Priesthood In The Book Of Mormon

[mfbukowski]

Howdy all

Yes I am faithful LDS, but trying to figure out where the Nephites got the priesthood and whether or not it was the Aaronic or Melchizadek. Have had no success with the usual sources. This is a point upon which we are possibly vulnerable to attack, and I don't know the answer. If it was the Aaronic, as one might suspect, Lehi was of the wrong tribe --

It could have been given by angelic visitiation, but clearly since there were no Levites, the rules would have to have been different for the Nephites. The BOM references priesthood structure as we know it today, and I think it is clear that they had the Melchizadek priesthood --

So how does this square with the "Old Covenant" vs New covenant? Did the Nephites, due to their superior knowledge of the coming Christ "skip" the "schoolmaster" of the Mosaic law? There are only a few mentions of animal sacrifice.

Does this leave us vulnerable to the idea that this is a doctrinal inconsistency?

[lukas_s]

Melchizedek. The Aaronic Priesthood is more of a recent development(in terms of who can receive it), as during Old Testament (and indeed Book of Mormon times) one had to be a descendant of Levi to hold the Levitical Priesthood. We don't find any Levites, to the best of my knowledge, in the Book of Mormon.

[Flyonthewall]

Here is another thread on the subject, perhaps this might answer your question:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...thood+ordinance

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the link

So they weren't bound by the law of Moses? I have no problem with that. The very idea that there were different ethnicities which received the priesthood of course would make it necessary for the priesthood to not be soley levitical.

But for some reason, I guess erroneously I always pictured the Nephites as offering sacrifices -- and they are mentioned, though not much

[LeSellers]

If it was the Aaronic, as one might suspect, Lehi was of the wrong tribe --

Well, not quite. Remember that the Levites/Aaronites were a substitute for the first born of Israel, and although they were rewarded for coming immediately to Moses (who's on the Lord's side, let him come to me) with the Preisthood and with the Lord as theri inheritance, they were not the only ones who could offer sacrifices.

Do not forget, either, that the people had to slay their own sacrifices, it was not the Priests who did that.

The BOM references priesthood structure as we know it today, and I think it is clear that they had the Melchizadek priesthood --

Indeed. There is no ambiguity about this â?? no hereditary line.

So how does this square with the "Old Covenant" vs New covenant? Did the Nephites, due to their superior knowledge of the coming Christ "skip" the "schoolmaster" of the Mosaic law? There are only a few mentions of animal sacrifice.

No, but many references to following the Law of Moses, in general, until the sign of the resurrection.

They did not "skip" anything. Their superiority in re: the Law of Moses as a pedagogue/type-of-Christ was that they had explicit and repeated reminders of the connection. I believe that the Israelites had this, too, but that their stiffneckedness caused them to reject and misunderstand it to the point tha the Law became their God, as it were, and they forgot the Being whose Law it was.

Does this leave us vulnerable to the idea that this is a doctrinal inconsistency?

The antis will seize on anything, so whether we are "vulnerable" is a moot issue. They will attack if we say the sky is blue. Don't worry about them.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

So they weren't bound by the law of Moses? I have no problem with that. The very idea that there were different ethnicities which received the priesthood of course would make it necessary for the priesthood to not be soley levitical.

But for some reason, I guess erroneously I always pictured the Nephites as offering sacrifices -- and they are mentioned, though not much

They were most definitely "bound" by the Law of Moses. They did offer sacrifices. As you said, there are references to that very act; it only takes one instance to establish the fact. Check out 3 Nephi (1, I believe) where there was a conflict about whether they needed to continue obeying the Law of Moses after Jesus' birth (but before His Atonement). Nephi taught them that it was mandatory until the Atonment was complete. The Law of Moses was centered on sacrifice, so it is inconceivable that they wuold be bound thereby without offering the sacrifices that typified the Law under which they lived.

Moreover, since the Melchizedek Priesthood includes all offices of the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood, there is no problem in their performing those ordinances, even if they are otherwise restricted to the Aaronic and Levitical Priests.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

The antis will seize on anything, so whether we are "vulnerable" is a moot issue. They will attack if we say the sky is blue. Don't worry about them.

Lehi

How right you are -- what we have to watch is not the antis as much as our own left brain right brain -- the anti within!

These posts have been very helpful- I have been wondering about this for awhile now, and it did come up on on apologetics board elsewhere. I think I have my answers but keep them coming if you like -- they are great reading!