@@reederickson1558 This verse is referring to the office of High Priest and the fact that no one can assume the office of High Priest by himself other than being called of God like Aaron was. Aaron was ordained by Moses in Leviticus 8. In other words, Moses was called through God's prophet to his office of High Priest and ordained by God's previously ordained representative. Moses was previously ordained by his father-in-law Jethro.
@@reederickson1558 Similarly, leaders in the Acts church were called and ordained by previously ordained leaders with the authority to ordain those new leaders. There are no examples in the Bible I am aware of where any leader in the church became a leader without being called by one of the existing previously ordained leaders.
@@reederickson1558 Well, if you read Acts chapter 8, you have Simon the Magician trying to buy the "Power" in verse 19 of the KJV so that he can lay his hands on people and give them the Holy Ghost. Certainly sounds like the Priesthood to me. If you disagree, what do you think the "Power" refers to that is mentioned in Verse 19 that Simon wanted to buy?
Time stamp 9:58 is the key to your thoughts. "I think" and that's great to have your own opinion. And part of life is aligning our will with God's opinion and finding out what his opinion is. Great research. Keep seeking for knowledge and truth. The truth will always set you free.
This guy is cherry picking and going all over the place, but Hebrews 6:3 clearly and plainly state that the doctrine of Christ is baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection, and eternal judgment!!!
Yes, good points. The Holy Spirit settles on people and people receive it in scripture in different orders as pertaining to outward actions they take, and with different external details on what is occurring around them at the time; it's about the belief, the faith, in the end, and not dependant upon some procedure carried out by man. Pointing out the variations in how this happens, recorded in scripture, is a clear illustration of this. Another example of seeing God's power (which the LDS would interpret as 'the priesthood power in the priesthood holder') comes to mind, in 1 Kings 17:21, “And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.” That doesn't at all match the modern LDS 'anoint with consecrated oil and then lay hands on the head for a healing blessing'. And God didn't appear to every one of the ancient prophets in a burning bush like with Moses... These variations in physical methods doesn't indicate a "changing God", but simply shows that He isn't restrained by procedures _men_ must implement or adhere to; He wills it and it is done, He speaks and it comes to pass. All power is God's, and it is by simple belief in Him that any believers have access to it -- but it remains God's, and God's alone, and the rest of what we see surrounding it is the human element. Case in point, laying on of hands was a cultural thing, just like the mikveh was the cultural/Law-based foundations for the symbolic water baptism by immersion, which was familiar culturally to Hebrews. Kissing another man on the cheek as a sign of affectionate greeting was culturally acceptable for the Hebrews (and is known to us largely through the Judas kiss, though Paul's epistles also frequently speak of it as a greeting), but in most modern Western nations, this is not typical. This is an illustration of different cultures, different time periods, and different ways they interacted with each other and acted, physically. In the same vein, there are different ways that people communicate and convey symbols and belief to each other. The point is that there are human elements, cultural elements, to all of this, but when honing in on the actual _spiritual_ elements, it is evident that the Holy Spirit does not require any human actions or equations to be fulfilled in order to act. The only prerequisite is belief, and where there is belief, the Holy Spirit naturally comes to dwell and act. And this makes perfect sense -- God is sovereign, therefore, God's will will be done, and nothing man does or fails to do can impede this in any way. Once we believe, the Holy Spirit rushes in and fills space that was void, and all the physical motions surrounding belief are just that -- symbols, motions, for the sake of witnessing to others, for a tangible manifestation of it. But all that is required is accepting the invitation to receive the free gift of salvation, which in turn reflects that same invitation upwards again, and then the Holy Spirit enters and seals a believer, and from then on, acts. To pretend that men could have any authority or impact this in any way other than that simple individual belief -- accepting the gift or not -- is again detracting from the power of God, from the authority of God. Making it into something men must do, must possess, must enact -- and not the gift of God, the presence of God working in us, which it is. Brings to mind Romans 1:20-21, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
“God can exercise His authority as He wills.” Exactly! All authority is derivative of God. If one argues that authority *must* be exercised or transferred from God in a certain way, then it presumes that God does not have ultimate authority (because if He has ultimate authority, then it can be exercised as He wills and isn’t bound by a certain ritualistic process).
@@BNichols021 Because the verse also says a man must be called as Aaron was. In Leviticus 8, it was Moses who was instructed to call Aaron and ordained him. God didn't call him directly to the Priesthood, rather this was done through a previously ordained representative of God's. In fact, I am unware of any place in scripture where someone was called to a leadership calling where they weren't ordained/installed by an existing pre-ordained leader. This is especially clear in the New Testament.
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." I can't believe that this man has nothing better to do with his time than to tear down the faith of others based on ridiculous "evidence".
@@GLM Then how else is authority transferred? Anyone can just say whatever they want. You need a physical ordinance to or you get utter chaos like you see in the greater Christian world.
No, laying on of hands IS prescribed (Hebrews 6, for example). But it's not *essential* such that authority can't be wielded or conferred without it. People can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from the laying on of hands. So it's a regular practice, but not a required practice. Does that make sense?
@GLM so it's ok to do laying on of hands some of the time but not all of the time. How do we know when laying on of hands should and should not be done?
I think it's usual and normative. When installing someone to the office of elder/pastor (for example) - it's best practice to lay hands as a visible symbol....but if it ISN'T done, it's still legitimate. We regularly lay hands on people when we pray for them, but we can still pray for them WITHOUT it. The efficacy of those acts isn't in the physical laying on of hands.
@@GLM there are pastors who form and run their own churches without anyone installing them or laying hands on them so that explanation doesn't make sense. If laying on of hands is not necessary why do it at all?
@@justjamie6458 That was the question I asked. Obviously it would have been much easier for Paul, or another representative just to write a letter letting a person know they would called as the bishop, or for them to just have a brief discussion in the hallway or at dinner letting them know and making sure they were okay with this and then announcing to their acceptance to the congregation. Obviously, there is a purpose and a reason for the laying on of hands or it wouldn't have been done so frequently. The same thing could be said of baptism, why was water necessary in the New Testament. Why not just start attending a congregation and tell people that you accepted Christianity and consider yourself Christian. I think the obvious answer is that these physical means of doing these ordiances do actually matter.
The second reason for the laying on of hands for priesthood ordinances, and this was commanded and done all through the Bible.See Num. 27:22-23, Lev. 8:12, Ex. 40:15, Duet. 34:9, Heb. 5:4, 1 Tim. 4:14. Many times these were just referred to as anointings or ordinations, but this was done in OT times, NT times, and restored again in the latter days!!! The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was absolutely necessary and done to every new convert as part if being born of the water and the Spirit!! It is true that the Holy Ghost can come to one usually to guide them to the truth, but to have the constant companionship of Him, you must have the laying of hands for that gift! Do you think that this would be done to every new convert if it was not necessary!?!? The other reason for the laying on hands is for healings! Continued...
I just read Eph 1:13-14 and see that after we believed we are SEALED with the spirit. The word sealed in Greek is "sphragizó" primarily means to seal or to set a seal upon something. In the biblical context, it conveys the idea of authentication, ownership, security, and approval. It is used both in literal and metaphorical senses, such as sealing a document or a tomb, and sealing believers with the Holy Spirit. We have the wholeness of the spirit with us when we believe based off of this verse
Actually I think the lepur story was better put when Jesus heals him but gets angry when he tells the rest of town when Christ had asked him to be quiet about it
The textual variant that has Jesus getting angry occurs first in Codex Bezae, a 5th century manuscript known for its, shall we say, creative readings. It's old, but not likely to be the original reading. Also, that reading technically has Jesus getting angry at lepers request BEFORE healing him, not AFTER he tells people. It replaces "Jesus had compassion" with "Jesus became angry".
Maybe another video topic could include touching on Hebrews 5:4. For some very strange reason, Mormons think this somehow applies to them, or think it’s some kind of refutation, and so they keep bringing it up. Hebrews 5:4 is referring to those priests who are both from the tribe of Levi and descendants of Aaron, which bars Mormons from holding that priesthood. They neither meet those requirements nor do they perform the ceremony to receive it, so they are not called “just as Aaron was.” And the way I see it being used by Mormons completely ignores not only verses 1-3 and 5-14, but also the entirety of chapters 4, 6, and 7. It’s one of the strangest examples of proof texts I’ve been seeing Mormons use sometimes.
Sorry, but I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the priesthood in the New Testament wasn't conferred by the laying on of hands? Or are you disputing that this verse is saying that you can't get the priesthood other than from someone who already has it, as Aaron did? I get the Tribe of Levi thing, but the apostles who had the preisthood from the laying on of hands in the New Testament in general weren't of the tribe of Levi, so it can be assumed that requirement was done away with when the Law of Moses was retired.
I would also be curious how you would reconcile the story of Simon (not Peter) and the priesthood in Acts 8, where he tried to pay money to get this priesthood but was rebuked. I am curious, how do you think someone goes about getting the priesthood?
I don't actually think the "priesthood" exists in the Bible (at least in the way Latter-day Saints talk about it). My vid on that here: th-cam.com/video/lbyYGWlJ6qI/w-d-xo.html But no. Neither in the Old Testament nor New is the laying on of hands an essential part of installing a priest.
Thank you for this great, insight Bradley! We agree. What would make the hands confer some sort of authority, when Jesus himself as you said could you speak and his authority was recognized and obeyed. And why would the gospel message be lost just because someone didn't have a particular position. People still heard and believed the gospel. Mormons just don't think this through.
My Debunking... I really appreciate your effort, but your video is a 3/10 at best. Remember that the Church of Jesus Christ does not appeal to the Bible for authority or as our authority. Your approach here assumes Sola Scriptura which is not how members of the Church operate. The Bible has no authority, it's a collection of divinely inspired writings aimed to teach, not preside. When God commands a Prophet, it becomes new scripture, and all other scripture becomes subordinate to the new instructions. You believe there are no more Prophets, and that scripture is done, complete (which is laughably not Biblical at all). Teaching as someone having authority is not teaching us that order to that authority isn't necessary... Jesus Christ can heal anyone whatever way he wants. Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to earth with divine authority. We act in his name through the process He designated for us. We are not Jesus Christ. But yes, healing the lepper through touching would sound familiar to us... However, we are talking about healing NOT passing priesthood authority. Jesus Christ has healed me without any laying on of hands. Again, He is the authority. He can do whatever he wants to do. We don't say laying on of hands in necessary because we claim the Bible teaches us that's how it is, or that Jesus never did his works without laying on of hands. This really feels like a strawman argument. We don't lay hands on people possessed to cast out daemons. We can, but anyone can do that through faith, raising of the right hand to the square, and calling on the name of Jesus Christ to command the evil spirit to depart. I have witnessed priesthood holders rebuke the weather with his word, and it obeyed. I don't get what you are trying to say here? You think we lay our hands on the ground or something? Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was divine." Jesus came with authority to do the works His father sent him to do... It doesn't take the laying on of hands to forgive sins. It's through the Grace of God that sins are forgiven, which is a gift. Again, I don't get what your point is. I'll keep listening though. The woman with the issue of blood. Jesus tells her that her faith healed her. Why is this a problem? Healing is not an act of authority. Using the name of Jesus Christ and the priesthood authority to do it certainly does. But many things can happen by faith, without the need of priesthood authority. Again, I'm not getting the point here... Keep going? Jesus GAVE them authority to go teach, cast out devils, and heal... They didn't assume it. They were called and chosen by Jesus Christ. They didn't wake up in the middle of the night thinking they had authority to do this. They didn't set up their own churches after felling like they had been called through the Holy Spirit. They didn't start taking tithes from people then take that money to support their families and livelihoods. They didn't assume they had the right to preside as a shepherd over a congregation and interpret scripture for the congregation. They were called, chosen, and given authority DIRECTLY FROM JESUS CHRIST... Evangelical Christians are exactly opposed to God's order. There is no authority, and Jesus has not directly given them authority to do anything that they do. The best they can claim is that they lead a great bible study group. Everything else is theft and fraud. I don't mean to be accusatory, but that's what this is. No no... Jesus isn't verbally authorizing the Apostles to do anything. He was giving them his Authority to act in His Name to go and do these things. Are we just going to pretend here that Jesus Divine Commission doesn't expressly command the Apostles to baptize as part of the process of becoming a disciple? On the day of Pentecost, the people did not receive the holy ghost, they felt and witnessed the holy ghost... This is NOT the same as being given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This is just poor scholarship. Throughout the New Testament it speaks of receiving the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands. This is an ordinance, right of passage. Someone felling the Holy Ghost is not the same thing. Again, this is a strawman argument. Also, with Pentecost, this NEVER happens again in the Bible. This is a special moment where the Holy Ghost comes into the world after Christ's death, ushering in the advent of the comforter. This is a unique, one-time event that shouldn't be used as an example for the need of the laying on of hands. So then you start to be honest by outlining the times with the laying on of hands is spoken of in the Bible... Good. Explain WHY... It is because this is the direction Jesus gave them to act in His name and perform works into His name... It's not random. Peter is speaking and people are feeling the spirit. This is another strawman. Members of the Church recognize that all people can feel the holy spirit confirming truth. In fact we believe that all will receive the gospel through the Spirit... Before they have hands laid on them for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Felling the sprit and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost are two different things. Lol, I laugh at minet18... The hypocrisy here. We need to decipher between descriptive and prescriptive? Are you serious? Evangelicals are constantly abusing the Biblical Text, manipulating it to their own purposes. Go back to my first statement. Members of the Church DO NOT believe in laying on the hands because thats what the "Bible" teaches. We don't go to the Bible for our instruction. We have Apostles and Prophets that teach us God's order. We are not Sola Scriptura. We do a lot of things that are not expressly taught in the Bible. Tell me, where in the Bible did Peter find that he was supposed to take the gospel to the Gentiles? Show it to me? You can't because Peter didn't read it in the Bible. He was given a dream vision where Jesus gave him instructions to go and do it and the other Apostles thought he was apostate. This was completely opposite of Jesus teachings that the gospel was not to be given to the gentiles. When you have Prophets and Apostles, the scriptures are descriptive and prescriptive. You are completely missing this in your critique treating our doctrine like you treat yours. The problem with your appeal to the epistles is that you believe Paul is talking to people like Evangelicals who are gathered for a Bible study. These are ALREAD members of Christ Church. They have been baptized, they have received the Holy Ghost. They have priesthood leaders with authority that had been passed onto them by others that had authority. You are pretending that none of this exists to say look, no one has to do anything to become a disciple of Jesus. Look at these people Paul is teaching and telling them they were saved without doing anything but feeling the spirit. See!!! It's proof you don't have to do anything. Bull. You are taking advantage of the scripture and misusing it without context. The context is this, they felt the sprit, they received the word, they then acted on that and were baptized, and were given the gift of the holy ghost through the laying on of hands. Paul is teaching them that the outside cultural influences that the Greeks and Romans were doing to appease their gods has no place in the gospel. We are saved through Jesus Christ's atonement and not through outward gestures. But Jesus himself teaches that Baptism is necessary for entrance into Heaven and to be in God's presence. Paul is not teaching that isn't necessary. If he is, he is teaching a different gospel than that of Jesus Christ... Any members teaching that the church fell into apostacy because the Apostles couldn't lay their hands on other people are up in the night. The church fell into apostacy because of what Paul was constantly fighting against, the creeping in of man made doctrines and the rejection of the Apostles and the Divine Authority Jesus left. The people left the truth.
Jesus Christ is alive! Have you heard that He rose from the grave? If a prophet dies another replaces but if a prophet died and then rose from the grave that prophet would continue to be a prophet. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Remember this verse was written after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of the Living. God.
I'd recommend you check out this other video we just put out about Priesthood Authority. Might answer some of your questions: th-cam.com/video/lbyYGWlJ6qI/w-d-xo.html
Hebrews 6:2 states clearly that the laying in if hands is part of the doctrine of Christ!!! Christ stated that straight is the gate and narrow is the way! The gate is being birn again by faith in Christ and His WOSDS, being birn of the water in baptism snd born of the Spirit by the laying in of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on if hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost!!! Read Hebrews 6:2 again! Continued...
If Christ, or God comes to you, and pronounces you s priest forever as He did you Christ, then it would not be necessary for you to receive the laying on of hands! Has He done this for you?!? If not, maybe you should stop kicking against the pricks, be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands like every other saint in NT times as well as today! Be careful with your logic also! Just because something is not mentioned in the little Biblical scripture that we do have, does not mean that it did not happen!!!
As ever, you love to use circular logic to prove your points. According to you on multiple occasions, you teach God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If this is the case, why would you argue He differs in His methodology of healing, sharing of His authority, and bestowing the Holy Spirit situationally? Why would He choose to do things differently when you teach He is the same? Your logic is full of holes. Hole-y logic, if you will.
God being eternally unchanging doesn't necessitate that authority can only be expressed by laying on of hands. God has never declared that laying on of hands is the only proper method for such things. A similar example - when Hebrews 1:1 talks about God speaking at various times, in various ways, through various prophets, it doesn't mean that God is changeable. He is free to communicate via dream, vision, theophany, Scripture, etc. as He sees fit. Similarly, He is free to exercise authority as He sees fit. Neither constitute a change in His being. I'm dealing here with the biblical data - what do you do with the examples I presented in the video? I can account for Jesus' exercising of authority both verbally and via a physical act. How do you account for those differences?
@ You’re asking me to defend a position I didn’t take. Your affirmative position in the video is that Jesus does whatever He chooses with whatever He chooses - sometimes this way, sometimes that way. You also confirm there is no way to know, based on the Biblical accounts, that He definitely did not touch them in personal encounters physically. Just because it is not specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it did or didn’t happen. Further, the writers of the canonical Bible wrote down these stories after decades of them being shared by word-of-mouth. It is entirely possible the laying on of hands detail didn’t make it into every story. Several explanations could be possible, including the writers feeling it is a rote detail, the authors were not told this detail, the writers intentionally omitting the detail, etc. While I make room for the possibility Jesus did what He pleased, I find it more likely He practiced sharing His power and gifts using the same method each time, tailored to the individual situation. You also claim that healing and the calming of the seas is not always done by laying on of hands. Well yes, that is what happens all the time through praying. These practices are fundamentally different, while you intend for the watcher to believe Mormons believe them to be the same. They don’t. There are anecdotes throughout Mormon history detailing women who healed people and animals in many ways, including the laying on of hands. While such practices are not commonplace in the church, they have happened quite famously throughout history. Your logical methodology falls short because a book written thousands of years ago by men who did not witness the events firsthand could not possibly include every detail of every anecdote shared. Rather than definitively saying it’s not necessary (your position), the vast majority of cited evidence shows the laying on of hands is used to share authority, while words are used in prayer for and blessings of healing and people felt the presence of the Holy Spirit during many experiences with the Apostles, Disciples, and teachers after the ascension of Acts. Your logical appeal to Biblical authority falls short when the Bible is silent about a particular detail. To my knowledge, the Bible never states “the laying on of hands is not required” for this or that. Rather, it includes in both the Old and New Testaments many examples where it is used by generations of people, and some where it doesn’t mention it specifically. Why, other than contrarianism to LDS doctrine, would you argue the Bible teaches it does not require such?
@@blmarcom87 The Bible also never states that "the laying on of hands is required." Notice in a number of the examples that it specifies that Jesus' *word* was sufficient. The entire story of the centurion underscores that Jesus' word is sufficient to exercise true authority. He wasn't even present when the servant was healed! I think this is important: Jesus didn't pray for the sea to be stilled. He rebuked the wind and the waves. They disciples marveled because they were in awe of the power exercised by Jesus' word. (For what it's worth - Matthew was written by Matthew/Levi, who was an eyewitness). My point isn't that it's never used, only that it's not essentially required.
@@GLM As an aside, can you explain your logic how God can change His practices on this issue while simultaneously remaining the same? The word different in all its variations cannot be used to describe a Being who is always the same. Your frequent arguments of literality within the Bible fall apart when the Bible disagrees with itself, or doesn’t give all the details. As another, more stark example, “Thou shalt not kill” is followed up by a racial genocide, which necessarily includes killing. Another example is Elisha being jeered by children, so he cursed them in the name of the Lord and two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 children. These two things are incongruent. The logical literality within your theology does not hold up to scrutiny, because it’s circular. The authority you use as your source cannot itself be the explanation. This is the definition of circular reasoning fallacy. It’s true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it says so, so my argument is true because the Bible says so.
@ An interesting discussion on the literal nature of scripture vs using it as a guide as part of a system could be had here, but in short, the LDS belief stems from everything needing to be uniform in the modern day church. From the bottom to the top, it’s done the same way. Conversely, the argument it isn’t necessary to lay hands opens up the ability everyone to claim to speak for God, even if they don’t speak correctly. Your videos are interesting, and I like your contributions to discussions.
What did you think about the points I made in the video? I don't think laying on of hands is inherently unbiblical - only that it's not essentially required for exercising authority.
@GLM as a practicing Latter Day Saint I agree with you. We dont always have to lay hands on them. Your words can be enough depending on the situation. We also raise our right arm to the square to perform priesthood miracles.
Jesus; who is our Lord and Redeemer can forgive, bless, etc. Whom He will. But it is required for all of us to forgive all men. Saying that Jesus had to lay hands to give authority and/or bless always is wrong and putting Jesus in a box. And this video saying the polar opposite is also incorrect. We are asked to lay hands and depending on faith, may not even have to. This dude just wants to fight against established truth and kick against the pricks because he wants to justify himself with circular reasoning. Waste of time and video.
I made this video to explain what Christians believe, and why we don't think it's essential. Latter-day Saints have told me how essential the laying on of hands is with respect to Priesthood Authority. I made a video addressing Priesthood Authority last week, and wanted to be able to point to this info (since it was going to make that other video too long). A question: If physically laying hands isn't essentially required, why did Peter, James, and John have to physically appear to Smith to confer the Priesthood?
@GLM God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Something you actively deny. All good. The truth will go forward, with or without your opinion. To answer your question, of which I know won't change your preconceived notion is too simple: It is/was essential... ONE TIME in this dispensation to be handed down from generation to generation by laying on of hands. Once a person has the authority to heal, bless, etc. All other examples of healing, blessing, etc is then not necessary. For example, While as a missionary years ago, I blessed and healed the sick with laying on of hands and ALSO with mere words of authority for healing. All your examples in this video is moot and not what LDS teach; that laying on of hands is 'always' essential for healing. You sound like a bitter ex, who can't leave their boyfriend/girlfriend alone and misconstrue information. There you have it. Take the truth or leave it alone. ✌️
I do not, in any way, deny that God changes. He is eternally unchanging. I don't think He's ever been a man, or ever progressed to become who He is. He is eternally unchanging in eternity past and eternity future. On the contrary, I would argue that LDS teaching boldly states that God is a changeable being. As Joseph preached, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” Interesting, that's not a claim I've heard other Latter-day Saints make. Still - why were the laying on of hands essential initially for the dispensation? For what it's worth, I'm not trying to be bitter. I genuinely believe that my LDS friends are "severed from Christ" because of false teaching. I want to demonstrate that the modern LDS prophets/apostles have taught things contrary to the Bible so that they may come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved. It's not a vindictive project, but a plea to my neighbors to reject false prophets for the sake of their souls. I know you'll certainly disagree with that conclusion...but I want to assure you, I'm not doing this because I have a weird fascination with theological nitpicks.
@GLM Same person who says he doesn't deny that God changes in any way, also says that Jesus was God in spirit form, then changed to human form and now is in human form l, post resurrection and now the God-man. I can characterized your own words easily, grossly misunderstand you and talking past you all the time. This is what you do and are doing. Posting this example of how you deny that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. What a joke your vids, claims and responses are. P.s. thanks for changing subjects and not fully addressing points I brought up fully. Keep your god and mediocre blessings to yourself.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. - Hebrews 5:4
I don’t understand the argument here
@@reederickson1558 This verse is referring to the office of High Priest and the fact that no one can assume the office of High Priest by himself other than being called of God like Aaron was. Aaron was ordained by Moses in Leviticus 8. In other words, Moses was called through God's prophet to his office of High Priest and ordained by God's previously ordained representative. Moses was previously ordained by his father-in-law Jethro.
@@reederickson1558 Similarly, leaders in the Acts church were called and ordained by previously ordained leaders with the authority to ordain those new leaders. There are no examples in the Bible I am aware of where any leader in the church became a leader without being called by one of the existing previously ordained leaders.
Where do you believe that there is evidence of priesthood authority (similar to how LDS use it) being used in the NT
@@reederickson1558 Well, if you read Acts chapter 8, you have Simon the Magician trying to buy the "Power" in verse 19 of the KJV so that he can lay his hands on people and give them the Holy Ghost. Certainly sounds like the Priesthood to me. If you disagree, what do you think the "Power" refers to that is mentioned in Verse 19 that Simon wanted to buy?
Time stamp 9:58 is the key to your thoughts. "I think" and that's great to have your own opinion. And part of life is aligning our will with God's opinion and finding out what his opinion is. Great research. Keep seeking for knowledge and truth. The truth will always set you free.
This guy is cherry picking and going all over the place, but Hebrews 6:3 clearly and plainly state that the doctrine of Christ is baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection, and eternal judgment!!!
Yes, good points. The Holy Spirit settles on people and people receive it in scripture in different orders as pertaining to outward actions they take, and with different external details on what is occurring around them at the time; it's about the belief, the faith, in the end, and not dependant upon some procedure carried out by man. Pointing out the variations in how this happens, recorded in scripture, is a clear illustration of this. Another example of seeing God's power (which the LDS would interpret as 'the priesthood power in the priesthood holder') comes to mind, in 1 Kings 17:21, “And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.” That doesn't at all match the modern LDS 'anoint with consecrated oil and then lay hands on the head for a healing blessing'. And God didn't appear to every one of the ancient prophets in a burning bush like with Moses... These variations in physical methods doesn't indicate a "changing God", but simply shows that He isn't restrained by procedures _men_ must implement or adhere to; He wills it and it is done, He speaks and it comes to pass.
All power is God's, and it is by simple belief in Him that any believers have access to it -- but it remains God's, and God's alone, and the rest of what we see surrounding it is the human element. Case in point, laying on of hands was a cultural thing, just like the mikveh was the cultural/Law-based foundations for the symbolic water baptism by immersion, which was familiar culturally to Hebrews. Kissing another man on the cheek as a sign of affectionate greeting was culturally acceptable for the Hebrews (and is known to us largely through the Judas kiss, though Paul's epistles also frequently speak of it as a greeting), but in most modern Western nations, this is not typical. This is an illustration of different cultures, different time periods, and different ways they interacted with each other and acted, physically. In the same vein, there are different ways that people communicate and convey symbols and belief to each other. The point is that there are human elements, cultural elements, to all of this, but when honing in on the actual _spiritual_ elements, it is evident that the Holy Spirit does not require any human actions or equations to be fulfilled in order to act. The only prerequisite is belief, and where there is belief, the Holy Spirit naturally comes to dwell and act. And this makes perfect sense -- God is sovereign, therefore, God's will will be done, and nothing man does or fails to do can impede this in any way.
Once we believe, the Holy Spirit rushes in and fills space that was void, and all the physical motions surrounding belief are just that -- symbols, motions, for the sake of witnessing to others, for a tangible manifestation of it. But all that is required is accepting the invitation to receive the free gift of salvation, which in turn reflects that same invitation upwards again, and then the Holy Spirit enters and seals a believer, and from then on, acts. To pretend that men could have any authority or impact this in any way other than that simple individual belief -- accepting the gift or not -- is again detracting from the power of God, from the authority of God. Making it into something men must do, must possess, must enact -- and not the gift of God, the presence of God working in us, which it is. Brings to mind Romans 1:20-21, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
Everyone ought to lay hands on the play button ▶️, because this video is 💯
Ohh... That's bad.
Already laid hands on the like button:)
“God can exercise His authority as He wills.” Exactly! All authority is derivative of God. If one argues that authority *must* be exercised or transferred from God in a certain way, then it presumes that God does not have ultimate authority (because if He has ultimate authority, then it can be exercised as He wills and isn’t bound by a certain ritualistic process).
Hebrews 5:4 says otherwise.
@ Hebrews 5:4 says that High Priests can’t call themselves, but are rather called by God. How does that contradict what I said?
@@BNichols021 Because the verse also says a man must be called as Aaron was. In Leviticus 8, it was Moses who was instructed to call Aaron and ordained him. God didn't call him directly to the Priesthood, rather this was done through a previously ordained representative of God's. In fact, I am unware of any place in scripture where someone was called to a leadership calling where they weren't ordained/installed by an existing pre-ordained leader. This is especially clear in the New Testament.
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
I can't believe that this man has nothing better to do with his time than to tear down the faith of others based on ridiculous "evidence".
I'm not arguing that the physical laying on of hands wasn't practiced, only that it isn't essential/required to exercise authority.
@@GLM Then how else is authority transferred? Anyone can just say whatever they want. You need a physical ordinance to or you get utter chaos like you see in the greater Christian world.
I mean he’s right because the Mormons do it all the time
@@Pocketkid2Mormonism is pure Chaos!!
Men becoming gods !!!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Life on earth is pure chaos!!!! Children growing up to become adults?!?!?! what madness!!!!
"Just because something happened doesn't mean that's the way we should act" so your saying evangelicals should stop doing laying on of hands?
No, laying on of hands IS prescribed (Hebrews 6, for example). But it's not *essential* such that authority can't be wielded or conferred without it. People can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from the laying on of hands.
So it's a regular practice, but not a required practice. Does that make sense?
@GLM so it's ok to do laying on of hands some of the time but not all of the time. How do we know when laying on of hands should and should not be done?
I think it's usual and normative. When installing someone to the office of elder/pastor (for example) - it's best practice to lay hands as a visible symbol....but if it ISN'T done, it's still legitimate. We regularly lay hands on people when we pray for them, but we can still pray for them WITHOUT it.
The efficacy of those acts isn't in the physical laying on of hands.
@@GLM there are pastors who form and run their own churches without anyone installing them or laying hands on them so that explanation doesn't make sense. If laying on of hands is not necessary why do it at all?
@@justjamie6458 That was the question I asked. Obviously it would have been much easier for Paul, or another representative just to write a letter letting a person know they would called as the bishop, or for them to just have a brief discussion in the hallway or at dinner letting them know and making sure they were okay with this and then announcing to their acceptance to the congregation. Obviously, there is a purpose and a reason for the laying on of hands or it wouldn't have been done so frequently. The same thing could be said of baptism, why was water necessary in the New Testament. Why not just start attending a congregation and tell people that you accepted Christianity and consider yourself Christian. I think the obvious answer is that these physical means of doing these ordiances do actually matter.
The second reason for the laying on of hands for priesthood ordinances, and this was commanded and done all through the Bible.See Num. 27:22-23, Lev. 8:12, Ex. 40:15, Duet. 34:9, Heb. 5:4, 1 Tim. 4:14. Many times these were just referred to as anointings or ordinations, but this was done in OT times, NT times, and restored again in the latter days!!! The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was absolutely necessary and done to every new convert as part if being born of the water and the Spirit!! It is true that the Holy Ghost can come to one usually to guide them to the truth, but to have the constant companionship of Him, you must have the laying of hands for that gift! Do you think that this would be done to every new convert if it was not necessary!?!? The other reason for the laying on hands is for healings! Continued...
I just read Eph 1:13-14 and see that after we believed we are SEALED with the spirit. The word sealed in Greek is "sphragizó" primarily means to seal or to set a seal upon something. In the biblical context, it conveys the idea of authentication, ownership, security, and approval. It is used both in literal and metaphorical senses, such as sealing a document or a tomb, and sealing believers with the Holy Spirit. We have the wholeness of the spirit with us when we believe based off of this verse
We don’t believe in sola scriptora. We believe in modern revelation which gives us additional insight not found in the Bible. Your points are mute.
Actually I think the lepur story was better put when Jesus heals him but gets angry when he tells the rest of town when Christ had asked him to be quiet about it
The textual variant that has Jesus getting angry occurs first in Codex Bezae, a 5th century manuscript known for its, shall we say, creative readings. It's old, but not likely to be the original reading.
Also, that reading technically has Jesus getting angry at lepers request BEFORE healing him, not AFTER he tells people. It replaces "Jesus had compassion" with "Jesus became angry".
Charismatics believe In laying on of hands
Yeah, but the point here isn't that laying on of hands is practiced, but that it's *required* as an essential part of the act.
th-cam.com/video/GAukM2T5z1M/w-d-xo.html
Maybe another video topic could include touching on Hebrews 5:4. For some very strange reason, Mormons think this somehow applies to them, or think it’s some kind of refutation, and so they keep bringing it up.
Hebrews 5:4 is referring to those priests who are both from the tribe of Levi and descendants of Aaron, which bars Mormons from holding that priesthood. They neither meet those requirements nor do they perform the ceremony to receive it, so they are not called “just as Aaron was.” And the way I see it being used by Mormons completely ignores not only verses 1-3 and 5-14, but also the entirety of chapters 4, 6, and 7. It’s one of the strangest examples of proof texts I’ve been seeing Mormons use sometimes.
Sorry, but I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the priesthood in the New Testament wasn't conferred by the laying on of hands? Or are you disputing that this verse is saying that you can't get the priesthood other than from someone who already has it, as Aaron did? I get the Tribe of Levi thing, but the apostles who had the preisthood from the laying on of hands in the New Testament in general weren't of the tribe of Levi, so it can be assumed that requirement was done away with when the Law of Moses was retired.
I would also be curious how you would reconcile the story of Simon (not Peter) and the priesthood in Acts 8, where he tried to pay money to get this priesthood but was rebuked. I am curious, how do you think someone goes about getting the priesthood?
I don't actually think the "priesthood" exists in the Bible (at least in the way Latter-day Saints talk about it). My vid on that here: th-cam.com/video/lbyYGWlJ6qI/w-d-xo.html
But no. Neither in the Old Testament nor New is the laying on of hands an essential part of installing a priest.
@@GLM Ok, what power is being referred to in Acts 8:18-19 and why was laying on of hands used there?
@@GLM Also, in Acts 14:23, what do you think the ordination process entails as described there?
Thank you for this great, insight Bradley! We agree. What would make the hands confer some sort of authority, when Jesus himself as you said could you speak and his authority was recognized and obeyed. And why would the gospel message be lost just because someone didn't have a particular position. People still heard and believed the gospel. Mormons just don't think this through.
Hebrews 5:4
My Debunking... I really appreciate your effort, but your video is a 3/10 at best.
Remember that the Church of Jesus Christ does not appeal to the Bible for authority or as our authority. Your approach here assumes Sola Scriptura which is not how members of the Church operate. The Bible has no authority, it's a collection of divinely inspired writings aimed to teach, not preside. When God commands a Prophet, it becomes new scripture, and all other scripture becomes subordinate to the new instructions. You believe there are no more Prophets, and that scripture is done, complete (which is laughably not Biblical at all).
Teaching as someone having authority is not teaching us that order to that authority isn't necessary...
Jesus Christ can heal anyone whatever way he wants. Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to earth with divine authority. We act in his name through the process He designated for us. We are not Jesus Christ. But yes, healing the lepper through touching would sound familiar to us... However, we are talking about healing NOT passing priesthood authority.
Jesus Christ has healed me without any laying on of hands. Again, He is the authority. He can do whatever he wants to do. We don't say laying on of hands in necessary because we claim the Bible teaches us that's how it is, or that Jesus never did his works without laying on of hands. This really feels like a strawman argument.
We don't lay hands on people possessed to cast out daemons. We can, but anyone can do that through faith, raising of the right hand to the square, and calling on the name of Jesus Christ to command the evil spirit to depart.
I have witnessed priesthood holders rebuke the weather with his word, and it obeyed. I don't get what you are trying to say here? You think we lay our hands on the ground or something?
Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was divine." Jesus came with authority to do the works His father sent him to do... It doesn't take the laying on of hands to forgive sins. It's through the Grace of God that sins are forgiven, which is a gift. Again, I don't get what your point is. I'll keep listening though.
The woman with the issue of blood. Jesus tells her that her faith healed her. Why is this a problem? Healing is not an act of authority. Using the name of Jesus Christ and the priesthood authority to do it certainly does. But many things can happen by faith, without the need of priesthood authority. Again, I'm not getting the point here... Keep going?
Jesus GAVE them authority to go teach, cast out devils, and heal... They didn't assume it. They were called and chosen by Jesus Christ. They didn't wake up in the middle of the night thinking they had authority to do this. They didn't set up their own churches after felling like they had been called through the Holy Spirit. They didn't start taking tithes from people then take that money to support their families and livelihoods. They didn't assume they had the right to preside as a shepherd over a congregation and interpret scripture for the congregation. They were called, chosen, and given authority DIRECTLY FROM JESUS CHRIST... Evangelical Christians are exactly opposed to God's order. There is no authority, and Jesus has not directly given them authority to do anything that they do. The best they can claim is that they lead a great bible study group. Everything else is theft and fraud. I don't mean to be accusatory, but that's what this is.
No no... Jesus isn't verbally authorizing the Apostles to do anything. He was giving them his Authority to act in His Name to go and do these things.
Are we just going to pretend here that Jesus Divine Commission doesn't expressly command the Apostles to baptize as part of the process of becoming a disciple?
On the day of Pentecost, the people did not receive the holy ghost, they felt and witnessed the holy ghost... This is NOT the same as being given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This is just poor scholarship. Throughout the New Testament it speaks of receiving the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands. This is an ordinance, right of passage. Someone felling the Holy Ghost is not the same thing. Again, this is a strawman argument. Also, with Pentecost, this NEVER happens again in the Bible. This is a special moment where the Holy Ghost comes into the world after Christ's death, ushering in the advent of the comforter. This is a unique, one-time event that shouldn't be used as an example for the need of the laying on of hands.
So then you start to be honest by outlining the times with the laying on of hands is spoken of in the Bible... Good. Explain WHY... It is because this is the direction Jesus gave them to act in His name and perform works into His name... It's not random.
Peter is speaking and people are feeling the spirit. This is another strawman. Members of the Church recognize that all people can feel the holy spirit confirming truth. In fact we believe that all will receive the gospel through the Spirit... Before they have hands laid on them for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Felling the sprit and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost are two different things.
Lol, I laugh at minet18... The hypocrisy here. We need to decipher between descriptive and prescriptive? Are you serious? Evangelicals are constantly abusing the Biblical Text, manipulating it to their own purposes. Go back to my first statement. Members of the Church DO NOT believe in laying on the hands because thats what the "Bible" teaches. We don't go to the Bible for our instruction. We have Apostles and Prophets that teach us God's order. We are not Sola Scriptura. We do a lot of things that are not expressly taught in the Bible. Tell me, where in the Bible did Peter find that he was supposed to take the gospel to the Gentiles? Show it to me? You can't because Peter didn't read it in the Bible. He was given a dream vision where Jesus gave him instructions to go and do it and the other Apostles thought he was apostate. This was completely opposite of Jesus teachings that the gospel was not to be given to the gentiles. When you have Prophets and Apostles, the scriptures are descriptive and prescriptive. You are completely missing this in your critique treating our doctrine like you treat yours.
The problem with your appeal to the epistles is that you believe Paul is talking to people like Evangelicals who are gathered for a Bible study. These are ALREAD members of Christ Church. They have been baptized, they have received the Holy Ghost. They have priesthood leaders with authority that had been passed onto them by others that had authority. You are pretending that none of this exists to say look, no one has to do anything to become a disciple of Jesus. Look at these people Paul is teaching and telling them they were saved without doing anything but feeling the spirit. See!!! It's proof you don't have to do anything. Bull. You are taking advantage of the scripture and misusing it without context. The context is this, they felt the sprit, they received the word, they then acted on that and were baptized, and were given the gift of the holy ghost through the laying on of hands. Paul is teaching them that the outside cultural influences that the Greeks and Romans were doing to appease their gods has no place in the gospel. We are saved through Jesus Christ's atonement and not through outward gestures. But Jesus himself teaches that Baptism is necessary for entrance into Heaven and to be in God's presence. Paul is not teaching that isn't necessary. If he is, he is teaching a different gospel than that of Jesus Christ...
Any members teaching that the church fell into apostacy because the Apostles couldn't lay their hands on other people are up in the night. The church fell into apostacy because of what Paul was constantly fighting against, the creeping in of man made doctrines and the rejection of the Apostles and the Divine Authority Jesus left. The people left the truth.
TLDR
@savedbygracethrufaith sad. I watched your entire video.
@@savedbygracethrufaithDitto, I did give it a good ole college try.
@@sotl97 you didn’t watch my video bud 🤣
@@oztheberean yeah, only crazy people type that long a reply to a video they oppose
This is the first time I’ve seen this guy. Are you Mormon with a different perspective or a Christian trying to reach out to Mormons?
Hi!
I'm an evangelical Christian trying to explain historic biblical Christianity to Latter-day Saints.
@ ah, okay! Thanks for the quick reply!
who has the proper authority?
Jesus Christ is alive! Have you heard that He rose from the grave? If a prophet dies another replaces but if a prophet died and then rose from the grave that prophet would continue to be a prophet.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Remember this verse was written after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of the Living. God.
@@jaredwilliams1157the called more apostle, and wrote the entire new testament after christs resurrection
I'd recommend you check out this other video we just put out about Priesthood Authority. Might answer some of your questions: th-cam.com/video/lbyYGWlJ6qI/w-d-xo.html
Hebrews 6:2 states clearly that the laying in if hands is part of the doctrine of Christ!!! Christ stated that straight is the gate and narrow is the way! The gate is being birn again by faith in Christ and His WOSDS, being birn of the water in baptism snd born of the Spirit by the laying in of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on if hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost!!! Read Hebrews 6:2 again! Continued...
If Christ, or God comes to you, and pronounces you s priest forever as He did you Christ, then it would not be necessary for you to receive the laying on of hands! Has He done this for you?!? If not, maybe you should stop kicking against the pricks, be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands like every other saint in NT times as well as today! Be careful with your logic also! Just because something is not mentioned in the little Biblical scripture that we do have, does not mean that it did not happen!!!
As ever, you love to use circular logic to prove your points.
According to you on multiple occasions, you teach God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If this is the case, why would you argue He differs in His methodology of healing, sharing of His authority, and bestowing the Holy Spirit situationally? Why would He choose to do things differently when you teach He is the same?
Your logic is full of holes. Hole-y logic, if you will.
God being eternally unchanging doesn't necessitate that authority can only be expressed by laying on of hands. God has never declared that laying on of hands is the only proper method for such things.
A similar example - when Hebrews 1:1 talks about God speaking at various times, in various ways, through various prophets, it doesn't mean that God is changeable. He is free to communicate via dream, vision, theophany, Scripture, etc. as He sees fit. Similarly, He is free to exercise authority as He sees fit. Neither constitute a change in His being.
I'm dealing here with the biblical data - what do you do with the examples I presented in the video? I can account for Jesus' exercising of authority both verbally and via a physical act. How do you account for those differences?
@ You’re asking me to defend a position I didn’t take. Your affirmative position in the video is that Jesus does whatever He chooses with whatever He chooses - sometimes this way, sometimes that way. You also confirm there is no way to know, based on the Biblical accounts, that He definitely did not touch them in personal encounters physically. Just because it is not specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it did or didn’t happen.
Further, the writers of the canonical Bible wrote down these stories after decades of them being shared by word-of-mouth. It is entirely possible the laying on of hands detail didn’t make it into every story. Several explanations could be possible, including the writers feeling it is a rote detail, the authors were not told this detail, the writers intentionally omitting the detail, etc. While I make room for the possibility Jesus did what He pleased, I find it more likely He practiced sharing His power and gifts using the same method each time, tailored to the individual situation.
You also claim that healing and the calming of the seas is not always done by laying on of hands. Well yes, that is what happens all the time through praying. These practices are fundamentally different, while you intend for the watcher to believe Mormons believe them to be the same. They don’t. There are anecdotes throughout Mormon history detailing women who healed people and animals in many ways, including the laying on of hands. While such practices are not commonplace in the church, they have happened quite famously throughout history.
Your logical methodology falls short because a book written thousands of years ago by men who did not witness the events firsthand could not possibly include every detail of every anecdote shared. Rather than definitively saying it’s not necessary (your position), the vast majority of cited evidence shows the laying on of hands is used to share authority, while words are used in prayer for and blessings of healing and people felt the presence of the Holy Spirit during many experiences with the Apostles, Disciples, and teachers after the ascension of Acts. Your logical appeal to Biblical authority falls short when the Bible is silent about a particular detail. To my knowledge, the Bible never states “the laying on of hands is not required” for this or that. Rather, it includes in both the Old and New Testaments many examples where it is used by generations of people, and some where it doesn’t mention it specifically. Why, other than contrarianism to LDS doctrine, would you argue the Bible teaches it does not require such?
@@blmarcom87 The Bible also never states that "the laying on of hands is required."
Notice in a number of the examples that it specifies that Jesus' *word* was sufficient. The entire story of the centurion underscores that Jesus' word is sufficient to exercise true authority. He wasn't even present when the servant was healed!
I think this is important: Jesus didn't pray for the sea to be stilled. He rebuked the wind and the waves. They disciples marveled because they were in awe of the power exercised by Jesus' word.
(For what it's worth - Matthew was written by Matthew/Levi, who was an eyewitness).
My point isn't that it's never used, only that it's not essentially required.
@@GLM As an aside, can you explain your logic how God can change His practices on this issue while simultaneously remaining the same? The word different in all its variations cannot be used to describe a Being who is always the same. Your frequent arguments of literality within the Bible fall apart when the Bible disagrees with itself, or doesn’t give all the details.
As another, more stark example, “Thou shalt not kill” is followed up by a racial genocide, which necessarily includes killing. Another example is Elisha being jeered by children, so he cursed them in the name of the Lord and two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 children. These two things are incongruent.
The logical literality within your theology does not hold up to scrutiny, because it’s circular. The authority you use as your source cannot itself be the explanation. This is the definition of circular reasoning fallacy. It’s true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it says so, so my argument is true because the Bible says so.
@ An interesting discussion on the literal nature of scripture vs using it as a guide as part of a system could be had here, but in short, the LDS belief stems from everything needing to be uniform in the modern day church. From the bottom to the top, it’s done the same way. Conversely, the argument it isn’t necessary to lay hands opens up the ability everyone to claim to speak for God, even if they don’t speak correctly.
Your videos are interesting, and I like your contributions to discussions.
The laying on of hands is exeedingly important and Biblical despite what this idiot says.
What did you think about the points I made in the video? I don't think laying on of hands is inherently unbiblical - only that it's not essentially required for exercising authority.
@GLM as a practicing Latter Day Saint I agree with you. We dont always have to lay hands on them. Your words can be enough depending on the situation. We also raise our right arm to the square to perform priesthood miracles.
@GLM laying on of hands is definitely Biblical. No question about it.
Jesus; who is our Lord and Redeemer can forgive, bless, etc. Whom He will. But it is required for all of us to forgive all men.
Saying that Jesus had to lay hands to give authority and/or bless always is wrong and putting Jesus in a box.
And this video saying the polar opposite is also incorrect.
We are asked to lay hands and depending on faith, may not even have to.
This dude just wants to fight against established truth and kick against the pricks because he wants to justify himself with circular reasoning.
Waste of time and video.
I made this video to explain what Christians believe, and why we don't think it's essential.
Latter-day Saints have told me how essential the laying on of hands is with respect to Priesthood Authority. I made a video addressing Priesthood Authority last week, and wanted to be able to point to this info (since it was going to make that other video too long).
A question: If physically laying hands isn't essentially required, why did Peter, James, and John have to physically appear to Smith to confer the Priesthood?
@GLM
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Something you actively deny.
All good.
The truth will go forward, with or without your opinion.
To answer your question, of which I know won't change your preconceived notion is too simple:
It is/was essential... ONE TIME in this dispensation to be handed down from generation to generation by laying on of hands.
Once a person has the authority to heal, bless, etc. All other examples of healing, blessing, etc is then not necessary.
For example,
While as a missionary years ago, I blessed and healed the sick with laying on of hands and ALSO with mere words of authority for healing.
All your examples in this video is moot and not what LDS teach; that laying on of hands is 'always' essential for healing.
You sound like a bitter ex, who can't leave their boyfriend/girlfriend alone and misconstrue information.
There you have it.
Take the truth or leave it alone. ✌️
I do not, in any way, deny that God changes. He is eternally unchanging. I don't think He's ever been a man, or ever progressed to become who He is. He is eternally unchanging in eternity past and eternity future. On the contrary, I would argue that LDS teaching boldly states that God is a changeable being. As Joseph preached, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”
Interesting, that's not a claim I've heard other Latter-day Saints make. Still - why were the laying on of hands essential initially for the dispensation?
For what it's worth, I'm not trying to be bitter. I genuinely believe that my LDS friends are "severed from Christ" because of false teaching. I want to demonstrate that the modern LDS prophets/apostles have taught things contrary to the Bible so that they may come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved. It's not a vindictive project, but a plea to my neighbors to reject false prophets for the sake of their souls. I know you'll certainly disagree with that conclusion...but I want to assure you, I'm not doing this because I have a weird fascination with theological nitpicks.
@GLM
Same person who says he doesn't deny that God changes in any way, also says that Jesus was God in spirit form, then changed to human form and now is in human form l, post resurrection and now the God-man.
I can characterized your own words easily, grossly misunderstand you and talking past you all the time.
This is what you do and are doing.
Posting this example of how you deny that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
What a joke your vids, claims and responses are.
P.s. thanks for changing subjects and not fully addressing points I brought up fully.
Keep your god and mediocre blessings to yourself.