Aaronic Priesthood taken from the earth?

[zil]

So, this morning's scripture study included this verse:

Quote

D&C 13:1  Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

...and it struck me that the wording suggests that once the sons of Levi make this offering, then, perhaps¹ this priesthood will be taken from the earth.  Thoughts?

¹I suppose the wording could just be for emphasis, but the last phrase could have been left off and that would be even more emphatic, so I'm thinking perhaps it will be taken.  If this offering is, say, the last offering of the millennium, then that would make sense as only the Melchizedek Priesthood would remain once this earth is celestialized.  If it's the start of the millennium, it would imply that the Aaronic Priesthood won't be needed / used during the millennium...  Anywho, just got me to wondering and thought I'd see if any of you have thoughts on the implications of that final phrase.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

So, this morning's scripture study included this verse:

...and it struck me that the wording suggests that once the sons of Levi make this offering, then, perhaps¹ this priesthood will be taken from the earth.  Thoughts?

¹I suppose the wording could just be for emphasis, but the last phrase could have been left off and that would be even more emphatic, so I'm thinking perhaps it will be taken.  If this offering is, say, the last offering of the millennium, then that would make sense as only the Melchizedek Priesthood would remain once this earth is celestialized.  If it's the start of the millennium, it would imply that the Aaronic Priesthood won't be needed / used during the millennium...  Anywho, just got me to wondering and thought I'd see if any of you have thoughts on the implications of that final phrase.

FWIW, Joseph Smith - History includes a lengthy quotation from Oliver Cowdery; and Cowdery’s account replaces “until” with “that”.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW, Joseph Smith - History includes a lengthy quotation from Oliver Cowdery; and Cowdery’s account replaces “until” with “that”.

"and this shall never be taken again from the earth, that the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

...doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to me...  Going off to read now...  Erm, I'm reading it now, verse 69. and it says "until" (the comma before it is missing, which works better for me anyway).  Maybe in a previous version?

ETA: Found another instance.  Reading.... BRB.

Edited March 5, 2018 by zil

[zil]

Quote

But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, ‘Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!

OK, this phrasing makes sense, but definitely doesn't carry the same meaning (to me) as the other phrasing (as if they're saying two different things).

I think I mentioned in my OP (...checking...), yeah, that it could be emphatic and doesn't necessarily have to imply what it seems to imply (and that's OK).  Interesting the two different memories of the occasion / words spoken.  I'm OK with whatever the meaning is, just curious.

Thanks for your thoughts and the reference, @Just_A_Guy.

[Guest]

Quote

which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!

This phrase, apparently, has caused much discussion about whether animal sacrifice would return.  Joseph Fielding Smith quoted Joseph Smith, Jr. about sacrifice not being done away.

Here is what I disagree with (and I'm well aware that I'm on weak ground when I'm doubting a Prophet's interpretation of another Prophet's words):  He interpreted the quote as saying that animal sacrifice would be had again in the temples of the Lord.  But I read the quote in full context.  Nowhere in that quote that I could find (I couldn't find the whole document) did it talk about animal sacrifice except that it was the practice of the past.  Instead, Joseph talks about sacrifice of "all things" -- i.e. the Law of Consecration (my interpretation).

So, what is the deal?

[Just_A_Guy]

I have to look it up, but I know there’s at least one source suggesting that animal sacrifice was done at least once in Kirtland; and there is at least one early statement from Brigham Young about how the Salt Lake Temple should be outfitted with a place to accommodate sacrifices.

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

and there is at least one early statement from Brigham Young about how the Salt Lake Temple should be outfitted with a place to accommodate sacrifices.

Yeah, but that's where they put the elevators right?

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Yeah, but that's where they put the elevators right?

I don’t want to know how that sacrifice will go down...

[Fether]

On 3/5/2018 at 8:42 AM, zil said:

So, this morning's scripture study included this verse:

...and it struck me that the wording suggests that once the sons of Levi make this offering, then, perhaps¹ this priesthood will be taken from the earth.  Thoughts?

¹I suppose the wording could just be for emphasis, but the last phrase could have been left off and that would be even more emphatic, so I'm thinking perhaps it will be taken.  If this offering is, say, the last offering of the millennium, then that would make sense as only the Melchizedek Priesthood would remain once this earth is celestialized.  If it's the start of the millennium, it would imply that the Aaronic Priesthood won't be needed / used during the millennium...  Anywho, just got me to wondering and thought I'd see if any of you have thoughts on the implications of that final phrase.

The Nephites lived just fine without the Aaronic priesthood... after all what is it? Just a preparatory priesthood. When all is said and done there will be no need for it.

[Guest]

I have always seen the Aaronic Priesthood as a small part or component of the Melchizadek Priesthood rather than a separate thing.  In other words, my understanding is that getting the Aaronic Priesthood is really basically getting a small part of the Melchizadek Priesthood early.  Once everyone has the Melchizadek Priesthood, they will have the Aaronic Priesthood as part of the Melchizadek Priesthood.

Edited March 8, 2018 by DoctorLemon

[wenglund]

On 3/5/2018 at 8:42 AM, zil said:

So, this morning's scripture study included this verse:

...and it struck me that the wording suggests that once the sons of Levi make this offering, then, perhaps¹ this priesthood will be taken from the earth.  Thoughts?

¹I suppose the wording could just be for emphasis, but the last phrase could have been left off and that would be even more emphatic, so I'm thinking perhaps it will be taken.  If this offering is, say, the last offering of the millennium, then that would make sense as only the Melchizedek Priesthood would remain once this earth is celestialized.  If it's the start of the millennium, it would imply that the Aaronic Priesthood won't be needed / used during the millennium...  Anywho, just got me to wondering and thought I'd see if any of you have thoughts on the implications of that final phrase.

It makes sense to me that once there is a change in the  conditions that necessitated bring the Aaronic priesthood to earth, that the Aaronic priesthood would be taken from the earth. Fore, it would no longer be needed. Once things have progressed to where they were intended, there is no longer a need for preparation, or a preparatory priesthood.

To me, this has no bearing on the law of sacrifice since that law preceded the law of Moses and the earthly advent of the Aaronic priesthood, and will continue after the sons of Aaron offer up a sacrifice--which, to me, may entail blessing and partaking of the sacrament in remembrance of the great and last sacrifice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 9, 2018 by wenglund

[Vort]

On 3/5/2018 at 7:59 AM, zil said:

"and this shall never be taken again from the earth, that the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

...doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to me...  Going off to read now...  Erm, I'm reading it now, verse 69. and it says "until" (the comma before it is missing, which works better for me anyway).  Maybe in a previous version?

ETA: Found another instance.  Reading.... BRB.

"Until" can mean "to the end that". That appears to possibly be the case here.

Note that a sacrifice need not be a blood sacrifice. The atonement did away with blood sacrifice, as far as I know. I haven't found an argument yet to convince me otherwise, various speculations notwithstanding.

[zil]

I can't think of a use for "until" that doesn't correspond with these: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/until.  And none of those seem to correspond with "so that" or "in order that".  But none of that dictates a thing.  I'm also not concerned with whatever sacrifice the sons of Levi will offer; I was just curious what other folks thought of the language - whether to interpret it literally (as there with come a point at which the Aaronic Priesthood is in fact taken away), or whether folks thought it was more likely emphatic in nature (like saying "this thing is gonna take forever").

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I can't think of a use for "until" that doesn't correspond with these: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/until.

I'm looking at

4. To the point or place of.

But regardless, that's my personal understanding. I don't claim it as authoritative, but it neatly reconciles Joseph's and Oliver's different recollections of John's wording.

[zil]

Just now, Vort said:

I'm looking at

4. To the point or place of.

But regardless, that's my personal understanding. I don't claim it as authoritative, but it neatly reconciles Joseph's and Oliver's different recollections of John's wording.

I kinda figured - you and I seem to perceive certain phrases regarding time and space differently.  To me, that and the example clearly mean "to a specific geographic point" - where "point" is a location, not a purpose or intent.  They do not mean (to me) "for the purpose of" or "so that something else can happen" or "in order to facilitate other events" or whatever.

I don't see any necessary conflict between my interpretation of "until" in the D&C wording and Oliver's recollections, despite their (apparent) different focus - Oliver could be saying "in order that" and Joseph could be saying "until after that happens" - in both cases, "that" is facilitated.  In one case, whether the Aaronic Priesthood remains thereafter isn't specified; in the other case, it appears that the Aaronic Priesthood will have filled its purpose and no longer exist on this earth.  But the two need not conflict - one just adds something the other doesn't address.  But I'm fully aware that this may not be the intent at all, and I'm being too literal (  ).

Anywho, we've probably beaten this poor horse to death...

[Just_A_Guy]

53 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Until" can mean "to the end that". That appears to possibly be the case here.

Note that a sacrifice need not be a blood sacrifice. The atonement did away with blood sacrifice, as far as I know. I haven't found an argument yet to convince me otherwise, various speculations notwithstanding.

Our own @Suzie has previously pointed to the journal of Wandle Mace for the proposition that at least one animal sacrifice was performed in Kirtland.  Heber C. Kimball’s journal records Brigham Young prophesying that animal sacrifice would someday be done in the Salt Lake Temple; and Wilford Woodruff’s journal as of 1857 records that the original plan was for the altar to be under the west (Aaronic Priesthood) pulpits in the Salt Lake temple. But it’s hard to know which floor this would have been on (the original plans for the SL temple called for two assembly rooms, one above the other, similar to Nauvoo) and I’m not aware of any record confirming that such an altar was ever incorporated into the finished structure. 

[person0]

On 3/5/2018 at 10:42 AM, zil said:

Thoughts?

The Aaronic priesthood didn't exist on earth until it became necessary, because the people were not worthy to bear the Melchizedek Priesthood.  As you may already know, there is really only one priesthood, but what we call the Aaronic Priesthood is just a small restricted use subset of the priesthood.  I assume it was not even in use until Moses came along.  In this context, it seems entirely reasonable to me that once the people are worthy and prepared to no longer have need for a lesser priesthood, then it will be removed and once more only the Melchizedek priesthood would exist once more.  Just my thoughts, anyway.

Additionally, all priesthood holders in the Book of Mormon held only the Melchizedek priesthood (Source), which should serve as evidence that the Aaronic priesthood is not necessary except as a limitation to the full priesthood.

[wenglund]

On 3/9/2018 at 1:29 PM, Vort said:

"Until" can mean "to the end that". That appears to possibly be the case here.

Note that a sacrifice need not be a blood sacrifice. The atonement did away with blood sacrifice, as far as I know. I haven't found an argument yet to convince me otherwise, various speculations notwithstanding.

It is my understanding that blood sacrifice was replaced with the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Suzie]

On 3/9/2018 at 5:38 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Our own @Suzie has previously pointed to the journal of Wandle Mace for the proposition that at least one animal sacrifice was performed in Kirtland.  Heber C. Kimball’s journal records Brigham Young prophesying that animal sacrifice would someday be done in the Salt Lake Temple; and Wilford Woodruff’s journal as of 1857 records that the original plan was for the altar to be under the west (Aaronic Priesthood) pulpits in the Salt Lake temple. But it’s hard to know which floor this would have been on (the original plans for the SL temple called for two assembly rooms, one above the other, similar to Nauvoo) and I’m not aware of any record confirming that such an altar was ever incorporated into the finished structure. 

@Just_A_Guy How much do we trust his wife?

[Just_A_Guy]

40 minutes ago, Suzie said:

@Just_A_Guy How much do we trust his wife?

I don’t follow . . . Was it Mace’s wife who kept the journal?

[Suzie]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t follow . . . Was it Mace’s wife who kept the journal?

I know his second wife wrote his autobiography : "As told to his wife Rebecca E. Howell Mace" and I believe she also kept his journal.

[mordorbund]

12 hours ago, Suzie said:

I know his second wife wrote his autobiography : "As told to his wife Rebecca E. Howell Mace" and I believe she also kept his journal.

You can do that?!

HONEY!!!....

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

You can do that?!

HONEY!!!....

Do you know what you're getting in to?  Your journal will be a description of YOU through your wife's eyes.  Is that what you want preserved through all posterity?

[mordorbund]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you know what you're getting in to?  Your journal will be a description of YOU through your wife's eyes.  Is that what you want preserved through all posterity?

Doesn't matter. I'll be dead.

[askandanswer]

On 06/03/2018 at 2:42 AM, zil said:

D&C 13:1  Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Maybe this is just the Lord's round-about kind of way of saying that it will never happen. Sort of like saying this shall never be taken from the earth until the Tampa Bay Buccaneers win the Rose Bowl or until Zil realises the foolishness of fountain pens. It just ain't gonna happen.