Melchizedek & Abraham

[KristofferUmfrey]

In an earlier thread someone mentioned that the law of plural marriage is presided over by the "President of the High Priesthood". Melchizedek was the President over the High Priesthood when Abraham when living. Why was Melchizedek not mentioned at all in the story of Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to her husband?

I know the likely answer is "Well, the scriptures don't tell us everything." But if there is someone out there who has a perspective on this please offer it up.

[daynf]

Great question! The simplest answer is that the Old Testament isn't a detailed history of the Jewish people. Yes, history is included, but it is not the purpose behind it's existence. Instead the Bible uses the historic back drop of real people and places to teach us lessons. If Melchizedek had a role in Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to her husband, it may not have been important enough to the lesson being taught to be written.

Its kinda like telling a joke. If you want to tell a joke, you don't include unimportant details. For example: "A horse walks into a bar, and the bartender say why the long face." You wouldn't tell the joke like this, "On January 08, 2009 a horse belonging to John Doe escaped his stable. He wondered a few blocks down Pine St. until it happened upon Jimmy's Bar and Grill, The horse forced its way into the front screen door scaring many of the patrons inside. Police quickly responded and return the horse to Mr. Doe. In an interview after the incident, the bartender, Jimmy Cole was asked what his reactions were when the animal entered the Bar. He responded, "I was shocked for a moment then I realized it was just a horse and asked the horse 'why the long face?'. This seemed to lighten the moment for some of the customers that were screaming hysterically" Damage to the Bar is estimated at $200.

Edited January 9, 2009 by daynf

[MarginOfError]

In an earlier thread someone mentioned that the law of plural marriage is presided over by the "President of the High Priesthood". Melchizedek was the President over the High Priesthood when Abraham when living. Why was Melchizedek not mentioned at all in the story of Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to her husband?

I know the likely answer is "Well, the scriptures don't tell us everything." But if there is someone out there who has a perspective on this please offer it up.

I don't recall anyone saying plural marriages were presided over by the President of the High Priesthood, but by one having authority, such as a prophet. What's more, we don't even know if the Priesthood was governed by quorums at that time in history. We don't know if the Priesthood was divided into offices. The first case we have of Priesthood authority being segmented into offices with different rights and responsibilities is with Moses when he called Aaron and the seventy elders.

Besides, we don't know how much time transpired between Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek and his taking of Hagar. By that time, Abraham may have been the ranking holder of the Priesthood. Your question is well taken, but the record is not detailed enough to provide the answer in this case. That's why we look for patterns throughout the scriptures to help us understand how things were handled.

[KristofferUmfrey]

I don't recall anyone saying plural marriages were presided over by the President of the High Priesthood, but by one having authority, such as a prophet. What's more, we don't even know if the Priesthood was governed by quorums at that time in history. We don't know if the Priesthood was divided into offices. The first case we have of Priesthood authority being segmented into offices with different rights and responsibilities is with Moses when he called Aaron and the seventy elders.

Besides, we don't know how much time transpired between Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek and his taking of Hagar. By that time, Abraham may have been the ranking holder of the Priesthood. Your question is well taken, but the record is not detailed enough to provide the answer in this case. That's why we look for patterns throughout the scriptures to help us understand how things were handled.

Since the topic was not only locked but removed completely I have no way to show you the quote.

[Hemidakota]

In an earlier thread someone mentioned that the law of plural marriage is presided over by the "President of the High Priesthood". Melchizedek was the President over the High Priesthood when Abraham when living. Why was Melchizedek not mentioned at all in the story of Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to her husband?

I know the likely answer is "Well, the scriptures don't tell us everything." But if there is someone out there who has a perspective on this please offer it up.

Besides holding the keys to administer the basic covenant of eternal marriage, the living prophet and president of the Church controlled the practice of giving plural wives. "There is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred," Joseph Smith declared. In the first public discourse on the subject of plural marriage, Orson Pratt reaffirmed this fact. "The Lord has set bounds and restrictions to these things," he declared; "He has told us . . . that only one man can hold these keys upon the earth at the same time; and they belong to that man who stands at the head to preside over all the affairs of the Church and kingdom of God in the last days."

The practice of taking plural wives was strictly regulated. "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord, and not a house of confusion," the revelation on plural marriage stated. "Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?" Orson Pratt said:

How are these things to be conducted? Are they to be left at random? Is every servant of God at liberty to run here and there, seeking out the daughters of men as wives unto themselves without any restrictions, law, or condition? No. We find these things were restricted in ancient times. Do you not recollect the circumstances of the Prophet Nathan's coming to David? He came to reprove him for certain disobedience, and told him about the wives he had lost through it; that the Lord would give them to another; and he told him, if he had been faithful, that the Lord would have given him still more, if he had only asked for them. Nathan the Prophet, in relation to David, was the man that held the keys concerning this matter in ancient days; and it was governed by the strictest laws.

So in these last days . . . there is but one man in all the world, at the same time, who can hold the keys of this matter, but one man has power to turn the key to enquire of the Lord, and to say whether I, or these my brethren, or any of the rest of this congregation, or the Saints upon the face of the whole earth, may have this blessing of Abraham conferred upon them; he holds the keys of these matters now, the same as Nathan, in his day.

There was a moral reason for placing restrictions on the taking of plural wives. George Q. Cannon explained that this was "a principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity, might lead men into great sin." For this reason he argued that the priesthood was "necessary to guide and control men" in the practice of taking plural wives.

[Hemidakota]

In the revelation to the Prophet on eternal and plural marriage, the Lord repeatedly made reference to the law as being the same that was given to Abraham in ancient times. He also spoke of the "law of Sarah." The law God gave to Abraham under the Holy Priesthood was the full law of the divine patriarchal order of marriage, including the law of plural wives. Under this law a righteous man was required to take additional wives when he was so commanded of the Lord. The law of Sarah governed the expected actions of a man's first wife when her husband was directed to take other wives.

"God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife," the Lord said of Sarah's actions. "And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people." The same obligation rested upon the first wife of every man who was commanded of God to practice plural marriage. She was expected to fulfil "the law of Sarah." The revelation setting forth that law said:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

The first wife's right to give or withhold consent was the right to be considered and consulted by her husband in taking a second wife. It was also the right to express her judgment about whether her husband had been faithful to his covenant with her, was a true father according to the standard required by the gospel, and conformed to the law of God in the way he was taking another wife. If he did not adequately meet these requirements, his first wife's refusal to give her consent could prevent him from taking another wife.

But a wife could not use this right to prevent her husband from taking a second wife if he was fulfilling his obligations to her and his family, and if he proceeded to take another companion according to the law of God. Her failure to give consent under these circumstances released him from the obligation to act with her approbation. Here was a delicate, but important, reconciliation of authority and consent in the affairs of the home. Orson Pratt explained:

When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, as revealed to the ancient patriarchs, and as manifested by new revelation, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then it becomes necessary for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent: if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable, and the husband is found in the fault or in transgression, then he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the Prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar unto Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Billhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob.

[MarginOfError]

Since the topic was not only locked but removed completely I have no way to show you the quote.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Whoever said that polygamous marriage is to be administered by the President of the High Priesthood making an inaccurate statement. That may be something applicable to the latest dispensation, but we have no way of knowing how the administration of such practice would be handled as the Church’s membership grew into the millions. That’s why it is more appropriate to say it is administered by someone given proper authority.

I certainly hope you don’t have my comments in mind, because I have them in pdf form and such a statement does not exist in them.

[Wingnut]

Great question! The simplest answer is that the Old Testament isn't a detailed history of the Jewish people. Yes, history is included, but it is not the purpose behind it's existence. Instead the Bible uses the historic back drop of real people and places to teach us lessons. If Melchizedek had a role in Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to her husband, it may not have been important enough to the lesson being taught to be written.

Its kinda like telling a joke. If you want to tell a joke, you don't include unimportant details. For example: "A horse walks into a bar, and the bartender say why the long face." You wouldn't tell the joke like this, "On January 08, 2009 a horse belonging to John Doe escaped his stable. He wondered a few blocks down Pine St. until it happened upon Jimmy's Bar and Grill, The horse forced its way into the front screen door scaring many of the patrons inside. Police quickly responded and return the horse to Mr. Doe. In an interview after the incident, the bartender, Jimmy Cole was asked what his reactions were when the animal entered the Bar. He responded, "I was shocked for a moment then I realized it was just a horse and asked the horse 'why the long face?'. This seemed to lighten the moment for some of the customers that were screaming hysterically" Damage to the Bar is estimated at $200.

I thought Palerider was the mod with a horse. John Doe has one, too?

[Hemidakota]

In an earlier thread someone mentioned that the law of plural marriage is presided over by the "President of the High Priesthood". Melchizedek was the President over the High Priesthood when Abraham when living. Why was Melchizedek not mentioned at all in the story of Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to her husband?

I know the likely answer is "Well, the scriptures don't tell us everything." But if there is someone out there who has a perspective on this please offer it up.

Simplified the answer, Abraham received under revelation from the Lord in taking additional wives. He was a living prophet and process the keys to do so.

In stressing again that the principle of law governed the taking of plural wives, the Lord said in the same revelation:

"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones."

Obedience, not the practice of the principle, was the primary reason for their exaltation.

[Traveler]

It is also possible that when Abraham and Sarah added an additional wife to the family that Melchizedek was no longer serving in the office of High Priest but that office had been given to Abraham.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Noting that Melchizedek was living not far from Abraham settlement, the City of Salem, his own disappearance [raise to immorality] is mystery itself.

As you stated, it is clouded for now on what did transpire during the time when the "Great High Priest" was officiating when Abraham was living in the area. All I do know, he was still around when Lot was rescued and he paid his tithing.

[Hemidakota]

To further add here, being consistent with the fact that monogamy was the basic law of marriage within the kingdom of God, a revelation first set forth the doctrine of eternal marriage as it relates to "a man" and "a wife," then explained that when God commands, a man could marry more than one living wife. Such was the case with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon-except when David unlawfully took the wife of Uriah to be his own. In explaining how this practice was justified, the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith:

Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him. . . .

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

[Just_A_Guy]

It is also possible that when Abraham and Sarah added an additional wife to the family that Melchizedek was no longer serving in the office of High Priest but that office had been given to Abraham.

An even more plausible idea if one accepts the (arguable) theory that Melchizedek and Shem (son of Noah) were one and the same person--Shem/Melchizedek would have getting on in years by the time of their first meeting, and may not have lingered on earth much longer than that.

[Hemidakota]

The people who lived after the deluge had also good opportunity to hear the gospel at first hand. Noah lived well into the days of Abraham.

Shem, the son of Noah, knew three of the original patriarchs, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah, so that this knowledge of the gospel was only one person removed from Adam. And Shem lived to know personally Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, Abraham died before Shem.

[Hemidakota]

An even more plausible idea if one accepts the (arguable) theory that Melchizedek and Shem (son of Noah) were one and the same person--Shem/Melchizedek would have getting on in years by the time of their first meeting, and may not have lingered on earth much longer than that.

Noting the term 'The Great High Priest' was given to both Shem and Melchizedek, raises possibilities of that fact.

According to Mohammad, Abraham was one of the early advocates of monotheism and fully recognized Allah as the creator.

An Arabian story relates that Abraham in his youth studied under Shem, son of Noah; that together they created a person out of earth and water; and that the figure was made to live and speak.

[Just_A_Guy]

And Shem lived to know personally Abraham . . .

OK

. . . Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, Abraham died before Shem.

Out of curiosity, what are your sources on that?

[Hemidakota]

No doubt...I would ask the same.

References:

Genesis 7:6; 9:28, 29; 11:12-24, 26-32; 12;1-7; 15:16; 21:4, 5; 26:1-5; 35;27-29; 46; 47:1-12, 27-31; 48; 49;

Book of Moses 8:12;

Book of Abraham 2:5;

Galatians 3:16-18;

Exodus 6:16, 19;

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 1:5, 6;

Josephus, Bk. 11:15:2

Some historical data captured from the above references:

SHEM: [birth] 1548 [death] 2158

Abraham: [birth ] 1948 [death] 2123

Shem, Noah's second son, lived 108 years before the deluge and 502 years after the deluge.

Noah had cooperation in his gospel-proclamation during the 350 years he lived after the deluge, from his son, Shem, and further from Arphaxad, Salah, Heber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor (terah became a worshiper of idols, so he cannot be counted); further from Abraham during a period of 58 years (2006-1948).

Shem had cooperation from the same men, his own grandsons after Arphaxad, if the named men all remained faithful in God's service; and his years of life reached down to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Patriarch Jacob was born A.M. 2108, and Shem, 610 years old, died A.M. 2158. Jacob was exactly 50 years old a the time of Shem's death; and most likely these four great men, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with them, had known each other most intimately.