Mormon Teachings

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, it is possible to fertilize an egg cell with a sperm cell without sexual intercourse. If man today can do this, couldn't God cause it to happen in the case of Jesus?

There is a great conceptual distance between the Holy Spirit and a sperm cell.

Even if Jesus were conceived by actual intercourse, the facts of life being what they are, isn't it a bit juvenile to assume that God doesn't have sex? After all, mankind is "in the image of God," which, taken literally as the LDS do, means that God has functioning sexual organs. Only young children are scandalized when they find out that their parents had sexual relations to bring them into the world. Sexual intercourse is a reality of life, both in mankind's experiences, and in God's.

I guess that's a problem that comes with the Mormon understanding of an "image" and "likeness" of God.

Considering God's explicit prohibitions against immorality, I find it inconceivable that intercourse is something that happens in heaven, if no marriages take place there (unless you go for infinite regression and say that "our" God married while He was "a man on another planet"); the Bible makes it clear that God considers marriage and intercourse an inseparable physical and spiritual union. Our marriages and relationships on earth are mere representations of the family of God. Like Hebrews says of the temple: "a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven" and calls the tabernacle "a pattern".

Not just that: in the Bible, Christ's wife is the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:9-10) - "the city of the living God" which will unite all believers (Heb. 12:22). It contains and transcends all relationships, physical and spiritual.

Personally, I believe that God never had intercourse with Mary and achieved Jesus's conception miraculously.

If sex is represents physical inseparability and reproduction, then considering your views above about intercourse, it's very strange that the one person who is called "God's only-begotten Son" in any full sense, would be extra-marital and non-physical. I don't run into such a inconsistency when I believe it was miraculous and therefore unique, since so was Adam's creation from dust, with no women in sight.

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, that's exactly what I said, that I believe that Jesus's conception was miraculous and unique. Yet I do believe that Jesus has both God's and Mary's physical genetic makeups, just as if He had been conceived normally. Hey, I didn't make the phrase "only begotten son" up out of thin air. To me, "begotten" means "sired by" and "only" signifies that it is a one-of-a-kind thing. Since we are all brothers and sisters in the family of God, the "only begotten" part is not spiritual but signifies an actual physical likeness that everyone else lacks. Common sense and all, ya know.

 

[The Goose]

I'm saying - with Hebrews - that we needed Christ, who is a priest in the order of Melchizedec (for being "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life").

You said it yourself. He was never said to be "the one and only priest after the order of Melchizedek." He was just "a priest." This implies that there are more priests. And Melchizeded isn't the only priest mentioned in the Bible. Jethro, mentioned in Ex 18 is another priest after this order. He is a priest, but the aaronic priesthood hasn't been set up yet, so he is a Melchizedek priest.

 

[The Goose]

The argument of Hebrews is that, for the same reason there was a need for many (Aaronic) priests ("since death prevented them from continuing in office"), there is no need for any other "Melchizedek" priest, because Christ is "a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." He is a priest forever "because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them" - and "such a high priest meets our need?one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." The logical flip side is that no mortal man, Mormon or not, can fit our need. "Men who are weak" don't live for ever, and the Mormon priests are once again priests "on the basis of a regulation".

If there was no need for other priests, why did Jesus confer the keys of the priesthood on Peter? Was he just bored, and decided to play around with peter by giving him something that he didn't need?

 

[The Goose]

Ordineces have always been a part of the Gospel. Romans 13:2 says "whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themsleves damnation." 1 Cor 11:1-2 says "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
Don't we want to follow Christ in all that we do? He performed certain ordincances that he told us to keep. For example, he was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15). he commands us to remember his last supper. since we are to follow Christ's example, shoudn't we also strive to be priests, like he was, and like he showed, by giving Peter and others keys to the priesthood, that was something we could also strive for?

 

[The Goose]

Yet the Lord "descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." Jesus didn't come from a long line of Melchizedek priests. Neither did Melchizedek himself. It's a unique position in every way, and it contains all other priesthoods in every way.

Or course Jesus didn't come from a long line of Melchizeded priests. That priesthood had been replaced, but Jesus came to restore all things. Because he was a priest after Melchizedek, he came to restore that priest hood, which he did by appointing Peter the holder of all the keys of the priesthood. And melchizedek wasn't the only one. It wasn't a unique position. I will say that it isn't given simply by being somone's son, though, like the aaronic priesthood. It is given by god, through others who hold the priesthood.

 

[The Goose]

For Mormons there are many gods and therefore many mediators,

There may be many gods, and even for paul this was true 1 Cor 8:5 "as there be gods many, and lords many." But of course we also beleive v 6 "but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

and another testimony (as if the testimony of Christ came at an improper time, unable to survive more than a single generation).

I don't know how long it survived, but I do think it lasted more than just a single generation. It was definitely necessary. Look at what the Catholic Church did, changing the gospel until you had to buy your salvation, and you had confess to priests, and they started baptising infants, a practise that was never done by the original christians, as they only did baptism after one repented of their sins. And now look at how many different sects of christianity there are, and all their different interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This speaks of confusion, because they aren't following the Gospel in its entirety, and they aren't being led by a prophet who had all the keys to the priesthood, which Jesus leads.

On top of that there are new laws - "ordinances" and rituals - that place a burden on people. Paul preferred that people don't marry (and he himself was never married, 1 Cor. 7:8-34), yet for Mormons ("celestial") marriage is nothing less than essential.

There aren't new ordincances. These are ordincances that have been around whenever the Gospel was on the earth in its fullness.
You mention 1 Cor 7:8-34. Did you read verse 6? It says "But I dpeak this by permission, and not of commandment." What he says was his own opinions of marriage, which God gave him permission to speak because it's usefull for some people, but God did not give him a command to speak it, because it is not necessary.
Regarding celestial marriage. It is not necessary for salvation. It is only necessary for exaltation in the highest degree.

 

[The Goose]

But I have a question. Doctrine and Covenants 132:7 says "and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred". How can James, Peter and John have all held the "keys" if this is true? And who has them now, according to the LDS Church?

They didn't all hold all the keys. James and John held some of the keys. Peter was the only one who held all the keys. The prophet is the only one at any time on this earth who ever hold all the keys at one time. He is the one who holds them at this time.

 

[The Goose]

If all you want is to be saved, all you have to do is beleive on the name of Jesus, for he died that we might be saved. But the glory to which we are resurected, (for there are many glories John 14:2 "in my Father's house are many mansions") is determined by how well we follow the example Christ set for us, including his example in the way of the priesthood.

Sorry I broke it up into a whole bunch of little posts, but I find this easier.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, that's exactly what I said, that I believe that Jesus's conception was miraculous and unique. Yet I do believe that Jesus has both God's and Mary's physical genetic makeups, just as if He had been conceived normally. Hey, I didn't make the phrase "only begotten son" up out of thin air. To me, "begotten" means "sired by" and "only" signifies that it is a one-of-a-kind thing. Since we are all brothers and sisters in the family of God, the "only begotten" part is not spiritual but signifies an actual physical likeness that everyone else lacks. Common sense and all, ya know.

You miss my point. Jesus is God's only-begotten (Gr. monogenes, meaning "single of its kind, only"). So if you insist on a physical interpretation of God engendering sons, then Jesus cannot be "only begotten". It cannot refer to proxy children, since Isaac is also called Abraham's "only begotten" (monogenes) even though Ishmael was already born to him (Gen. 22:2; Heb. 11:17). The word is sometimes also translated "beloved", because it depicts a singular relationship that depends on conscious preference as opposed to physical descendence (as Psalm 2:7 makes clear: "You are my son; Today I have become your father"). God chose Isaac for his promise to Abraham; God chose Jesus to embody his Spirit.

If we are all brothers in sisters in the family of God, it is in a way unlike Jesus was God's son. If you believe we are physically engendered by God, that means Jesus wasn't; If you believe Jesus was, it means we weren't. The Bible precludes your perspective that it must be a physical "likeness", since Adam and Jesus both bore God's image. And no two people are carbon copies - if its a mere physical uniqueness, it means we're all "only begotten".

The Bible makes it clear that men cannot begin to compare themselves with God:

Isaiah 40:17-18;25
Before him all the nations are as nothing;
they are regarded by him as worthless
and less than nothing.
To whom, then, will you compare God?
What image will you compare him to?
...
"To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.​

The Bible is very useful to counter what people often think to be common sense. "There are ways that seem good to men, but that end in death".

 

[Jenyar]

You said it yourself. He was never said to be "the one and only priest after the order of Melchizedek." He was just "a priest." This implies that there are more priests. And Melchizeded isn't the only priest mentioned in the Bible. Jethro, mentioned in Ex 18 is another priest after this order. He is a priest, but the aaronic priesthood hasn't been set up yet, so he is a Melchizedek priest.

There were only two people who ever fit the description of that "order": Melchizedek himself, and Christ. Hebrews says, "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears..." (Heb. 7:15). It would not have been "more clear" if Melchizedek priests were frequent, since the whole point of Christ's unique qualification would be completely lost: the first Melchizedek was called "king of righteousness" and "king of peace"; Jesus was "king of righteousness" and "king of peace"; "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Jethro was "the priest of Midian" (Ex. 3:1; 18:1) and also a Kenite (Judges 1:16). He has a father and mother, he has seven daughters, one of whom Moses marries, and he shares a genealogical link with Moses. But Melchizedek was "king of Salem" which means "king of peace" (Heb. 7:2). Someone who is not "king of Salem" therfore does not fit the Melchizedek identification of being "king of peace". Who typifies the kingdom of Salem, the kings of Jerusalem (meaning "city of peace" or "foundation of peace")? David. Whose throne was established forever? David's. Who inherited that throne? "The son of David" and "King of Israel": Jesus - who entered Jerusalem on a donkey, as the king predicted in Zech. 9:9 (Matt. 21; John 12).

Matt. 5:34-35 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.​

 

[Jenyar]

Ordineces have always been a part of the Gospel. Romans 13:2 says "whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themsleves damnation." 1 Cor 11:1-2 says "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

To put things into perspective, you should keep in mind that the ordinances (Gr. diatage) Romans 13:2 refer to are earthly authorities: "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." This refers to the laws of the land, and the requirements for peace.

And the ordinances (or traditions, instructions; Gr. paradosis) referred to in 1 Cor. 11:1-2 are Paul's teaching (the "letters and words" he refers to in 2 Thess. 2:15), which he took pains to explain in full, and which we have in the epistles to various churches - and which Mormons seem to think lack the authority to pass on the gospel in full.

Don't we want to follow Christ in all that we do? He performed certain ordincances that he told us to keep. For example, he was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15). he commands us to remember his last supper. since we are to follow Christ's example, shoudn't we also strive to be priests, like he was, and like he showed, by giving Peter and others keys to the priesthood, that was something we could also strive for?

And you won't find a Christian who does not wish to be baptized or share the communion. You also won't find a Christian who has not been called a priest:

Revelation 1:6
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (cf. 1 Peter 2:5-9)​

Christians partake in communion because they partake in Christ's blood, which has cleansed us from sin. They're not separate ordinances, but part of the same ordination: that of disciple, to whom Christ gave the command: to love one another as He loved us (John 13:34). All other commandments are summed up in this single command (Luke 18:20) and they culminate in following Jesus.

But to put this into perspective for you, the word for ordinance in Romans 13:2 above is the Greek "diatage". God gave such ordinances before: Acts 7:53 says "you who received the law as ordained [Gr. diatage] by angels, and yet did not keep it." Why don't you keep the Old Testament laws as God ordained them? Because Christ came to make a difference to how we must meet his requirements. We can't be saved by keeping even divinely ordained laws and rituals, but we can affiliate ourselves with Christ, who fulfills them.

 

[Jenyar]

Or course Jesus didn't come from a long line of Melchizeded priests. That priesthood had been replaced, but Jesus came to restore all things. Because he was a priest after Melchizedek, he came to restore that priest hood, which he did by appointing Peter the holder of all the keys of the priesthood. And melchizedek wasn't the only one. It wasn't a unique position. I will say that it isn't given simply by being somone's son, though, like the aaronic priesthood. It is given by god, through others who hold the priesthood.

Even Melchizedek's priesthood is said to be forever: "like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." There is nothing to replace. The Levitical priesthood was contained in Abraham, and represented his ancestry. It wasn't unique because it depended on genealogy and the limitations of men ("there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office"). In contrast to this, Hebrews says Jesus qualified "on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."

If that's the basis for Christ's ordination as high priest, there can simply be no other high priest anymore. And hebrews confirms this: "because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood" (v.24). The word for "permanent" ("unchangeable" in the KJV) is aparabatos: "unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor".

 

[Jenyar]

There may be many gods, and even for paul this was true 1 Cor 8:5 "as there be gods many, and lords many." But of course we also beleive v 6 "but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

As long as you understand the argument here is that there are indeed many "lords" and "gods" as far as men are concerned - i.e. by pagan understanding - but Christians should know there is but one God, and one Lord. He specifically redefines how we should understand the terms "God" and "Lord" as opposed to their common usage. Jesus did the same when he explained how his disciples should understand the honorific terms "rabbi", "father" and "teacher":

Matt. 23:8-10 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.​

I don't know how long it survived, but I do think it lasted more than just a single generation. It was definitely necessary. Look at what the Catholic Church did, changing the gospel until you had to buy your salvation, and you had confess to priests, and they started baptising infants, a practise that was never done by the original christians, as they only did baptism after one repented of their sins. And now look at how many different sects of christianity there are, and all their different interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This speaks of confusion, because they aren't following the Gospel in its entirety, and they aren't being led by a prophet who had all the keys to the priesthood, which Jesus leads.

Don't let me give you the list of LDS denominations as well. A denomination is not a sect if it's commonly accepted (although sectarian notions can sometimes be found within churches, as is also true in LDS churches). And it usually speaks more of egotism than confusion. The reformation was a specific reaction to such elitism - and against the very type of thing the Mormon church does now: presuming to have the authority to dispense "better" salvations and "higher" exaltations. In Catholic terms, a "saint" is also someone who's supposed to go straight to God's side because of his exemplary performance on earth. I found this Comparison interesting.

But abuse of something does not mean that something is lost, just that it is abused. If the gospel wasn't still available, Luther would have had nothing to return to. Yet because of the Bible he was able to say with confidence:

"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."​

The testimony of the apostles survived at least that long, and it's easy to understand why no Mormon has ever been able to pinpoint the time when "plain and precious" things got lost. The earliest manuscripts survive from the second and third generation of Christians (Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, and the recipients of Paul's letters), so what was "lost" were either lost after the first generation, or it survived to this day.

There aren't new ordincances. These are ordincances that have been around whenever the Gospel was on the earth in its fullness.
You mention 1 Cor 7:8-34. Did you read verse 6? It says "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." What he says was his own opinions of marriage, which God gave him permission to speak because it's usefull for some people, but God did not give him a command to speak it, because it is not necessary.

In verse 6, "this" refers to what he said in verse 5. The concession he makes is that sexual deprivation is permissable by mutual consent, for a time. He certainly didn't mean "each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband" was just his opinion, something God does not command. That's why he picks up on his original thought again in verse 8: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am."

He goes on to praise the merits of remaining unmarried, even saying it is better under some circumstance not to marry (v.38). His reasons for advising against marriage is "that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord". If what you say about eternal marriage and "exaltation" is true, it is inconceivable that Paul would say such a thing. You must conclude he knew nothing about priesthood authority.

Regarding celestial marriage. It is not necessary for salvation. It is only necessary for exaltation in the highest degree.

The Bible makes no distinction between being saved by Christ and being seated with Him on his throne. Just line up all the "he who overcomes" verses in the Bible as I have done earlier, and you will be able to see this for yourself. In contrast, it says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). There is no space inbetween being saved and being condemned, for salvation means that their is no condemnation left; there is nothing to keep one from sharing Christ's glory:

Rom. 8:1-3 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.​

But D&C 132:4, when it speaks about the covenant of eternal marriage, says "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

The Bible says those who are saved share Christ's resurrection (the first resurrection), and therefore his glory. It says we needed to be saved because we could not do what the law required. But D&C says those who are saved remain angels because of the law: "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

 

[Jenyar]

They didn't all hold all the keys. James and John held some of the keys. Peter was the only one who held all the keys. The prophet is the only one at any time on this earth who ever hold all the keys at one time. He is the one who holds them at this time.

You said Peter was given the keys to the priesthood, and imply hat those are the only keys that matter. Yet the Bible says the disciples could "bind and loose" as easily and with as much authority as Peter (Matt. 18:18). In fact, Peter and John are sent by the other apostles (Acts 8:14). How can someone with less authority send anyone anywhere? Not to mention that there are never any "priesthood" keys mentioned - they are called the keys of the kingdom of heaven. If they were the keys, what would "other" keys be good for?

And if only one prophet holds these keys legitimately, why do others exercise authority with them?

 

[Jenyar]

If all you want is to be saved, all you have to do is beleive on the name of Jesus, for he died that we might be saved. But the glory to which we are resurected, (for there are many glories John 14:2 "in my Father's house are many mansions") is determined by how well we follow the example Christ set for us, including his example in the way of the priesthood.

The Bible says the goal of our faith is "the salvation of our souls" (1 Peter 1:9). Do you disagree? The apostles expresses this hope not only for themselves:

Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession​

I'm sure you understand what it means to be marked with a seal - to be sealed by God as a son, to share in the inheritance of Christ himself. Not the inheritance of angels...

In regards to where the D&C says the saved will be without eternal marriage: "Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory" (132:16), the Bible says this:

Hebrews 1:14
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?​

The Bible places salvation above angels, while the D&C places it on the level of the angels ("forever in their saved condition"), but below the "exalted".

Sorry I broke it up into a whole bunch of little posts, but I find this easier.

I find it easier too, but as you can see it makes me write more. Take your time reading everything, and responding if you want to.

 

[Marlin]

If we are all brothers in sisters in the family of God, it is in a way unlike Jesus was God's son. If you believe we are physically engendered by God, that means Jesus wasn't; If you believe Jesus was, it means we weren't. The Bible precludes your perspective that it must be a physical "likeness", since Adam and Jesus both bore God's image. And no two people are carbon copies - if its a mere physical uniqueness, it means we're all "only begotten".

Jesus is God's "only begotten," meaning He is the only Son out of all of us who is physically begotten of God. The rest of us are spirit children of God but our physical bodies are begotten of our parents. God is Jesus's physical parent. Adam had no physical parents in the sense of a sperm and egg cell uniting--he was formed from the dust, yet he bore God's image anyway. So Jesus is indeed unique in having a physical parentage of God that no one else has.

 

[Jenyar]

Jesus is God's "only begotten," meaning He is the only Son out of all of us who is physically begotten of God. The rest of us are spirit children of God but our physical bodies are begotten of our parents. God is Jesus's physical parent. Adam had no physical parents in the sense of a sperm and egg cell uniting--he was formed from the dust, yet he bore God's image anyway. So Jesus is indeed unique in having a physical parentage of God that no one else has.

That might have been a valid conclusion if Jesus' unique sonship depended only on his physical incarnation by a spiritual Father (it would help if you provide authoritive support for your assertions). But the Bible seems clear that Jesus was already God's "One and Only" Son before he was "born of a woman, born under law" (Gal. 4:4):

John 1:10-14
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only [monogenes], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 10:36 ... the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world...

1 John 4:9 (KJV) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.​

Nobody can claim any default relationship with God - He bestows it. It is stated in other ways as well: "the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons... In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring" (Rom. 9).

 

[Marlin]

That might have been a valid conclusion if Jesus' unique sonship depended only on his physical incarnation by a spiritual Father (it would help if you provide authoritive support for your assertions). But the Bible seems clear that Jesus was already God's "One and Only" Son before he was "born of a woman, born under law" (Gal. 4:4):

John 1:10-14
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only [monogenes], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 10:36 ... the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world...

1 John 4:9 (KJV) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.​

Jesus was Jehovah in the pre-existence; that is, He was already God before He was born, and by and through Him, the universe was created.

Nobody can claim any default relationship with God - He bestows it. It is stated in other ways as well: "the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons... In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring" (Rom. 9).

We are spirit children of God, but those who obey God are given the power to become His sons (and daughters) in the sense that we become adopted heirs of His kingdom. All of us can claim spiritual descent from God, but we are not heirs of His kingdom unless we are obedient to His laws and covenants.

 

[The Goose]

There were only two people who ever fit the description of that "order": Melchizedek himself, and Christ. Hebrews says, "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears..." (Heb. 7:15). It would not have been "more clear" if Melchizedek priests were frequent, since the whole point of Christ's unique qualification would be completely lost: the first Melchizedek was called "king of righteousness" and "king of peace"; Jesus was "king of righteousness" and "king of peace"; "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Jethro was "the priest of Midian" (Ex. 3:1; 18:1) and also a Kenite (Judges 1:16). He has a father and mother, he has seven daughters, one of whom Moses marries, and he shares a genealogical link with Moses. But Melchizedek was "king of Salem" which means "king of peace" (Heb. 7:2). Someone who is not "king of Salem" therfore does not fit the Melchizedek identification of being "king of peace". Who typifies the kingdom of Salem, the kings of Jerusalem (meaning "city of peace" or "foundation of peace")? David. Whose throne was established forever? David's. Who inherited that throne? "The son of David" and "King of Israel": Jesus - who entered Jerusalem on a donkey, as the king predicted in Zech. 9:9 (Matt. 21; John 12).

Matt. 5:34-35 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.​

Jethro was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. That was the only order of priests there was at that time. The lesser aaronic priesthood hadn't yet been set up, so he was a high priest. Priesthood isn't passed down by who had the most in comman with the guy it was named after. That would be rediculous. Just because Jethro wasn't a king, just because the Bible tells more about his histroy than that of Melchizedek, does not mean that he was not a priest of the most high God, or a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek had a father and had a mother, and probably had a wife and kids, too. It just isn't talked about. Where it says that he had no father and mother in Heb 7:3, that's a confusing translation. It doesn't mean the Melchizedek had to family. It is the order that has no father, mother, geneology (meaning it's not passed down through geneologies like the aaronic priesthood) beggninning or end. And when it says "he remains a priest forever" the "he" is anybody who holds the priesthood, because those who are ordained into the priesthood get to be a part of something the Jesus was a part of, and get to have that priesthood forever.