Adam And The Priesthood

[Ryan.Samples]

One word: "Calm." Seriously. Hopefully you react with greater restraint when you interact with other non-Mormons, as you've lost most credibility with me. You'd do well not to assume I have or haven't read something because I pose a question in a certain manner. It would also prove helpful for you to remember that the tone you think a poster conveys (snarky in this case) may not exist at the other end of the Internet.

Tell me, is it the case in the church today that the Melch priesthood is bestowed upon an adult male convert who does not first have the Aaronic priesthood? Or is it standing policy that he must hold the lesser for a set period of time? If the latter is in fact the case (as I have been told and at least have seen implied in writing), then you'll see the source of both my reasoning and initial above response.

[mfbukowski]

One word: "Calm." Seriously. Hopefully you react with greater restraint when you interact with other non-Mormons, as you've lost most credibility with me. You'd do well not to assume I have or haven't read something because I pose a question in a certain manner. It would also prove helpful for you to remember that the tone you think a poster conveys (snarky in this case) may not exist at the other end of the Internet.

Tell me, is it the case in the church today that the Melch priesthood is bestowed upon an adult male convert who does not first have the Aaronic priesthood? Or is it standing policy that he must hold the lesser for a set period of time? If the latter is in fact the case (as I have been told and at least have seen implied in writing), then you'll see the source of both my reasoning and initial above response.

edit:

The Aaronic is given a few weeks after baptism, the Melchizadek requires several months and some evidence of faithfulness and worthiness

Perhaps someone else would be better to answer your questions.

I have learned there is a difference in attitude between those who are here to learn and those who are here to say things like "That doesn't make sense" when they don't even understand what is being said. I think that difference is called "respect".

Edited April 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

Thank you Ryan, you are asking good questions. In the Doctrine and Covenavts the Lord has taught that the lesser Aaronic or Levitical priesthood is an "appendage" to the greater Melchizedek priesthood, meaning that it is an extension or part of the same. What that means is that as a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood one can function in the offices of the Aaronic priesthood without having previously been ordained one. It is true that young boys (and recent converts) are first ordained to the Aaronic priesthood prior to ordination to the Melchizedek, but that is not a necessary requirement for them as Melchizedek priesthood holders to officiate in the offices of the lesser Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. A person could be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood without having been previously ordained to the Aaronic, and that would still entitle him to officiate in the offices of the lesser priesthood.

Edited April 28, 2012 by zerinus

[Cobalt-70]

According to the Doctrine and Covenants, there is at least one other prophet who received his priesthood directly from God, and that was Esaias:

D&C 84:

11 And Gad [received the priesthood] under the hand of Esaias;

12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.

In the same section it also says that Adam had the priesthood, which he must have obtained in the same way:

16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—

Oops, I was late to the punch. Zernius, it does not merely imply some kind of priesthood ordination, it is the priesthood ordination, the only one that really matters, as in JST Genesis 14:26-29:

26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.

27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto us many as believed on his name.

D&C 84 and JST represent a conflict. D&C 84 says that Abraham received the Melchizedek priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it from his (Melchizedek's) fathers going back to Noah, Enoch, and Adam. JST Genesis 14, however, says that Melchizedek received his Melchizedek priesthood, not from his fathers going back to Noah, but directly through the voice of God.

By the way, D&C 84 seems to be referring to the Melchizedek priesthood, but is describing it in very patriarchal terms. The Melchizedek priesthood order differs from the Patriarchal priesthood that Abraham 1:3 says Abraham received as a right of "firstborn" from "his fathers" while he was in Chaldea, and not from Melchizedek. It is this Patriarchal priesthood "order" given to "evangelical ministers" that was referenced in D&C 107:39-57, as having been "instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage." Joseph Smith ordained his father to this priesthood, who passed it down to Hyrum, and it is the office of Presiding Patriarch.

Evidently, D&C 84 reflects a confusion between Patriarchal and Melchizedek priesthood lines.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Maidservant]

Priesthood is temporarily lost in the Fall to our mortal tabernacles

It's the other way around. To be born into a body is to enter priesthood and the seeds.

Curious question then. If to hold the Melch you must first hold the Aaronic, and if under the Mosaic Covenant only Levites can hold the Aaronic priesthood, how could anyone other than a Levite hold the Melch?

I'm pretty sure God can switch it up when it comes to earthly formats for the priesthood. It doesn't all have to match up to the "T".

Tell me, is it the case in the church today that the Melch priesthood is bestowed upon an adult male convert who does not first have the Aaronic priesthood? Or is it standing policy that he must hold the lesser for a set period of time? If the latter is in fact the case (as I have been told and at least have seen implied in writing), then you'll see the source of both my reasoning and initial above response.

Yes, this is how it is normally handled these days, but it doesn't have to do with the necessity of the priesthood situation as it does to give the new (male) member the opportunity to grow in magnifying his priesthood. Alternatively or also, Priesthood is a covenant and all covenants have consequences when they are broken. If someone is a child in the gospel, so to speak, you don't land the heavy covenant on them before they have a chance to do the lesser one. If they "can't handle it" and break it, it's better that they started out with the Aaronic. By the way, this last is just my own thoughts, I haven't heard that said anywhere particular.

[Maidservant]

deleted, duplicate post.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Maidservant

[Ryan.Samples]

If someone is a child in the gospel, so to speak, you don't land the heavy covenant on them before they have a chance to do the lesser one. If they "can't handle it" and break it, it's better that they started out with the Aaronic. By the way, this last is just my own thoughts, I haven't heard that said anywhere particular.

I can understand that kind of statement in terms of doctrine, but not covenants / obedience. Does not Jesus call us to total and radical obedience from the outset, rather than in incremental stages?

[Log]

I can understand that kind of statement in terms of doctrine, but not covenants / obedience. Does not Jesus call us to total and radical obedience from the outset, rather than in incremental stages?

Abraham wasn't commanded to sacrifice Isaac on day 1 of his discipleship - or, in other words, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Log

[Ryan.Samples]

Abraham wasn't commanded to sacrifice Isaac on day 1 of his discipleship - or, in other words, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Isaac wasn't present on day one, so I would suggest that example proves irrelevant. Besides, what's the first thing God did say to Abram? "Beat feet, yo." God tells him to leave what he knows and go where God commands. Radical.

[Log]

Tru dat. However, I trust you understand the concept I tried to communicate - the Lord lays foundations before he performs stress tests.

[Cold Steel]

I don't see any of this as a serious "problem" for us- since Joseph got the Priesthood through supernatural means, it is not a jump or a "gotcha" to think that anyone else could not have possibly gotten it the same way. ...

Obviously we know the answer- the Nephites had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained supernaturally as well. No gotchas here! A miracle or two, but no gotchas!

I don't know what you're talking about when you use the terms "supernatural" and "supernaturally." We don't know how Adam received the priesthood. The fact that the scriptures record that God told Adam that he [Adam] had the priesthood doesn't really mean anything in that you're assuming that you're reading the whole story and that the scriptures are complete. The words of God may have followed an ordination that wasn't included in the written account. Many of the early brethren thought that Adam may have been a resurrected being and that his death was a separation of his body and the corruption he had taken into his body for 900+ years. In that case he, Adam, would have already possessed the priesthood. But even if Adam wasn't resurrected, he still could have been ordained under the hands of God or he might have been given the priesthood by Jehovah in a "hands free" ordination.

My own view is that Adam was not resurrected and that the Father ordained Adam prior to the fall. He could not have ordained Adam after the fall because He could no longer deal with man directly...He needed an intercessor. The problem with Jehovah ordaining Adam is that Jehovah was a spirit and could not confer the priesthood on a physical being. I also don't believe that the priesthood can be conferred verbally without hands to head contact. If the Father had ordained Adam prior to the fall, it would have been okay because an intercessor would not have been needed. In fact, he could have legally been ordained before baptism because the fall had not yet happened and baptism was not yet required.

As for the Nephites, the Holy Priesthood most likely was conferred through Lehi, Nephi, Jacob and others. There may also have been priesthood remaining through the survivors of the Jaredites, so I don't see a problem with the Nephites and the Priesthood.

Now regarding Joseph Smith, I believe the priesthood was conferred through Peter, James and John, not verbally as has been speculated. That said, what meaneth thou by "no gotchas"?

.

[Ryan.Samples]

As for the Nephites, the Holy Priesthood most likely was conferred through Lehi, Nephi, Jacob and others.

Do we see that laid out in the standard works somewhere or it is something we infer? I found this explanation which essentially states the latter.

[mfbukowski]

Do we see that laid out in the standard works somewhere or it is something we infer? I found this explanation which essentially states the latter.

Yes, I linked to that.

That article states:

Though the Book of Mormon does not explicitly state so, Lehi, like all other prophets in Old Testament times, held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

For this reason, the Nephites, without having Levites among them, could rightfully officiate in the ordinances of the law of Moses. Thus, in Book of Mormon lands, the Nephites administered the ordinances and blessings of the law of Moses before the coming of Christ and the law of the gospel after the coming of Christ by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I am not sure why you are asking the question- the article clearly states that (repeating)

Though the Book of Mormon does not explicitly state so, Lehi, like all other prophets in Old Testament times, held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

That is doctrinal. Do you think the article is incorrect?

[mfbukowski]

I don't know what you're talking about when you use the terms "supernatural" and "supernaturally." We don't know how Adam received the priesthood. The fact that the scriptures record that God told Adam that he [Adam] had the priesthood doesn't really mean anything in that you're assuming that you're reading the whole story and that the scriptures are complete. The words of God may have followed an ordination that wasn't included in the written account. Many of the early brethren thought that Adam may have been a resurrected being and that his death was a separation of his body and the corruption he had taken into his body for 900+ years. In that case he, Adam, would have already possessed the priesthood. But even if Adam wasn't resurrected, he still could have been ordained under the hands of God or he might have been given the priesthood by Jehovah in a "hands free" ordination.

My own view is that Adam was not resurrected and that the Father ordained Adam prior to the fall. He could not have ordained Adam after the fall because He could no longer deal with man directly...He needed an intercessor. The problem with Jehovah ordaining Adam is that Jehovah was a spirit and could not confer the priesthood on a physical being. I also don't believe that the priesthood can be conferred verbally without hands to head contact. If the Father had ordained Adam prior to the fall, it would have been okay because an intercessor would not have been needed. In fact, he could have legally been ordained before baptism because the fall had not yet happened and baptism was not yet required.

As for the Nephites, the Holy Priesthood most likely was conferred through Lehi, Nephi, Jacob and others. There may also have been priesthood remaining through the survivors of the Jaredites, so I don't see a problem with the Nephites and the Priesthood.

Now regarding Joseph Smith, I believe the priesthood was conferred through Peter, James and John, not verbally as has been speculated. That said, what meaneth thou by "no gotchas"?

.

I don't disagree with any of this.

My only point was that because we don't have a record doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I meant by "supernatural" is what the word says- super-natural, meaning above and beyond nature.

If an ordination is given from one human to another, what I was saying is that such an ordination would not be "supernatural" it would be "natural" because it was given (and probably recorded) from one human being to another. If God himself or some supernatural being did the ordination, what I meant was that such an ordination would be what I termed "supernatural" because it was done by a supernatural being.

The "gotcha" point is that a critic might argue that because there is "no evidence" for what I was calling a "supernatural ordination", it is something we apologists dreamed up to explain a faulty doctrine. He could then use that as a "gotcha".

So for example, a critic might argue that since we have no idea of how it is that Lehi had the Melchizadek priesthood, and clearly he wasn't a Levite, then the entire Book of Mormon has no basis for its alleged "priesthood". In other words, "gotcha".

That is precisely the direction Ryan was headed.

That of course is an erroneous argument: That is the point I was making. "No supernatural ordinations, no gotchas".

Does that make it clear?

The fact is, there is plenty of evidence in latter day revelation that Adam had the priesthood- but that revelation is found in temple ordinances we don't discuss

Edited April 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

So for example, a critic might argue that since we have no idea of how it is that Lehi had the Melchizadek priesthood, and clearly he wasn't a Levite, then the entire Book of Mormon has no basis for its alleged "priesthood". In other words, "gotcha".

I think the Book of Mormon is quite clear on how Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and others received the Melchizedek priesthood: they were foreordained. According to Alma 13, God knew that certain people would have great faith and good works; therefore, he foreordained these people with the Melchizedek priesthood. Basically, they were ordained before their birth, because God knew that they would be faithful and good, and by their lives they proved God right. Their priesthood is "without beginning of days or end of years."

Obviously, things have changed in the LDS Church since this was written.

The fact is, there is plenty of evidence in latter day revelation that Adam had the priesthood- but that revelation is found in temple ordinances we don't discuss

I think it's fair to say, and no big secret, that Adam is portrayed as Michael, one of the creator gods. Thus, as a god before his mortal birth, his Melchizedek priesthood was "without beginning of days or end of years." But Adam also had and passed on a Patriarchal priesthood (the office of Presiding Patriarch), which was held only along a firstborn, patrilineal line.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Mark Beesley]

I can understand that kind of statement in terms of doctrine, but not covenants / obedience. Does not Jesus call us to total and radical obedience from the outset, rather than in incremental stages?

No. For example, the Lord's covenant people will and do covenant to live the law of consecration, wherein they consecrate their time, talents and all worldly possessions to the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth. At present, the Lord's covenant people are not required to live according to that law.

[Log]

I think the Book of Mormon is quite clear on how Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and others received the Melchizedek priesthood: they were foreordained. According to Alma 13, God knew that certain people would have great faith and good works; therefore, he foreordained these people with the Melchizedek priesthood. Basically, they were ordained before their birth, because God knew that they would be faithful and good, and by their lives they proved God right. Their priesthood is "without beginning of days or end of years."

Alma 13 speaks of everyone being pre-ordained to the Priesthood (verse 5), not just a few. However, only a few realize the ordination in this life.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Log

[Mark Beesley]

I think the Book of Mormon is quite clear on how Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and others received the Melchizedek priesthood: they were foreordained. According to Alma 13, God knew that certain people would have great faith and good works; therefore, he foreordained these people with the Melchizedek priesthood. Basically, they were ordained before their birth, because God knew that they would be faithful and good, and by their lives they proved God right. Their priesthood is "without beginning of days or end of years."

Are you suggesting that foreordination to the Priesthood elimnates the need for the ordinance to be peformed in mortality? If so, I think you need to do some more research on the subject. I suggest the book Magnifying Priesthood Power by Robert Millett at page 38 on Foreordination. It is online here.

Everyone who receives the priesthood in mortality was foreordained to that calling in the preexistence.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[wenglund]

I think the Book of Mormon is quite clear on how Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and others received the Melchizedek priesthood: they were foreordained. According to Alma 13, God knew that certain people would have great faith and good works; therefore, he foreordained these people with the Melchizedek priesthood. Basically, they were ordained before their birth, because God knew that they would be faithful and good, and by their lives they proved God right. Their priesthood is "without beginning of days or end of years."

Obviously, things have changed in the LDS Church since this was written.

Are you saying that people are no longer foreordained, and unlike as of old, those fore-ordinations are no longer bound on earth as in heaven? If so, your perception of things is wildly different from my LDS experience (not that this is news).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 1, 2012 by wenglund

[Cold Steel]

So for example, a critic might argue that since we have no idea of how it is that Lehi had the Melchizedek priesthood, and clearly he wasn't a Levite, then the entire Book of Mormon has no basis for its alleged "priesthood". In other words, "gotcha". ... Does that make it clear?

Crystal.

Not only have the prophets taught it, but the inference has always been clear that the Old Testament prophets held the Melchizedek priesthood. Remember how the Aaronic Priesthood came about? The Lord was fully prepared to give the children of Israel the Holy Priesthood, and the first time Moses ascended the mountain to receive instruction from Jehovah he received the Gospel. When the people defiled themselves by worshiping the golden calf, Moses dashed the plates on the ground in anger. He had not only wanted the people to possess the Holy Priesthood, he wanted them to see God. You'll recall that they told Moses to speak to God, and they held back. Ultimately only the seventy elders and Aaron saw the Lord. The people drew back in fear.

In the Book of Mormon, we have many prophets who offered up sacrifice, and they weren't Levites. And while Lehi was in the wilderness he offered up sacrifices, too, such as when his sons returned from Jerusalem. Yet he was a descendent of Joseph through Manasseh. When they arrived in the New World, one of Nephi's major projects was to build a temple after the fashion of Solomon's. This would have been impossible had he not held the priesthood.

Finally, even though Aaron was the leader of the priests, he held the Melchizedek Priesthood. My point is that the higher priesthood was possessed by the prophets of the Old Testament so they could perform the tasks required of them.

[Ryan.Samples]

Not only have the prophets taught it

What do you mean by your opening comments? That [modern prophets] have explained the fact the OT prophets (and BoM prophets?) held the Melch?

[zerinus]

What do you mean by your opening comments? That [modern prophets] have explained the fact the OT prophets (and BoM prophets?) held the Melch?

There are several indications in the Doctrine and Covenants that some OT prophets (though perhaps not all of them) held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[Ryan.Samples]

There are several indications in the Doctrine and Covenants that some OT prophets (though perhaps not all of them) held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I am trying to discern if we are distinguishing between a modern prophet's teachings versus canonized revelation.

[cinepro]

There are several indications in the Doctrine and Covenants that some OT prophets (though perhaps not all of them) held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Do we know which priesthood Melchizedek had?

[zerinus]

I am trying to discern if we are distinguishing between a modern prophet's teachings versus canonized revelation.

I don't see why such a distinction is necessary. Modern prophets teach what is in canonized revelation.