Until the Sons of Levi make an offering in righteousness...


Guest mormonmusic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Missing from the chart is the office of a prophet, which is an office within the higher priesthood. There are five offices within this priesthood. Patriarch is another office that needs to be added.

Prophet is not an office in the priesthood, but an assignment given to an Apostle to preside over the Church. No one is ordained to be a prophet, but is, instead, set apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure? :)

Pretty Sure

The Ordained Offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood

The ordained offices in the higher priesthood are:

Elder

High Priest

Patriarch

Seventy

Apostle

LDS.org - Ensign Article - What Every Elder Should Know—and Every Sister as Well: A Primer on Principles of Priesthood Government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use the Aaronic Priesthood today in a very different way than used in ancient days, or even in Joseph Smith's day. Today it is used as a preparatory stage for young men to prepare for the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is not much different than having them work in Boy Scouts - to prepare for manhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Useful information MOE, do you have a source on this one? Also, are we to assume that the youth in the Church would receive no priesthod until they are old enough for the Melchizedek, or would they receive it younger? (Hard to imagine the average 12 year old holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, in my view).

I find it a bit disturbing that the Church uses the Aaronic Priesthood as a Youth program. It was never intended to be that. The Aaronic Priesthood is responisble for the Temporal welfare of the Saints. The age of the person is really irrelevant. But we have become so accustomed to having the Aaronic Priesthood mean Youth program that we, myself included, often forget the actual meaning of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it a bit disturbing that the Church uses the Aaronic Priesthood as a Youth program. It was never intended to be that. The Aaronic Priesthood is responisble for the Temporal welfare of the Saints. The age of the person is really irrelevant. But we have become so accustomed to having the Aaronic Priesthood mean Youth program that we, myself included, often forget the actual meaning of the Aaronic Priesthood.

It seems like every time I open this thread I have to make the same statement.

If the Aaronic Priesthood is responsible for the temporal welfare of the saints, then the Melchizedek Priesthood is responsible for the temporal welfare of the saints.

And no, the Aaronic Priesthood does not exist for the temporal welfare of the saints. The Aaronic Priesthood exists to prepare individuals to receive the fullness of the Priesthood. Temporal welfare is the training ground on which the Aaronic Priesthood accomplishes it. Let's not confuse the means with the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When?

Exactly.

The Book of Mormon specifically mentions the offices of teacher and priest in conjunction with the authority to teach "repentance and remission of sins" (Moro. 3). Interestingly in the next chapter, only priests (and elders) are mentioned as having authority to administer the sacrament (Moro. 4).

Clearly, from our modern example, others besides Levites can hold the Aaronic priesthood in certain circumstances when the High Priesthood is in operation (see D&C 107). However, the Book of Mormon allows for even Levites to have been among them through the Mulekites, who were Jews (Lehites were Manasseh and Ephraim). Judah and the greater part of Benjamin were represented in the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and there were also Levites among all the tribes. We know who was with Lehi and his company, but we don't know who all came with the Mulekites - so it's possible.

Anyway, we know from the great work for the dead that is being performed in our temples that only the Melchizedek priesthood and office of "elder" is required by men for salvation. All priesthood is Melchizedek anyway (see D&C 107 again).

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When?

Did the Nephites have the Aaronic Priesthood? ^_^

What is true for the ancient Israelites may be only partially true for the Nephites. Because the priesthood of administration among ancient Israel was the Aaronic, the people as a body did not enjoy the transcendent privileges that come with the higher priesthood. For example, the average person's contact with temple worship probably consisted of sacrificial offerings made by the designated priests in their behalf. The Nephites, on the other hand, had the higher priesthood. It governed the Church and kingdom in America. "This greater priesthood," a modern revelation sets forth, "administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God" (D&C 84:19). Stated another way, "the power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant" (D&C 107:18-19). Though all of the Nephites obviously did not live worthy of such privileges, many did. Thus Jacob wrote of his people: "We . . . had many revelations, and the spirit of much prophecy; wherefore, we knew of Christ and his kingdom, which should come. Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest" (Jacob 1:6-7). Though the text is silent on the matter, I would suppose that temple worship for the Nephites was much like that of our own day; that is, the people were taught the doctrines of salvation, entered into sacred covenants, and participated in binding ordinances in holy places.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before someone decides to use the sacrifice or the Law of Moses, let me point out something here.

Further, President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: "The Nephites did not officiate under the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood. They were not descendants of Aaron, and there were no Levites among them. There is no evidence that they held the Aaronic Priesthood until after the ministry of the resurrected Lord among them. . . . [The] higher priesthood can officiate in every ordinance of the gospel, and Jacob and Joseph for instance, were consecrated priests and teachers after this [Melchizedek] order." That is to say, priest and teacher (2 Nephi 5:26; Jacob 1:17-18) are words descriptive of ministerial duties in the higher priesthood rather than specific offices in the Aaronic. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:87; see also Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-66), 1:123-26)

As we know, the ordinance of animal sacrifice did not originate with Moses or Aaron. Rather, our first parents were commanded to "worship the Lord their God, and . . . offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord." An angel explained to Adam the doctrinal significance of those offerings: they served as an ever present reminder of the coming of the great and last sacrifice in the meridian of time (see Moses 5:5-8).

Elder McConkie has thus written that since the Nephites "had the fulness of the gospel itself, they kept the law of Moses in the sense that they conformed to its myriad moral principles and its endless ethical restrictions. We suppose this would be one of the reasons Nephi was able to say, 'The law hath become dead unto us.' (2 Nephi 25:25.) There is, at least, no intimation in the Book of Mormon that the Nephites offered the daily sacrifices required by the law or that they held the various feasts that were part of the religious life of their Old World kinsmen." (McConkie, Promised Messiah, p. 427)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me paraphrase my friend’s own word (Elder Lund)

“Moroni includes in this short appendix a prayer used in ordaining priests and teachers. Note that in this prayer they (1) prayed unto the father, (2) prayed in the name of Christ, (3) stated the office to which the person was to be ordained, (4) included a brief blessing and admonition, and (5) closed with the word amen.”

Baptismal covenant is only mentioned to help Joseph with the appropriate wordage to be used and nothing else. Moroni, have already saw the end, thought, it was appropriate to remind him of those words to use.

There is no mentioned of using the lesser priesthood here at all. Nor, you will find anyway in the Book of Mormon. But even Moroni, did not at anytime have the lesser priesthood. If it was, he would have stated it. I personally believe if it was appropriate; he would have stated it prior to the baptismal prayer. What we have now does not constitute what the Nephites had. Let me add this also, nor did the People of Jared have anything less than the higher priesthood.

The questioned will be asked later about the Mulekites since his father was Zedekiah. Zedekiah by birth is a Jew. Did the Mulekites bring the lesser priesthood to the promise land? That can be debated since they failed to keep records. What I can add here, it was Mosiah that controlled the Mulekites and knowing how corrupted the Mulekites (others known as the Jaredites mingled in this same group of people) altered their belief and culture, in being in conformance with the Nephites teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemi,

Just follow along with me for a minute. I'm not saying that the Church operated under the Aaronic Priesthood among the Nephites, nor am I saying that Moroni held the Aaronic priesthood.

I am saying that based on Moroni chapters 3 and 4, it appears that the Aaronic priesthood was in operation under the direction of the Melchizedek priesthood, much like it is in the Church today, but not exactly.

For example, Moroni 3 teaches us that the disciples of Christ were called "elders", which is the proper title for any Melchizedek priesthood in the Church. We are the "Elders of Israel". Specifically it is referring to the twelve disciples as elders, and that they have the authority to ordain "priests" and "teachers", which are offices of the Aaronic priesthood.

How do I know those offices ar specifically Aaronic? Becuase of two things.

1) In Moroni 3, priests and teachers are ordained to "preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ". That's fine and dandy, and it can be argued that that is what all priesthood holders are called to do. However, that is very similar to the ordination Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received at the hand of John the Baptist: He specifically mentions the "gospel of repentance" and the "remission of sins" in conjunction with the Aaronic priesthood.

2) In Moroni 4, only elders (Mechizedek priesthood holders) and "priests" can administer the sacrament. The office of "teacher" is not listed.

The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church (See Moroni 4)

So, clearly, the office of priest and teacher in the Book of Mormon, are Aaronic priesthood offices, since a teacher cannot administer the sacramanet, but a priest can - just like in the Church today.

And what you said about Mulek is how I see it too, it is possible that Levites were among the Nephites. But... we obviously don't need Levites to operate Aaronic priesthood quorums in certain circumstance when we have the Melchizedek Priesthood, like in the Church today.

I am saying that it appears to me that both priesthoods were in operation among the Nephites according to Moroni 3 & 4, being directed of course, by the disciples of Christ who were "elders" in the Melchizedek priesthood.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nephites had positions of teacher, priest, etc., within the Melchizedek Priesthood. We limit the MP offices today to elder, high priest, bishop, patriarch, apostle; but technically could add more positions as needed.

You are making that up. :P Explain to me why "teachers" could not administer the sacrament then, but elders and priests could?

The evidence clearly points to both priesthoods being in operation among the Nephites.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll just throw this in there to support my theory.

Joseph Fielding Smith said, “When the Savior came to the Nephites, he established the Church in its fulness among them, and he informed them that former things had passed away, for they were all fulfilled in him. He gave the Nephites all the authority of the priesthood which we exercise today. Therefore we are justified in the belief that not only was the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred, but also the Aaronic, just as we have it in the Church today; and this Aaronic Priesthood remained with them from this time until, through wickedness, all priesthood ceased. We may be assured that in the days of Moroni the Nephites did ordain teachers and priests in the Aaronic Priesthood; but before the visit of the Savior they officiated in the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:124-26.)

Just like the Church that Christ established in Palestine, the Church in ancient America would have had both priesthoods after his visit.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick notes:

  • 1) Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh (Alma 10:3).
  • 2) We do not know the lineage of Ishmael, but we do know that he was not ranking descendant of Aaron (or else he would have been the high priest), and that is sufficient to prove that Ishmael's family could not have provided the fullness of the Aaronic or Levitical priesthoods.
  • 3) Ishmael's sons followed Laman and Lemuel, and their priesthood, if they had any, would have been irrelevant at that point anyway.
  • 4) Mulek was the son of Zedekiah, who was a descendant of David, and therefore a descendant of Judah. If the Aaronic priesthood were to make it to the America's with his group, he would have had to bring a descendant of Aaron with him (a Levite wasn't enough to perform all of the ordinances of the Mosaic law).
  • 5) Given the apostasy of the Mulekites, there may not have been any priesthood authority anyway
  • 6) While Zarahemla was able to give an oral account of his lineage to Mulek (and Judah), the Mulekites and no records and had lost their chronology and genealogy. Without proof of descendancy, an Israelite had no claim on priesthood authority (Nehemiah 7:64). Thus, the Mulekites could not have been the source of Aaronic Priesthood for the Nephites.

There's nothing to say that the Nephites needed the Aaronic priesthood anyway. Nephi was teaching his people about Christ, and that the law of Moses would be done away. Yet, they performed the sacrifices anyway, because that was the law. They simply adhered to the law with a larger understanding (2 Nephi 25:23 - 24).

There's also no evidence to indicate that the Aaronic Priesthood was in use among the gentile factions of the early Christian Church. None of the early apostles were even Levites, let alone Aaronites, yet they went through Europe ordaining deacons and bishops. And aren't those "offices of the Aaronic Priesthood?"

Now, let's consider Alma. Alma was a descendant of Nephi (Introduction to Helaman), and was thus of the tribe of Manasseh. He had no claim on the Aaronic priesthood, and it's already been established that there was no source for him to receive it. Yet we are told he was a priest, presumably by an ordination from one of Zeniff's priests. The only Priesthood he would have had was the Melchizedek.

But none of that is really relevant, since the Book of Mormon itself clarifies what priesthood the Nephites used.

And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. (Alma 13:1)

Alma then continues to discuss the role of the Priesthood of Melchizedek. But notice again how he spoke of the office of priest after the Holy Order of the Son of God.

Notice also that Alma did just fine baptizing people with his Melchizedek Priesthood.

This insistence that the priesthood has been organized in the same manner throughout all of time is a bit silly. It has no need to be organized the same. And it's absurd to think it always has been, seeing as the Aaronic Priesthood never existed until the time of Aaron anyway. If there was no Aaronic Priesthood in the days of Enoch, under what authority do you suppose they were baptizing people? (see Moses 6).

It should also be noted that the names of offices in the priesthood are arbitrary. The Bible gives the office of 'high priest' as an office of the Aaronic Priesthood, but we recognize it as belonging to the Melchizedek order.

Lastly, I might point out that the inclusion of 'priest' and 'teacher' in the Book of Mormon does not necessarily mean they were offices of the Aaronic priesthood, even if they had similar responsibilities. The only thing it means is that there existed two offices that had similar limitations on rights powers and authorities of whatever priesthood is conferred. Assigning the order based on the evidence in the two chapters in question is an extrapolation, and probably an erroneous one.

To illustrate this, let's suppose a man is baptized, and later is ordained to the office of elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Let's also suppose that he never had the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon him. Can this man ordain another to the office of priest?

The answer is yes, he can, because as an elder, he holds all the rights, privileges, and authorities of the Aaronic Priesthood. They were conferred upon him with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

So, I felt like I've said this 1,000 times in 1,000 different ways on this thread. But if you have the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Aaronic Priesthood is redundant.

Lastly, let's make it very clear that the organization of the Priesthood in our dispensation is not based on the Bible, or is it based on the Book of Mormon. It's based on what's revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 13, 20, 84, 107, 110, 121, and 131. The organization of the priesthood is subject to change at any time should the Lord reveal a change is to be made.

The inclusion of the Aaronic Priesthood is a step and component of the restitution of all things (See Joseph Fielding Smith's comments on this topic in Doctrines of Salvation for a good treatment on the topic).

The presence of the Aaronic Priesthood is not required for the ordinances of baptism or the sacrament. These may be done by authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The existence of the Aaronic Priesthood among the Nephites is, at the very best, indeterminate, but is unlikely and was unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll just throw this in there to support my theory.

Joseph Fielding Smith said, “When the Savior came to the Nephites, he established the Church in its fulness among them, and he informed them that former things had passed away, for they were all fulfilled in him. He gave the Nephites all the authority of the priesthood which we exercise today. Therefore we are justified in the belief that not only was the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred, but also the Aaronic, just as we have it in the Church today; and this Aaronic Priesthood remained with them from this time until, through wickedness, all priesthood ceased. We may be assured that in the days of Moroni the Nephites did ordain teachers and priests in the Aaronic Priesthood; but before the visit of the Savior they officiated in the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:124-26.)

Just like the Church that Christ established in Palestine, the Church in ancient America would have had both priesthoods after his visit.

Regards,

Vanhin

That's an interesting quote that I'll take into consideration. But at the very best, it makes both of us correct, because the Nephites were performing baptisms 120 years before Christ visited the Americas. In other words, for at least 120 years, the Nephites successfully performed baptisms without the presence of the Aaronic Priesthood.

So in answer to the question "When?" with your quote, I can easily say from 92 BC to 34 AD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Guest Doctrine

Hemi,

Just follow along with me for a minute. I'm not saying that the Church operated under the Aaronic Priesthood among the Nephites, nor am I saying that Moroni held the Aaronic priesthood.

I am saying that based on Moroni chapters 3 and 4, it appears that the Aaronic priesthood was in operation under the direction of the Melchizedek priesthood, much like it is in the Church today, but not exactly.

For example, Moroni 3 teaches us that the disciples of Christ were called "elders", which is the proper title for any Melchizedek priesthood in the Church. We are the "Elders of Israel". Specifically it is referring to the twelve disciples as elders, and that they have the authority to ordain "priests" and "teachers", which are offices of the Aaronic priesthood.

How do I know those offices ar specifically Aaronic? Becuase of two things.

1) In Moroni 3, priests and teachers are ordained to "preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ". That's fine and dandy, and it can be argued that that is what all priesthood holders are called to do. However, that is very similar to the ordination Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received at the hand of John the Baptist: He specifically mentions the "gospel of repentance" and the "remission of sins" in conjunction with the Aaronic priesthood.

2) In Moroni 4, only elders (Mechizedek priesthood holders) and "priests" can administer the sacrament. The office of "teacher" is not listed.

The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church (See Moroni 4)

So, clearly, the office of priest and teacher in the Book of Mormon, are Aaronic priesthood offices, since a teacher cannot administer the sacramanet, but a priest can - just like in the Church today.

And what you said about Mulek is how I see it too, it is possible that Levites were among the Nephites. But... we obviously don't need Levites to operate Aaronic priesthood quorums in certain circumstance when we have the Melchizedek Priesthood, like in the Church today.

I am saying that it appears to me that both priesthoods were in operation among the Nephites according to Moroni 3 & 4, being directed of course, by the disciples of Christ who were "elders" in the Melchizedek priesthood.

Regards,

Vanhin

Could the office be Elder and High Priest, like in alma 13 it says only priest but we know he means High Priest.

Also was not brigham young baptized and then ordained a elder in the church, because the aaronic priesthood was not used like it is today until 1908, and again at 1954 when the church saw it was good to get the young men in the priesthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share