In an attempt to critique, from the Bible, the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Priesthood, the Tanners wrote the following:
The Mormon leaders claim that those who hold the Priesthood in the Mormon Church are the only ones who have the authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. This concept leads members of the Church to believe that the work of other churches is in vain. In the Mormon Missionary Handbook we read the following:
“Elder: WHY IS THE PRIESTHOOD SO IMPORTANT?
“Brown: Because a man must have it to do those things.
“Elder: He certainly must. Suppose a priest or minister baptizes without the priesthood, what does that mean in the sight of the Lord?
“Brown: It doesn’t mean anything.
“Elder: Why is that?
“Brown: Because he would lack the necessary authority.
“Elder: Right. SO EVEN THOUGH A MINISTER MIGHT BE SINCERE, UNLESS HE HAS THE PRIESTHOOD, WILL THE LORD REGOGNIZE A BAPTISM PERFORMED BY HIM?
“Brown: NO.
(A Uniform System For Teaching Investigators, page 15)
In the Bible we read that John at one time held a belief similar to this, for which Jesus rebuked him:
“And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
“And Jesus said unto him, FORBID HIM NOT: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49-50)
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987], 179; emphasis in original)
The Tanners show their ignorance of LDS theology. Exorcism of devils (or, to be accurate, demons [δαιμόνιον]) is not an ordinance of the gospel; there is no salvific value to such, unlike baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The longer version of this incident in Christ's ministry is found in Mark 9:38-41:
John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward. (NRSV)
LDS theology does not state that one needs to hold the Priesthood to have the “power” (δυναμις) to perform a miracle or an exorcism; instead, it states that one needs the priesthood to perform a saving ordinance. There is nothing antithetical between Mark 9:38-41 and LDS theology.
Furthermore, that the New Testament affirms an ordained, ministerial priesthood, including in the Last Supper accounts (see my paper here). One other incident in the New Testament is that of Simon.
In Acts 8, we find that after Philip had baptised some Samaritans, the apostles Peter and John came and "Then laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:17). Seeing this, one of the recently-baptised, a man named Simon, "saw that through laying on the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." But Peter said unto him, "thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8:18-21). Clearly, these apostles had "power" that Simon, already one of the believers, wanted to buy, demonstrating that he didn't have that power.
Biblical scholar, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, offers the following cogent analysis of this event in the Gospels in light of its Second Temple Jewish background:
[I]t is significant that successful exorcisms in the Synoptic Gospels are not only attributed to Jesus alone. Not only are exorcisms performed by Jesus’ disciples (Mk. 6:7, 13-15; Mt. 10:1, 7-8; Lk. 9:1; 10:17-20) , they are also a condonable activity practiced by those who are not among Jesus' immediate followers. This is, for instance, the case with the so-called "strange" exorcist mentioned in Mar 9:38-41 (par. Lk. 9:49-50) as well as with Jesus' rhetorical question which assumes that his Jewish contemporaries were likewise able to exorcise demons (Mt. 12:27 par. Lk. 11:19: "by whom do your sons cast out?"). The latter episode, which is tucked away in a passage that focuses on Jesus' response to an accusation that questioned the source of his power, admits that an analogy exists between the exorcisms of Jesus and those performed by the "sons" of his interlocutors (the "Pharisees" in Matthew and the "scribes" in Luke). In other words, Jesus' encounters with the demonic world are located by the Synoptic Gospels within a religious climate in which exorcisms were considered a legitimate, if not effective way to combat evil. According to the Gospels, Jesus, as an exorcist, participated in a worldview in which exorcism makes sense For all the wish of the Gospel writers to accentuate Jesus' prowess and expertise in this area, this portrait of Jesus would have shared some fundamental assumptions with his contemporaries on how such activity works and what it signifies for both practitioners and those deemed to be under demonic sway. Thirdly, both the multiple attestation in the Gospels and their recognition of exorcism as an effective practice among non-devotees of Jesus strengthen the likelihood that we are dealing with the shared preservation of an early tradition that may have been circulating during the time of Jesus' ministry/ Whether or not they identified with the Jesus movement, a wide number of contemporaries believed that Jesus engaged in open conflict with demonic beings. However much individual pericopae, especially the exorcism episodes, were shaped by conventional oral and literary forms, there is no reason to doubt that any reconstruction of Jesus' life and ministry that does not include the claim that he expelled evil spirits omits something essential. Likewise, since each of the Gospel writers wished to emphasize the unprecedented magnitude of Jesus' life, teaching, and ministry, there is no compelling reason why a post-Easter community would have generated stories that acknowledge the performance of exorcisms by his contemporaries. (Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2017], 170)
What informs, at least in part, the Tanners' misinformed comments is their acceptance of the Protestant concept of the "Priesthood of All Believers." However, many Protestant New Testament scholars agree that such is based on an eisegetical approach to the very few biblical texts Protestants point to in order to support such a doctrine. John H. Elliot, a Lutheran New Testament commentator, offered the following refutation of the claim such a doctrine is taught in 1 Pet 2:4-10, the key text Evangelicals cite:
(1) As is evident from its structure and content and from the accentuation of the election of both Jesus Christ and the believing community, 1 Pet 2:4-10 is designed as an affirmation of the elect and holy character of the believing community, which, through faith, is one with the elect and holy Christ. Election rather than priesthood is its central focus. The theme of election that extends from the letter’s beginning to its end (1:1; 5:13) receives here its most profound articulation. The passage, in fact, constitutes one of the most elaborate statements on Christian election in the entire NT.
(2) The covenant formula of LXX Exod 19:6, which included the terms basileion and hierateuma, in accord with prior Israelite interpretation of this text was one of several OT texts employed by the Petrine author to explicate the elect and holy character of the covenantal people of God as once affirmed at Sinai and now affirmed of God’s people at the end time.
(3) The term hierateuma, like the other honorific epithets for Israel with which it is joined here (“elect stock,” “holy people,” “people of God”), is a collective noun designating the believing community as community, as is true of other collective terms as well. The substantive basileion, “royal residence” (v 9b), likewise is applied to the believing community in its entirety and it interpreted as the “house(hold) of the Spirit” (v 5d)
(4) In both 1 Peter and its source, Exod 19:6, “priestly community” expresses the holiness of the covenant community and the immediacy of its relation to God, both of which are distinctive qualities of the believing community that the author stresses throughout the first major section of the letter with other language as well (1:2, 3-5, 14,16, 17-21, 22; 2:5 [“holy priestly community”], 9-10; c. also 3:5, 18c; 5:7a, 10). The action of the believers as priestly community is to offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (2:5f), a cultic image that occurs only here in 1 Peter and that is not elaborated on anywhere else in the letter. Similarly, neither hierateuma plays no independent role in the ecclesial thought of the letter. The appearance of hierateuma in 2:5 and 9 is due solely to its place in the covenant formula of Exod 19:6, which is used by the Petrine author to affirm the election and holiness of the household of faith.
(5) No mention is made in 2:4-10 of baptism or any baptismal “ordination” or “consecration” to priesthood on the part of the believers.
(6) Nowhere in 1 Peter is there any reference to the priesthood of Christ or any suggestion that believers share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their constituting a “priestly community.” In the book of Hebrews, on the other hand, Jesus Christ is identified metaphorically as a priest (Heb 7:15, 21,; 8:4; 10:21) or high priest (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). In Revelation, Christians are denoted metaphorically as priests as well (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). In other NT writings, cultic metaphors occasionally are used to describe the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 15:16), the gift of material support (Phil 4:18), or aspects of salvation (Heb 4:16; 8:1; 9:11-14, 23-28; 10:10, 19-22; 13:10-16). No single NT author, however, makes any attempt to integrate these random images into a unified teaching on Christian priesthood, and this certainly includes the author of 1 Peter. To attributes these various motifs to 1 Peter is to impute alien notions to this text and to distort its focus. In 1 Pet 2:4-10, the association of believers with Christ is that of “living stones,” who through faith are one with Christ, the “living stone,” and who are “elect” as he was “elect” in God’s sight. (John H. Elliot, 1 Peter [Anchor Bible 37b; Garden City: Doubleday, 2000], 451-53).
As always, the Tanners, as well as other Protestant critics of LDS theology, are on an exegetical fishing trip, but not only did they forget to bring the fishing poles, they also don’t have a clue how to fish in the first place.
For more, see my page, The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page
