think of whether or not my sense of self was kind of tied up with being a priesthood holder. I never really identified with the quote unquote Peter Priesthood kind of role.

Those folks tended to annoy me. I kind of aligned in my thinking more with the whole, you know, don't exert unrighteous dominion upon others. Amen to the priesthood of that man kind of thinking about priesthood. But there's definitely, you know, when I think back, there's a pressure that you feel as a priesthood holder in the LDS Church to try to conform to everything that that means and everything that you're taught and told that it means. And so there were times when, you know, I probably was a little more strident in my insistence that, you know, all as the head of the household and as the priesthood holder in the household, I'm the one who calls on someone to pray at dinnertime rather than, you know, someone volunteering, you know, or just, you know, I don't know.

And so I look back on those times and I'm not proud of that attitude now and, you know, hope that my family forgives me for that. But I don't know that I've had necessarily a boost in confidence. I'm kind of curious, Michael, where you're going with this question. But I would say that I feel more confident in my security in Christ than I felt before.

Okay, great. Matthew, what do you think? And then I'll give my thoughts. Yeah, I agree with Paul that knowing that Christ accomplished everything that I need to return to live with God and that it's not up to me to ensure that I'm worthy enough or spiritual enough or I do enough works to ensure my eternal life.

That's a really huge load off my shoulders. I'm more confident in what Christ has done versus what I've done. But in terms of the priesthood, more specifically, I think it's my with the whole worldview shift between being a Latter-day Saint and being a Christian. It was it always felt like God the Father was like our loving Father, that he was giving us the tools that we need so that we can accomplish what we are tasked to do. And so God gave men the priesthood on earth. He gave us authorities so that we could lead the church and give blessings, perform the ordinances, lead our families. And then at that point, it's up to us to use that properly, to use that authority properly. And so with the worldview shifts that you have going from that to Christianity and specifically my strain of thought in Reformed theology, there's a lot of focus on God being sovereign, God being the one who has authority over everything in heaven and on earth, and that there's nothing that occurs or exists outside of God's control. And so I have less confidence in myself and really my abilities or the weight upon my shoulders to do everything myself. And I take control of everything and even crazy things happen that he'll think of how. I might not know how exactly, but I don't know if I told you guys, but there was something that happened this week where there was a logistical error in my at the university where I attended.

I was going to have to owe a lot of money that I would, that I was not counting on knowing and so that really just control that he's going to make. Matthew, you're breaking up quite a bit. We may have to go to Michael here. Sorry, Matthew. I can hear you now. Okay. Yeah, I can, I can come back to that later.

I don't know when it cut out, like at the very beginning. Oh, no. I should have told you earlier before the monologue. That's okay. You want to start over or I mean, you sound great now. Okay.

Yeah, I guess I just hit a weird patch. So did I, did I start telling you the story about my university or was it before that, that it cut out? You started telling us the story.

Yeah, you entered and then it cut out. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I can start from there. So there was this case of my university where my account was not properly having all of my tuition reimbursement carried over. And so I would have had to owe a lot of money that I was not counting on knowing. And so when I first saw that I got that kind of that that pit my stomach where I was like, Oh, man, this is not good. Like I don't know where I'm going to get that money.

But then, then I was thinking to myself, Okay, man, just think about this. This is where the rubber meets the road, you know, you have to really determine. Am I really going to live what I believe? Am I really going to practice what I preach, so to speak? Is God truly in control of all things? Or is it up to me to make it all work, you know? And so it was late at night when I found out that issue with my account. And so I thought, well, I can't do anything right now.

Nobody's nobody's around. So I'm just going to lay it at the feet of the Lord. I'm just going to let him take care of it. I'm going to trust he's gonna make it work out somehow, you know, even if worse comes to worse than I have to, you know, set up a payment plan or something. I'll figure it out. You know, I'll just I'll just leave it at his feet.

I'm not going to stress out about it. And I asked for people to pray for me, that it would work out. And so I just kind of slept on it. And, you know, the next day, I called in the morning as soon as I could. And when I called, you know, they said, Oh, yeah, it looks like there were two payments and one was made last night.

So yeah, it looks like you just owe this amount, the amount that I had predicted that I that I normally would have had to pay. So it took itself, it took itself, you know, God took care of it literally overnight while I was sleeping to make it all work out. So, you know, like that was just kind of that's just kind of one instance of I can think of, you know, in the past few days where that's where I put my car, you know, I just felt like I was more confident that God was going to take care of me one way or another versus, you know, putting my confidence in myself and how I was going to figure everything out.

So I don't know, it's kind of a dumb kind of a kind of a lame, you know, question, you know, kind of lame example. But like, to me, it was like a huge deal that really freaked me out at first. And I was like, wow, okay, I don't know what I'm going to do right now. So it just confirmed that somehow God works things out. So I have more confidence in the Lord now rather than in myself and in my abilities. Yeah, I'm going to echo some of what you just said, Matthew, because really the thing with the priesthood is that it puts all of the pressure on you. So when I was an active member of the church, I was actually really relieved to have the priesthood looking back because I was like, well, what if some unforeseen thing happens? You know, what if a family member breaks, you know, an arm, you know, I've always got the priesthood is kind of this, I guess, trick up my sleeve, you know, in case I'm ever backed up against a wall.

So I've got nothing to worry about. But kind of looking back now, I just see a lot of stress when it came to the priesthood, because if I gave a blessing and it didn't work or the words didn't come into my head, it's because I wasn't worthy enough or because I wasn't in tune with the spirit enough. It's kind of like the ultimate gaslighting tool, you know, or if I drank too much Mr. Pibb, you know, I'd just be like, oh, my gosh, did I just accidentally break the word of wisdom? And so I always felt like I wasn't 100% worthy to use the priesthood. And so I mean, I remember this one time I was working and I locked my keys in my work truck, you know, and I'm like, it was a pretty bad time to do it. I had a lot I needed to do that day.

I needed to get home to go watch my son so my wife could work at the time. And so, you know, I'm like, well, and I hope I'm not the only one that's ever tried to resort to something like this. But I literally evoked the priesthood to try to unlock my truck door because I'm like, the priesthood is the same power that God used to create the world. And, you know, I just mustered all the faith that I had inside of my body. I'm like, I believe that this is going to work. And then I evoked the priesthood and nothing happened. And so I tried it again more forcefully and again, nothing happened.

And it was just really disappointing. And I just, you know, I remember the wheels just turning in my head, like, well, you know, it makes sense because in the scheme of things, this is a pretty, you know, selfish thing that I want. And, you know, why would God want, you know, me, why would he want me to use the priesthood to do this? But then all the time you have people getting up and fast and testimony meeting, talking about how they prayed and they found their keys.

And I was kind of hoping to have an experience like that, but it didn't work out. But now I'm out of the church. And surprisingly, I just I feel so much more confident in my life now because I don't have that pressure that I always had as a Latter-day Saint. You know, it's all God. God is what is emphasized, just him and his will and me trusting in him. And, you know, I just had kind of a similar or an experience to Matthew where I just been fighting my ex-wife for months, trying to figure out who's going to watch our son, who he's going to go to school with.

And the situation with us is better because he has his own room and and he's got friends over here and a lot of other things. And two weeks ago, I decided that it was hopeless. You know, it was an unwinnable battle.

And I, you know, same thing. I, I just gave up and I just gave it to the Lord. I said, I can't fight this anymore.

It's it's draining me too much. So I let go and miraculously, she's decided to let him live with us. And so without me putting in any effort or doing anything, it's like God's just in the background fighting our battles. And to me, that is so much more comforting than thinking that he's given me a tool, but it's up to my faithfulness to make it work. I just have to trust in his faithfulness and and that alone.

And I know that he that he is faithful to work good things in our lives, even if it doesn't look like it at the time, the time being, you know, but but yeah, definitely, definitely feeling more confident these days. Did you have a comment, Paul? OK, cool. I just saw you on mute.

I was like, all right. So, Matthew, what would you say to a Latter Day Saint who says that priesthood authority is needed to perform saving ordinances like baptism? That's a great question. I actually had some private messages with the LDS missionary earlier this week, and we were talking about the issue of priesthood authority. And yes, we've talked in previous episodes also about the issue of baptism, whether it's necessary and whether you need a special authority to perform it. But ultimately, our salvation is in Christ. You know, when you read passages like Ephesians one, it says in Christ multiple times, you know, all the blessings of heaven are in Christ. You know, we're conformed to his image and it's in Christ.

We have all the heavenly blessings and it's not. And so the focus on the Bible when you read it is that the focus is it is being in Christ, you know, being enhanced by grace through faith alone. And so I know we've talked also about how some of our Christian brothers like Lutherans will see baptism as effectual to salvation. And I do believe that baptism does have an effect.

It is a means of grace, but I don't think that it's an absolute essential for salvation. But really, we just need to look at scripture and say, where is the requirement for priesthood for baptism anywhere? Where do we see Jesus specifically saying to the apostles that he gives them the priesthood? And I think the big issue here is that anytime LDS read the Bible and they see Jesus giving authority to someone or, you know, having hands laid on their heads, they automatically associate that with a priesthood ordination.

But that's not in the text. If you just read the text, it doesn't say that Jesus gave the apostles the priesthood. It doesn't say that elders and deacons have the priesthood. Ephesians 4 doesn't say that, you know, prophets, apostles, evangelists, etc. are priesthood offices. You know, it's like a word association game where you say a word and then you ask them to say the first thing that pops in their mind. When you ask a Latter-day Saint authority, the first thing that pops in their mind is priesthood.

You know, it's just like peanut butter and jelly, you know, they go together. But you have to unlink that, go to scripture and say, what does it actually say? Don't tell me what you've been taught to automatically associate with what it says.

But actually read the text. And when we go to Hebrews, I mean, I won't go into the whole chapters, but when you go into Hebrews, specifically chapter 7 and 8, it talks about how there's two priesthoods, the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchizedek. And the priesthood of Aaron was after, you know, it didn't have any power to seal anyone up to eternal life.

It was held by men who were fallible and who died and had to be constantly replaced. And the priesthood of Melchizedek was held by Jesus because he had the power of an indestructible life. That's why he had the ability to have that priesthood.

And so I asked this Latter-day Saint missionary, I said, do you have the power of an indestructible life? Because if not, then you are not a rightful heir of the priesthood of Melchizedek. You know, Jesus has his priesthood because of who he is, because he is God made flesh.

And that's not something that we have. So we aren't entitled to the Melchizedek priesthood because we don't, we're not priests and kings like Jesus is. We're not God made flesh. We're fallible men, just like the Aaronic priests were. And we don't have the Aaronic priesthood because we're not in the tribe of Levi. And it says in the chapter 8, it says, you know, with all things new, the old things fade away or pass away. So the old law can't even, we can't even be Levitical priests anymore. That doesn't exist anymore.

So there's literally no possibility of having any kind of priesthood in the sense of either Aaronic or Melchizedek. So sorry for that long answer, but it was on the tip of my mind after that conversation with that missionary. All right. Great answer. Paul, what do you got?

Yeah, it's really good. Matthew touched on a lot of the things I was going to touch on. And so I'll just try to kind of summarize some points. So if you think about, as Matthew was saying, priests' authority, there isn't a place in the New Testament where you can point to where Jesus lays his hands on his disciples, the 12 apostles, and gives them authority by laying on of hands. In the gospels, Jesus is said to give the 12 authority for a specific purpose, but it's not to baptize. Look, for example, at Luke 9 one, which says, and he called the 12 together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, end quote.

And note that there's nothing here about laying on of hands to confer this power and authority to them. Take note also that later in the chapter, if you look at it, the disciples see a man who is not of their own group doing the things that Jesus had given them power to do. Luke 9 49 to 50 says, quote, John answered, master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to stop him because he does not follow with us. But Jesus said to them, do not stop him for the one who is not against you is for you, end quote.

And so this suggests several things. First, laying on of hands is not necessary for the power over demons that the 12 had been given. Two, Jesus mildly rebukes the 12's view of their own exclusive authority. And three, either Jesus had another secret group of disciples to whom he had secretly given that power or the power, as Matthew pointed out, is in Jesus's name rather than in the laying on of hands.

So that guy was a Nephite. But if you look at the Great Commission also, nothing is said there of Jesus laying his hands on his disciples to confer priesthood authority to them, but they are told to go into all the world and baptize. In Luke's account of the appearance of Jesus to the 11 after the resurrection, he instructs them to wait at Jerusalem until they are clothed with power from on high. This looks forward to the day of Pentecost and note that Jesus doesn't lay hands on them to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit. Rather, he refers to that future event when the Holy Spirit would fall upon them. And so I would ask Latter-day Saints to think about this biblical data in chronological order, which is kind of where I started having these questions when I was on my mission and studying through the New Testament and the New Testament student manual that the LDS Church had put out. They had you study through the Gospels following a gospel harmonization. And so you're looking at the Gospels in a chronological way.

And I started to ask questions, right? Because what we have is the 11 apostles who, according to LDS hierarchy, are given authority to cast out demons. Well, according to LDS hierarchy, the 11 would be the highest authority in the church besides Jesus himself. And earlier they were given authority to cast out demons and heal the sick. But then at the Great Commission, he's telling them to go and baptize. So according to LDS beliefs, healing the sick is a Melchizedek priesthood ordinance.

It's something that one is authorized to do only after they have been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Yet Jesus commissions his disciples to go into all the earth and make disciples, baptizing them. But he tells them to wait at Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit comes. So there's a problem there for the LDS view.

There's no laying on of hands by Jesus for the gift of the Holy Spirit. The 11 seem to be like some later disciples who receive it without the laying on of hands, that it falls upon them. And the 11, after having received authority to perform the act of casting out demons, which is something that only the Melchizedek priesthood elders should be authorized to do on the LDS view. So the New Testament, when you look at it, the data is just all out of order for what the LDS Church presents as the ordered structure and hierarchy of priesthood authority. So yeah, that's just kind of what I would ask Latter-day Saints to think about.

Really good. So in my case, when I'm talking about Latter-day Saints, I notice I tend to prefer to just ask really short questions to kind of get to the point. So it's kind of echoing what Matthew said a little bit. But well, before I get to that, Latter-day Saints like to kind of argue in this weird way where it's like if they can just prove baptism, it's like, you know, if they can get to first base, it counts like a home run. I don't know if you guys have noticed this, but it's like, oh, if I can prove to you that baptism is important, then that proves that authority is needed to perform that baptism and that baptism actually saves you. And then the other ordinances must be true also.

And that's just simply not true. You know, winning that one point does not win. It doesn't come anywhere near winning the entire argument for the LDS Church. But the question that I would ask a Latter-day Saint if they said that the proper priesthood authority was needed to perform saving ordinances like baptism is where does it say that in the Bible? I mean, seriously, where does it ever talk about baptism and priesthood requirements in the same passage? It would be so easy for it to have been put in. Mark 16 16 could have said whoever believes and is baptized by proper authority will be saved. But it doesn't.

Acts 2 38 could have said repent and be baptized by one holding the proper authority, but it doesn't. It would have been convenient. Why did they leave something so important out? And I'll tell you why they left it out. They left it out for the exact same reason that you leave ketchup out of a recipe for cake.

It's because it's not an ingredient. So it's a short answer, but that's what I would say to a Latter-day Saint who said that. Yeah, that's a good analogy. We were all born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, more commonly referred to as the Mormon faith. All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teachings. The name of our podcast, Outer Brightness, reflects John 1 9, which calls Jesus the true light which gives light to everyone. We have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told it would be. And the light we have is not our own. It comes to us from without.

Thus, outer brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith and what God has done in drawing us to his son. We have conversations about all aspects of that transition, the fears, challenges, joys and everything in between.

We're glad you found us and we hope you'll stick around. All right. I'm going to ask Matthew this question first. Peter chapter 2 verses 5 through 9. Peter calls the bodies of believers at Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia a holy priesthood and a royal priesthood. Does this passage mean that priesthood authority to perform ordinances must exist in the church? How do you understand this passage? Yeah, that's an awesome passage. Can you hear me OK?

Yeah, you sound great. OK, awesome. I was going to bring this up in accordance, but I don't have access to it immediately.

I'm almost ready to log in my computer. But so basically, I mean, it's he's quote. So Peter is quoting Moses, who said that, you know, there are a royal nation.

How does it go again? A holy nation, a royal priesthood. So he's quoting Moses. And that's kind of when we look back through history, the biblical narrative, we see that God is trying to make a dwelling place among his people. We we see that in the beginning, in the garden, God walked with Adam.

They spoke with Adam, but due to their sin, they were cast out. And so ever since then, God has made his dwelling place on the earth in specific places. So like in the tabernacle, that was a specific place where God's presence was was made known. Even before the tabernacle, we had Moses rising to Mount Sinai and visiting God.

And so his presence was seen in his glorious presence was seen up there while everyone else was was separated at the bottom of the mountain. But the goal was to have not just, you know, a specific kind of person serving as priest and prophet. You know, God wanted to make his dwelling place among the entirety of the church body.

That was the whole goal. And so when we think when we think about the offices of prophet and priest, prophet is the one that represents God before the people of God. You know, he shares the message of the gospel and the will of God to the people. So he's kind of has his back to God and he's pointing towards the people of God as a mediator. And when we think of a priest, he's kind of the opposite, where he stands with his back to the people, representing the people and making offerings and sacrifices to God, you know, for to for propitiation, you know, to to try to make amends, to make sacrifices for their sins. And so what we have with Christ is that we have he's both prophet and priest. He both represents God, makes known the will of God, but he's also representing humanity.

And then he offers himself as a sacrifice for all humanity. And so kind of what Moses was teaching when he said that you're a holy nation, a royal priesthood is he wanted the entire nation to be partaking in this offering of sacrifices and their will to God. You know, but but that didn't really have its full fruition until the New Covenant Church, where all of the priests and all the believers in Christ are priests in the sense that we give offerings and praise and worship to God. And we don't need a priest to represent us to go to God with these sacrifices. We can go directly to God with our offerings and our praises. We no longer offer offerings of blood sacrifices and and animals, but we offer our worship. We offer our praises. Like I said, we offer ourselves as spiritual rocks built into the household of God.

And so in that sense, all of the believers combined are all priests in the kingdom of God. Right. Thanks. I don't know how you're going to add anything to that, but I'll let you take a shot at it.

Yeah, I really I don't know that I really have much at all to add to it. Well, the only thing I would I would say is just to kind of quote John MacArthur on this passage. He says that and this this goes back to what Matthew was saying earlier about kind of the crux of the New Testament being the idea that believers are in Christ. And MacArthur says that Christians are so closely identified and united with Christ, that the very life that exists in Christ exists in them also. And I would say that, no, this passage does not it does not suggest that there's an exclusive priesthood authority to perform ordinances that has to exist within the church. Because I understand this passage to be part of a letter that is written to, as the question notes, the bodies of believers in Pontus and Galatia and Cappadocia and Asia and Bithynia. So does that only include some who were priesthood holders or does it include all believers?

That would be my question to a Latter-day Saint if they really want to dig into this passage and its context. Yeah, I agree. So what do you guys think, just kind of off the cuff here, about the term that is sometimes used, the priesthood of all believers? Would you say that that is an accurate name for everybody being a priest in the kingdom of God?

Yeah, I would. I do think that's accurate. And I think, you know, it's this passage that that that concept was kind of based on and developed by Martin Luther. So, yes, I would say that all believers are our priests and priestesses.

But what does that mean? Right. It doesn't mean the same thing that Latter-day Saints mean when they say, you know, we have elders and high priests and exclusive priesthood authority. And we can kind of get into that a little bit more as we go into some of the other passages we'll look at that Latter-day Saints will often pull from the New Testament to try to suggest that their priesthood authority was part of the New Testament Church. All right.

That sounds good. I don't really have anything else to add. You kind of stole my thunder on who his audience is, because that's exactly where I was going to go with that as well. I mean, he specifically says in chapter one who he's addressing, it's the elect exiles of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, never once does he mention men or those who have had hands laid on them or any of these prerequisites that are typically found in the earliest church.

It's just absent. I've actually made the point to Latter-day Saints about this passage before that if you're going to read Latter-day Saint exclusive priesthood authority into this passage, then you have to assume that Peter was addressing an ancient priesthood session of conference, which wasn't the case. So that's a great point. I never really made that connection before.

But yeah, that's great. Yeah, if he was, it's just so unfortunate that they just keep forgetting to specify who they're talking to for future generations so that we don't stay in apostasy. You know, it would have just been so easy to just throw the word you men in there and he just doesn't. So it's really an argument from silence for the Latter-day Saints and that doesn't hold much weight. Okay, I'm going to ask you this one first, Paul. Let's go to Hebrews 5 verse 4.

It says, Again, I'm going to say no. When I was in the MTC, that was where I was taught to apply this scripture in that way. And the supposed assumption is that what is being said here is that Paul, Nurnberg, you cannot take priesthood authority to yourself, because that is something that is only for those who are called of God, as Aaron was. But if you look at the context of the passage, that's not what's being said.

It's not referencing me as the reader. It's referencing the priests of the Old Testament and Jesus. If you look back at verse 1, starting in verse 1, it says, So it kind of spells out what the role of the high priest in ancient Israel was. And then moving on to verse 2, referring again to the high priest in Israel, He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward since he himself is beset with weakness. So it's making the case that because the high priests were human, they would understand the human condition and could sympathize and empathize with the people that they were serving. And then moving on to verse 3, because of this, he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins, just as he does for those of the people.

The author of the letter of the Hebrews calls out that the high priests in Israel, because they were human, also had to offer sacrifice for their own sins because they themselves were sinners. And then he goes on and makes the case, So there was an orderly calling of a high priest in Israel, and there was only one, until a new one was called and needed. And then the author turns to talking about Christ and his role for us now in the new covenant and says, So the whole argument here is about Christ's authority, not the authority of any New Testament elder or priest or bishop, what have you. So this passage, no, is not about exclusive LDS priesthood authority. Matthew, you agree with that? Yeah, I nailed it. It's interesting because I just want to point out that I find the whole book of Hebrews absolutely awesome.

R.C. Sproul once said that if you're stuck on a desert island or stuck in a prison cell and you could only have one book of the Bible, it would be Hebrews. And I think I would agree with him just because the author to the Hebrews just ties everything in scripture all together. You know, the Old Testament sacrifices, what purpose they served and what purpose Christ served in his mediation, his work as the high priest of the new covenant. And so when we see in this passage, there's distinction made between the old high priest and Christ high priesthood, high priesthood.

So I'm fumbling over my words. But at the same time, it's also drawing from the Old Testament high priests and showing how Jesus was just like them in some ways. You know, the old high priests were not called of themselves. It was not an honor or glory they took upon themselves. It was an honor given to them. And it's the same thing with Jesus.

He he was not calling himself. He was he was declared to be the son of God by God himself. So that authority was declared and ratified by Father in heaven. And so I just love the fact that it contrasts, but it also compares to how Jesus is as much of a high priest, even more significantly in a much more superior way, a high priest than the high priest in the old covenant were. So I just love that compare and contrast that the author made.

Yeah. By the way, I am a huge fan of the book of Hebrews. I honestly believe that if there's one book of scripture that would make a really big impact on Latter-day Saints, if they if they were able to read and understand what it's saying, take it slow. I think the book of Hebrews would make the biggest impact. That's just my opinion. After after kind of reading through it, I'm like, man, if I had known this or that that Hebrews explains, it would have rocked my world as a Latter-day Saint. It rocks my world now as a Christian. Amen.

So, yeah, I'm just I don't have a whole lot to add to that. You guys answered this question really well. I do like how it specifies, you know, that the former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office. But Christ holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

I love that this is the ESV version, but I love how it says to the uttermost. In other words, what the LDS typically say is that, you know, we needed a covenant through an ordinance like baptism in order to be saved, that Christ doesn't does not and cannot save us directly or he cannot save us in our sin. And that is simply not true because it says right there in Hebrews, he saves us to the uttermost. And what that means is he saves us completely. There is no need for anybody else, you know, a bishop or a stake president or even a prophet is not going to be able to step into that void and help us because there is nothing left to bridge the gap. Jesus bridges the entire gap by himself, according to Hebrews. Amen.

All right. Let's talk about Matthew 18 18. Does this passage support exclusive Mormon priesthood to perform ordinances? And what does it mean in context? What do you think, Paul?

Again, I'm going to say no. So the way that Latter-day Saints use this passage and the way they're taught to use this passage is to take it out of context and apply to it a presupposition that doesn't exist within the text of Matthew. So Matthew 18 18 says in the ESV, truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And that's pulled from context and then has the concept of LDS sealing power overlaid onto it as if what is being said is that Jesus' disciples had authority to seal in the way that Latter-day Saints understand sealing and binding. But if you look at what this verse is in context, it's talking about if you have a disagreement with someone, starting in verse 15. If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. So the context isn't LDS priesthood ordinances, be they baptism or gift of the Holy Ghost by laying out of hands or endowment ceremony in the temple or marriage sealing in the temple. None of those are in view here in Matthew. What's in view is establishing the evidence of a disagreement between you and a brother and what you are to do to try to reconcile with that brother.

Great. Matthew, you got anything else on that? Yeah, I think that's exactly what the context is saying. I think Paul nailed it.

I've also read commentaries. I think it was in the ESV Study Bible where it talks about how this authority that they have related to this direction towards church membership or church discipline. This authority also extends to the spreading of the gospel.

There's this idea of, and sorry, Paul, I was paying attention, but my brain's a little bit fuzzy, so I apologize if you've already said it. In Jewish culture, this idea of keys, just like we see you have a key to a house or a key to your account, it's power, it's authority. So this key in terms of sealing and unsealing and locking and unlocking, it's related also to this idea of having authority to spread the gospel. I should have looked at it, but it's in the Future Perfect, I think is the tense, where it says, what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

So it's like an accomplished reality in the future. So it's like whatever you bind has already been bound according to heaven. And I think some translations try to translate that in such a way to have that same meaning, that future perfect. But the idea is that the apostles don't have the power in and of themselves to say to someone, okay, you will have eternal life, I'm giving you eternal life. It's more of like they are given this authority, these keys, that demonstrates that they understand the will of God. They give the gospel, and the gospel is what binds and seals people to Christ. That message of being sealed to Jesus as the rock. It goes back to Matthew 16, where Jesus first promised these keys upon the confession of Peter, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus said, upon this rock, I will build my church. And so it's the rock of Christ, it's to him that we have eternal life. And so this key, this power to seal and to bind, it's related to the gospel message, I think.

So I was hoping that would be a short comment, but it ended up being longer. Yeah, that's kind of what I read from some commentaries, where they connect the key with binding and sealing, is to the gospel. Yeah, that's what MacArthur says on Matthew 16, 19. He says, Christ's actions mean that any duly constituted body of believers acting in accord with God's word has the authority to declare if someone is forgiven or not. The church's authority is not to determine these things, but to declare the judgment of heaven based on the principles of the word. When churches make such judgments on the basis of God's word, they can be sure heaven is in accord. In other words, whatever they bind or loose on earth is already bound or loose in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God says about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loose from that sin, God agrees. So in a sense, you're right, Matthew. It is about the authority of the church.

But again, in neither passage is the LDS concept of priesthood ordinances in view. Right. I agree.

Yeah, I do too. In fact, you guys pretty much covered everything that I would have covered and then some, so I'm not going to even try to answer that question any further. I just want to kind of hit on this last question. We've talked about Hebrews 7 24 a bit already, but would be interested in kind of your final thoughts on it.

If it means to you that Christ doesn't transfer his priesthood to others. And if you have any final thoughts that you would like to share with our listeners, I invite you to do that as well. I'll let you go first on this, Matthew. OK, that's a lot. Give me a couple more seconds to think about it. My brain's a little frazzled. That's cool. Paul, you got anything or do you want me to go first on this?

I can jump in here. So Hebrews 7 24 says, But he holds he being Christ, but he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. And it's contrasting Christ with the former priests, as you mentioned earlier, Michael, which were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office.

So this one succeeded, the other succeeded, the other until Christ. So the argument that is often made here by Christians and it's an argument that that was made by my theology professor when I took a seminar on the priesthood of Christ at Cincinnati Christian University as part of my seminary studies. So the argument is that the word here that's translated in the ESV permanently continues forever, opera obitas, that concept is conveys the meaning of non-transferable.

That's the argument that is made. So it's argued from this passage that Christ's priesthood is not something that is transferred to humans. And I even made this challenge to our young friend Jackson when he was on Jonathan McClatchy's program, Apologetics Academy, a few years back, I called in and had a chat with him and asked him to look at this passage. And he's actually written the blog post now where he digs into it and tries to argue against opera obitas, meaning non-transferable. And that may be correct.

I'm still working through that myself. I know that there are certain interpreters. I think James White takes the position that it does mean non-transferable. But what I would argue about this passage is that that fine point of what that Greek term means may not be as important as the context itself. Because what's being said here, if you zoom out, instead of zooming in on that one term, if you zoom out and look at what's being said here, as Michael so eloquently mentioned earlier, is that Jesus is not like those former priests. He holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. And like you said, Michael, he's able to save to the uttermost. So what other role is needed? And if you go elsewhere, there's one mediator between man and God, Christ Jesus.

So what other mediator is needed? So I would agree with your point about the book of Hebrews, Michael. And that's all I would really say about Hebrews 724. Yeah, just to throw in a quick disclaimer, when Paul says that I said something eloquently, that's because I was quoting Hebrews, I think, in that part. So if you ever hear me start talking and I just sound like way more educated and eloquent, that's because it's the Bible and I'm quoting it.

No, it was your commentary on the term uttermost that I thought was eloquent. Gotcha, gotcha. Yes, I agree with you, Paul. The big thing is that there was no, there's no need for God to transfer his authority to man, as we've talked about. But one of the other things that kind of struck me looking at this passage is that it is inconsistent for him to do so. If Christ was the type of person to delegate authority and have us always do things on his behalf, then he would have sent a worthy priesthood holder to die for us on the cross. But instead, he went and he died for us personally, and now he saves us personally. So he is the kind of person to do things for us one on one. But that was the big thing that stuck out to me looking at this verse.

I didn't really have anything else to add. You good now, Matthew? Yeah, no, I think I'm glad I passed it off to my choir to Paul because he he he really was struggling to put all the words in my mind.

And I've kind of you know, there's the study of the Greek and actually was listening to Dr. White talk about this and trying to figure out how I can regurgitate what he said on it. So Paul did it more much better than I could have. So yeah, I agree completely. And I think, like you said, even if you want to argue over that single word, I agree with Paul that I agree with both of you that it doesn't. That's that's not the only you know, it doesn't. That's not the point upon which this idea rests entirely. Whether that word is translated one way or the other.

Just the entire context of the Book of Hebrews is the insufficiency of the Old Testament priesthood and the complete sufficiency of Christ's work and his. Yeah. Amen. Well, we better wrap this one, gentlemen, and get ready for our next episode where we're going to have some guests on. We thank you for tuning in to this episode of the Outer Brightness podcast. We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the Outer Brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page.

And we would appreciate it if you give the page a like. We also have an outer brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, et cetera. You can also send us an email at outer brightness at Gmail dot com.

We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness podcast on Apple Podcasts, Cast Box, Google Podcasts, Pocket Cast, Pod Beam, Spotify and Stitcher. Also, you can check out our new YouTube channel. And if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe button and confirm it. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word. You can also connect with Michael, the ex Mormon apologist at from water to wine dot org, where he blogs and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and by Adams Road.

Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at Adams Road Ministry dot com. Stay bright, Flyer Flies. The word made French, the risen Son. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. All of this world is in decay, but the word of our God through ages remains. Lord, you promised that we, as your church, would remain upon this rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against us. Cause you have power to keep your word unspoiled in purity. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. As the rain falls down from heaven and waters the earth, bringing it life.

So the word that goes out from your mouth will not return empty, but does what you desire. Lord, we hear your word and believe in you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. All of this world is in decay, but the word of our God through ages remains. The word of God remains.