Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SettingDogStar

Animal Sacrifice

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
  1. This was in the apocrypha.

Of course it was, which means that it is non-canonical (non-biblical for LDS and Protestants), but does not mean that it is false.  Indeed, the great non-LDS scholar James Barr maintained that St Paul used the very verbiage in Greek from II Macc 12:43-45 in his comment on the resurrection and baptism for the dead in I Cor 15:29 (Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism [Westminster, 1983], 40-43, n. 19).  

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
  1. I don't see anything mentioning the temple here.  Just that they made a sacrifice and offered prayers on behalf of the dead.  That is a far cry from a bona fide  temple ordinances.

The reference to taking up a collection of 2,000 drachmas of silver for a sin-offering in Jerusalem (II Macc 12:43) is specifically for a temple sacrifice, as also pointed out in vs 45, "he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."  There is no other place in Jerusalem where such an offering could or would be made, and it is predicated on the belief by those Jews in the resurrection.  Even though it is much later, compare Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271).

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
  1. Yes, how extensively was this practiced?  It may have been a partial apostate practice -- like prayer circles outside the temple.............................

LDS prayer circles have been used extensively outside LDS temples, and it was an officially approved practice.  I was fairly young when it was discontinued in all wards.  Carelessly throwing around the word "apostate" might not be appropriate for that, or for more ancient practices.  If Jewish temple priests allowed sin-offerings for the dead in the 1st century B .C., why would you suggest that was apostate?  Was baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 also apostate?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I have come to tears at the time of sacrament, yes. But it was remembering the suffering of our Savior in atonement of our sins that did it. There is one name under heaven by which are sins are forgiven, and it is not the Holy Spirit. That was never His job. The Holy Ghost does not burn away our sins. At least that is not the way I look at it. I'm sorry to be particular about it. Our sins are not forgiven unless we repent of them to our Savior and our God. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, whose job is to teach/reveal, and help us remember. So, why are we baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit? I don't think the world has fully understood that, but it is for our resurrection, and not our redemption from sin. The Holy Spirit only indirectly assists by leading people to our Redeemer. Nevertheless, I am glad that you feel the spirit burning in you at the time of sacrament. That speaks well of your repentance. I would say that it is a confirmation of your salvation at that particular moment. :) 

Yes, repentance precedes the sacrament. I often do not sing the sacrament hymn but instead pray for the completion of my forgiveness for the week and then when I partake forgiveness is extended. In the above post I probably should have said that the Holy Ghost purifies through the Savior’s atonement. The baptism of fire is an intended product of the Savior’s atonement but the Holy Ghost actually does it. It is important to always remember that the Savior paid the price so it could be done. Gratitude and love should be extended to all three but communication directed to the Father.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't say anything about modern.  The problem was that I was talking about "FOR THE DEAD".  That was the focal point of my entire conversation.  And you simply spoke of the temple of the old testament.

OK. Sorry already. My comments were keyed in on your statement: "I don't see anything mentioning the temple here.  Just that they made a sacrifice and offered prayers on behalf of the dead.  That is a far cry from a bona fide  temple ordinances." I have apologized already if I misunderstood you. How many times would you like me to apologize?

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Apparently when the Lord dispensates Priesthood keys and/or covenants. Thus, to me Moses was not the head of a dispensation. He gave a law of God because the people were not ready to live a higher covenantal law.  He did not "restore" the priesthood as I have pointed out, and been criticized for. He received the priesthood from his father-in-law Jethro. He did restore the priesthood to Israel, who had obviously lost it in their 400 year sojourn in Egypt. For His own reasons the Lord chose Israel to preserve his ways for the next thousand years, and the priesthood was lost to Abraham's other descendants. 

Moses simply followed God's orders in assigning the tribe of Levi (his own tribe) as the sole priestly tribe for all Israel.  Then he obeyed God in assigning Aaron as the chief priest or kohen (Ex 28:1), and all the chief priests have been descended from Aaron until the present day.  We also know that this was an authentic source of the Levitical priesthood via genetic testing:

The biblical claim is backed up by long Jewish tradition and by the presence of a genetic marker on the Y-chromosome of that priestly line, the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), which appears to go back about 3 to 4 thousand years to one founder (Yaakov Kleiman, DNA & Tradition: The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews [Devorah Publ, 2004]; Michael F. Hammer, et al., “Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests,” Nature, 385/6611 [Jan 2, 1997]:32-33). Michael Hammer and his research team summarize the most recent facts:

Quote

. . . a majority of men who self report as members of the Jewish priesthood (Cohanim) carry a characteristic Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). . . . 5 haplogroups account for 79.5% of Cohanim Y chromosomes. The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 ± 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages. Hammer, et al., “Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood,” Human Genetics, 126/5 (Nov 2009): 707–717, online at Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood .

 

This organized and still functional priesthood has been governed by tight marriage regulations designed to prevent assimilation, and by the detailed rules in the mishnaic/ talmudic order Kodashim.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moses simply followed God's orders in assigning the tribe of Levi (his own tribe) as the sole priestly tribe for all Israel.  Then he obeyed God in assigning Aaron as the chief priest or kohen (Ex 28:1), and all the chief priests have been descended from Aaron until the present day.  We also know that this was an authentic source of the Levitical priesthood via genetic testing:

The biblical claim is backed up by long Jewish tradition and by the presence of a genetic marker on the Y-chromosome of that priestly line, the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), which appears to go back about 3 to 4 thousand years to one founder (Yaakov Kleiman, DNA & Tradition: The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews [Devorah Publ, 2004]; Michael F. Hammer, et al., “Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests,” Nature, 385/6611 [Jan 2, 1997]:32-33). Michael Hammer and his research team summarize the most recent facts:

 

This organized and still functional priesthood has been governed by tight marriage regulations designed to prevent assimilation, and by the detailed rules in the mishnaic/ talmudic order Kodashim.

I'm not sure what you are responding to or trying to say. I agree that Aaron was a high priest. Moses too was a high priest. But, I would say not all the high priests have been descended from Aaron. I believe as far as God is concerned the Jews lost the high priesthood. I am a high priest, and I doubt I am descended from Aaron. Yeshua was a high priest, and there is little indication he was descended from Aaron although Mary was apparently Elizabeth's cousin. As Moses' brother both Aaron and Moses were descendants of Levi. The sons of Aaron were only some of the sons of Levi. Descending the high priesthood through the sons of Aaron is a symbological thing for those foreordained to a certain task in these latter days as those who heed the song of Moses in Revelation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it was, which means that it is non-canonical (non-biblical for LDS and Protestants), but does not mean that it is false.  Indeed, the great non-LDS scholar James Barr maintained that St Paul used the very verbiage in Greek from II Macc 12:43-45 in his comment on the resurrection and baptism for the dead in I Cor 15:29 (Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism [Westminster, 1983], 40-43, n. 19).  

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  You seem convinced that all this is significant.  I look at this entire quote and think,"Why is that considered a good argument for this?"

Quote

The reference to taking up a collection of 2,000 drachmas of silver for a sin-offering in Jerusalem (II Macc 12:43) is specifically for a temple sacrifice, as also pointed out in vs 45, "he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."  There is no other place in Jerusalem where such an offering could or would be made, and it is predicated on the belief by those Jews in the resurrection.  Even though it is much later, compare Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271).

I'll grant that you've addressed the idea that this was something done in the temple.  But you're not addressing the GULF between simply making a sacrifice (which would be considered parallel to simply praying for someone else) vs. performing a vicarous ordinance in place of another.

Quote

LDS prayer circles have been used extensively outside LDS temples, and it was an officially approved practice.  I was fairly young when it was discontinued in all wards.

Clarify:  Are you stating that it is you personal experience that you have personally witnessed that endowed persons would gather together outside the temple, clothed in the full temple ceremonial clothing and performed a True Order of Prayer ceremony?

Quote

Carelessly throwing around the word "apostate" might not be appropriate for that, or for more ancient practices.  If Jewish temple priests allowed sin-offerings for the dead in the 1st century B .C., why would you suggest that was apostate?  Was baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 also apostate?

As stated elsewhere, there were some things that were done with special permission.  In fact the special permission was quite common.  But that would seem to indicate that those who did it without special permission were doing something which was forbidden.  And I was an adult when the Church was cracking down on the practice back in the 80s when people took it upon themselves to have such groups.  It was these groups that I was referring to.  While some did it out of ignorance, others continued even when the Brethren said to stop it.  They were considered apostate.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Why is an animal life more important than a plant life?  Do you eat any vegetables?  Why is that justified and taking an animal life is not?  

I agree with this for this lifetime.  I have said this many a time.  I also said it in the post.  I'm also not a vegetarian at this time.

Remember, we're not Hindus.

I view that many people and traditions may be ahead of us in practicing certain 'celestial' principles, Hindus being one of them, and particularly their reverence of the cow which is a mirror image of the sacrifice of bullocks (in my mind).

So, forgetting the vegetarian mindset, is there any other argument you have?

I am not discussing what we do in this lifetime.  I am considering that celestial bodies do not need to eat at all, so I don't see an animal sacrifice OR eating meat for simply a meal as a step in a 'celestial law' direction.  I am implying that continued Restoration practices ought (in my mind, right or wrong), get us closer to the celestial condition (body and point of view).  That may not be the main nugget of the OP nor of your comments, but it's what I wanted to say.

I get what your saying here. But given the context of this thread, I'd say it is obtaining spirit for ourselves, and giving spirit to others.  And there are many ways to do that.

Okay.  I don't see the difference between spirit and life.  It would be semantics for me.

Something good must be given up to obtain something better. 

I've been taught this homile, and I specifically disagree (because of my study and pondering) that this is sacrifice or the meaning of it or the mechanics of it or the consequence of it.  I'm not saying you have to go where I'm going, and thanks for sharing where you're at.  Just beating the dead horse as far as my own understanding. :)

I could just as easily say that "sacrificing our time, talents, and means" is also "something getting hurt."  But it isn't -- any more than sacrificing an animal would be.

I agree that giving of our time, talents and means is not getting hurt.  If you see it as the same as what an animal does, that's fine.  I don't.  In this lifetime, they (and vegetables, also alive, and who we also have and will have conversations with) give of themselves so we can be alive.  But if its not necessary, why remain with it?

Tell that to Jesus Christ.  Tell that to the fallen in the military.  Tell that to the first responders who have given their lives.  Not a sacrifice to give one's life?

As a mother I also give my body, literally, for another's life (as animals and vegetables).  But I don't need to die for it to be a sacrifice.  Death is not the best sacrifice or the main meaning of sacrifice.  It's what we've traditionally said is and it's the best we can understand.  I am absolutely challenging that death is what sacrifice is. 

And these are all voluntary.  If you ask the animal if they are willing to be sacrificed, and they say yes, go ahead. Speaking celestially, not in this lifetime; but looking forward and getting as close as we can to celestial laws as we can in this life time.  I do believe that animals (and vegetables) can be willing, both to be food and maybe even be sacrifices.  But how will we know?  So better not to.  (Also for eating.  But I'm not there yet.  This is a rhetorical discussion.  We aren't doing animal sacrifices anyway right now so it's all theory.  Supper steak isn't, lol.)

I have no idea where you got that from.  Maybe someone else said it on this thread.  But I didn't notice it.

Right.  The idea about the Restoration was more about how Joseph Smith seemed to think about it.  Not your comments specifically. 🙂

But my main point, is that animal altar sacrifices are unnecessary (as I am understanding at this time) for a symbolism and if 'restoring' something is the only reason, don't do it for that (flimsy) reason.  We don't need to restore simply to be restoring.  The restorations ought to be inherently valuable, thus a reason why we would be blessed to restore them.

By the way, I love your personal experience and revelation, and absolutely I support you going with what you heard and know.  But I'm in the same process too, and I ended up somewhere else.  I don't think we have to end up the same place.

 

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

what sacrifice is it to kill an animal and then eat it. Where is the sacrifice from ourselves in this, absolutely none.

I was going to say, I agree with you.  And I still do.  But the thought did come to mind that back in an agricultural/nomadic setting, giving the best of the flock might have felt like this.  However, to me sacrifice generally speaking is not about loss anyway.  It is about the generation and preservation of life.

Thanks for sharing yours, you always have such illuminating things, for me to see better!! ;) :) 

You're sweet, Tacenda.  Thank you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.  You seem convinced that all this is significant.  I look at this entire quote and think,"Why is that considered a good argument for this?"

I'll grant that you've addressed the idea that this was something done in the temple.  But you're not addressing the GULF between simply making a sacrifice (which would be considered parallel to simply praying for someone else) vs. performing a vicarous ordinance in place of another.

You can dismiss a non-LDS scholar of the stature of James Barr if you wish, and place your own judgment ahead of his.  You certainly have that right.  Vicarious ordinance or merely intercession of the Saints?  Likewise a judgment call.  Yet without these sorts of precedent, we have no basis for any discussion.

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Clarify:  Are you stating that it is you personal experience that you have personally witnessed that endowed persons would gather together outside the temple, clothed in the full temple ceremonial clothing and performed a True Order of Prayer ceremony?

Not me personally, but it is a fact that such Prayer Circles, which began outside the temple with Joseph Smith, continued after his death and for most of the history of the LDS Church, until the formal 1978 decree ending that practice.  https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Prayer_Circle .  Ward members used to keep their temple robes in lockers in the meeting house just for that purpose.

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

As stated elsewhere, there were some things that were done with special permission.  In fact the special permission was quite common.  But that would seem to indicate that those who did it without special permission were doing something which was forbidden.  And I was an adult when the Church was cracking down on the practice back in the 80s when people took it upon themselves to have such groups.  It was these groups that I was referring to.  While some did it out of ignorance, others continued even when the Brethren said to stop it.  They were considered apostate.

Depends upon which sort of groups you are referring to.  There have always been apostate groups, and some were investigated personally by GAs such as James Talmage (who wrote about confronting one in Springville, Utah).  Some of the spin-offs from the LDS faith find their beginning in such groups.  Having said that, however, does nothing to support your narrow critique.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ward members used to keep their temple robes in lockers in the meeting house just for that purpose.

I was not aware of that. Pretty interesting and convenient I would say! I really wish that was still in practice today. I understand to a certain point why they were shut down, but a few bad nuts shouldn't ruin it for everybody else. If the Lord approved of the practice outside of the Temple then it should be practiced outside of the Temple. Seems kind of silly to learn something and never get to personally put it to use. Then again what do I know? haha 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not sure what you are responding to or trying to say. I agree that Aaron was a high priest. Moses too was a high priest. But, I would say not all the high priests have been descended from Aaron. I believe as far as God is concerned the Jews lost the high priesthood. I am a high priest, and I doubt I am descended from Aaron. Yeshua was a high priest, and there is little indication he was descended from Aaron although Mary was apparently Elizabeth's cousin. As Moses' brother both Aaron and Moses were descendants of Levi. The sons of Aaron were only some of the sons of Levi. Descending the high priesthood through the sons of Aaron is a symbological thing for those foreordained to a certain task in these latter days as those who heed the song of Moses in Revelation. 

I guess you missed my point.  I was careful not to confuse the term "High Priest" with "Chief Priest" (kohen gadol).  Moses' father-in-law was the kohen gadol of Midian, the same office later held by Aaron, which was a non-Melchizedek priesthood. God made that Aaronic (and Levitical) priesthood permanent.  Forever in that lineage.  And the D&C confirms that permanence among lineal descendants of Aaron.  That is not the sort of HP which we are.  Those not Aaronides are only helpers (deacons) of the chief priests.  John the Baptizer was an Aaronide, same as his father.  The tribe of Levi is the overarching priestly tribe, but the Aaronides are in charge and call the shots.  When the Jewish temple is built in Jerusalem, you will see a Levitical choir, and you will see ordinary Levites assisting the Aaronides as deacons. 

Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, and unlike John the Baptizer, was not an Aaronic priest.  Instead, Jesus was the HP after the order of Melchizedek (which is after the order of the Son of God).  LDS and Roman Catholic priesthood is similarly divided into two orders: the old Levitical order and the Melchizedek order.  Latter-day Saints do not hold the Levitical priesthood by lineal descent, but by special assignment outside the Levitical order, and under the supervision of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  Thus, a bishop as HP sits in for an Aaronide as president of the Priests Quorum only because an Aaronide is not present.  According to the D&C an Aaronide has a right to that office, if approved by the LDS First Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I was not aware of that. Pretty interesting and convenient I would say! I really wish that was still in practice today. I understand to a certain point why they were shut down, but a few bad nuts shouldn't ruin it for everybody else. If the Lord approved of the practice outside of the Temple then it should be practiced outside of the Temple. Seems kind of silly to learn something and never get to personally put it to use. Then again what do I know? haha 

That was done at a time when temples were not always nearby, and the Prayer Circle was after all a prayer circle.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed my point.  I was careful not to confuse the term "High Priest" with "Chief Priest" (kohen gadol).  Moses' father-in-law was the kohen gadol of Midian, the same office later held by Aaron, which was a non-Melchizedek priesthood.

So you are asserting there was a Levitical priesthood before God set up the Levitical priesthood under Aaron? I don't think this is supported by D&C 84 which strongly implies that Jethro received the same priesthood Melchizedek had. There was no "Levitical priesthood" before it was set up under Aaron as far scripture indicates or as far as I know - only the Melchizedek priesthood. Do you believe any Israelites after Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood, and if so who? Wasn't Elijah a High priest of the Melchizedek priesthood? How did he get that priesthood if it wasn't through Jethro? 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So you are asserting there was a Levitical priesthood before God set up the Levitical priesthood under Aaron? I don't think this is supported by D&C 84 which strongly implies that Jethro received the same priesthood Melchizedek had. There was no "Levitical priesthood" before it was set up under Aaron as far scripture indicates or as far as I know - only the Melchizedek priesthood. Do you believe any Israelites after Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood, and if so who? Wasn't Elijah a High priest of the Melchizedek priesthood? How did he get that priesthood if it wasn't through Jethro? 

It is silly to assert that Jethro-Reuel held the Levitical priesthood, and I did not do so.  Kohen "priest" is a term independent of any particular lineage or tradition.  It is a generic Hebrew term, but is used in Jewish tradition (not biblical tradition) to refer specifically to descendants of Aaron.  Shorthand, if you will, and well understood by all those within Judaism, since their only priests (kohens) are Aaronic.

Again, the tribe of Levi was chosen by God, during Moses' tenure as the Prophet, to be the priestly tribe for all Israel.  That was not a Melchizedek priestly tradition at all.,  It was specifically declared to be a permanent, lineal priesthood only for the tribe of Levi.  God's oath is that it maintains itself forever within Israel, and the D&C confirms that.  It is not a form of Melchizedek priesthood.  That is completely separate, as it was for Joseph & Oliver when they received the Aaronic priesthood under the hands of John the Baptizer -- as a special dispensation.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I was not aware of that. Pretty interesting and convenient I would say! I really wish that was still in practice today. I understand to a certain point why they were shut down, but a few bad nuts shouldn't ruin it for everybody else. If the Lord approved of the practice outside of the Temple then it should be practiced outside of the Temple. Seems kind of silly to learn something and never get to personally put it to use. Then again what do I know? haha 

I do not think apostate groups were why it was shut down. Prayer circles outside the temple had to be approved by Salt Lake and the growth of the Church meant a lot of requests. They did not feel comfortable giving open permission to do it whenever local leadership was so inclined so they ended it. The growing accessibility of temples probably also contributed. I also suspect (but have no data to back it up) that there was concern that prayer circles were being done as a substitute instead of going to the temple itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I do not think apostate groups were why it was shut down. Prayer circles outside the temple had to be approved by Salt Lake and the growth of the Church meant a lot of requests. They did not feel comfortable giving open permission to do it whenever local leadership was so inclined so they ended it. The growing accessibility of temples probably also contributed. I also suspect (but have no data to back it up) that there was concern that prayer circles were being done as a substitute instead of going to the temple itself.

This just hit me, hadn't thought about it before especially when thinking that it is such a simple thing to pray and be in a circle. But then when you mentioned the circle might be a substitute of going to the temple itself, it made me wonder if they were also making covenants in the circle as well, is that what they were doing?

And side note, when I was a preteen, my friend and I did stupid stuff with prank phone calls. One of them was calling the nuns at the local Catholic parrish to pray for us and we'd give them a random name, mean I know. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/9/2019 at 6:38 PM, Maidservant said:

I find it likely that Joseph was contemplating animal sacrifice.  But I do hope I never see it again.

Are you vegetarian?   Just curious.  

I was recently in a conversation about the proper way to kill animals for food - one friend who was preparing a feast for us, and another who was Jewish and concerned with how the animal would be killed ;)  The whole ordeal made me shy away from meat again.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is silly to assert that Jethro-Reuel held the Levitical priesthood, and I did not do so. 

I am confused then because you said: " Moses' father-in-law was the kohen gadol of Midian, the same office later held by Aaron, which was a non-Melchizedek priesthood." Is there some third type of priesthood then? I don't understand how Jethro could hold a non-Melchizedek priesthood before there was a Levitical priesthood. If it is not Levitical as you say, and is "non-Melchizedek" what exactly was Jethro?

 

Quote

Kohen "priest" is a term independent of any particular lineage or tradition.  It is a generic Hebrew term, but is used in Jewish tradition (not biblical tradition) to refer specifically to descendants of Aaron.  Shorthand, if you will, and well understood by all those within Judaism, since their only priests (kohens) are Aaronic.

Again, the tribe of Levi was chosen by God, during Moses' tenure as the Prophet, to be the priestly tribe for all Israel.  That was not a Melchizedek priestly tradition at all.,  It was specifically declared to be a permanent, lineal priesthood only for the tribe of Levi.  God's oath is that it maintains itself forever within Israel, and the D&C confirms that.  It is not a form of Melchizedek priesthood.  That is completely separate, as it was for Joseph & Oliver when they received the Aaronic priesthood under the hands of John the Baptizer -- as a special dispensation.

In your estimation is a cohen an Aaronic priesthood holder? 

It seems to me you are confusing Hebrew terminology with priesthood office. It seems to me Jethro was called cohen simply because that was their word for priest, rather than that he held some type of third priesthood. Jethro was a Melchizedek order priest. Plain and simple. We also know from D&C that the Melchizedek priesthood was held by Israelites until the time of Elijah. It had to be inherited from somewhere unless it was restored, and that was obviously from Jethro. I think you need to reassess your position.

While we are on terminology what do you think of Jethro being called Reuel? Did he have a different name in Hebrew than he did to the Midianites, or is it some kind of title or descriptor or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This just hit me, hadn't thought about it before especially when thinking that it is such a simple thing to pray and be in a circle. But then when you mentioned the circle might be a substitute of going to the temple itself, it made me wonder if they were also making covenants in the circle as well, is that what they were doing?

 

All of our family prayers are done while holding hands in a circle - this was started by my non-denominational grandmother, and continues - especially on holidays and other special occasions.  I do like prayer circles, and just circular things - round table - circle wagons - the symbolism of no head, no foot, everyone together without hierarchy is a beautiful thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This just hit me, hadn't thought about it before especially when thinking that it is such a simple thing to pray and be in a circle. But then when you mentioned the circle might be a substitute of going to the temple itself, it made me wonder if they were also making covenants in the circle as well, is that what they were doing?

No. Unless they really were apostates and most of those seeking permission were Stake presidents and bishops and they are rarely hard core apostates and even if they are I doubt they could get Stake and ward leadership to follow them down that road.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do not think apostate groups were why it was shut down. Prayer circles outside the temple had to be approved by Salt Lake and the growth of the Church meant a lot of requests. They did not feel comfortable giving open permission to do it whenever local leadership was so inclined so they ended it. The growing accessibility of temples probably also contributed. I also suspect (but have no data to back it up) that there was concern that prayer circles were being done as a substitute instead of going to the temple itself.

Understandable to a certain extent. However I wish they would then have a room in the temple where you could perform a circle with family and close friends. It could be like getting permission to go into the celestial room, you have to perform an ordinance of some kind to go in the room. You could make the same requirement previous to going into a private room to have a prayer circle. There is often things I wish I could pray personally for in that Order.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I am confused then because you said: " Moses' father-in-law was the kohen gadol of Midian, the same office later held by Aaron, which was a non-Melchizedek priesthood." Is there some third type of priesthood then? I don't understand how Jethro could hold a non-Melchizedek priesthood before there was a Levitical priesthood. If it is not Levitical as you say, and is "non-Melchizedek" what exactly was Jethro?

In your estimation is a cohen an Aaronic priesthood holder?  It seems to me you are confusing Hebrew terminology with priesthood office.

Being a priest does not mean that one is either Aaronic or Melchizedek in authority.  The same word (kohen) is used in the Bible for Egyptian priests.   Jethro-Reuel is a Midianite priest.  That does not mean that he belongs of a Hebrew tribe or that he shares in Aaronic authority in any way, and I did not say that he did.  In any tradition, priests perform liturgical functions.  A Hindu Brahmin is a priest.  That does not make him Aaronic or Melchizedek in authority.  A kohen gadol in Hebrew can refer to anyone which holds the office of a "high priest, chief priest," regardless of the tradition from which he comes.  It does not tell us that he is Aaronic or Melchizedek in authority.  He may as well be a Shinto priest in Japan.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

It seems to me Jethro was called cohen simply because that was their word for priest, rather than that he held some type of third priesthood. Jethro was a Melchizedek order priest. Plain and simple. We also know from D&C that the Melchizedek priesthood was held by Israelites until the time of Elijah. It had to be inherited from somewhere unless it was restored, and that was obviously from Jethro. I think you need to reassess your position.

Melchizedek priesthood is conferred.  It is not lineal or inherited.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

While we are on terminology what do you think of Jethro being called Reuel? Did he have a different name in Hebrew than he did to the Midianites, or is it some kind of title or descriptor or something else?

Semitic Reuel rĕˁûʼēl  was originally *riˁuhū-ʼil- “His-friend-is-ʼEl.” (McCarter, I Samuel, 62)  However, El is head of the Canaanite pantheon, so it doesn't tell us much.  Anyhow, he simply had more than one name, not an unusual circumstance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 10:04 AM, changed said:

Are you vegetarian?   Just curious.  

I was recently in a conversation about the proper way to kill animals for food - one friend who was preparing a feast for us, and another who was Jewish and concerned with how the animal would be killed ;)  The whole ordeal made me shy away from meat again.  

 

I'm not at this time.  For health reasons I am going in that direction. 

However, I would not be vegetarian for reasons that animals ought not to be killed; because we DO have to eat something else alive to stay alive, whether animal or vegetable.  Thus to be 'humane' also for me would mean not eating vegetables, so that's impossible for most people (not everyone--there is such a thing as a prana-arian, and I think I'm going in that direction too).  So rather, we should kill quickly with the least amount of pain,, for the purpose of eating, without waste or sparingly, and with great thanksgiving.  Not saying I'm deep into that in real time, but I this is what I come to when I think about it.

But I don't feel good eating meat.  It's not the right thing for my body any more, if it ever was.  And it is starting to feel metaphysically weird to be eating muscle and the taste is starting to feel weird to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...