The Aaronic Priesthood - What Did John Really Say?

[Joseph Antley]

According to the Prophet, John the Baptist said, "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." (JS-History 1:69, emphasis added)

But according to Oliver Cowdery, John 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!' (JS-History Note:6; emphasis added)

In Joseph's version, John seems to be saying that the the Aaronic priesthood (presumably just among non-Levites) will remain on the earth until the day that the Levites once again begin making offerings, or perhaps just until the tribe of Levi once again takes over their stewardship as priests in the Kingdom.

In Oliver's version, John seems to be saying that the Aaronic priesthood was restored so that the "sons of Levi" can again make offerings; or just that the Lord once again authorizes priests to perform the sacred ordinances.

Oliver's version seems to make more sense. What do you make of the discrepancy between the two? Did either Oliver or Joseph just forget or mix up what was said? Oliver's statement was written in 1834 while Joseph's was written in 1838 IIRC (wasn't that the year he wrote the history we have canonized?).

For critics, what do you make of the discrepancy? How do you think it all worked? Did Oliver and Joseph collaborate and make up a statement from the angel and stick to it? Do you think Joseph remembered their fabricated statement over the four years in between their statements, or do you think he used Oliver's as a source? If so, why the significant difference in the two?

Edit: Just realized in the title I said "offer a sacrifice" and neither of the actual statements actually mention a "sacrifice"...

[DonBradley]

Antley,

The John the Baptist experience is one of my areas of particular interest and research. So, I was about to weigh in on the subject-line question, until I saw that the actual topic was how critics would refute a vacuous apologetic argument based on a trivial contradiction.

Don

[kamenraider]

"At times, in both Hebrew ('ad) and Greek (heos hou), the conjunction we translate as "until" may not imply that any change takes place after the event mentioned in the "until" clause occurs."

--John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, NY: Doubleday 1991, pg. 321.

[PacMan]

Chronicles, Exodus, and Deuteronomy all refer to the office and priesthood of the Levites as "everlasting," and "for ever."

Exodus 40:15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priestâ??s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

That being said, I would tend to lean that perhaps Oliver got it right. But there's one point that needs to also be understood: There's is really only one Priesthood: The Priesthood of Melchizedek. The Aaronic Priesthood is really a subset of that, inclusively held in full. That being the case, at which time the Aaronic Priesthood is taken from the earth, it makes complete sense that their Priesthood would continue in the Melchizeked Priesthood. It is perhaps one of the best proofs to show that we are meant to receive the higher Priesthood, for it is necessary if the Levitical was ever, or to be ever be done away with--such would necessarily be the case so that the Levites may yet comply with the OT scriptures and prophecies by having an eternal Priesthood.

PacMan

KR:

Excpet, I don't think John was speaking Hebrew nor Greek to JS and OC.

PacMan

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

The John the Baptist experience is one of my areas of particular interest and research. So, I was about to weigh in on the subject-line question, until I saw that the actual topic was how critics would refute a vacuous apologetic argument based on a trivial contradiction.

Don

That wasn't the actual topic, Don. Feel free to give us any insights you might have.

[Joseph Antley]

bump