Return to: Home | Life & Society | Religion

Polygamy and the f-word

Published 27 May 2008

Mormon Tom Quinn reports on the story of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and confusion about his own faith's attitude to polygamy

Ever since the April 3 raid in which Texas authorities removed 464 children from a remote polygamist ranch, much of the world has watched with a bizarre mix of curiosity and horror as investigators shine an unwelcome light on the secretive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS).

The case has captured the media's attention for the last month, and is likely to remain in the headlines until Texas courts find a way to untangle the children's convoluted family tree, which includes more than 168 women and 69 men, many of whom might be blood relatives as well as husband and wife.

To top it all off, a Texas court of appeals just ruled in favour of 41 of the polygamist mothers, asserting that the state did not have sufficient cause to take their children into custody.

Texas officials now face the daunting task of sorting through hundreds of FLDS offspring to determine which belong to the aforementioned 41, not to mention fending off the argument that the ruling also applies to the remaining mothers and children.

As novel as the whole mess might seem to the average person, there is one group that would just as soon pretend it never happened: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), more commonly known as the Mormons.

Although members of both the LDS and the FLDS churches chafe when mentioned in the same sentence as the other, the mistake is not uncommon. To the general populace, the two religions are separated not by a chasm of differing beliefs and practices, but only by the letter 'F'.

As a card-carrying Mormon, I've already had to answer all sorts of queries regarding the number of mothers I have or the age at which my younger sister had her first child, questions that refer not to the tenets of my faith but those of the FLDS Church. I used to get a kick out of playing along and watching as my friends' eyes went wide when I answered 14 and 12, respectively, but after nearly two months it's become a bit bothersome.

The truth is that the millions of average, run-of-the-mill Mormons have as much in common with the members of the now-infamous polygamous sect as Anglicans do with Catholics; they share a common origin but went their separate ways ages ago.

Both the LDS and the FLDS churches trace their origins to the 1830's and claim Joseph Smith as their founder. They share a common history up until the Mormon Church officially banned polygamy in 1890 - partly to ensure Utah could become a full member of the United States. Some members, however, continued to practice polygamy in secret, setting the stage for the ex-communication of several of its leaders in 1914.

Since that first schism, various polygamist groups and individuals, all claiming to be the true followers of Joseph Smith, have set up camp in remote areas all over the western United States and Canada, popping up just often enough to irk the Mormon population. The FLDS Church as a distinct organization emerged in the early 1990's, and under the leadership of Warren Jeffs, has between 2,000-3,000 members.

Although polygamy is illegal in the United States, the FLDS Church successfully avoided legal entanglements and unwelcome attention until recently, when Jeffs was convicted in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl to have sex with her 19-year-old cousin. Jeffs is now jailed in Arizona, awaiting trial on similar charges in that state.

Those cases, combined with the current FLDS mess in Texas, have some ordinary Mormons feeling like they're watching a younger brother make a drunken spectacle of himself at some very important dinner party.

My advice to fellow Mormons, however, is to sit back and enjoy the ride. As far as religious scandals go, the world has certainly seen a lot worse. Besides, as George Bernard Shaw once said, “if you can’t get rid of the family skeleton, you might as well make it dance.”

Post this article to

37 comments from readers

Jerry H
27 May 2008 at 13:46

http://goodnewsforlds.com/

Want some Good News about the LDS? Watch this video.

dougtheavenger
27 May 2008 at 14:21

There are 168 adult women and 15 of them became pregnant as minors. In other words, at least 9% were sexually active as minors. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 58% of women nationwide become sexually active as minors. The NCHS are as follows.

5.7% of girls become sexually active before 14

13.0% before 15

26.8% before 16

43.1% before 17 and

58.0% before 18.

31.5% of American teen girls aged 15-19 use contraception.

There were 212,000 teen abortions in 2002 (down from 351,000 in 1995)

About 30% of girls 15-17 are sexually active.

FLDS at YFZ ranch in Texas

They found 5 minors at YFZ that were pregnant or had given birth. Most were 17 one was 16. Out of 27 girls aged 14-17, they were 18.5%. Since they represent the only minor girls known to be sexually active, YFZ looks good compared to the general population in terms of under-age teen sex.

ScottG
27 May 2008 at 15:03

For JerryH who is touting his "Good news for LDS" Website, the DVD promoted there has been completely refuted here: www.josephsmithdvd.org

His "good news" is typical anti-Mormonism.

SLIPPERY-SLOPE
27 May 2008 at 16:21

===

TEXAS SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENTS (THREE DOMINO FALLACIES)

THE TEXAS-CPS COMPLAINT, AND AFFIDAVITS, AND JUDGE'S ORDER AGAINST THE FLDS CUSTODY CASE IS BASED ON:

(X) [POLYGAMY "SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENT"] AS A FALLACY," AND

(X) [RELIGIOUS FREEDOM "SLIPPERY-SLOPE"] ARGUMENT AS FALLACY,

(X) [CHILD PROTECTION "SLIPPERY-SLOPE"] ARGUMENT AS FALLACY.

(X) "POLYGAMY CHILDREN: SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENT IS A FALLACY."

(X) POLYGAMY PARENTS: SLIPPERY-SLOPE IS A FALLACY

THE CORE OF THIS CASE IS BASED on AT LEAST THREE (DOMINO FALLACIES) OR SLIPPERY-SLOPE FALLACIES

FIND THE DEFINITION OF (48) OR MORE TYPES OF FALLACIES. (WITH OR WITHOUT A PRIORI PROBABILITY)

Available (draft in full or in part) at: http://www.geocities.com/rre5/MOMS.html

FAIL TO PREPARE IS PREPAIR TO FAIL

CONCLUSION:

PROVE THAT THE [FLDS] POLYGAMISTS ARE "ANTI-SUBVERSIVE."

Available Draft in full or in part at:

http://www.geocities.com/rre5/CIVILLIBERTIES.html

* DISCLAIMER: Continuation of my literary work/efforts...fact/fiction...quasi-fact/quasi-fiction...draft...outline...etc.

Authorship/Moral Rights: Debater or FALLACY-HUNTER

SIGNED: RECKIPS

SLIPPERY-SLOPE
27 May 2008 at 16:22

===

KEY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO TEXAS CPS CORE ARGUMENT

THE TEXAS-CPS COMPLAINT, AND AFFIDAVITS, AND JUDGE'S ORDER AGAINST THE FLDS CUSTODY CASE IS BASED ON:

(X) [POLYGAMY "SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENT"] AS A FALLACY," AND

(X) [RELIGIOUS FREEDOM "SLIPPERY-SLOPE"] ARGUMENT AS FALLACY,

(X) [CHILD PROTECTION "SLIPPERY-SLOPE"] ARGUMENT AS FALLACY.

(X) "POLYGAMY CHILDREN: SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENT IS A FALLACY."

(X) POLYGAMY PARENTS: SLIPPERY-SLOPE IS A FALLACY

THE CORE OF THIS CASE IS BASED on AT LEAST THREE (DOMINO FALLACIES) OR SLIPPERY-SLOPE FALLACIES

FIND THE DEFINITION OF (48) OR MORE TYPES OF FALLACIES. (WITH OR WITHOUT A PRIORI PROBABILITY)

Available (draft in full or in part) at: http://www.geocities.com/rre5/MOMS.html

FAIL TO PREPARE IS PREPAIR TO FAIL

CONCLUSION:

PROVE THAT THE [FLDS] POLYGAMISTS ARE "ANTI-SUBVERSIVE."

Available Draft in full or in part at:

http://www.geocities.com/rre5/CIVILLIBERTIES.html

* DISCLAIMER: Continuation of my literary work/efforts...fact/fiction...quasi-fact/quasi-fiction...draft...outline...etc.

Authorship/Moral Rights: Debater or FALLACY-HUNTER

SIGNED: RECKIPS

RussellBeckley
27 May 2008 at 19:51

Yesterday, I was at the grocery store with my toddler son. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw three FLDS sisters walking down frozen food aisle. How do I know they were FLDS? I hade never seen FLDS women until I saw them in the news coverage of the Texas ranch incident. But their look is unmistakable, with their brightly colored Little House on the Prairie dresses and Victorian hair.

The hair on the back of my neck stood up. It was like seeing the ghost of someone who recently died. I wish I understood why it was so eery.

I would be really interested to know what life is like in their isolated communities, but they're not about to welcome Barbara Walters, I'm guessing. It is that isolation that makes them what they are - to expose it would be to threaten it.

ronw
27 May 2008 at 21:51

Why are the authorities in Texas not arresting the fathers of children born to unwed teen mothers and why do these mothers still have their children instead of having them taken away and prosecuting the parents? Instead, they are given apartments, food, and welfare.

Deptford Dan
27 May 2008 at 23:56

I once asked a Mormon missionary "Why don't you tell your contacts that you believe that Jesus and the Devil

are brothers; that God, Elohim, was a mortal man on a

planet somewhere who was found worthy and promoted to godhood and presented with this world of

ours; and that you, the missionary plan to do the same and become a god. He was very honest, His reply: "If we did, no one would join us".

Rathje
28 May 2008 at 01:39

RussellBeckley,

In all likelihood, the women you saw were actually Mennonites. They also dress in old styles. But they have little to do with Mormonism at all. And they don't practice polygamy.

Deptford Dan,

Why don't you go around telling people that your God forced his own son to be tortured to death to satisfy a twisted, and artificial catch-22 of his own making?

You willing to say that about your own precious faith?

No?

Then I suggest you shut up about the Mormons and worry about your own abundant problems.

charlie1981
28 May 2008 at 04:22

GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE ................. not adam and EVE, EVE , EVE. I believe and am very open minded to new things, but I just could never imagine living like that. This just is NOT the way of the Bible!

kc 28 May 2008 at 04:48

charlie1981,

Have you even read the Bible? It's full of polygamists, including Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Soloman. And, sadly I thing, nowhere in the Bible is polygamy strictly forbidden (except for the once reference in 1 Timothy 3 that says if a man wants to be a Bishop or a Deacon you should only have one wife, but taken in context that sounds like monogomy was the exception, not the rule in Biblical times.)

You can say what you like about wako polygamists, but don't try to tell me it's "NOT the way of the Bible!"

MLM
28 May 2008 at 05:45

Why do we have so many exceptions to our laws? It is illegal to practice polygamy in the United States, so why is our law enforcement ignoring the law? Why is it legal to practice polygamy if your "some religion"? The law of the law should not be handled with duel controls. How do some people get to break the law while the rest have to comply? Either something in illegal or not and prosecution here should be every man that has more than one wife. Instead we go out and take 400+ children from their mothers and let the men go. Arrest the men and prosecute them. Maybe then the women and children can get a life, even if they stay on the compound. At least the cause of the problem would be gone. Illegal is Illegal.

mrcolj
28 May 2008 at 11:51

I've always said it's ironic that if a man or woman has an affair, he or she is considered normal, or maybe normal-with-problems-but-that's-his-business, just as long as he's only nice to one of them. Just as long as everyone knows which one is his wife and which one is his toy, no one cries too loudly. But if he's nice to both of them, if he buys both of them a house, if he pays both their bills, then he's a monster and a subversive bible-hater.

jasonj75
28 May 2008 at 13:48

MLM - If someone robs you and you don't tell the police, what happens? Nothing.

No one is getting a pass on polygamy because of their religion, but it's real hard to enforce a law when no one is complaining about it being broken.

I say we get out of people's homes and like mrcolj said, if a guy wants to marry two 'adult' women, take care of them, and raise a family. Who are we to care?

The first step to fixing the mess in Texas is to legalize polygamy between consenting adults so people can speak up about other crimes (welfare abuse, underage brides) that actually harm others without the fear of the police breaking down the door in the middle of the night and hauling their family off.

Jerry H
28 May 2008 at 16:26

Here is another great video about the truth behind polygamy.

It's called "Lifting the Veil of Polygamy"

http://www.lhvm.org/

There would not be the issue with the FLDS if Joseph Smith hadn't claimed that in order to reach the highest level of heaven, a man had to have many wives. Read Doctrine and Covenants 132.

Joseph Smith married 14 year old girls himself. Helen Mar Kimball was 14 when she was married to Joseph in May 1843. Nancy M. Winchester was also 14 when she married Joseph in 1842. Joseph Smith was married to Fanny Alger as early as 1831-1833, 1-3 years after he started the Mormon church.

For more information on Joseph Smith's 33 or more wives read Todd Compton's book : "In Sacred Loneliness The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith". Todd Compton is LDS.

JacobPrimo
28 May 2008 at 17:04

Tom's article abover is a good example of how many LDS church members feel. In many ways our modern ethics are appaled by polygamy and child brides. But it's also a doctrine fully integrated into our theology.

I will confess the photo of Warren Jeffs kissing the really young girl was shocking to say the least. At the same time should I not be equally disgusted of Joseph Smith marrying young teen girls like Helen Kimball or Fanny Alger.

mango
28 May 2008 at 17:49

dougtheavenger: your facts don't matter because in the general population, these people are making their decisions on their own, not being forced in to it. at the yfz ranch, the girls are forced, not given the choice. you can't compare a 15 year old girl making the decision on her own to have a boyfriend and a 15 year old girl forced into marriage to a 60-yr-old man by her family and church. huge difference.

aflatoon
29 May 2008 at 05:33

so secretive polygamy being practised in the most developed country of the present world.it is all in the name of religion.the fact n figures provided by some commentators is self revealing.there is nothing developed in the place where racial n gender discrimination is as rampant as in europe n other parts of the world.the advancement in science n industrial development are not a guarantee to morality.let us not blame others who preach n practise polygamy openly without any stigma. aflatoon india

Xanadools
29 May 2008 at 19:30

God is nothing more than a glorified Santa Clause for adults...And the Mormon religion is the most uneducated of all the Christian faiths...Do yourself a favor, Instead of saying God, Just for one day call him the "Giant Magic Man in the Sky"...you are sheep you are children. Its all vast lie made up to opress others financially, spiritually and sexually...

slonggo
30 May 2008 at 13:30

dougtheavenger- How do we, the general population, stack up at underaged sex with abusive, deluded old dudes?

flyboy
31 May 2008 at 15:41

I was raised an atheist and remained one for 35 years. Then I got curious about some things I'd seen that didn't fit my beliefs. Now, many years later, I'm a Mormon. Why? NOT because I "liked" LDS beliefs or because they made sense to me, only because I discovered for myself that they are TRUE. One characteristic of truth is that, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not, it's still true.

kaye2008
02 June 2008 at 00:24

Jerry,

Re-read D&C 132 carefully. Joseph Smith taught that a person must be married to achieved the "highest heaven" but never taught that PLURAL marriage was a requirement. Plural marriage was simply taught as an option IF and only if a person was directed to do so by God as was Abraham, Moses, etc. Most early LDS never exercised that option. Some non-LDS people (including the FLDS) are confused and believe that the words "new and everlasting covenant" (from D&C 132, an LDS scripture) refer to plural marriage. That is not so. That phrase refers to a marriage commitment made for eternity (forever) and is usually monogomous. Anyone can go to lds.org and read the text for themselves.

Jerry H
02 June 2008 at 17:43

In the beginning Mormon church leaders claimed they did not believe in the practice of plural marriage. In the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, printed in 1835, there was a section which absolutely denounced the practice of polygamy.

Section 101 of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. This section, which condemns the practice of plural marriage, was deleted from the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876.

In section 101:4 it was stated: "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

This section was printed in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until the year 1876. At that time the Mormon leaders inserted section 132, which permits a plurality of wives. Obviously, it would have been too contradictory to have one section condemning polygamy and another approving of it in the same book! Therefore, the section condemning polygamy was completely removed from the Doctrine and Covenants.

Just when and how the practice of plural marriage started in the Mormon church has caused much controversy. There is evidence, however, to show that it was secretly practiced when the church was in Kirtland, Ohio. In the introduction to volume 5 of Joseph Smith's History of the Church, the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts stated that the "date in the heading of the Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including the Plurality of Wives, notes the time at which the revelation was committed to writing, not the time at which the principles set forth in the revelation were first made known to the Prophet."

Find out more here:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech9a.htm

Jerry H
03 June 2008 at 03:28

Brigham Young, the second president of the church, once stated: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.269).

kaye2008
04 June 2008 at 04:20

Jerry,

Thanks for pointing out why the LDS believe in continuing revelation and modern day prophets. We all know that Moses taught things that were later changed by Christ. Thank goodness we no longer are required to sacrifice animals to be saved. Other times God gives commandments which are temporary and circumstance-based (get on the ark) or just a test (Abraham to kill his son).

The Book of Mormon teaches that polygamy is forbidden...except when commanded by God for certain circumstances.

LDS apologists will say that God first told us not to practice polygamy (or at least that it was assumed He wouldn't want us to do it). Then for reasons which we don't fully understand, God asked Joseph Smith and some others to practice polygamy. They were reluctant and had to each receive a personal spiritual witness before proceeding. Likely, they were very nervous about people hearing about it and thinking they were just a bunch of adulterers, so they kept it quiet and were slow to change the D&C...and they hadn't been told yet, as far as I know, that polygamy was for "general practice" at that point. Anyway, I doubt Abraham advertised to the world that he was off to sacrifice his son either, in spite of the fact that he REALLY believed he was told to do so by God. Of course, you might say that Abraham didn't really have to go through with his challenge while the early LDS people did...but Abraham was a polygamist so you probably don't want to bring up him too much.

Brigham Young, who believed he was commanded by God to be a polygamist, naturally belived polygamy was the highest path. Of course, it is hard to read his statement you quoted and wonder what's up. Was he wrong? Was he speaking his own thoughts at the moment instead of prophesying? If so, how can you trust anything a "prophet" says? Maybe did God actually require it for salvation then but not now? But it really doesn't matter. As flyboy stated above, all that matters is one's own testimony of the truth. I believe BY was a prophet and I believe Thomas Monson is a prophet because of my own spiritual conviction and the witness I have felt...not because I like what they say every time.

Back to the story. Then later, things changed. Polygamy was outlawed and that law stood up to constitutional test in the courts. Unsurprisingly, the current prophet went to God and said, "What do you want us to do now?" And it shouldn't be surprising that God told them to obey the law. And it also shouldn't be surprising that some people had trouble of letting go of a practice that they were raised with, suffered for, and believed in. So polygamy died gradually and groups like the flds broke off because polygamy was a stronger belief to them than their belief in the current prophet. A big difference between the flds is their foundation is Joseph Smith while our foundation is revelation (including JS and any new revelation since him).

It is pretty easy to look at a practice like polygamy, and just assume it was a practice instituted by men to meet men's "needs." I fully understand why people might do so, and I fully understand why the historical points you have noted might bother you. They are good points if we are using history to prove or disprove a religion. Luckily, however, that is never what God intended for us to do. There is a reason why it is called "faith."

Jerry H
04 June 2008 at 05:35

kay2008

Can you explain the Melchizedek priesthood to me? Who is this Melchizedek?

Thanks, Jerry

kaye2008
04 June 2008 at 05:57

Melchizedek is an individual, supposedly a king, mentioned briefly in both the Old and New Testaments and in LDS scriptures. Abraham payed tithes to Melchizedek and received the priesthood from him. There is legend that he is the same person as Seth (a son of Noah), but I really don't know where that story comes from and it is not accepted as doctrine. Just interesting. The priesthood is called after him in order to avoid too frequent repetition of the name of God (out of respect), according to LDS scripture.

The Melchezidek priesthood is the higher priesthood and encompasses everything in the lower (Aaronic) priesthood plus more authority. In the days of Moses, unrighteousness among the children of Israel caused the M. priesthood to be taken from them. Instead they were given only the Aaronic priesthood (named after Aaron, the brother of Moses) which had lesser authority. At the same time, some elements of the gospel were removed and the Law of Moses was given to the people as a lesser (easier to follow and more concrete) law. At the time of Christ, the Melchizedek priesthood was restored along with the complete gospel (superceding the Law of Moses).

In the days of Joseph Smith, the Aaronic priesthood was first restored (allowing such things as baptism) and then later the Melchizedek (allowing other things such as temple work).

kaye2008
04 June 2008 at 05:58

I meant Shem, not Seth.

Jerry H
04 June 2008 at 11:32

Genesis 14:18-20 (King James Version)

18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

___________________________________________

kaye2008,

I don't think that it can be assumed that Abram was given the Melchizedek priesthood from these verses? Would you agree with that?

One other thing to notice is that this priest first gave something to Abram. What was it?

kaye2008
04 June 2008 at 15:55

Abram receiving the priesthood from M is stated in D&C 84:14, though Hebrews 5:6 supports that by linking M to the priesthood (also see Heb 7 for more on M). But I'm definitely giving you the LDS view of the man.

If you are referring to the bread and wine, then, yes, the LDS interpretation would be probably he was doing a communion/Lord's Supper/sacrament type ordinance (see the Joseph Smith translation of those verses at lds.org and it makes that even clearer). M was, by any accounts, a spiritual leader of some sort that Abraham looked to. LDS believe M, like Abraham, had the M priesthood and a "more complete" gospel than was later followed under the more limited Law of Moses.

Is there something specific that bothers you?

Jerry H
05 June 2008 at 22:40

But it doesn't say that Abram received any priesthood in the Genesis passage.

Also he is called "king of Salem" or king of peace.

Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Here Jesus is called "The Prince of Peace."

Jesus is called by other names here as well:

1.Wonderful

2.Counsellor

3.The mighty God

4.The everlasting Father

Jerry H
05 June 2008 at 23:00

kaye2008

Melchezidek did give bread and wine to Abram. In the gospels Jesus gave bread and wine to the disciples.

-------

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jerry H
06 June 2008 at 01:03

Hebrews 5:6 is not talking about Abram, it IS clearly talking about Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one referred to as "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

Hebrews 5:5-10

5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Jerry H
06 June 2008 at 05:07

From Hebrews chapter 7 there are many conclusions that can be draw to show us who Melchizedek really is.

1. the King of Salem (Peace) vs 2

2. the King of righteousness. Vs 2

3. without; vs. 3

A.) Father

B.) Mother

C.) descent (no children)

4. has neither; vs. 3

A.) beginning of days

B.) nor end of life

5. like the Son of God. Vs 3

6. continually a priest. Vs 3

7. received tithes even though he was not a Levitical priest. Vs 6

8. The Levitical priests died , but he liveth. Vs 8

9. from a different tribe. (not from Levi) vs. 13

10 did not attend the alter ( didn’t sacrifice animals, like the levitical priests) vs. 13

11. sprang out of Juda which was not a tribe of priesthood.. Vs 14

12. has the power of an endless life.(he is eternal) Vs. 16

13. he brought a better hope. Vs. 19

14. he causes you to draw near to God. Vs. 19

15. he made an oath. Vs. 20 & 21.

16. Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Vs. 22.

17. there was need for many Levitical priests because they died, but only one Melchizedek Priest because he continueth ever. Vs. 24

18. hath an unchangeable priesthood. Vs.24

19. he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him. Vs. 25

20. he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Vs. 25

21. is holy

22. harmless

23. undefiled

24. separate from sinners

25. and made higher than the heavens

26. he DID NOT need to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's

BECAUSE: HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF.

Jesus = Melchizedek.

THEREFORE there is no need for any other priest.

kaye2008
06 June 2008 at 18:06

Interesting, if faulty, logical exercise and play with words, but not how I determine what to believe.

This has been fun, but we're a bit off topic and probably annoying everybody. Good luck to you and I wish you the best in your pursuit of truth.

Jerry H
06 June 2008 at 21:43

The purpose of the Jewish priesthood is to sacrifice animals for the people's sins, not temple marriage, baptisms for the dead, or endowments.

Levitical Priests have been identified and the following video shows the function of the priesthood.

http://www.sourceflix.com/vid_sacrificev3.html

Jerry H
07 June 2008 at 21:29

OUR HIGH PRIEST IS JESUS AND HIM ALONE

Hebrews 4:14-15

14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession

15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.