The Restored Priesthoods

[ed2276]

Melchizedek still holds his office because of Hebrews 7:3. He abides a priest continually. That's two kingly priests not just one.

Well Dale , according to Redwave that makes Melchizedek a fraud and a blasphemer and Abraham with him.

[PacMan]

CK:

Oh...if I recall, I believe the Greek 'presbyterus' (sp?) while meaning priest, was translated Elder in the NT. I'd like to know how you juxtapose those Elders spoken of and there association to the priesthood.

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

Hi Pacman,

Rights and privileges of a fulfilled Priesthood? So he had...nothing? I don't understand that at all.

Under the old covenant, only a priest could "approach" God. Under the new, Paul says we all can approach God freely. Under the old, only a high priest could go into the Holy of Holies. Under the new, the veil is torn. Under the old, many people were impure and could not go into the temple at all. Under the new, Jesus rejects purity laws (think of the menstruating woman he healed or the Samaritan woman at the well) and the believers are the temple. In short, under the old covenant the privilege of access to God was restricted to a small priestly caste (and to prophets and holy men). Under the new, the privileges of that priestly caste are extended to everyone (this is the priesthood of all believers), while its duties are effectively obsoleted (or, if you prefer, fulfilled). So the priesthood is in one sense extended but in another sense abolished/fulfilled.

I think I'll make sure this much is understood before I proceed to answer the rest of your questions, since this paragraph is essentially a summary of what I am arguing for, and some of the other questions go pretty far afield.

-CK

[Dale]

Well Dale , according to Redwave that makes Melchizedek a fraud and a blasphemer and Abraham with him.

I recall another two statement of Paul Trask in his critical of RLDS book Partway To Utah. He holds that only Jesus met the unique qualities of Melchizedek in that he was both priest and king. Since the rest of arn't kings and priests that would disqualify us from being able to hold Jesus same priesthood. And I think he also argues that only Jesus and Melchizedek are without beginning of days and we are not. That is also the reason why he thinks only Jesus and Melchizedek can hold that priesthood.

I don't see any indication in Evangelical writings that they hold anybody held priesthood outside the law but Melchizedek and Christ. The blasphemy would be claiming priesthood one can't outside the priesthood of believers. Since that's not supposed to include a real priesthood in addition to a ministerial priesthood that's ok.

The Bible does not unambiguously teach a ministerial priesthhod. It doesn't deny a Catholic style ministerial priesthood. I don't have any objections to the Restored priesthood. But I doubt the presence of much of the two priesthoods in the early church. A ministerial idea of authority was probably there. But anything so common would have been claimed by the Catholics, and they never claimed two priesthoods. This makes it clear me that only a few persons could have ever held two priesthoods if any.

Another option is that many persons could have held the Melchizedek priesthood, but were never told that's the priesthood they held. I don't consider this option more than speculative, but it's an option.

[Chris Smith]

CK:

Oh...if I recall, I believe the Greek 'presbyterus' (sp?) while meaning priest, was translated Elder in the NT. I'd like to know how you juxtapose those Elders spoken of and there association to the priesthood.

PacMan

Presbuteros means elder. Hiereus means priest. In the transition from Late Latin to Vulgar Latin the word presbyter changed meanings. In Vulgar Latin, German, and then English it meant priest. This change of meaning occurred sometime probably after 400 A.D. (and as late as 700 A.D.).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest

The term "elder" in the New Testament does not mean priest. It is not until the early third century that the term hiereus began to be used of elders.

-CK

[Dale]

I have read early Christian writings that treat Jesus as the only High Priest. They did not have multiple known High Priests in the early church. And some don't appear to consider Melchizedek a High Priest. The Nephite church would not be a problem as their priesthood was running on a different system. If the Restored priesthood was more of a restoration of the Nephite priesthood then that idea works for me.

[redwave]

Christ's work was finished when He expired on the cross, crying with a loud voice, "It is finished." The way was laid open; the veil was rent in twain. Sinners could approach God without sacrificial offerings, without the service of a priest. Christ Himself was a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Heaven was His home. He came to this world to reveal the Father. His work on the field of His humiliation and conflict was now done. He ascended up into the heavens, and is forever set down on the right hand of God. Christ rent not His robe as did Caiaphas. He gave up His body to be rent, to be bruised, and to be wounded for the transgression of the world. As by His own choice He died in the presence of an assembled nation of worshipers, type met antitype. Priest and victim combined, He entered the Temple as a place of sacrifice. Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He is a true high priest, for after enduring humiliation, shame, and reproach, after being crucified and buried, He was raised from the grave, triumphing over death. He is a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. Anyone besides Jesus Christ claiming to possess the order of Melchizedek is a fraud.

[Dale]

Lineage pro-hibitions to who could and who could not hold the Aaronic priesthood would not apply today as the law and it's rules have been abolished.

What's the scriptural rule that suggests only Jesus could claim the Melchizedek priesthood?

[PacMan]

CK:

Thanks for the summary. Itâ??s good to understand where youâ??re coming from. Not to detour the thread, but thereâ??s a couple of things in the summary I wanted to call attention with. I donâ??t know that theyâ??re â??proofs,â? but certainly not as fluid as I think you might like them to be.

Under the old, only a high priest could go into the Holy of Holies. Under the new, the veil is torn.

The old law didnâ??t pass away until the resurrection of Christâ??substituted with the new. The veil was torn because of the crucificiton. There is specific symbolism for the Jews, and the renting was the Fatherâ??s morning. That it does away with the temple is unsupported supposition.

â?¦and the believers are the temple.

I reject the notion in exclusivity. The teachings were using symbols to bring the Jews into an understanding of the higher law. Thereâ??s no reason that the statements were rejecting a need, or use for a temple.

Under the new, the privileges of that priestly caste are extended to everyone (this is the priesthood of all believers), while its duties are effectively obsoleted (or, if you prefer, fulfilled).

Not exactly. The â??privilegesâ? were to perform sacrifice to provide intersession for the masses. In that light, certainly all are permitted to repent and come to Christ. But considering the questioning of the Lordâ??s authority, and the length to which certain powers and authorities are mentioned (directly to his apostles), these fit snuggling in the definition of the Priesthood. To extend it further, to call oneself a Priest and King of God in the times of the new covenant begs the question of priesthood. There are simply no priests without priesthood. Every priest in the scriptures has a priesthoodâ?¦be it legitimate or not.

Now, one thing I have yet to touch on goes back to Moses. The old law was issued after the first law was tossed out the window, after Moses came off the mount seeing these children simply not ready to live a higher law. What was the higher law, and by what authority did Moses act? What made the prophets, prophets? Why did David subject himself to Nathan? There are certainly thematic elements of authority which have gone undefined. It is incredible to assume that they were just simply accepted for all their visions, without any authoritative benchmark.

On the â??Elderâ? issue, I understood it differently. I donâ??t have a very solid knowledge of the Greek, so Iâ??ll take your word for it until I follow up on it later.

Dale,

He holds that only Jesus met the unique qualities of Melchizedek in that he was both priest and king.

Again, John includes himself with many others as priests and kings. Iâ??ve heard the argument before, and the only thing it does is give credence to the notion that the apostles had the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Redwave,

Christ's work was finished when He expired on the cross, crying with a loud voice, "It is finished."

Untrue. His wasnâ??t done until he had gone to speak to the souls in prison and been resurrected. Thatâ??s when the old law was fulfilled and not before.

PacMan

[Dale]

Under a priesthood of believers idea being such priests would not be literal priests as in the Aaronic priesthood.

[Chris Smith]

PacMan,

I can't guarantee I'll be able to get back to you tonight or tomorrow. It's gonna be a busy few days. I'll try to get back by Saturday.

-CK

[Dale]

I don't see anything in Hebrews that say's the Aaronic priesthood was totally abolished. The type of priesthod Jesus held was changed while the Aaronic priesthood still existed. (Hebrews 7:11,12) The rules of Christ's different priesthood was the same rules the old priesthood was governed by. The Aaronic priesthood would be domonstrated to be changeable if Jesus abolished it or changed it. Nothing in Hebrews prevents the Aaaronic priesthood from being changed as linegae pro-hibitions were lifted. (Hebrews 7:13-18) Why couldn't the aaronic priesthood just be changed why did it have to end? It's Paul Trask's speculation that this priesthood was abolished, and not just changed?

Hebrews 10:11-14-The function of a needed priest ministering daily and offerings was ended by Jesus. The end of a function would not mean Jesus could not choose priests without such functions. Having a changed priesthood would not show contempt for since he was the one that changed the Aaronic priesthood. Paul Trask misrepresents the Restored Aaronic priesthood as being a return to the law's Aaronic priesthood which it isn't.

If Jesus set out to change the Aaronic priesthood it was only to a few in the know minority. The New Testament would be clear in it's claim to a changed Aaronic priesthood if that had been a common claim. I believe the New Testament never made such a claim either because Jesus never changed it in that way, or because only a few persons were in the know about the change. Paul doesn't appear to be in the know about the change. And the vast majority of person's in the church wern't included into being called into a changed Aaronic priesthood.

-----------

I don't see Paul as a High Priest in the Melchizedek order because he seem's to recognize only Jesus as High Priest. He treats Melchizedek and Christ as being the same in priesthood status, but never claim's such status for himself. He doesn't ever say he held the Mlchizedek priesthood. He was no doubt an elder in the priesthood of believers only, or in a ministerial priesthood also. But he never even hints at two priesthoods in the early church.

The Aaronic priesthood he refer's to was present only in Judaism. And he sound's like he only knew of Christ being called to the Melchizedek priesthood. So I see two priesthoods, but those priesthoods were not something the early church was claiming to have themselves. Unless Paul was playing dumb about his priesthood he didn't hold the Melchizedek priesthood hiself.

[Maidservant]

From what I have understood before and what I think I'm hearing in this thread -- the worry is that LDS priests (or any priest anywhere) must approach God and advocate and offer sacrifices in behalf of the member. This is not how the LDS priesthood works or the conception of it; this is not how Christ's Primitive church worked; and this is not how, even in the law of Moses persons were saved (according to LDS), although it was an obedience and order, but the saving came through Christ/ Messiah coming;it was not how the prophets and elders spoken of in the Old Testament worked; and it was not how Melchizedek and Abraham etc worked (pre law of Moses examples). All this I am saying from what I think is an LDS view -- not trying to prove my point absolutely, but simply offering this as the page one must be on if one wishes to discuss with the LDS their priesthood.

LDS and catholic priesthood have LESS IN COMMON than LDS priesthood and the evangelical/ protestant 'priesthood of believers'. In other words, I personally would feel MUCH more in common with a protestant pastor, or a born again member IN TERMS OF PRIESTHOOD than I would in ANYTHING that the catholic priesthood models. I also personally perceive that the understanding of priests and priesthood ('the priesthood of believers') is more a 'protest' (go figure ) at the time against the more ancient catholic church than it is a direct tie in to what Jesus was doing with his church in the meridian of time. And if Martin Luther -- with that first or near to first protest -- did not speak of a 'priesthood of believers' (having the same Bible we all do), then if you speak of a 'priesthood of believers' now, it would seem that someone(s) have received some revelation since Luther (etc).

If observing from the outside one wished to -- with supposedly clearer eyes for having been on the outside -- can continue to say that LDS priesthood is in regards to sacrifices and approach and redemption and advocacy and etc., then I can say, all right -- you external observation.

But it does not describe at all the internal experience and conception of our priesthood.

Of course, the doctrine of the priesthood as assumed or experienced or taught by LDS (God ) cannot be reduced to a couple of sentences, but I'm going to try. The priesthood is 1) what allows us (the priesthood holder and also women) to become the Sons (Daughters) of God (reach full potential as children of God/ saved); and 2) what allows us to access God's power to bless others, including in such literal things as healings of the sick (not to bring arguments that healing requires this nor that nonmormons or priesthood holders could not heal, but to, again, show the CONCEPTION); and 3) to provide a sacred order to the church; and 4) much more.

I have two sons who hold the Aaronic Priesthood. My eldest is 16 and he is a priest. The next son (daughter in between) is 12 and is a deacon. I must say that I feel blessed that God has them tagging along after him -- he is their Father and they are following in his footsteps, beginning with the least of power until one day when they will have all that their Father has. As well, to reduce that to an earthly benefit -- I'm glad my youthful sons are given responsibility to bring order to the church and to lead it and to be stewards and responsible for the salvation (not directly but as a matter of example and care) for those around them (in their ward).

Oddly enough, the Aaronic priesthood is responsible for the 'sacrifices' and that is the administration of the Sacrament (the Lord's Supper) to the body of the church -- the sacrifice of the Savior's atonement is transfused into this ordinance.

Also, don't forget, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic priesthood from John the Baptist -- again a crucial part of the 'conception'. In the mission of the Savior on earth, John the Baptist was an integral part of both the historical and the spiritual/ reality story -- John (/Aaronic priesthood) is NOT an extra in the story.

Final thought: Christ's work is not done yet.

[Dale]

I feel the Catholic model of priesthood originated in the early Christian church. But it likely underwent evolution as the early church changed over time. Since I myself don't feel the two priesthoods were common in the early church if at all (which is a matter of faith) then the early church leaders held a ministerial priesthood. Jesus could easily adopt this undeveloped priesthood into the Melchizedek priesthood later.

I don't see anything in the New, or Old Testaments to contradict the stories of the restoration of the priesthoods. But neither do I see for example John the Baptist as claiming the Aaronic priesthhod. I don't see the Bible as having any writer that claimed he held such priesthhod to restore to us later.

[Maidservant]

See, I learned something. I was actually not aware that it is not Biblically/ evangelically (?) accepted that John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood. I suppose I can only offer it then, again, as a brushstroke in the canvas of the LDS experience of priesthood.

[David Waltz]

Hello Dale,

You posted:

>>I am not persuaded to disbelieve in the restored priesthood based on anything the author wrote. But I like improving my arguments as much as I can. So I thought it would be fun to see if my LDS apologist friends could come up with any new apologetic answers. I may not have thought of something others had. My Evangelical friends, or other non-LDS are welcome to discuss the content also.>>

Personally, I find it just a bit odd that John the Baptist did not baptize either Joseph or Oliver, though according to LDS teachings he did give them the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood. This seems to diverge from the NT, for John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Grace and peace,

David

[urroner]

Personally, I find it just a bit odd that John the Baptist did not baptize either Joseph or Oliver, though according to LDS teachings he did give them the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood. This seems to diverge from the NT, for John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Grace and peace,

David

Did John baptize all the Apostles in the Bible?

[PacMan]

Darn the Ethiopian, and darn that Philip for baptizing him too!

[David Waltz]

Hi Lynn,

Longtime no chat! Thanks for responding; you asked:

>>Did John baptize all the Apostles in the Bible?>>

Me: The dichotomy between Johnâ??s 1st century work and his 19th work lies in nature and not numbers. In other words, in the 1st century we have the â??keysâ? being passed to one who has received baptism; in the 19th, the â??keysâ? are passed to one who is not baptized; I was probably not clear, but this is the oddity I was referring to, not the number of those who were baptized.

Now, I may have missed something in the Scriptures, but am not aware of any instance prior to the Joseph/Oliver incident where a non-baptized person baptizes another. Have I missed something?

Grace and peace,

David

[PacMan]

David Waltz,

Yeah...Moses and the children of Israel (according to Paul), and possibly Noah and/or the other 7. Using your logic (ignoratium), you need to provide when Moses/Noah WERE baptised prior to the Red Sea and flood, respectively, to conclude that they were the baptised authorities prior to these events.

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Hi Pac,

You posted:

>>Yeah...Moses and the children of Israel (according to Paul), and possibly Noah and/or the other 7. Using your logic (ignoratium), you need to provide when Moses/Noah WERE baptised prior to the Red Sea and flood, respectively, to conclude that they were the baptised authorities prior to these events.>>

Me: Hmmmâ?¦does D&C count?

And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro. (D&C 84:6)

Grace and peace,

David

[Dale]

Hello Dale,

You posted:

>>I am not persuaded to disbelieve in the restored priesthood based on anything the author wrote. But I like improving my arguments as much as I can. So I thought it would be fun to see if my LDS apologist friends could come up with any new apologetic answers. I may not have thought of something others had. My Evangelical friends, or other non-LDS are welcome to discuss the content also.>>

Personally, I find it just a bit odd that John the Baptist did not baptize either Joseph or Oliver, though according to LDS teachings he did give them the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood. This seems to diverge from the NT, for John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Grace and peace,

David

I speculate the reason might have been so they didn't have to claim a baptism from John The Baptist. Person's would have a lot less problem with Joseph Smith, and Oliver saying they baptized eachother than claiming a baptism from John The Baptist. Who baptized John the Baptist? Did he baptize himself? Which self-baptism would in itself also diverge from the NT detail of his later baptizing Jesus.

In Acts 10 if I recall the chapter right Gentiles got the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. God can diverge from the way he does things on occasion. One way of doing thing's on one occasion might not be the only way of doing things.

[PacMan]

Hi Pac,

You posted:

>>Yeah...Moses and the children of Israel (according to Paul), and possibly Noah and/or the other 7. Using your logic (ignoratium), you need to provide when Moses/Noah WERE baptised prior to the Red Sea and flood, respectively, to conclude that they were the baptised authorities prior to these events.>>

Me: Hmmmâ?¦does D&C count?

Grace and peace,

David

Oh...so Moses DID recieve the priesthoo PRIOR to his baptism?

PacMan

[stn9]

Malachi 3:2-3

2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifer of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

[David Waltz]

Hi Pac,

You posted:

>>Oh...so Moses DID recieve the priesthoo PRIOR to his baptism?>>

Baptism started with Adam as recorded in the Book of Moses:

And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.

And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. (vv. 64-67.)

Being the first baptism, this was an unique event, being baptized by the Lord Himself (via the â??Spirit of the Lordâ?).

From an entry by Erastus Snow in the Times & Seasons we read:

The priesthood after the order of Melchizedek holds a right to officiate in all the offices, and ordinances of God's house, from the highest to the lowest in all ages; and we learn from Heb. iv. 2, that the gospel was preached to the children of Israel in the wilderness; and also from 1 Cor. x. 2., that they were baptized unto Moses in the sea, that is they were baptized unto Moses the same as the Jews were baptized unto John, he preaching baptism and baptizing them. -- We are also told in Heb. xi. from the 24 to the 26 verse inclusive, that when Moses was a young man in Egypt before he fled to Midian, he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer afflictions with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproaches of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt: wherefore Moses must have believed in Christ who was to come; and that belief was public, and he was reproached for Christ's sake therefore, he esteemed the reproaches of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt; -- hence I infer that Moses after he fled from Egypt to escape his persecutors, was ordained by Jethro to the holy priesthood, and subsequently preached the Gospel to his people Israel, and taught them faith in Christ who should come, and baptized those who believedâ?¦(Vol. 2.19, pp. 490, 491.)

Now, it sure makes sense that Jethro baptized Moses before he gave him the priesthood; right?

Grace and peace,

David