The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God


Sometimes I see a lack of consistency in your posts.


And those haven’t changed.


This has been a very educational post for me. I am not claiming I am smarter than you or better at using words than you. Just that I can answer criticisms you offer (because the CoJCoLDS makes such a compelling case, not because I am smart).
You quote three things that I would call arguments/evidences for the truth claims I embrace and respond to various criticism you have offered such that church is NEW therefore untrue, 2.there is no Melchizedek Priesthood, and 3.that my church teaches that Melchizedek exercised priesthood before Christ.
You then quote me saying I cannot PROVE that there was a Melchizedek Priesthood.
Then you say that you see a lack of consistency in my posts.
This is because you and I apparently have different definitions for “prove.” I am THRILLED that you see PROOF for the positions I espouse in what I call “arguments/evidences,” but I would not call them that. If all you wanted was arguments and evidences, I think I have given them to you.
LDS absolutely do not believe our Christ’s Church, the organization currently headed by President Nelson, started in 1830 or in 33AD. We believe it started in the Garden of Eden.
LDS absolutely do not believe that Melchizedek exercised power that is not properly called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
I absolutely believe that the Book of Hebrews, and volumes of extra-biblical Melchizedek texts, establish the idea that it is appropriate to call the “Holy Priesthood, after the Oreder of the Son of God” the “Melchizedek Priesthood.” There are Catholic scholars/apologists who agree with me here.
So, if that is PROOF that there was a Melchizedek Priesthood, then bully for me and my church.
However, when I claim there is no proof it is not because I do not think the LDS case is strong and compelling (stronger than the anti-Mormon position you espouse), but because I do not think there is “empirical evidence” for supernatural priesthood power.
Thus, I say, I have no proof, and Catholics have no proof. If you say I have proof, I can say that Catholic have similar “proof.” I think the LDS case net-net is more compelling, but I am a LDS.
Look at us agreeing! Or perhaps I misunderstand the “lack of consistency.”
Charity, TOm


I said earlier that Mormonism is a simple religion because Mormons don’t have to believe what their church once taught, just what they teach today. I was thinking that ‘today’ meant something like this decade.

I believe you have shown that ‘today’ can literally mean today.

A Catholic says their Church is 2000 years old and you claim yours is 7000 years old. A Catholic points out that the Mormon belief in their priesthood authority predates Christ and you claim it is the priesthood of Christ. Yesterday was 7000 but forget that; today it is 2000.

A Catholic asks why you won’t prove the Melchizedek Priesthood from scripture, you say it is soooo obvious you didn’t think you had to. But that was yesterday, today you say you won’t because you can’t.

Just an observation.

I also observed another long post with no attempt to prove* there ever was a Melchizedek Priesthood. But like you said, you can’t or was it because it was obvious. I guess it depends on the day. Very humorous.

*a claim is not proof outside of Mormonism.


Not absolutely positive, but I have read that their translation says "…in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god…"
That literature went on to say that, to have translated this scripture in that way, they would have had to change almost all of the instances where Chris Deity is affirmed. (i.e. “Son of God would be translated…son of a god etc.”)
Please don’t rip me apart on this as it has been a few years since my research. Just thought I would throw it out for the discussion. Maybe someone can elaborate with more certainty.[quote=“BT3241, post:50, topic:466409, full:true”]
I wonder how they get past the first Chapter verse 1 in the Gospel of John:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.


You see contradictions and irrationality because you are looking for a gotcha. It is frustrating to me. If you would read with some charity and/or a desire to understand my point, perhaps this wouldn’t happen.
For you if you will listen, or moreso for those who might listen I will explain what you claim to see.

I do not think I claimed that my church started 2000 years ago. I certainly didn’t claim it in in your list of quotes.

I claim that Christ’s priesthood (like Christ) is ancient/eternal. It was on the earth 7000 years ago when some might claim Adam lived. It was on the earth something less than 7000 years ago when Melchizedek lived. It was on the earth during Christ’s EARTHLY ministry and during Peter’s ministry.
I am thinking that you convoluted your Catholic belief that Christ’s priesthood start 2000 years ago. I would be interesting in seeing what caused you to THINK that I claimed 2000 years ago. If I think I really said that, I will apologize and say I misspoke. If you cannot find anything (that is not better explained by a remotely charitable read of my words than by contradiction), I would appreciate if you acknowledge this was your mistake.

My position was that the evidence I provided was sufficient to demonstrate that it is SOLIDLY Biblical to point to a Melchizedek Priesthood. Why would Catholic apologist Mark Shea do so if it was not? My position was never that I have proved that a supernatural divine power exists in a LDS who has been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. I can point you to healings documented in books and other things, but I doubt you would consider that proof of supernatural power uniquely present because of our authority through Christ and St. Peter and power from union with Christ present in many LDS.

I am glad you are amused, I am discouraged.

I think my position is fairly clear.

What happened around the CLAIMED passing of Peterine authority to Joseph Smith supports that it happened.

What happened around the CLAIMED passing of Peterine authority to Clement (or Linus or Cletus) does not support any passing of authority.

That being said, there is no empirical evidence that can document supernatural authority in the Catholic or LDS priesthood. No proof. Evidence and lack of evidence, but no proof.
Charity, TOm


You have provided zero evidence; just claims. I know that claims can be evidence in Mormonism, but not in the real world. When I say you have provided zero evidence, I mean you have not even attempted to provide it. You got nothing.

Believing there is proof, and not being able to provide it would be discouraging, but the fault is Joseph Smith’s not mine.


The Rule of Saint Vincent opens an assault upon Mormonism.


No he doesn’t.

These was no such thing as a Melchizedek Priesthood. It was an invention of Joseph Smith.


Here is the relevant quote. I should have linked here too.
Mark Shea:

Mark Shea believes the Melchizedek Priesthood is real. He is unlikely to be a “closet Mormon” so this is EVIDENCE that the concept of Melchizedek Priesthood is Biblical. And it comes from a Catholic apologist.
Charity, TOm


So this coming from the same man that was fired from this site?

#382 This man is not a priest nor does he hold any type of position in the church. He is a blogger. So his comments are invalid and do not prove your point Tom.


Mark Shea is one of the apologists I have read and followed for years. I vaguely remember he is no longer with NCR.
Here is one quick Bio for him at Catholic Answers:

He has also written a number of Catholic apologetic books including one with Scott Hahn (one of my favorite Catholic Apologists).
You can attack Mark Shea if you like, but he was well respected before and after he wrote about "Melchizedek priesthood."
And my point is that he and many others see “Melchezdek priesthood” in the Bible. That is evidence that it is Biblical contra what Steven and you say.

Oh and if you want a priest I linked to one earlier.

Charity, TOm


I don’t see Shea’s rantings as proof of any LDS claims.


Either do I Horton.


I have an idea for you Tom and the other lds followers. Instead of worrying about the Catholic Church and spending time trying to prove your religion is true, why don’t you spend all this time researching your own religion from its beginning (When Joseph Smith started it) and see what we are saying. But I guess you wont because if you really knew the truth it would destroy your faith in it.


I remember when you claimed that St. Francis de Sales believed in Baptism for the Dead, because he referenced 1 Corinthians 15:29; “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” After I said that Baptism for the Dead was never a Christian belief, you wanted to show how at least one Catholic Saint believed it.

The fact was St. Francis de Sales used 1 Corinthians 15:29, and several other verses to make a case for the Christian belief in purgatory. So not only did St. Francis not talk about the Mormon belief, but he made a case for something Mormons reject.

Yes, you found an article by Mark Shea where he uses the phrase Melchizedek priesthood; David’s Melchizedek priesthood in fact. The article doesn’t prove what you claim it does. Melchizedek is associated with the Holy Eucharist where Christians receive the body and blood of Christ. Again, a belief Mormonism rejects.

And again you got nothing for the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood.


Many Mormons live in a false dichotomy; either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church is true. Many Mormon believe proving the Catholic Church wrong is the same as proving the Mormon Church right. The book Mormon Doctrine has many entries of Catholic belief and practices with an explanation about why Mormonism believes they were wrong. The book is no longer Mormon doctrine because doctrine has changed, and it is too anti-Catholic for the new generation of Mormons.


My evidence is of the Biblical foundation for.the belief in a Melchizedek priesthood. It was claimed there was none, but Mark Shea and the Catholic priest I linked got their ideas from the Bible not Joseph Smith.
Concerning my church history, I think I am well versed. I have been reading and thinking about history written by critics and believers for over a decade.
I just compare anti-mormon criticisms offer by Catholics here to similar problems in Catholic history and theology and … I also challenge some incorrect criticisms of my church directly like "the idea of Melchizedek priesthhood is not in the Bible.

I claim concerning Melchizedek priesthhood that the Catholics and other non-LDS who speak approvingly of it must get there from the Bible.
This is EVIDENCE that it is a Biblical concept.
Charity, TOm


That has been my point all along. The Catholic priesthood is biblical and the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not biblical. Because it is not biblical you can’t prove it ever was. Joseph Smith invented it in 1835.

You may challenge the claim that the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is not in the bible, but you have never proven it is there.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit