In a paper trying to argue that only Jesus can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood (which contradicts itself by arguing that Melchizedek also held it [the author does not hold to the view that Melchizedek was the pre-mortal Jesus!]), we read the following:
2. Latter-day Saints are often taught that other persons in the Bible such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus’ apostles were holders of the Melchizedek priesthood. Unfortunately, no one in the Bible is explicitly shown to have held the Melchizedek priesthood other than Jesus and Melchizedek. Latter-day Saints should be pressed to prove otherwise.
3. It is, however, explicitly shown in non-biblical Scripture that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were to have the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on them. (See Joseph Smith–History 1:72.)
Tragically, LDS must depend upon non-biblical, LDS Scripture to make the Bible support something it in fact rejects; namely, that believers can hold the Melchizedek priesthood.
Firstly, the author is wrong in arguing that only Jesus (and Melchizedek) held the Melchizedek Priesthood; for documentation, see the various article at The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page including The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts which refutes the author soundly on issues such as the meaning of απαραβατος in Heb 7:24. Secondly, the author is assuming without proving the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, wherein all doctrines must be explicated. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the “Bible” (defined as being the 66 books of the Protestant canon) are formally sufficient and the final authority, and as I have documented, there exists overwhelming biblical and historical evidence against this doctrine.
To give one example of the impossible position Protestants such as the author is in, consider the following from a leading critic of sola scriptura:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
Unless the Protestant apologist can engage in a meaningful exegesis of a pericope that proves soundly this doctrine, they cannot demand that a text must be explicit for it to be true. To attack the Latter-day Saint for holding to a doctrine that is not necessarily explicated in the Bible is to beg the question: they are assuming Protestantism, specifically, the formal doctrine thereof, to be true.
Finally, the author is shown to be disingenuous by bringing up this alleged problem with Latter-day Saint claims to authority:
Doctrine and Covenants 84:19-22 informs us that without the Melchizedek priesthood “no man can see the face of God and live.”
Joseph Smith allegedly saw God the Father in his “First Vision” in 1820 when he was 14 years old. (See Joseph Smith – History 1:3-7.) However, Joseph Smith did not receive the Melchizedek priesthood until after May 1829. (See Joseph Smith – History 1:72.)
Latter-day Saints should be pressed to reconcile this apparent contradiction.
D&C 84:19-22 does not say that the Melchizedek Priesthood is necessary to see the face of God. Here is what the text actually says:
And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
What is needed to see the face of God according to the text itself is not the Priesthood; it is “the power of godliness.” As we read in elsewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants:
For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh except quickened by the Spirit of God. (D&C 67:11; cf. Moses 1:11)
For a fuller discussion, see the article Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 84 say that one cannot see God without holding the priesthood? on the FairMormon wiki.
